Unless I'm misunderstanding the complaint (which is possible, it wasn't actually explained very well, just through an example or two but without a definition), it does help with the complaint.
Unless the complaint is actually "I like my services to have single word monikers", in which it doesn't, but in that case I'm not sure I think it's a complaint worth addressing without some explanation as to why that's actually important.
"Google now" is not memorable, and when used in various common sentences, the words are ambiguous. You could be talking about the company or the search engine. Similar for "Assistant", though a bit less so.
Whether it's a person's name or not, I know what Siri is. There are two word brands that work fine as well. Company <very common term> though, is hard to pull off.
> Company <very common term> though, is hard to pull off.
I think when <very common term> actually describes what the service does, it's an entirely different story. If I say I'm using Google assistant to map a route for me, or answer some search terms, even if there isn't a marketing campaign that's pervasive enough to seed the service name in my memory and the memory of those I am talking to, there's a high likelihood they know or can figure out what I'm talking about. There's only so much room for people to remember service names like that and expect them to be ubiquitous. I would much rather they be called Apple/Amazon/Google assistant so I didn't need to know them. It's not like there's a high chance of me using Siri or Alexa any time soon, since I don't own any devices that provide them. I don't use Cortana because why bother, I only have that for my desktop/laptop, and I can just as easily (if not more easily) search with text generally.
