Rumor: Google prepping 'Majel' Android voice assistant to counter Apple's Siri - Page 2

Quoting someone's post, not addressing what they said, and implying he's responsible for replying to your far ranging rants is kind of a dick move.

Don't get your knickers in a knot. The "Google bought Android" line is always used when proponents of the Android platform criticise Apple for licensing/buying other companies technology and making it work, crying that Apple isn't innovative.

That's what she said.

Even with its limited reach in its current form, it's become essential to my work life. It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and call it a gimmick, but it will last.

For a single example, I drive everywhere in DC running from appt to appt. it's remarkably efficient to walk away from my car and use Siri to remind me to move my car when my meter expires. No idea how many tickets it's saved me. That alone is no gimmick

I'm sure Google buys more companies than Apple (correct me if I'm wrong) and I've never heard anyone criticize Apple for purchasing a company...especially an Android fan as that would be the biggest WTF.

Siri isn't voice recognition. Apple added voice control in iOS 4, June 2010.

Apple has had voice recognition for as long or longer. It sucked just as bad as googles

I'm trying to think of a Bowie song that sounds like "San Fransisco Pizza Shop"...

I'm going with "Black Country Rock" for the win Bob.

The point is, what's important?

One: natural language. Not being stuck in a tiresome "nerd talking to computer using commands" mode is very important. (Uh, the Mac had voice commands back into the '90s. I don't remember which version of the OS it started with. Everybody's wanted to get real intelligence in an agent for a long, long time. Now it works well enough to release something very cool. And Apple, or Google, or anyone else, does not have to reinvent the wheel. A strategic purchase is just fine.)

Two: being hooked up to databases. Remember the IBM computer winning Jeopardy? That would be great, but you can't put that on 10 million phones all at once. What Apple has is tight integration with a small number of databases. It will obviously expand into a bigger and bigger deal.

Three: The personality of the agent is a critical part of having it be popular, and a real, used feature. The Apple team did a great job with Siri. All those programmers are good scriptwriters. I'd like to have the "real" Siri as my assistant. But the original Siri app didn't have this character at all. It interacted with you by text, not voice. And no-one would ask the app to marry. That's important. People bond in some way with Siri.

Oh, I forgot. Emotions and artistic considerations are BAD, and IRRELEVANT for computers, which are the province of engineers only. I'm glad real people don't feel that way.

Um, it happened in this very thread. It's always used in claims that Apple doesn't innovate, it just rdf's. Having a blonde moment?@!

Google is a "1000 monkeys" company.
They see a company (a competitor or not) do something cool and think that they can do the same by throwing a 1000 engineers or a heap of cash together to get something similar.
Sometimes the monkeys are successful, but mostly they just get a half-assed result that goes most of the way so they can say "me too!".
Sometimes my statements are simplistic.

Quick change the subject to a joke that's years old. You wouldn't want to have to back up your bullsh!t now would you?

I had to unhide your post to see your criticism of mine.

Are you suggesting that Apple just buys a technology and says - 'okay, now you're iOS'?

In business, what is wrong with buying a technology or capability? Maybe others should try that approach.

No kidding! Especially since the aforementioned Ms. Barrett-Roddenberry died in 2008. (RIP Ms. Barrett-Roddenberry)

Time travel, light speed space travel, and artificial intilligence are also VERY OLD ideas, but they haven't been implemented yet either. I wouldn't be surprised if apple did first

I could give a crap whether Apple or Google or whoever came up with it first. All I know is that when Apple released the iPhone 4S with Siri, they implemented it first in the best way so far and that's all that matters to me. Apparently, Google and Microsoft have some Siri envy to have to first knock it and then copy it or tout their own lame implementation of it.

I used Google voice recognition buried in their app on the iPhone a couple of times but it was too cumbersome to use and only did their searches. Whoopee Fucking Doo.

You Fandroids and Fanbois can have your childish argument about innovation, blah, blah, blah.

(Dictated using Siri btw)

1) Siri is much changed from when the stand along app Apple bought. The efforts taken on the front and back end to integrate it into the device itself are world's ahead of everyone else.

