or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google says voice is the future of web search, introduces Siri-like app for iOS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google says voice is the future of web search, introduces Siri-like app for iOS - Page 4

post #121 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berp 
The information flows unimpeded from raw data to actionable metrics in a subterranean build-up of contextual human interactions.

What's wrong with that?

Well..., never has so much omnipotence been stealthily and unsuspectingly delegated to so few already proven untrustworthy megalomaniacs.

Up until two or three years ago, I was service-provider agnostic. Google has made a mortal enemy out of a...then...basically neutral end-user of its digital entrapment. I'm sad to learn that you're into the rationale of an identity swap, ...and attuning you rhetorics to Google's closet, sinister mantra. 

Ultimately I look at the potential damage that can be caused to me personally and I don't see any. If Google tracks that I search for an SSD and I visit a site with ad space and adwords pop up a deal on an SSD rather than commemorative plates of the Royal Wedding then it's all good IMO.

When you weigh it up from your own perspective as an individual being watched by a corporation, it seems invasive but when you look at it the other way round, you realise that it's a single company directing the traffic of 4 billion people per day. There's only a very coarse level of granularity you can afford on a regular basis with that amount of data. When law enforcement demands that they hand over browsing history for IP addresses then they can certainly prove misdeeds but for the average law-abiding person, it's harmless data and certainly no individual will be trawling through it.

Google's biggest concern is discerning the meaning in that data to improve the quality of their search results and conversion rates for advertisers, which for the vast majority of users will result in a positive impact.

The social side of things (especially Facebook) is evil. They want to grab your life and put it up for the world to see in order to sell advertising - that's a direct exchange of identity for profit under the guise of social connectivity. But even at that, nearly 1 billion people keep using the services and don't appear to be any worse off. If these things had a significant danger, the effects would have been felt by now.

Google just got a fine for 'privacy invasion' but they said no personal info was stored:

http://business.financialpost.com/2012/08/09/google-fined-us22-5-million-in-apple-safari-privacy-invasion-case/

People are increasingly sensitive to this kind of thing like Apple tracking where you go with your phone. At first glance, it appears dangerous but when you think about what it could really be used for, it's really hard to find scenarios where you would suffer from its misuse.
post #122 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

 

The Apple ripped off Android's notification centre?

 

How do you "rip off" open source, unless it isn't "open source" which makes advertising claims that Android is "open" misleading to consumers?

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #123 of 157
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
How do you "rip off" open source, unless it isn't "open source" which makes advertising claims that Android is "open" misleading to consumers?

 

You know, it's almost as if the Android fans on here are lying. Huh.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #124 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I'd rather see Apple and Google work closer together than further apart to the benefit of both Android and iOS users and to the detriment of the people who hold technology back for their own profit at the expense of the users - they know who they are.

Well put, in this and your other posts Marvin. I agree, I'd rather see Google and Apple kiss and make up and work together to improve their respective platforms and services both in Android and iOS. I don't mind them competing be it at the smartphone/mobile OS level, or at the app/services level, but I much rather that things change and move away from all the negativity that people who use Google/Android have towards Apple and those who use Apple/iOS have towards Google. Some healthy competition from each other would be good for both companies and benefit us users in the long run. For my part, I have no complains about Google or Apple, I am very much a fan of both companies and have trusted both with my data and have relied on their products and services for years without ever having an issue.

 

I think there is room for these two amazing companies in the market, despite the overlapping areas, iOS and Android have their own target market, and just because you like one it does not means you must hate the other simply because it competes with your platform of choice. I have been a Mac user for nearly 20 years, never owned a PC or Linux box and been with the iPhone since the 3GS (previously owning iPods all the way from the iPod Touch to the original 5GB iPod). Yet I am planning to switch to an Android smartphone soon, not because I hate Apple or to boycott them as the growing trend tries to dictate, but because at this point I find the Android platform better suits my needs as a smartphone user and I also want a bigger screen, it also goes quite well with my reliance in Google's services. Yet I am keeping my current iPhone around, which I love, that I will use like an iPod Touch of sorts. It will also allow me to have both an Android and iOS device to test the sites I build in, which is great!

 

In any case, personally I am a tad turned off by the growing trend to hate Google among Apple fans, and the growing trend to hate Apple among Android fans. I really hope both sides can shake hands, because really...I'd love to be in a situation where the market is dominated by Google and Apple, with both companies keeping each other in their toes with healthy competition, than by a market polluted by the likes of Microsoft and RIM, who are clearly not interested in the advancement of communications and web standars (cannot wait for IE to sink, literally) as Marvin mentioned. 

post #125 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Not directly but when you use an Android device, you can have a single login to GMail, Youtube, the Android Store, Google Voice, personalised search, adwords etc. Some services are paid. While people who already use those services might use them on Windows Phone or Blackberry, those companies want to push their own services like Bing, BBM, Windows Live/Hotmail, MSN, Skype and so on. When you are talking about 300 million users, the impact of that becomes significant and for every Android user that wants an app, they sign up to Google and they have an access point to everything else.

 

Which is exactly what Google hopes to achieve: cut everyone else out of the loop and control access to everything.

 

Quote:
That doesn't explain why they use Apple products in their marketing videos instead of the products of the companies they partner with to deliver Android. If they wanted to destroy Apple, surely they use a Samsung Galaxy S3 or Nexus S. What possible reason do they have to promote the product of a supposed competitor other than that Google doesn't see them as a competitor?
I often hear people criticising Google for what they did with Android but tell me what you'd prefer as an alternative. Apple cannot take 100% of the smartphone market because they aren't on the cheapest tariffs. That leaves a gap in the market. If Google doesn't fill it then who? Microsoft or RIM, neither of which have the slightest interest in supporting Apple or pushing communications and web standards forward nor in making them open for everyone.

