Google CEO Larry Page says rivalries with Apple & Amazon hurt users - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 

 

No thanks.  Siri works quite well for me now.  
I want more then voice recognition and web search.  

I want intelligent speech interpretation that can then tap into dedicated services like Yelp and Wolfram and Fandango for better answers and actions.

 

Time will tell.

I think Siri is "okay" but it needs to get faster. Google voice interprets your speech in real time on the phone. Not so with Siri, which is why it is so much slower. I also want more than voice recognition and web search, but when it comes to voice recognition and web search Google is absolutely killing it. Siri needs to be every bit as good, and right now it's not.

Apple's search results have been lacking as well. If I search for Pizza Hut for example, Siri sends my request to Apple's servers, thinks about it then sends back a list beginning with locations in other cities 40 minutes away. We have a Pizza Hut in my city 10 minutes away. What the heck is up with that? If I do the same thing with Google voice search, it recognizes my speech in real-time and kicks back accurate results lightening fast and yes, the number one hit is our local Pizza Hut. Siri takes upwards of ten seconds (or more) to give me useless information. Google voice takes a few seconds and gives me accurate information that I can actually use.

I am an Apple guy, but Apple needs to do better, plain and simple. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent 

There has been all this venom spewed here over Google entering the mobile business and "betraying" Apple in the process. What's becoming clear us that the mobile device is a conduit to Google's business. Call it AI. Call it big data management (or knowledge accrual and management, as they sometimes do internally). Whatever you call it, it's Apple that has entered Google's realm. This was inevitable from the beginning. Apple and Google could've been perfect partners, one making the slick front end device and the other building the world's most far reaching knowledge engine. But neither side would, could trust the other to cede control.
This is no longer about devices or apps. This is about what the devices and apps allow us to access. In this realm, Apple's only lead on Google is in music. Scott Forstall is not good enough a computer scientist to help Apple catch up. Let's see if Serlet might return or if Tim Cook is smart enough to acquire Wolfram.

Another way to look at it is that Android is Google's albatross. But I guess in Google's view, it's not only about what devices and apps allow us to access, in fact, it's more about what they allow them to access about us.

But, it's an interesting, although entirely misguided and backwards attempt to portray Apple as the one who tried to cut Google off at the knees. If only it weren't entirely plain that things went the other way around, you might even get away with it, if you were a little more persuasive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

According to all the gossip rags, he didn't start dating that girlfriend until summer 2007... a half year after the iPhone was first shown off, and about the same time that it first went on sale.  By then, it would've just been a curiousity. Supposedly, he first tried giving it to his wife. 

 

So, instead of showing a secret, it sounds like he was just being cheap.  Really cheap.

 

 

Touche!   Exellent response.  Siri, of course.

 

 

Nope.  And while the iPhone was the first multi-touch phone sold, it wasn't the first one announced.  That honor belongs to the Open Moko smartphone, two months before Jobs showed off the iPhone for the first time.

 

"The phone itself has a 2.8-inch VGA display, USB mesh file sharing, multi-touch sensor recognition, GSM, GPS, 128MB RAM, a Samsung ARM9-based processor and MP3 playback capabilities. The concept of their multi-touch gestures is that you can use two fingers to control a variety of tasks, such as two finger scrolling like the PowerBooks and MacBooks."  - Gizmodo article, Nov 7, 2006

 

 

Later, when the iPhone came out, Gizmodo remembered it: "OpenMoko - Did they have a time machine or what?"

 

Other reporters even wondered if Apple had stolen some of the ideas, but I think not. As I keep saying, many touch features naturally end up being developed in parallel by multiple groups.  Once you decide to go full touch, quite a few design options become obvious.

Did you read the Gizmodo article carefully?  It said "The concept of their multi-touch gestures is that you can use two fingers to control a variety of tasks, such as two finger scrolling like the PowerBooks and MacBooks."  So their multi-touch is copied from PowerBooks and MacBooks?

Originally Posted by Bilbo63 
iOS has improved VERY slowly while Google and Samsung have had the pedal to the metal with Android.

Well, yeah. They had to. It was absolutely useless in the beginning.

Gmail was in beta for six years.

I want them to get out of consumer computing entirely and focus on the self-driving cars. Stop doing everything else they do and just do the cars.

Implying that it was bad at launch, which it wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tzeshan 

Did you read the Gizmodo article carefully?  It said "The concept of their multi-touch gestures is that you can use two fingers to control a variety of tasks, such as two finger scrolling like the PowerBooks and MacBooks."  So their multi-touch is copied from PowerBooks and MacBooks?

It's just the reporter's way of helping the reader understand, by referring to something else that used more than one finger.

Multi-touch has been around since at least the early 1980s.   Here's a simple timeline:

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

Quote:

 

It's just the reporter's way of helping the reader understand, by referring to something else that used more than one finger.

