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 3

post #81 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Unless Google invented Spanish then I think the answer to that is rather obvious.
Since neither company invented voice recognition the answer may be less than obvious.

Google for one built their voice recognition algorithms from scratch, in house, over a long period of time by deploying their now deprecated GOOG411 service for the voice samples. Apple on the other hand simply bought their technology a number of years later. It is worth mentioning that Apple had fooled around with voice recognition as far back as 1993 or when ever the Quadra 840 AV came out. I had that machine but the voice recognition was lousy and it is not the foundation of their current technology.

Of course you could argue that Google stole peoples' voices because they did not disclose the real purpose of deploying the GOOG411 service and when they discontinued it people were upset to discover what was their real intention.

That Google may have built theirs in house, while Apple bought theirs via another company is irrelevant, surely, to any current ownership question. Those are both legitimate paths to IP ownership. In any case, what has whether either company first used voice recognition have to do with whether Apple would be copying if they released their version in Spanish? I'm afraid you lost me with that response.
post #82 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

Because....Apple bought Siri and then neutered it to only work on the iPhone 4S. So perhaaaaaps....someone who is using a 3GS or iPhone 4 might have use of the program....Hardly a waste of time. 
Well, this is great for 3GS & 4 users then (as well as original iPads and iPod Touch), but once they upgrade to the new iPhone when their contract is up (or the then budget 4S), is the idea that they will be hooked on Google's app and will eschew the iOS integrated Siri?

At most it will give Google a small window of opportunity to keep those ad dollars rolling in for a small user base of iPhones, and then what?

And if Apple sees that Google's app is indeed siphoning off user share, don't you think that they will suddenly decide to enable it for at least some of those devices considering it has already been hacked to work on them anyway? I mean, Apple is only doing it to help differentiate the 4S from the 4 since the 4S offered so little else. iOS 6 could offer the opportunity to do a lot.
post #83 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


I'm afraid you lost me with that response.

Sorry I lost you. Google invented their tech, Apple bought theirs. Google was first in mobile voice recognition Apple was not. They copy some, invent some, same as Apple, hence gray area, which is what my original premise was.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #84 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I'm afraid you lost me with that response.
Sorry I lost you. Google invented their tech, Apple bought theirs. Google was first in mobile voice recognition Apple was not. They copy some, invent some, same as Apple, hence gray area, which is what my original premise was.

OK - but as I said earlier, this discussion appeared to be about implementation and user interface, not about just the use of voice recognition.
post #85 of 157

Aaaargh, that annoying American accent, as an Australian it is as grating as fingernails on a blackboard, that's the voice of the navigation on my Galaxy Nexus.

 

Speaking of Australia I wonder why there has been nothing on this:-

 

 

Google failed to delete Australians' private info

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 #86 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


OK - but as I said earlier, this discussion appeared to be about implementation and user interface, not about just the use of voice recognition.

Google search was providing context appropriate search results from voice input for a long time on iOS. The fact that they are now adding spoken responses is a natural evolution in my opinion. After all, the understanding of the voice request is the most important part of returning accurate and useable results. Verbalizing them is secondary. Clearly Apple was first to successfully implement that on a mobile device but it is also an obvious extension of Voice XML which has been used in countless corporate phone systems for many years.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #87 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

OK - but as I said earlier, this discussion appeared to be about implementation and user interface, not about just the use of voice recognition.
Google search was providing context appropriate search results from voice input for a long time on iOS. The fact that they are now adding spoken responses is a natural evolution in my opinion. After all, the understanding of the voice request is the most important part of returning accurate and useable results. Verbalizing them is secondary. Clearly Apple was first to successfully implement that on a mobile device but it is also an obvious extension of Voice XML which has been used in countless corporate phone systems for many years.

I don't disagree with any of that, and especially that it is a natural evolution for Google to add spoken responses. In fact I'd be disappointed if they did not move in that direction.
post #88 of 157

If Google has some innovation to deliver here, I’m in favor. But why make YET ANOTHER separate Google app? Just roll it into the main Google app!

post #89 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

And why on earth would someone using an iPhone opt for a third party app that offers nothing new over the integrated iOS functionality? Talk about a waste of time ...