 

Well, they probably use Apple products because none of those other products have any recognition with audiences. That doesn't mean they are supporting Apple and wishing them the best. In fact, they are working to undermine Apple any way they can. (What else was the whole Flash on Android thing about, or what do you think WebM is about? To give just 2 examples.) It's not about whether those other companies are supporting Apple or not. It's about whether Google is, like Microsoft, fundamentally a destructive company or a creative company, and I don't think, given their business practices that we've all seen over the years, there can be any answer to that other than that they are fundamentally destructive, and even more so than Microsoft ever was. That they are fundamentally a company that thrives on cutting off competitors oxygen, not by producing great products.

post #126 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Google just got a fine for 'privacy invasion' but they said no personal info was stored:
 

 

They said the data was anonymous and in the next breath that it wasn't:

 

 

Quote:
To enable these features, we created a temporary communication link between Safari browsers and Google?s servers, so that we could ascertain whether Safari users were also signed into Google, and had opted for this type of personalization. But we designed this so that the information passing between the user?s Safari browser and Google?s servers was anonymous--effectively creating a barrier between their personal information and the web content they browse.

 

If that's not the most blatant double speak any of us have ever read, I don't know what is. Ascertain whether they were signed in, personalization, but anonymous? Completely contradictory.

post #127 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

uhhh, that icon was used since BEFORE siri. Ever heard of voice actions? Yep, same mic. Been using that mic FOR YEARS.

But of course, all you are aware of is Apple products, therefore would not be aware of that and would assume everything apple does, Apple does first. 

Hope you don't go saying Samsung is following Apple by increasing the size of their phone screens next year. 

That microphone is based on the famous that David Lettermann used for years. I forget the actual model. Did you ever notice that Jay Leno, Conan, etc.... Everyone else uses a different brand and shape of microphone?

Just saying....
post #128 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

When was the last original idea out of Google?

More than anything else, this looks like a panicked reaction to Siri routing search away from Google and their ads.

This seems useful but more of a anothe way for Google to collect personal info and target ads.

Most of the searches seam to dump the user into the standard search results page.

Maybe I'm thinking too far into the future but how is Google going to get people to look at ads in 10-20 years if we have real "Star Trek" - like computers where we don't have to look at the screen, thereby bypassing all Google ads.

When computers are smart enough and can give a definitive answer for many more questions than something simple like the population of Cape Cod. When computers are smart enough to find our answer rather than listing 253,487 websites when the top 50 contain the same simple relevant answer.

I guess I'm just wondering what the brilliant people ( no sarcasm ) at Google are planning for the future? They are going to have to disrupt their current business model of our eyes looking at their search results on a screen. Of course a decent percentage of searches will still require visualization, and end user filtration, but I don't need 10,000 sites listed to tell me a sports score.

Will they bring this tech to the chrome browser? Killing their cash cow in the process?

Food for thought....
post #129 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post

I should warn you though.  You do sound like a complete twat when you do.  Proceed.

A small price to pay for speaking the truth. Long live Goocrosoft!
post #130 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Well, they probably use Apple products because none of those other products have any recognition with audiences.

Isn't that the whole point of advertising though - to raise your profile? Blackberry wouldn't put iPhones in their ads for example just because people outside of business wouldn't recognise who they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
What else was the whole Flash on Android thing about

HTML 5 still lacked in areas like DRM:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/google-microsoft-and-netflix-want-drm-like-encryption-in-html5/

Like Adobe, they just want workable solutions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
what do you think WebM is about?

That was about having an open video format. H.264 is proprietary. Ironically, it's the same argument as Flash vs HTML 5 with Google taking the opposite side from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
I don't think, given their business practices that we've all seen over the years, there can be any answer to that other than that they are fundamentally destructive, and even more so than Microsoft ever was.

In terms of vendor lock-in, Microsoft has Office, Windows games, accounting software, until recently CAD software, bundled IE (not all of this necessarily malicious but just the way the market worked out). Google has no such lock-in. Nothing you do has to rely on Google and they don't force you to use any of their services. By contrast, you have little option in many scenarios but to use products from Microsoft. This is gradually changing but slowly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Ascertain whether they were signed in, personalization, but anonymous? Completely contradictory.

Not entirely, they can stored a unique ID in the browser that says to show certain information based on the options they chose. So in Google settings, they could opt for personalised results and Google could store something in the browser that effectively says 'show this user gardening tools' but there's no link between a search session and their actual Google info. It would probably be a unique user ID store in the browser that linked to a table of interests but with no link to a user's unique profile. 3rd party advertisers could use this data too but apparently they didn't mean to turn that on. Like I say though, not damaging info in either case.
post #131 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Isn't that the whole point of advertising though - to raise your profile? Blackberry wouldn't put iPhones in their ads for example just because people outside of business wouldn't recognise who they are.
HTML 5 still lacked in areas like DRM:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/23/google-microsoft-and-netflix-want-drm-like-encryption-in-html5/
Like Adobe, they just want workable solutions.
That was about having an open video format. H.264 is proprietary. Ironically, it's the same argument as Flash vs HTML 5 with Google taking the opposite side from Apple.
In terms of vendor lock-in, Microsoft has Office, Windows games, accounting software, until recently CAD software, bundled IE (not all of this necessarily malicious but just the way the market worked out). Google has no such lock-in. Nothing you do has to rely on Google and they don't force you to use any of their services. By contrast, you have little option in many scenarios but to use products from Microsoft. This is gradually changing but slowly.
Not entirely, they can stored a unique ID in the browser that says to show certain information based on the options they chose. So in Google settings, they could opt for personalised results and Google could store something in the browser that effectively says 'show this user gardening tools' but there's no link between a search session and their actual Google info. It would probably be a unique user ID store in the browser that linked to a table of interests but with no link to a user's unique profile. 3rd party advertisers could use this data too but apparently they didn't mean to turn that on. Like I say though, not damaging info in either case.