2) So far it looks like Google only has an idea, and a sloppy one at that. "Let's copy the voice of the ST computer. We'll call it Majel, but we don't want it to have a personality. We'll just call it 'Computer'" How annoying would that be if Android users are walking around saying Computer before speaking a command. The brightside is it won't be well ingrained with system so its usefulness will be limited.

3) Sounds like Google might be trying to get something prepped for a tech show coming up but I wouldn't imagine anything until the next version of Android v5.0 Jellybean(?). I can see them freely adding APIs without much control so that apps will interfere with other or that usage will require to voice every step of a command. Those may not happen but so far that is the myopic view Android has taken with everything. IOW, instead of improving a technology they just do enough to say 'me too".

Time travel, light speed space travel, and artificial intilligence are also VERY OLD ideas, but they haven't been implemented yet either. I wouldn't be surprised if apple did first

I don't even care if they come up with their own version. I just love the hypocrisy of the bs that they spout about people not wanting to speak to a computer, that people don't want an assistant etc etc whilst in the background they are scrambling to come up with something of their own (or copy Apple's).

Well Google was busy working on a new way to unlock your phone, so you know the useful features were put on hold.

Actually, that's not the case at all.

I'm imagining that one year from now the voice will change to that of the Daleks in the British TV series "Doctor Who"... made famous by the phrase, "The plan has failed... the plan has failed!"

Majel? Does this mean that the request is routed through India for fulfillment?

My, these trolls have such funny names.

The voice calling Apple had previously was somewhat akin to the voice dialing that has been available on bargain basement phones for years. Android's voice actions raised the bar considerably, turning voice recognition into a genuinely useful function.

Google's voice recognition hardly sucks. In fact, it's remarkably good. I use it daily, particularly for navigating, but also for sending email, text messages, or controlling the music player.

I've not yet had the pleasure of trying Siri, but my friends tell me it's another evolutionary step from Google Voice Actions, and I have no problem believing it.

The point remains; Apple did not invent voice recognition on phones. Siri is apparently awesome for 2012, just as Google Voice Actions was awesome for 2010 and 2011.

I find it odd that with so much information on Siri that people are still calling voice recognition without acknowledging all the parts that make Siri so much better than anything else on the market. Either this is a purposeful attempt to belittle Apple's effort and/or superiority in this field or some people really don't know the difference between Siri and other voice activated systems.

Hmm....

iPhone 3GS introduced "Voice Control" in June 2010
Android "Voice Actions" intros in Aug 2010

iPhone 4S introduced "Siri" in Aug 2011
Android "Majel" intros.... ?

I love how obvious the rotten Apples are in threads about Siri. They can't differentiate between natural language processing with semantic analysis and contextual awareness with deep operating system integration versus speech recognition. Until Apple's competition understands the fundamentally differences between Siri and existing speech recognition solutions; i.e. release their own version, they won't acknowledge the difference.

Siri manifestly demonstrates that there exists a direct relationship between disruptiveness of a new technology and the incoherence of responses by competitors.

I directly attribute this to the fact that the rotten Apples haven't received new talking points. They won't understand natural language processing with semantic analysis and contextual awareness with deep operating system integration until the competition releases a reasonable rival and updates their talking points.

On both sides of this argument bot Siri and Android are much changed from the respective companies that purchase them.



To be clear, because I know others will try to argue against your point by excluding relative details, Android OS has had Google search through voice control since it's initial release in September 2008, but it wasn't until May 2010 that calling, texting, and navigation were added. In June 2009 Apple added Voice Control which could do calling of contracts, a feature I'd say is one of the most important uses of basic voice control.



I played with Nuance's Dragon Dictation. It worked well, but I had no need for an app that can dictate my words accurately.

I played with the Siri app. It worked well, but I had no need to use a separate app to do contextual searches.

I played with Siri for the iPhone 4S. That changed everything. It was finally a useful way of talking to your phone.

Indeed they did.

You know what would be pretty original is an Emily Litella voice assistant.
"Now, what's this I hear about endangered feces?"

Call it Metoo, but...

Apple's patent applications protecting Siri technology should be available from the PTO in about a year.

Hence the importance of all elements of Siri:

Speech recognition (almost certainly provided by Nuance)
Natural language processing
Semantic analysis
Contextual awareness
"Personality"

Siri is an order of magnitude greater than the sum of the parts. Without any of those aspects Siri would be far more lackluster including the quirky, sometimes humorous responses. Those occasionally unpredictable responses convey the sense that you aren't interacting with technology which is absolutely critical for complex technologies to become ubiquitous.