 

Out of curiosity I picked up my iPhone 4S and asked Siri some of the same questions used in the video and Siri didn't know how to respond to any of the queries. So at least at the moment, it does things BETTER than the integrated iOS functionality (much like there are better calendar, mail, weather, stocks and notes apps to name just a few).

post #90 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asim Soofi View Post

 

For a moderator, you certainly have a talent of setting a negative tone to almost every discussion. It's like your trolling in safer waters rather than going over to a non-Apple centric site to make biased arguments.

 

And as usual, your comment is sidetracking the topic and doesn't contribute constructive discussion. Who's moderating you?

Perhaps that is why he ended up leaving Mac Rumors after three years.

post #91 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



Nonsense. Read this:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/08/half_of_the_tv_audience_mistook_samsung_galaxy_tab_for_ipad_in_ads.html
Apple can't afford to let everyone lie to and mislead its customers and make them think they're buying Apple products when they're actually buying something else. Aside from the obvious loss of sales, when the customer who bought a fake iPad or iPhone finds out how much it stinks, it reflects badly on Apple.
 
Sorry, total BS. People are not buying Samsung products and thinking that they are Apple products. It seems that the big SAMSUNG on the box would be a dead give-away. If someone was told that the "Samsung tablet is as good as an iPad" and then they went the cheap route only to return the item and instead getting a "real" iPad..that isn't the same thing as BELIEVING that they actually bought the iPad. That is buyer's remorse and the inability to admit they screwed up...so instead they lie and state they were tricked. Human nature to avoid responsibility.
 
Now if someone buys a tablet branded with the Apple logo which turned out to be a total counterfeit, that is a different story, but not at all what Samsung was accused of.
post #92 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post


Your sarcasm misrepresents my point. I think Apple acquiring companies like Siri shows foresight and vision. I would not claim they have no original ideas. You're branding me something I'm not because you and others think that anyone that disagrees with you or defends Google must hate Apple.
My only point is that Watson came before Siri, and no one wants to address that because they have no rebuttle. Instead all you want to do is try to paint my comment as Apple Bashing or trolling when all it was intended to be about was fact checking.

 

If you were referring to "voice recognition" technology, it has been around longer than Watson and Siri. The thing that is making voice recognition more useful is superior methods of achieving said recognition. I don't know if they are using some form of mathematical probability to improve results or if it's a form of artificial intelligence, but it's gotten much better recently.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #93 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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

How is the truth hilarious? How is Apple copying ideas from Android okay, but others cannot copy from Apple? And what is up with the gang-rape obsession?

post #94 of 157

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


Well, this is great for 3GS & 4 users then (as well as original iPads and iPod Touch), but once they upgrade to the new iPhone when their contract is up (or the then budget 4S), is the idea that they will be hooked on Google's app and will eschew the iOS integrated Siri?
At most it will give Google a small window of opportunity to keep those ad dollars rolling in for a small user base of iPhones, and then what?
And if Apple sees that Google's app is indeed siphoning off user share, don't you think that they will suddenly decide to enable it for at least some of those devices considering it has already been hacked to work on them anyway? I mean, Apple is only doing it to help differentiate the 4S from the 4 since the 4S offered so little else. iOS 6 could offer the opportunity to do a lot.

 

Of course if these people were to see this same software running on Android and compared it to Siri they would be surprised to see that the Google software isn't reliant on external servers for its dictation capabilities. So, maybe they would choose to avoid using Siri. :)

 

(For the record...not a Android Fan. I've used an iPhone since 2009 when the 3GS became my first smartphone. Having said that, I am actually looking forward to Windows Phone 8. You know...I think it is time to just going back to reading the articles; if there are any that are actually related to OS X anymore. There really is no point in posting here since it just turns into a bitch-fest)


Edited by lamewing - 8/8/12 at 9:12pm
post #95 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post

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.

 

What would Apple know about computers and voice:-

 

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 #96 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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

 

Starting with a misquote.

 

So do you think whoever came up with that was crying when they wrote it?