 

Flash on Android had nothing to do with DRM, it had everything to do with Google trying to make Flash not on iOS an issue. WebM has nothing to do with open formats, H.264 is an open standard, it had everything to do with Google trying to fragment web video and undermine standards. All of these things are destructive actions.

 

Your "explanation" of Google's privacy violations is nonsense. Google's "explanation" is an outright lie.

post #132 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Flash on Android had nothing to do with DRM, it had everything to do with Google trying to make Flash not on iOS an issue.

So why did they ask for DRM support in HTML 5? The people at Youtube explained some of the limitations:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/youtube-html5-does-not-yet-meet-all-of-our-needs/8809

In terms of how the marketing is presented, it's easier to say Apple is being difficult than explain the technical issues because that's what people respond to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
WebM has nothing to do with open formats, H.264 is an open standard it had everything to do with Google trying to fragment web video and undermine standards. All of these things are destructive actions.

H.264 is an open standard but proprietary and needs royalty payments. That is destructive to some companies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Your "explanation" of Google's privacy violations is nonsense. Google's "explanation" is an outright lie.

Which parts are nonsense/lies? Browsers have cookies that store data and they store IDs. Google can't rely on data being stored in the browser as it can get flushed so it gets stored in their databases (Big Table). When you visit a Google service it looks up the unique signature for identification. To violate your privacy that unique signature would have to be linked to your Google profile.

Google says that wasn't the case (I'm aware you don't believe them but that's not their problem) so the alternative I described is that they created an independent minimal profile to allow some personalisation (only if the user has enabled this in their Google profile) but didn't link the data with your account.

Even if they had linked it to the Google profile, tell me how you (or anyone else) have suffered as a result. Give me an example of the consequences of the privacy violation.
post #133 of 157
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post
H.264 is an open standard but proprietary and needs royalty payments.

 

Wait, didn't they drop those?

 

'Free to the end-user' sure, but still!

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #134 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Wait, didn't they drop those?

 

'Free to the end-user' sure, but still!

 

" Products and services other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be royalty-bearing.

MPEG LA's AVC Patent Portfolio License provides access to essential patent rights for the AVC/H.264 (MPEG-4 Part 10) digital video coding standard. In addition to Internet Broadcast AVC Video, MPEG LA’s AVC Patent Portfolio License provides coverage for devices that decode and encode AVC video, AVC video sold to end users for a fee on a title or subscription basis and free television video services. AVC video is used in set-top boxes, media player and other personal computer software, mobile devices including telephones and mobile television receivers, Blu-ray Disc™ players and recorders, Blu-ray video optical discs, game machines, personal media player devices and still and video cameras."

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #135 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Wait, didn't they drop those?

'Free to the end-user' sure, but still!

It's mainly the decoders, whose licenses can change in a few years. There's uncertainty basing a web standard on a product controlled by a private group providing it for financial gain. I personally side with H.264 but people can't just say the motivation of its critics has nothing to do with this:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/2884

There's no royalty for the first 100,000 units of a licensed product; sublicensees pay 20 cents per unit up to 5 million and 10 cents per unit above 5 million. The current agreement includes an annual limit: “The maximum annual royalty (‘cap’) for an Enterprise [is] $6.5 million per year in 2011-2015.”

Although the license agreement uses the word sold, the royalties have to be paid even on software that is given away. The current cap of $6.5 million a year applies until the end of 2015.

There's also no royalty for any title 12 minutes or less in length, even if it's paid for. For anything over 12 minutes, the rates depend on whether the end user pays on a title-by-title basis or as part of a subscription service. directly for video services.

For individual videos, the royalty is the lower of 2% of the price paid to the licensee or $0.02 per title. Under that scale, a video clip that costs $1 and a Blu-ray disk that wholesales for $20 are subject to the same royalty of $0.02.
For subscription video services, the royalty is an annual fee based on the number of subscribers. A sliding scale goes from 0 (for up to 250,000 subscribers) to $100,000 (for more than 1 million subscribers) per year.
As with software companies, there's a maximum annual royalty ("cap") of $6.5 million per year for the current term.

What happens in 2016? Under the MPEG LA license, the terms are "renewable for successive five-year periods … on reasonable terms and conditions.” The per-copy royalty rates "will not increase by more than 10% at each renewal.” If rates go up by the maximum 10% for that five-year period, the cost of 10 million licenses will increase by $150,000 from a current rate of $1.48 million to $1.63 million.

There's a small gotcha in the new MPEG LA license agreement. Footnote 17, which appears in tiny print at the very end of the summary of license terms, notes that “Annual royalty caps are not subject to the 10% limitation.” Although that sounds like a loophole, it really only affects the largest players in the market.
post #136 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Which parts are nonsense/lies? Browsers have cookies that store data and they store IDs. Google can't rely on data being stored in the browser as it can get flushed so it gets stored in their databases (Big Table). When you visit a Google service it looks up the unique signature for identification. To violate your privacy that unique signature would have to be linked to your Google profile.
Google says that wasn't the case (I'm aware you don't believe them but that's not their problem) so the alternative I described is that they created an independent minimal profile to allow some personalisation (only if the user has enabled this in their Google profile) but didn't link the data with your account.
Even if they had linked it to the Google profile, tell me how you (or anyone else) have suffered as a result. Give me an example of the consequences of the privacy violation.

 

Yet, we should believe Google when they do some vague hand waiving about anonymity after talking about personalization and checking to see if you were logged into Google services. And we should accept some fantastic concocted explanation from you as to how that could be possible, involving "minimal profiles"?

