You'd rather someone not respond to you at all when you ask them a question? That's rude, you know.
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
You'd rather someone not respond to you at all when you ask them a question? That's rude, you know.

Only Apple must be criticized when it performs a head-fake.
Apparently only 'open' includes permission to adjust course.

Yeah, what's next?
They gonna start making 7 inch tablets to compete with the ipad mini which came first?
Or are they gonna make a 4-inch screen to compete with the iphone 5, which had the big screen first?
Or are they gonna make a TV to compete with the iTV, which came first?
All great Apple products which were ripped off by Google and their partners using and their time machine. 
Still don't get that its not simply 'first', but 'first done right', huh?

Looks fine to me. Android and suck in the same sentence.
Tallest Skill - you're flat wrong about that icon and voice commands in general. Google has had that icon for years.
Apple didn't invent technology like Siri or even demonstrate it first. The whole natural language craze was brought into the spotlight when IBM had Watson compete on Jeopardy well before Siri became a feature of the iPhone. Watson was far superior at processing natural language than Siri is.
Beyond that, Apple didn't even create Siri. They acquired it. It was an app in the App Store before they did. Good for them. This is not a criticism of Apple by any stretch. The issue is people that think anytime Apple uses an existing technology in their product, suddenly the idea is 100% OWNED and invented by Apple. Now anyone that does something similar is incapable of an original idea.
SIRI WASN'T APPLE'S IDEA IN THE FIRST PLACE.
They acquired the idea, and the technology was most likely inspired by IBM's Watson performance and it does a better job than Siri.
Get over it. Stop letting your hatred for Google become the focus of every conversation on this forum. Siri is fine. Apple is fine. It is people acting like Google is a criminal for emulating technology that pre-dates Siri- that is what is driving me crazy.

When one acquires something, one gets to do what one wants with it. The same does not apply if you steal or copy something.
Siri belongs to Apple. Apple is taking it to the future. Get over it.
I guess iTunes isn't owned or invented by Apple, then. It's just a rehash of SoundJam. Apple can't make anything their own; they just buy companies with the real ideas.
What you say is true. Apple, the company, seeks out like others do what will bring the best results. They took SIRI when others did not. They reworked it to be amazing in it's ability to figure out the real question, rather than respond to pre-tabled key words and throw several answers at you.
Your point is valid, but now that SIRI is a piece of the Apple, I guess I could say that Apple brought us the capacity. Certainly their hardware and software, integrated seamlessly, is a new generation of the use of voice technology Artificial Intelligence.
Thank you for responding Lamewing
Where, by "swallowed their pride" you mean "allowed Google, et al. to completely rip them off". I suggest if your home is ever robbed, or your car stolen, you just "swallow your pride" and don't bother filing a police report.
I don't think you understand Google. Google deeply believes (and they may be correct) that they can only succeed by destroying others. They are a fundamentally destructive, as opposed to creative, company.
The whole point of Chrome is to destroy the browser market for everyone else -- Microsoft, Mozilla (they'll be pulling the plug on them shortly), Apple -- so that Google ends up controlling all access to the web and can monitor everyone using it, without having to worry about their javascript based surveillance software and cookies being blocked


This post demonstrates why the world is such a messed up place.
May I modify that analogy, since nothing is being physically stolen?
My mother, when she bought the house in which she currently lives, set out a garden plan for it. The house itself (full two story, about 100 years old now) had just been moved, as a whole, all the way across town on a semi (traffic stopped on the main thoroughfares, power lines taken down, the whole nine yards) and was sitting on a bare plot of grass. She laid out string in the grass where she wanted the border of the garden and my father spraypainted over that line. They then got a variety of bushes, trees, and flowers and they went to town.
Now, everyone (literally) else in the city had their landscaping right up against their houses in the two or so feet of land around the foundation (the bare square that all houses will have), with only ever trees in their yards further out. My mother's plan was far more organic, curving all around the house in flowing shapes, also with trees.
When our landscaping was finished, my mother began to notice dozens of other people in town driving by, stopping, and taking pictures of our house. She was put off and worried by that until she asked one of them what they were doing.
They wanted her plans. Now every house in the city has landscaping like ours.
We also have the oldest backyard fence in the city. And now you see fences everywhere. I wouldn't mention that at all since 'putting up a fence' isn't usually something you'd consider 'unique', but the council actively protested us doing it (it's a beautiful wooden fence, not some gaudy metal trash), and everyone else in town, for decades, apparently didn't have the stones to go up against them to protect their children. But once they let us do it, boy howdy.
Now, the validity of the analogy ends here, as my mother didn't expect, want, or receive compensation for her landscaping plans being photocopied, but everyone knows on whose plans theirs are based.
She also wasn't the first to have landscaping around the house, but ask anyone, and they'll tell you she was the first to do it right.
That's only because it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Thanks for making my point. If Apple mimics a concept pioneered by someone else, it is irrelevant. If Google mimics an idea you think was pioneered by Apple, it is theft.
You people are so blinded by bias you can't even think rationally.