Don't forget the OS tie ins that truly make it a personal assistance.

I was using iOS 5.0 betas for months and found no need to use Reminders. Too many steps to creat a reminder, but with Siri it was easy to say remind me at x-time or remind me when I arrive/leave x-location.

I couldn't even fathom Reminders in iOS 5 beta frankly. The Reminders app is far too unwieldy and almost demands Siri.

You are correct, of course. The deep operating system integration is critical as well. The original incarnation of Siri for the iPhone was more like a concierge who would discover local events, purchase tickets and reserve a table at a restaurant before the show. Apple's genius was knowing that while a concierge is convenient a personal assistant is indispensable.

I must admit that I miss some of the functionality Siri had prior to iPhone 4S. Specifically, MovieTickets.com although I have high hopes that Apple will integrate iTunes Movie Trailers with Siri.

I liked Eventful integration as well.

I miss the previous implementation of Yelp integration that allowed viewing of reviews and other information. Currently, if I tap the Yelp review on a business Siri fails to handoff properly to Yelp (I have assumed this is by design).


I am ecstatic to see Siri integrated with the Maps application we all know is likely to be delivered next year. I hope that Apple provides navigation similar to Waze as well. In fact, I almost hope that Apple just purchases Yahoo as well and integrates Yahoo services with iOS:

To be fair, Droid is licensed to Verizon from Lucas Arts, not to Google.

So? You do realize that Siri, by virtue of being purchased by Apple, is now Apple, right?

Oh, btw, Android was purchased by Google. As was the only money making operation in their entire company, Adsense. So basically, by your definition, Google does not have its own Mobile OS, and does not even make any money.

Brilliant.

And Apple has had voice commands for a while, too. Do you even know what Siri is? The "voice actions" / "speech recognition" is the trivial part, as clearly stated when it came out. What's different about it is that it can process natural language (no need to speak in a stilted way using certain key words, phrases or syntax).

Yes, Apple brought the team and technology on board from elsewhere. It is far more than "buying a small app". The Siri team had access to and experience with all the military sponsored research in this area. It was a very strategic move. Why shouldn't Apple hire developers that have shown some real promise?

What Apple has done is take it beyond an app so that it is beginning to get integrated into the OS. Secondly, Apple is producing APIs for it so that thirdparty developers can begin to use their creativity with it in all sorts of new ways in powerful native apps. This is where Google is a little weak.

BTW, the difference between Google buying Android, or MS buying Danger and DOS, and Apple buying NeXT is that Steve Jobs envisioned and headed NeXT, and its development over the past 12 years has been done in-house at Apple including migrating it to several processor families, and scaling it from the desktop to mobile devices. People act as though Apple is all about buying up stuff and marketing it, but, really, the evidence is quite the opposite. Apple actually has far more software chops than anyone else. Considering all the beta crap that Google foists on the public, and all the deadends and do-overs that MS eventually gets around to producing, this should be obvious.

I don't know what it was like in the Beta but in the gold master iOS5, Reminders is like, virtually the best and easiest To-Do list thing that comes with iOS5, and rivals many apps designed to do what Reminders does at that level of simplicity.... It's indispensable for me now. Notes and Alarms was a wrong way of doing it.

Of course, Siri makes it all much easier but I can't seem to find the right phrase for telling it to make a non-timed Reminder.

Edit: Found it:
http://gigaom.com/apple/tips-and-tri...siri-commands/
Dateless reminders
Sometimes, you might want to use iOS 5′s new Reminders app as more of a checklist, rather than being reminded at a certain time for each item. Using the normal Siri query, Remind me to…, you’ll be asked to give a time or place to be reminded. In order to add a ‘dateless’ reminder, you can say one of two things. Either use Add … to my … list, which will add the item to the named list, if you have one set up, or you can use Remember to… to add the reminder to your default list without giving it a date.


And iCloud seems to be syncing Reminders quite nicely to iCal on Mac (thank gawd no more Notes in Mail), iPad etc.

Bottom line, Reminders is good, with Siri, superb.