 

I think it makes a lot more sense to look at what they actually said, which is self-contradictory (often a sign that someone isn't telling the truth, or at least isn't being entirely straightforward), and to look at Googles history of dishonesty, they having lied to the public and regulators on numerous occasions, and come to the only conclusion that fits the facts without rewriting them: they lied, they violated individuals privacy with no actual anonymity, and then lied about that.

 

What are the consequences of the privacy violation? That's a little like asking someone, the day after a potent carcinogen is dumped into a city's water supply, "What's the harm? Nobody got cancer, did they? Can you point to anyone who got cancer as a result of this?" Sounds pretty absurd and beside the point, doesn't it? That's how your question sounds to me.

 

But, an assault on privacy, even when it doesn't lead to immediate harm to a specific individual, is still an attack on liberty and a free society, and an attack on all that societies citizens. The harm is that as companies like Google do their utmost to whittle away at privacy, they also whittle away at our freedom. Privacy is a necessary condition of freedom, and without one, we do not have the other. A piece of both stolen here, a piece there. No one even notices until one day we wake up and realize that it's all gone.

 

 

As to your comments on WebM, and despite your backtracking on what you meant by open, which isn't open at all, but apparently just free, I'll just point out that Google won't even stand behind WebM because they know it' patent encumbered, making it not even a viable alternative. Since they are aware of this, as evidenced by their (lack of) actions, it's pretty clear that their only reason for introducing WebM was to muddy the waters. Unless of course you wish to argue that they thought they could simply get away with ripping off other companies' IP, like they've done so far with Android.

post #137 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
And we should accept some fantastic concocted explanation from you as to how that could be possible, involving "minimal profiles"?

http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/ads/#toc-anon-id
http://www.google.com/policies/privacy/key-terms/#toc-terms-identifier

While anonymous identifier is a bit of an oxymoron, there are levels of identification. If police look for a white male, aged 40-60, that is an identifier but not one that identifies an individual exclusively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
What are the consequences of the privacy violation? That's a little like asking someone, the day after a potent carcinogen is dumped into a city's water supply, "What's the harm? Nobody got cancer, did they? Can you point to anyone who got cancer as a result of this?" Sounds pretty absurd and beside the point, doesn't it? That's how your question sounds to me.

Likening the effects of privacy invasion to contracting cancer sounds pretty absurd to me.

When you hand your details over to a company and they sell them to telemarketing or email marketing firms and bombard you with nuisance phone calls or emails, that affects people far more widely than anything Google has ever done but that happens all the time and yet Google gets the bad publicity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
But, an assault on privacy, even when it doesn't lead to immediate harm to a specific individual, is still an attack on liberty and a free society, and an attack on all that societies citizens. The harm is that as companies like Google do their utmost to whittle away at privacy, they also whittle away at our freedom. Privacy is a necessary condition of freedom, and without one, we do not have the other. A piece of both stolen here, a piece there. No one even notices until one day we wake up and realize that it's all gone.

What piece of freedom are they taking away from you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
it's pretty clear that their only reason for introducing WebM was to muddy the waters.

Presumably Mozilla and Opera wanted to muddy the waters too.
post #138 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

Likening the effects of privacy invasion to contracting cancer sounds pretty absurd to me.
When you hand your details over to a company and they sell them to telemarketing or email marketing firms and bombard you with nuisance phone calls or emails, that affects people far more widely than anything Google has ever done but that happens all the time and yet Google gets the bad publicity.
What piece of freedom are they taking away from you?

 

It's not absurd at all. You are asking those who value privacy, and understand that privacy and freedom are inextricably linked, that an assault on one is an assault on the other, to show an immediately obvious harm. But, just like a carcinogen, the effects of diminishing privacy are not necessarily immediately evidenced. The analogy is in fact quite apt.

 

Declaring that there is no harm, just as in the instance of exposure to potent carcinogens, because that harm is not yet apparent, or because that harm hasn't yet produced a measurable effect, is simply a mistaken notion. It also, to continue the analogy with carcinogens, ignores the cumulative effects of loss of privacy.

 

If you don't like the carcinogen analogy, substitute global warming:. What's the harm from that coal fired power plant down the road? Can you show me that it specifically raised the temperature even a billionth of a degree, that it had anything to do with the melting of Greenland's ice cap? These are all questions that while they have a certain, "Yeah, that's right," appeal, ultimately stem from a complete lack of understanding of the issue, of its causes and of its effects. Likewise with your last question. You might as well ask, "Which cell did it turn cancerous?" or "Which glacier did it melt?" It's an interesting question, only for those whose intent is to deny and dance around the issue, to sow confusion, or who ask out of ignorance.

 

And, I don't really understand the point of trying to justify Google's bad behavior by pointing to Facebook's bad behavior or the bad behavior of "telemarketing or email marketing firms". Yes, we should cry a river for Google, they get all the blame. The fact is that Google is the focus of negative publicity, the poster boy of privacy violators, because they have become the largest, most egregious, most dangerous offender. Yes, certainly they should all be stopped, but in the meantime, it's natural to focus on the worst, most dangerous, most powerful offender, especially when that offender's MO is to relentlessly work to diminish our privacy, and thus our liberty.

post #139 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
like a carcinogen, the effects of diminishing privacy are not necessarily immediately evidenced. The analogy is in fact quite apt.

If you don't like the carcinogen analogy, substitute global warming.

Cancer leads to pain, suffering, death.
Climate change leads to flooding, fire, drought, death, sometimes a nice warm Summer.
Google's privacy invasion leads to what? More useful adverts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Google is the focus of negative publicity, the poster boy of privacy violators, because they have become the largest, most egregious, most dangerous offender.