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 #97 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Wasn't Google's response when Siri was introduced that having a voice assistant was the wrong approach for mobile phones? Isn't this exactly what their appt is?
And why on earth would someone using an iPhone opt for a third party app that offers nothing new over the integrated iOS functionality? Talk about a waste of time ...

 

CORRECT. ANDY ANDY says you shouldn't talk to your phone:

http://allthingsd.com/20111019/android-chief-says-your-phone-should-not-be-your-assistant/

 

Then ERIC SCHMIDT called Siri a threat to Google:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/11/05/google_chairman_eric_tells_us_senators_apples_siri_could_pose_competitive_threat.html

 

Now... Google says voice is the future of web search. Sounds like Google figured out that Apple was right all along. Again. lol.gif

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #98 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamewing View Post

How is the truth hilarious? How is Apple copying ideas from Android okay, but others cannot copy from Apple? And what is up with the gang-rape obsession?

 

Android is "open" like webkit, that means anyone can use it to do whatever they want, as long as the licensing agreement is acknowledged.

 

Remember Android's "openness" is a major differentiator from Apple's "closed" system, one of Android's main selling points, since day one..

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 #99 of 157
Google, now known as Microsoft. I'll be referring to it as Goocrosoft from now on.
post #100 of 157

Apple wishes it had Voice Actions.  It kicks the crap out of Apple's offerings in this area,

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They've also been using the same AI-based OS actions engine for years, have they? I thought so. 

 

Think of it as user base of phones, not the people themselves. lol.gif

post #101 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waverunnr View Post

Apple wishes it had Voice Actions.  It kicks the crap out of Apple's offerings in this area,

 

 

Cool, so obviously Google are wasting their time then.

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 #102 of 157

google did voice search first. Google now is ten times better then siri, reason?  Better interface showcasing useful data clearly. Images, statistics, links, maps etc. Google's voice search understands you better then siri. Not an insult to apple, just the simple truth. Also, ironically, google's search results are not filtered to only bring up sponsered sites like yelp and urban spoon like siri does. It just makes sense that google would find the way to perfect this concept. It's sorta their thing. Much how they have dominated maps. Same problem, apple's map choose minimalist style over functionality. Quite honestly, there is no right or wrong choice. It al depends on what your average day is like and what you use most. I use my iphone on weekends, playing games, music. I use my samsung galaxy s2 for when I really need to rely on a device to help me out with things. 

 

And another thing, I'm new here, but has anyone brought up how apple blatantly ripped off google with the notification bar??? Not trying to start a flame war. Just want everyone to realize that it's a tired and pointless fight to get into. 

post #103 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Aaaargh, that annoying American accent, as an Australian it is as grating as fingernails on a blackboard, that's the voice of the navigation on my Galaxy Nexus.

Which annoying American accent - there are so many. I'm sure my Texas drawl is quite annoying, but I find a lot of regional American accents unpleasant. The exception, besides the Texas drawl to which I am accustomed, is that breathy southern accent from the South Carolina. It's just so soft spoken and easy on the ears. As far as other accents in English, I find the variety spoken in Scotland also pleasing to listen to, but I can't understand half of what they're saying (my fault, not theirs).

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #104 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Leon View Post

And another thing, I'm new here, but has anyone brought up how apple blatantly ripped off google with the notification bar??? Not trying to start a flame war. Just want everyone to realize that it's a tired and pointless fight to get into. 
You are new here. See Apple Newton for notifications.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #105 of 157

"A full 80 percent of the active user base are suck with a version of Android 2.x, which came out 2010."

 

Love it.

post #106 of 157

I like how words it's not 100% sure of yet flicker, that is a great way to display it, I bet Apple wish they thought of it (of course they do work sentences at a time).

post #107 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Wasn't Google's response when Siri was introduced that having a voice assistant was the wrong approach for mobile phones? Isn't this exactly what their appt is?
And why on earth would someone using an iPhone opt for a third party app that offers nothing new over the integrated iOS functionality? Talk about a waste of time ...

 

1 - SIRI is only available on the iPhone 4S

 

2 - Google search is the best search in the world

 

3 - Google has very little downtime.

 

There you go, three good reasons for you.

post #108 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

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

 

What's hilarious about it? The Apple ripped off Android's notification centre? Or that commonly used icons, such as the Mic icon, have been used all over for years?

post #109 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
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.