Now, the validity of the analogy ends here, as my mother didn't expect, want, or receive compensation for her landscaping plans being photocopied, but everyone knows on whose plans theirs are based.
She also wasn't the first to have landscaping around the house, but ask anyone, and they'll tell you she was the first to do it right.
Your mother was not in the landscape business and had nothing to lose by other people using similar garden styles. If she was in the landscape business and drew up some plans that another contractor got hold of and reproduced them with his own logo and went about selling his service to your mother's prospective clients, then she would have cause for concern. As it is, she only lost a sense of uniqueness although on the other hand she might have been flattered. I don't think Apple is flattered when competitors borrow their patented designs because a corporation shouldn't have emotions of either pride or hate, just good business. Unfortunately Apple does exhibit too much pride and hate and sometimes 'cuts off nose to spite face'.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
It's Siri, right…? For all intents and purposes…
Watching that video, even with the context of it being a "Google App" I found myself thinking "It behaves a lot like Siri, but something is a bit off…"
Siri IS "search by voice" with context… the Siri voice is a tad less annoying… this one talks too much about the results...
I thought Google didn't think this was the way to go. I guess the success of the Siri-phone has changed their collective minds, or…?
I don't remember. I do remember a lot of talk about "That's nothing. We had that a year ago!"
I guess they figured out there was a bit of a difference between what they had and what Siri was.

Your supposition isn't really accurate though. First, Apple bought Siri… they didn't steal it.
Yes, Watson proved that a computer could be used to interpret natural language questions. It didn't do it very well, but concept proven.
Fast WAY forward… Siri "interprets" fairly abstract REAL TIME SPEECH, and extrapolates a response across a very broad range of possible topical results…
The way Siri "behaves", and considering its overall feature set, is WAY beyond anything Watson was capable of and so I see something "evolutionary" there, one case perhaps building on another, but not a direct emulation, copy or "theft" of technology.
I'm not directly accusing Google of that either, but…. Looking at the video for this 'google voice search', I basically saw "Siri reproduced with Google's name on it".
It isn't "evolutionary" or building something new… it's for all intents and purposes functionally the same thing as Siri, right down to the mildly annoying female "voice" coming back with clever, conversational responses to 'voice queries'…
Measured simply on the surface (as it's being represented/marketed in this video) how is it materially different from Siri?
And, regardless of whether Siri's arguable "similarities" to Watson are "infringements"… that doesn't invalidate the question mark regarding Google voice search and Siri. I think Google is treading a fine line here… for sure...
They're still saying that. Somehow this isn't any different from what they've had on their phones since before Steve Jobs was born.
http://team-nocturnal.tumblr.com/post/26388747742/proof-apple-stole-from-google-boycottapple
That microphone icon has been on Android for quite a while.

I thought it was interesting that the ad in the article not only uses an iPhone but also looks and sounds like an Apple ad in tone and production.

That's a hilarious image. It's astounding the lengths to which the Androiders will go to justify Google's gang-raping of phones.

It looks like tit.
What's your problem woth the proofreeding og the aricle?

Apparently not, and the article cites no official sources for the alleged claims made by Google. It reeks of anti-Google bias.

Siri is still in beta, Google search with voice is a product for iOS.
There is a lot of gray area here. Some things are natural evolution and others are more market response or even copying. For example when Siri comes out with Spanish language will it be a natural evolution or is it a copy of a feature that Google has had since day one?
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.
Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