I'm pretty sure I've never had a spam email or marketing phone call as a result of any interaction with Google so I don't see how they are the most dangerous offender. Your local bank is worse than Google. They trawl through your entire credit card history every day - so much as try to buy some midget porn and they are on the phone asking if it's a legit transaction (so I've heard). They try to sell you mortgages, loans and insurance deals - they know all your personals details including contact details and financial standing. They sell your details, they gamble with your money and when they screw up, the government gives them your money. Your local bank is much worse than Google, complain about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
privacy and freedom are inextricably linked

You're using abstract terms to obscure the specifics of the potential harm caused in this scenario. There are many ways in which your privacy is violated - social security id, passport, fixed home address, IP address, computer/device hardware id, credit cards, drivers license, landline phone number, CCTV cameras, GPS devices. Every interaction you make in your entire life leaves a trail back to you as an individual and you can criticise every one of them under the same warning label of 'privacy invasion' harming your freedom but many are essential to your way of life.

We can all live without advertiser tracking and we can all put up with those schizophrenic ads about how dermatologists hate some old woman who gets rid of her wrinkles or how some lazy stay at home mum is getting cheques doing nothing but the harm caused by living with ad tracking is minimal as evidenced by the fact it's been going on for years and nobody has apparently died as a result or suffered in any way whatsoever.

Also, what makes you think Apple isn't using data to their own advantage? Every question sent to Siri is decoded on their servers. They can absolutely use that info to make products that sell better. How do we know that the addition of sports results didn't come from Apple tracking that loads of people were asking Siri for sports results? How is that different from Google? Apple has your UUID, credit card info and location.
post #140 of 157

Like Marvin, for all the years I've been using Google's services/products, I've never received calls, emails or anything of the sort from advertisers who got access to my data from Google. Nor have I ever received any sort of notification due to something I did on the internet because of Google collecting my data. I do get targeted adds that appear in a rather unobtrusive manner in Google Search and Gmail but they never get in the way and I barely notice them anyway and they don't appear in Sparrow or Mail either, so they are really not a problem (and I'd rather see targeted adds instead of random adds which have nothing to do with what I usually look for).

 

On the other hand, I've gotten plenty of calls from my bank, carrier and other companies who want to offer me some service or product, and they are incredibly annoying/persistent most of the time, interrupting me with a call while I work and just trying and trying to sell me their stuff even after I say I am not interested. And in many cases these are companies I've never given my data such as my contact info. 

post #141 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Cancer leads to pain, suffering, death.
Climate change leads to flooding, fire, drought, death, sometimes a nice warm Summer.
Google's privacy invasion leads to what? More useful adverts?
I'm pretty sure I've never had a spam email or marketing phone call as a result of any interaction with Google so I don't see how they are the most dangerous offender. Your local bank is worse than Google. They trawl through your entire credit card history every day - so much as try to buy some midget porn and they are on the phone asking if it's a legit transaction (so I've heard). They try to sell you mortgages, loans and insurance deals - they know all your personals details including contact details and financial standing. They sell your details, they gamble with your money and when they screw up, the government gives them your money. Your local bank is much worse than Google, complain about them.
You're using abstract terms to obscure the specifics of the potential harm caused in this scenario. There are many ways in which your privacy is violated - social security id, passport, fixed home address, IP address, computer/device hardware id, credit cards, drivers license, landline phone number, CCTV cameras, GPS devices. Every interaction you make in your entire life leaves a trail back to you as an individual and you can criticise every one of them under the same warning label of 'privacy invasion' harming your freedom but many are essential to your way of life.
We can all live without advertiser tracking and we can all put up with those schizophrenic ads about how dermatologists hate some old woman who gets rid of her wrinkles or how some lazy stay at home mum is getting cheques doing nothing but the harm caused by living with ad tracking is minimal as evidenced by the fact it's been going on for years and nobody has apparently died as a result or suffered in any way whatsoever.
Also, what makes you think Apple isn't using data to their own advantage? Every question sent to Siri is decoded on their servers. They can absolutely use that info to make products that sell better. How do we know that the addition of sports results didn't come from Apple tracking that loads of people were asking Siri for sports results? How is that different from Google? Apple has your UUID, credit card info and location.

 

Mostly, your "argument" depends on a series of tu quoque arguments, along with a facile dismissal of the real issues involved. About 99% of your "argument" is of the tu quoque variety and is easily dismissed by pointing out that the fact that others may be violating your privacy doesn't make it OK that Google or Facebook are. It also doesn't change the fact that Google remains the most egregious offender. A phone call, per se, doesn't violate your privacy. It's an interruption in your life, but the actual privacy violation occurs from the enitity, be it Google, your credit card company or the governement looking over your shoulder. (It's unavoidable that your credit card company knows you are spending money, but it's not unavoidable that they know what exactly you are spending it on. In fact, your credit card company knows how much you spent, and where you spent it, but not exactly what you bought.)

 

But, you are right that we face a serious crisis of privacy, and thus freedom, in this country, as well as in the rest of the world. We're allowing private companies to amass huge databases detailing our behavior that would be considered shocking if the government had it. In fact, when the government started a program to do just this, Congress shut it down. The idea that it's ok because these are private companies (and because they're all doing it) is nonsense. The problem with the government collecting this kind of information on its citizens isn't that, "the government has the guns," as is often repeated. The problem is that the government has power. Well, corporations like Google have power too and, if they decide to screw up your life, they have just as much ability as the government to do it. They'll also hand all that information over to the government at the drop of a hat, so essentially Google acts as a surrogate for the government in spying on its citizens.

 

The problem with Google is that no other company has ever proceeded so aggressively and on such a broad scale to compile personally identifiable profiles on so many people. Despite all your examples above, Google has collected more, and more detailed, information on more people than any of the other entities you mention. They have also demonstrated time and again that they have zero respect for privacy, zero respect for the law, and that their word means absolutely nothing.

 

Late FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover blackmailed sitting US Presidents with information he collected on them to force them to do what he wanted. How long until Google, a company that has demonstrated no respect for the law, if they haven't already, blackmails members of Congress, Executive Branch officials, Judges? You might say there's no reason to think they'd ever do that, but there's no reason to think they won't, eventually, to get their way. The very fact that it's possible it could happen is dangerous.