I wouldn't use the word creative as the opposite of destructive to describe Google but I'd say they are constructive. Every company has a motivation to protect themselves and that will ultimately conflict with other companies but the people at Google know where the innovation came from and if they had an agenda to destroy Apple, they'd ultimately lose all their laptops/desktops (remember they banned Windows from their offices and Adobe apps don't exist on Linux) and they'd lose potential inspiration for future developments.

I don't see why they'd have a motivation that clearly conflicts with their own self-interest. They have nothing to gain by destroying Apple.

The money they make from Chrome and Android is negligible vs their overall company revenue but they are ways to drive traffic to their profit-making products. If Chrome and Android didn't exist, the hole they'd leave wouldn't be filled by Apple but rather products that would much more severely conflict with Apple's philosophy. As I've said in the past, while it may not be true that they do no evil, they are by far the lesser of many evils.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
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

I don't agree with that entirely. They do like to violate privacy, which is understandable given that advertising is their core business but I see their primary target as Microsoft. Mozilla is failing on its own because they refuse to switch to a superior rendering engine and continue with bloated gecko. If everyone switched to webkit, that helps the entire web because it creates a common authoring platform, which is exactly why Flash existed in the first place.

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.
post #110 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

... I don't see why they'd have a motivation that clearly conflicts with their own self-interest. They have nothing to gain by destroying Apple. ...

 

That might be the rational view, but that's not the mentality that Google demonstrates. They had nothing to gain by doing Android, but they did it anyway. Clearly they don't subscribe to the rational view. Clearly, they subscribe to a view where they fail if they don't control everything, similar to Microsoft's view that they needed to control everything, but of wider scope.

 

I understand that you want to think that Google isn't out to destroy X, Y & Z, but the reality is that that's the only way they view the world: a series of rivals that must be destroyed so that Google can control everything, including, and especially, all access to information.

post #111 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

 

What's hilarious about it? The Apple ripped off Android's notification centre? Or that commonly used icons, such as the Mic icon, have been used all over for years?

 

 

If Apple "ripped off" anything from Android, we should be hearing about an infringement case, no? Hmm, I wonder why not?

post #112 of 157
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
So do you think whoever came up with that was crying when they wrote it?

 

I'm thinking enormous, jutting lower lip, pouting with eyes getting watery.

 

Originally Posted by Waverunnr View Post
Apple wishes it had Voice Actions.  It kicks the crap out of Apple's offerings in this area,

 

Oh, the offerings that do more, recognize voices better, and are more intelligent on the back end, you mean?

 

As an aside, and not related to the two quotes above, I love how the trolls always reveal themselves as such when you post the right thing. They always quote it, too.


Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post
1 - SIRI is only available on the iPhone 4S

 

2 - Google search is the best search in the world

 

3 - Google has very little downtime.

 

There you go, three good reasons for you.

 

1. Nope. Objective truth (what I said).

2. Nope. Subjective nonsense (what you said).

3. Don't know myself, but I imagine it's true. Though what does that have to do with absolutely anything?

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #113 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival View Post

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.

Apple didn't mimic. Siri was an iOS product from SRI, a company which Apple later acquired. Go hate on SRI. Also, Apple fans are used to being called irrational and sheep by trolls with handles like "LogicNReason", who sign up here to pick fights so they can go brag about it to friends. Deep down inside, you're jealous that Apple get a lot of credit, and you can't wait to post about prior art or 2001: A Space Odyssey or some such nonsense. Watson might be a valid comparison if it was a consumer product, but it is not. Neither is frickin' HAL-9000. But what really burns you up is that Apple gets all the credit for putting this technology in the hands of everyday customers, and as a result, is very popular. You're so blinded by that, you can't even think rationally.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #114 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalogical View Post

 

 

If Apple "ripped off" anything from Android, we should be hearing about an infringement case, no? Hmm, I wonder why not?

No history of them doing so. I'm not aware that Google has ever initiated a patent suit against any tech competitor. Besides, using your logic Google apparently didn't really "rip off" Apple either since you're not hearing about Apple suing them. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #115 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
They had nothing to gain by doing Android

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.