 

Multi-touch has been around since at least the early 1980s.   Here's a simple timeline:

 

Hey, we're still waiting for you to respond to the post asking for details of your background, you know, because your claims about it are, shall we say, questionable. Or are you just hoping everyone will forget about that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelligent 

There was no implication that Apple tried to cut Google off at the knees. Android is not Google's albatross, but is instead their Trojan horse. Anyone who doesn't get this simply doesn't get it. Don't obsess so much over iOS v Android. That was a prelude. You'll be gobsmacked over what's coming.

I'm not holding my breath. Real soon now, I suppose?

To help out the users, we really should have a way to block ads if we don't want to see them.
 

Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind 
To help out the users, we really should have a way to block ads if we don't want to see them.

AdBlock, Ghostery, DoNotTrack+,GoogleClickTracker, and Google Disconnect should get rid of their presence as much as possible.

And if you have Little Snitch, directly block Google Analytics (and any/all of their other services) from connecting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

AdBlock, Ghostery, DoNotTrack+,GoogleClickTracker, and Google Disconnect should get rid of their presence as much as possible.

 

And if you have Little Snitch, directly block Google Analytics (and any/all of their other services) from connecting.

Are these avail for iOS? :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

AdBlock, Ghostery, DoNotTrack+,GoogleClickTracker, and Google Disconnect should get rid of their presence as much as possible.

 

And if you have Little Snitch, directly block Google Analytics (and any/all of their other services) from connecting.

TS, does DoNotTrack+ also block Facebook data harvesting or Microsoft user tracking too?

Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind 
Are these avail for iOS? :)

Ah. Well… 

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 
TS, does DoNotTrack+ also block Facebook data harvesting or Microsoft user tracking too?

Oh, before we go on, apparently they renamed it to "Do Not Track Me". Here's what they have to say about Facebook:

So it seems they try their best to stop Facebook as long as you're not on it. Which, for those of us without accounts at all, should be nearly everything they try to do. They have a similar point for Google.

Looking up Microsoft now. I don't see anything specific about it (and I wish they'd just have a list of the trackers it can find right on their site).

All together, I use AdBlock, Ghostery (ad blocking), Do Not Track Me (trackers), Get Off My Lawn (social networking buttons), GoogleClickTracker (though I use Bing now, anyway), Defacer (gets rid of Facebook buttons on AI, since Get Off My Lawn doesn't seem to find them), and Google/Facebook/Twitter Disconnect (more tracking). 

I may have one or two redundant ones there, but only one or two. And that's unacceptable, in my opinion.  Everything should legally be forced to be opt-in.

"How would they make money?"

A more reputable business plan, maybe? Anyway, there are plenty of willing subjects for an opt-in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

TS, does DoNotTrack+ also block Facebook data harvesting or Microsoft user tracking too?

That would be nice!

Originally Posted by BARCODE 
What is this guy on?

A roll.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Ah. Well… 

 

Oh, before we go on, apparently they renamed it to "Do Not Track Me". Here's what they have to say about Facebook:

 

So it seems they try their best to stop Facebook as long as you're not on it. Which, for those of us without accounts at all, should be nearly everything they try to do. They have a similar point for Google.

 

Looking up Microsoft now. I don't see anything specific about it (and I wish they'd just have a list of the trackers it can find right on their site).

 

All together, I use AdBlock, Ghostery (ad blocking), Do Not Track Me (trackers), Get Off My Lawn (social networking buttons), GoogleClickTracker (though I use Bing now, anyway), Defacer (gets rid of Facebook buttons on AI, since Get Off My Lawn doesn't seem to find them), and Google/Facebook/Twitter Disconnect (more tracking). 

 

I may have one or two redundant ones there, but only one or two. And that's unacceptable, in my opinion.  Everything should legally be forced to be opt-in.

Thanks for the detailed info TS. I'm sure more than one member will find it useful.

TS, you'll find this interesting. the latest developer build of Google's Chrome browser lets users set direct links to competing search engines. 

The Chrome team has announced a new addition to the Chromium (beta version of Chrome) browser this afternoon, changing the way many users will search for content online via Google and other search engines. Google is testing/experimenting with an added search box to the new tab page, a page that has historically just listed recently viewed websites, and the new search box will not only include Google search but will also be accompanied by Yahoo, Bing and others. Google said the reasoning behind the change is: “we’ve found that many people still navigate to their search engine’s home page to initiate a search instead.”

Google is also allowing search engines to display what a user has searched for right in the omnibox, potentially doing away with a second search box on the actual search page. Additionally, Google has made a new Embedded Search API available so other search engines can implement what’s new. The features outlined today are available for testing from the Chrome Developer Channel that includes a select few Chrome OS and Windows users (Mac will be coming soon). Sadly, Mountain View gave no word on when the features will hit an official build.