 

But the harm from all this spying, home invasion, tracking, and so on, is and will be the chilling effect it has on the daily behavior of individuals. With Google and others constantly looking over our shoulders, tracking us around the web, and now around the physical world, stealing data from our WiFi networks, individuals are already afraid to do things, entirely ethical and legal things, simply from the fear that Google will know. This is happening now, today, so the harm that you ask about occurs anytime anyone thinks twice about going to a website because they'd rather not have anyone know they did. Any time you feel you can't use your phone because you don't want a record in a database that you were at a particular location, you have suffered harm. Your actions, your freedom to act and live your life without the fear of someone looking over your shoulder has been curtailed.

 

And, no, just because you do something you would be embarrassed for other people to know about, doesn't mean its wrong. Maybe you're gay and in the closet, which you should be free to be. So maybe you don't want ads related to that popping up on your screen that others might see. But, now that we have Google tracking everywhere we go and everything we do, you aren't free to go where you want and do what you want with the comfort that it will be private behavior. You have been harmed, your freedom has been curtailed, by Google's behavior.

 

And, thus, our privacy, and freedom, are chipped away at, little by little, piece by piece, until eventually, if we allow it to happen we'll have none of either left. So, please, stop pretending that no one has suffered harm. And, please, stop asking ridiculous questions, that are beside the point, in demanding what the specific harm was in each individual violation. While there certainly can be specific harm linked to individual violations, the more important issue, the more serious harm to us as a nation, is the loss of the feeling that we are free to live our lives as we want. And the loss of the feeling, is the loss of our freedom.

post #142 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Google [...] have also demonstrated time and again that they have zero respect for privacy, zero respect for the law, and that their word means absolutely nothing.

Not disagreeing but would you mind posting some examples of this (links to articles or news would be fine)?

 

Thanks.

post #143 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoken View Post

Not disagreeing but would you mind posting some examples of this (links to articles or news would be fine)?

 

Thanks.

 

Really!? You aren't familiar with Google's FTC fine for lying to consumers and regulators, with the Street View data collection program and the lies they told about that, with the Google Books Program, with their illegal drug ads that they were fined for? None of those things? You need links?

post #144 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
It also doesn't change the fact that Google remains the most egregious offender.

That's not a fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Well, corporations like Google have power too and, if they decide to screw up your life, they have just as much ability as the government to do it. They'll also hand all that information over to the government at the drop of a hat, so essentially Google acts as a surrogate for the government in spying on its citizens.

Replace "Google" with "Apple" and the statement is just as valid:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57408370-281/how-apple-and-google-help-police-bypass-iphone-android-lock-screens/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2145908/Beware-iCloud-Snooping-software-lets-police-read-iPhone-real-time-knowing.html

I know you said that I'm using other examples to justify the practise but what I'm saying is that you need to condemn everyone and not focus all your energy on Google based on your own preconception of how much you can trust their employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
The problem with Google is that no other company has ever proceeded so aggressively and on such a broad scale to compile personally identifiable profiles on so many people.

Except Facebook or possibly Ping:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/204773/privacy_in_itunes_ping.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
individuals are already afraid to do things, entirely ethical and legal things, simply from the fear that Google will know. Maybe you're gay and in the closet, which you should be free to be. So maybe you don't want ads related to that popping up on your screen that others might see.

I don't think people are afraid to Google for things. If you walk into a store and buy certain magazines or walk around town with another guy, people are going to find out things about you so if it bothers you, you actively take steps to avoid this and you do the same with your computer.

I get ads for mature dating. I'm not saying I'm against it but it's certainly nothing I've been looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
please, stop asking ridiculous questions, that are beside the point, in demanding what the specific harm was in each individual violation.

You mean I should stop asking questions that should you answer them might undermine your entire argument? Ok I will assume you've answered them and the conclusion I reach is that you just plain don't like Google, which is entirely your choice. Some of their employess have violated privacy in the past by purposely collecting unencrypted wifi data (which is surprisingly legal) and they have a motivation to use profiling to improve their core business of advertising.

There are reasons to dislike Google's business model but trying to make them out to be the harbinger of the end of personal freedom without demonstrating a single negative effect of anything they've done, doesn't hold much weight.
post #145 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

When was the last original idea out of Google?

 

More than anything else, this looks like a panicked reaction to Siri routing search away from Google and their ads.


Well, that's what industries do when something new comes out. they react, and if they can, make their own product. Apple has been allowed to make their own versions of Google Products before (which can be really awesome sometimes due to the lack of ads), so I guess Google can make their own version of a product as well. As long as it is coded differently, I suppose patents shouldn't hit them in the ass again. haha

post #146 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


That's not a fact.
Replace "Google" with "Apple" and the statement is just as valid:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57408370-281/how-apple-and-google-help-police-bypass-iphone-android-lock-screens/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2145908/Beware-iCloud-Snooping-software-lets-police-read-iPhone-real-time-knowing.html
I know you said that I'm using other examples to justify the practise but what I'm saying is that you need to condemn everyone and not focus all your energy on Google based on your own preconception of how much you can trust their employees.
Except Facebook or possibly Ping:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/204773/privacy_in_itunes_ping.html
I don't think people are afraid to Google for things. If you walk into a store and buy certain magazines or walk around town with another guy, people are going to find out things about you so if it bothers you, you actively take steps to avoid this and you do the same with your computer.
I get ads for mature dating. I'm not saying I'm against it but it's certainly nothing I've been looking for.
You mean I should stop asking questions that should you answer them might undermine your entire argument? Ok I will assume you've answered them and the conclusion I reach is that you just plain don't like Google, which is entirely your choice. Some of their employess have violated privacy in the past by purposely collecting unencrypted wifi data (which is surprisingly legal) and they have a motivation to use profiling to improve their core business of advertising.
There are reasons to dislike Google's business model but trying to make them out to be the harbinger of the end of personal freedom without demonstrating a single negative effect of anything they've done, doesn't hold much weight.