In the case of voice search, it might show adword links, which people pay Google for so they gain by doing this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse 
I understand that you want to think that Google isn't out to destroy X, Y & Z, but the reality is that that's the only way they view the world: a series of rivals that must be destroyed so that Google can control everything, including, and especially, all access to information.

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.

I'd like to see Apple getting more credit for what they did and not have legions of Android fans deluded into thinking what they are currently using came entirely from Google and would have existed regardless of Apple but I think the alternative situation is far worse. At this stage, I don't think there's a single thing Google can do to take down the most proftable company in the world. As long as Apple keeps making high quality products, they have nothing to worry about.

Eventually Apple's marketshare will become the minority but that's only starting to happen - Android and iOS will be around 350 million units each and the next iPhone will be the biggest seller ever. There's only 7 billion people in the world and over half can't afford a smartphone:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats

The entire potential phone market is realistically 2 billion units and Android and iOS already account for 1/3 of this. If they both ship over 30 million units per quarter, the market will be entirely saturated in under 10 years. People will still upgrade but iOS and Android will be the standard that Nokia once was.

Apple won't lose by Google's success and vice versa.
post #116 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

700

 

There's not a single microphone on the face of the planet that looks different. Nope. Google had to use that icon.


Also, it's just Samsung that copies. Regular Android and the stuff Google does aren't copies at all.

 

Wow.  You're fucked.


Edited by yu119995 - 8/9/12 at 12:44pm
post #117 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sr2012 View Post

Google, now known as Microsoft. I'll be referring to it as Goocrosoft from now on.

 

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


Edited by yu119995 - 8/9/12 at 12:45pm
post #118 of 157
Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post
Wow.  You're fucked.

 

Who?

 

Originally Posted by yu119995 View Post
I should warn you though.  You do sound like a complete twat when you do.  Proceed.

 

Who? 

 

You really ought to quote.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #119 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.
In the case of voice search, it might show adword links, which people pay Google for so they gain by doing this.
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.
I'd like to see Apple getting more credit for what they did and not have legions of Android fans deluded into thinking what they are currently using came entirely from Google and would have existed regardless of Apple but I think the alternative situation is far worse. At this stage, I don't think there's a single thing Google can do to take down the most proftable company in the world. As long as Apple keeps making high quality products, they have nothing to worry about.
Eventually Apple's marketshare will become the minority but that's only starting to happen - Android and iOS will be around 350 million units each and the next iPhone will be the biggest seller ever. There's only 7 billion people in the world and over half can't afford a smartphone:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
The entire potential phone market is realistically 2 billion units and Android and iOS already account for 1/3 of this. If they both ship over 30 million units per quarter, the market will be entirely saturated in under 10 years. People will still upgrade but iOS and Android will be the standard that Nokia once was.
Apple won't lose by Google's success and vice versa.
Google commoditizes the means. The end user commoditizes the end. That makes the whole process a commodity market, interpreted, weighed in, weighed out by sophisticated proprietary algorithms and measuring tools. The information flows unimpeded from raw data to actionable metrics in a subterranean build-up of contextual human interactions.

What appears to be free, ...and a gift from heaven of sort, happens to be a multi-pronged channel (Apple, Android and all...) to the ultimate back-room sorting out of human behavior into its fit-for-trade, 'monytizable' components. The very opposite of identity empowerment. Identity swap done under general anesthesia, ...digital DNA going one way(Android to OEMs, platform-agnostic free sophisticated apps to end users), organic DNA(empirical human data) going the other way.

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. 
post #120 of 157

I can't wait because then all the critics of Siri are going to realise it's not Apple's fault Siri isn't that good.

 

Dictation on computers is crap. It always has been crap and it always will be crap until there is a radical shift in the way computers understand humans. Hell, Google can't even do natural search let along getting voice to work with its search engine.

 

Siri will always be a gimick limited to a certain set of people that the devices can actually understand until computers can understand how the human voice works. But that's only half the problem. Apple has done massive work with the second half, that of understanding what is being asked of it. It still has a long way to go and it will always be limited to the interfaces Siri has to interact with namely Google, Yelp, Wolfram Alpha, etc.

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