So TS, you can easily use Google Chrome without using Google Search.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

…we’ve found…

So many places to go with this. 

But yeah, that is interesting. Thanks!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

So many places to go with this. 

 

But yeah, that is interesting. Thanks!

Yes, now Chrome will be able to report back on what people are searching for on other search engines, whether they tried to search for it on Google before or after, what sort of results they got, how long they spent looking at them, ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjourni 

 

While I agree with you in principle, yes you CAN beat someone by copying. Biggest example? Microsoft.

More sales doesn't mean its better. I don't see Microsoft as "copying" Apple. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blitz1 

I suppose you see Google Docs and Google Maps as failures...

Google Docs isn't all its made up to be. Google Maps..Meh. Neither is nothing really better than anything else on the market. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Are you still trying to breathe life into your fairy tale? Given it up, pull the plug, it's brain dead.

Dont you see he is using his distoriton field to bend the facts!!! WOW,  he really lives someplace other than earth....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Well, yeah. They had to. It was absolutely useless in the beginning.

 

Gmail was in beta for six years.

 

I want them to get out of consumer computing entirely and focus on the self-driving cars. Stop doing everything else they do and just do the cars.

 

Implying that it was bad at launch, which it wasn't.

Agreed Google advanced rapidly because they had to but Apple did not do enough to be sure ensure that they kept their lead.

Gmail was in beta for 6 years? So what? Your point is...

Self-Driving car? Cool.

I never implied Siri was bad at launch at all. What are you smoking? The reality is, Apple was better with voice recognition and now their not. Again Google evidently busted their tails to improve (because they had to) while Apple did very little to build on Siri.

The fact is Apple needs to work harder to be sure that they stay ahead and they haven't been doing that very well as of late. Their competitors are working extremely hard and as such improving at a stronger pace. Apple need to be sure that their competition is always playing catch-up.

I think Apple knows that they haven't been doing such a good job in this area and this is the REAL reason Forstall was shown the door.

I love Apple and their products, but I'm not afraid to call them on their sh*t, when they're not getting the job done.

Originally Posted by Bilbo63 
Gmail was in beta for 6 years? So what? Your point is...

…Several.

• Software being in beta ≠ the software is bad.
• Good software can be in beta long after it becomes good.
• Apple is not the only company that publicly releases beta software.
• Long beta periods have existed for other software that went on to become extraordinarily popular.

I thought that would have just clicked for you once you'd seen Gmail in the same light you're shining on Siri.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

…Several.

 

• Software being in beta ≠ the software is bad.
• Good software can be in beta long after it becomes good.
• Apple is not the only company that publicly releases beta software.
• Long beta periods have existed for other software that went on to become extraordinarily popular.

 

I thought that would have just clicked for you once you'd seen Gmail in the same light you're shining on Siri.

When did I say that Beta software was bad? When did I say that Siri was bad?

Apple can keep it in beta as far as I'm concerned if they are actually going to keep working at making it better, but alas, they have done very little.

Most software does not stay in beta indefinitely. Bad on Google. That's the exception, not the norm.

I actually feel that Siri was pretty good when it launched. My point which you clearly wish to ignore, is that Siri is only marginally better now, than when it was released. In that time, the competition have not only closed the gap but actually surpassed Siri in "some" ways. Apple let this happen and they shouldn't have. I realize that Siri can do more than voice recognition and if Apple will release API's it will do even more.

When it comes to speech to text recognition and search, Google is presently killing it. I wish they weren't, but they are.

Originally Posted by Bilbo63 
Apple can keep it in beta as far as I'm concerned if they are actually going to keep working at making it better, but alas, they have done very little.

They've done TONS. They've added languages, processing has been improved, accuracy has been improved, and even the scope of functionality has been increased.

What do you expect? What could possibly assuage you? Would you prefer they just drop the "beta" tag? Then you'd complain that it's not "release-worthy".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

They've done TONS. They've added languages, processing has been improved, accuracy has been improved, and even the scope of functionality has been increased.

 

What do you expect? What could possibly assuage you? Would you prefer they just drop the "beta" tag? Then you'd complain that it's not "release-worthy".

TONS? Seriously?  The fact that it is in other languages now is of zero value to me. When I use Siri today, compared to when it was first released it's no better. In fact at times the performance is actually worse. It depends on the servers I suppose, that are doing the voice recognition. Sometimes they get overloaded I'm guessing - or maybe it's spotty web connections.

Google can do accurate, damn-near real-time speech recognition right on the phone, without having to send data off to a server to be processed. There is a HUGE difference in how Google's speech recognition has improved from when the time Siri was released. Siri performs no better and at times worse.

BTW - I am not a Google fan and I dislike their greasy, data harvesting activities. That said, I'm not so blind as to not recognize when their software is doing a great job.