 

You are wrong on every point whre you've "contradicted" me. You're also wrong about all your other claims, including that which states that no negative effects have been demonstrated. But you're especially wrong when you claim your questions undermine my arguments. Your questions don't even address my arguments, all they do is pretend the issues don't exist. That won't make them go away, or any less real, and, as a society, we have to decide whether we value freedom, or targeted ads. To me the choice seems pretty simple. You however, may feel free to revel in your ads, since that's obviously more important to you than liberty.

post #147 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

...as a society, we have to decide whether we value freedom, or targeted ads. To me the choice seems pretty simple. You however, may feel free to revel in your ads, since that's obviously more important to you than liberty.

Targeted adds are taking away our liberty...right...got it.

post #148 of 157
Originally Posted by Evoken View Post
Targeted adds are taking away our liberty...right...got it.

 

Do you honestly not see how the two are connected?

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #149 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoken View Post

Targeted adds are taking away our liberty...right...got it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Do you honestly not see how the two are connected?

 

Do you honestly believe that's the gist of what I said?

post #150 of 157

I use Google Chrome for iOS on my iPod Touch and it basically features the same voice command search as the video from above. I think it is quite useful, especially for the iPod Touch which does not have Siri. The down side is that the app is a bit slow to start.

post #151 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 
Do you honestly not see how the two are connected?

Adverts can target a demographic without affecting your personal privacy. If they know you are a 60+ year old woman, they might show ads for gardening or absorbent underwear instead of bungee jumping. I don't see how that affects that old lady's freedom because presumably she's using her own computer so unless Google is telling 3rd party advertisers that Jane Appleseed, 62, of 22 West Park St, Pennsylvania wets herself on occasions, which has never been demonstrated is the case, then her personal privacy is being protected.

A far more personal profiling is in the likes of Siri, which people use all the time. This is an AI program (Forstall has a Masters degree in AI and undergrad in Symbolic Systems) that learns everything about you to return more appropriate search results.

Siri hears every meeting you schedule, every reminder you set, every destination you search for, where you are, how you talk, your name, your friends' names. It can track you every minute of your life. But nobody cares because once you reach a certain point in your life or browse your Twitter history, you realise that what you do every day isn't all that important. The motivation of an advertiser is not to find out who you are but who will buy what they sell.

Google wanting to have a Siri-like setup isn't much worse than Apple doing it. Saying "I trust Apple" or "I don't trust Google" is largely meaningless because you are talking about corporations with tens of thousands of employees. You can't trust all of them. So what do you do? You don't use their services.
post #152 of 157

Neither Google nor Apple invented voice recognition, artificial intelligence, nor computerized context recognition.

 

I am pretty awed with how amazingly Google Voice improved recognition beyond what was available before it.  Nothing else to date really works as well (for me at least).

 

I am very impressed with Siri.  It is a great start and is just scratching the surface in terms of potential.

 

 

I don't think Google Voice by any stretch was some huge invention that Google should somehow claim sole rights to and sue the pants off anyone who uses voice recognition.

I don't think Siri is some huge invention that Apple should somehow now claim rights to all future improvements in voice based AI either.

 

Really glad to see Google hopping in and stepping up the game.  Looking forward to see what improvements and innovations Apple makes to make Siri better (as opposed to the alternate option of getting Googles offering lost in the approval process and leaving their users without at any choices and possibly even an inferior product).

 

Hoping someone else comes out of the blue and builds one that smokes them both.

 

I'll pick whichever works on my device and works best for me.

post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Adverts can target a demographic without affecting your personal privacy. If they know you are a 60+ year old woman, they might show ads for gardening or absorbent underwear instead of bungee jumping. I don't see how that affects that old lady's freedom because presumably she's using her own computer so unless Google is telling 3rd party advertisers that Jane Appleseed, 62, of 22 West Park St, Pennsylvania wets herself on occasions, which has never been demonstrated is the case, then her personal privacy is being protected.
A far more personal profiling is in the likes of Siri, which people use all the time. This is an AI program (Forstall has a Masters degree in AI and undergrad in Symbolic Systems) that learns everything about you to return more appropriate search results.
Siri hears every meeting you schedule, every reminder you set, every destination you search for, where you are, how you talk, your name, your friends' names. It can track you every minute of your life. But nobody cares because once you reach a certain point in your life or browse your Twitter history, you realise that what you do every day isn't all that important. The motivation of an advertiser is not to find out who you are but who will buy what they sell.
Google wanting to have a Siri-like setup isn't much worse than Apple doing it. Saying "I trust Apple" or "I don't trust Google" is largely meaningless because you are talking about corporations with tens of thousands of employees. You can't trust all of them. So what do you do? You don't use their services.
post #154 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


Adverts can target a demographic without affecting your personal privacy. If they know you are a 60+ year old woman, they might show ads for gardening or absorbent underwear instead of bungee jumping. I don't see how that affects that old lady's freedom because presumably she's using her own computer so unless Google is telling 3rd party advertisers that Jane Appleseed, 62, of 22 West Park St, Pennsylvania wets herself on occasions, which has never been demonstrated is the case, then her personal privacy is being protected.
A far more personal profiling is in the likes of Siri, which people use all the time. This is an AI program (Forstall has a Masters degree in AI and undergrad in Symbolic Systems) that learns everything about you to return more appropriate search results.
Siri hears every meeting you schedule, every reminder you set, every destination you search for, where you are, how you talk, your name, your friends' names. It can track you every minute of your life. But nobody cares because once you reach a certain point in your life or browse your Twitter history, you realise that what you do every day isn't all that important. The motivation of an advertiser is not to find out who you are but who will buy what they sell.
Google wanting to have a Siri-like setup isn't much worse than Apple doing it. Saying "I trust Apple" or "I don't trust Google" is largely meaningless because you are talking about corporations with tens of thousands of employees. You can't trust all of them. So what do you do? You don't use their services.

 

Just curious, do you really believe the stuff you write? Or do you just think you are making clever arguments by adopting an alternate reality perspective?

 

"[Siri] is an AI program (Forstall has a Masters degree in AI and undergrad in Symbolic Systems) that learns everything about you to return more appropriate search results." That one was a real gem. I like how you threw in the the utterly irrelevant detail regarding Forstall's educational background. (Or are we to believe he's developing Siri all by himself?) But, the best part is how you concoct this fiction about Siri out of thin air to support your "argument".

 

The goal of Siri is obviously not to, "learn everything about you." The goal of Siri is to understand everything you say and respond appropriately. But, it's amusing how that little invention leads to your Apple is just as bad as Google summation. No one needs to twist reality to find all the "evil" Google has done. Apparently you feel the need to invent "evil" that Apple intends.

 

The clear difference between Apple and Google is that Apple has not been found to be repeatedly lying and breaking the law as Google has. In other words, Google is a criminal enterprise, Apple is not.


Edited by anonymouse - 8/14/12 at 5:23am
post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Just curious, do you really believe the stuff you write?

I haven't written anything unbelievable. On the other hand, you wrote the following, which I think qualifies:

"as a society, we have to decide whether we value freedom, or targeted ads"
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
The goal of Siri is to understand everything you say and respond appropriately.

Explain the process it uses to do that. Here's a link that might help:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ibm-bans-siri-privacy-risk-or-corporate-paranoia-at-its-best/77843
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
No one needs to twist reality to find all the "evil" Google has done.

So why do you, instead of showing evidence of the evil and the harm caused by it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
The clear difference between Apple and Google is that Apple has not been found to be repeatedly lying and breaking the law as Google has. In other words, Google is a criminal enterprise, Apple is not.

Apple has had some run ins with the law and they are minor just like Google's:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/199335/20110817/apple-sued-over-clearly-illegal-locationtracking.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/13/apple-ebook-price-fixing-terrifying
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Apple_Stock_Backdating_May_Include_Fake_Documents/

Out of all the companies who use Google's business model, they do a good job of protecting their users. The fact they don't abuse their customers when they have so much opportunity to and a motivation to help their core business shows that they are ethical.
post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post


I haven't written anything unbelievable. On the other hand, you wrote the following, which I think qualifies:
"as a society, we have to decide whether we value freedom, or targeted ads"
Explain the process it uses to do that. Here's a link that might help:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/ibm-bans-siri-privacy-risk-or-corporate-paranoia-at-its-best/77843
So why do you, instead of showing evidence of the evil and the harm caused by it?
Apple has had some run ins with the law and they are minor just like Google's:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/199335/20110817/apple-sued-over-clearly-illegal-locationtracking.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/apr/13/apple-ebook-price-fixing-terrifying
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Apple_Stock_Backdating_May_Include_Fake_Documents/
Out of all the companies who use Google's business model, they do a good job of protecting their users. The fact they don't abuse their customers when they have so much opportunity to and a motivation to help their core business shows that they are ethical.

 

Wow, you're really on a roll. Since you seem to have just upped the alternate reality angle in your most recent post (I do like how you went and searched out the most inflammatory reporting of unsubstantiated charges in civil issues above and, for example, equated them with Google's established criminal behavior in the illegal drug sales scandal, funny stuff) I'll just refer you back to my previous post. Frankly, though, don't you think you're just a little too transparent?

post #157 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
Google's established criminal behavior in the illegal drug sales scandal

Illegality is determined by laws passed by people who are corruptible, can be unethical or just wrong. It was against the law in China to have uncensored search results and Google tried to get round it. They were breaking the law so can I assume you side with that kind of internet censorship? In the same way, drug companies in the US have managed to create a stranglehold on the prices of medicine blocking the sale of far cheaper Canadian drugs ( http://www.startribune.com/business/148983815.html ). Breaking the law doesn't make a company unethical if the people making the laws are unethical.

The government consistently fails to make reasonable and feasible laws concerning modern technology and communications. It's up to you to assess companies' behaviour against your own ethics and make your judgements about them. You've already made your judgement about Google and you find them to be untrustworthy and you're not alone:

https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/a-race-to-the-bottom-privacy-ranking-of-internet-service-companies/why-google

I feel safer entrusting my data to companies who don't have a reason to abuse it but Google hasn't done anything that leads me to distrust them. They have been operating for 14 years and currently serve 100 billion results per month and yet no indvidual has experienced a privacy breach from their actions. There have been no major hacks or data breaches in all that time and with all that data.

We should all safeguard our personal information but it is our responsibility to do this. If you upload every picture you take to Facebook along with your opinions, your friends lists and someone socially engineers your password, your own lack of security played a major part in the breach. Similarly if you Google for how to build a chemical weapon and the authorities take an interest in it, you can't claim a breach of privacy when you volunteered the data. If you need a secure channel on which to upload data then you create one by proxy/encryption.

Let's assume the scenario that Google or Apple are the ones taking these steps. Every connection you make to Google or Siri is anonymous, every request is deleted after it is made. They don't know where you are or what you like. If you ask "where can I get a twinkie?" how does it know what you are talking about? The accuracy depends on context, which requires profiling of some kind. If you assume profiling is required then the concern is over the safety of the data and potential misuse. Show me where Google has misused data and I will distrust them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google says voice is the future of web search, introduces Siri-like app for iOS
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google says voice is the future of web search, introduces Siri-like app for iOS