40% of Android users wont get it until they upgrade their phones (if they want it) - and - 100% of iOS users will never see it, regardless if they want it or upgrade their phones to a newer iPhone.
yeah, the stupidity of this argument is amazing.
100% of Android devices can't run numerous Apps I have on my iPhone because they simply don't exist on Android. If I write an iOS App and target iOS 6 I'll have around 80% of users able to run my App. Has any version of Android ever hit 80%? Maybe the very first one did but as soon as the updates rolled out it turned into a fragmented mess.
The A5 chip has a sound processor in it that improves Siri voice recognition. People have hacked Siri on the iPhone 4, but they do very "carefully controlled" tests to make it seem like it works perfectly when in fact it doesn't.
Apple's decision to make Siri 4S and above has more to do with quality control. They want Siri to perform to a minimum level and the 4 doesn't live up to their expectations.
The ir sensor so that the iPhone knows it's next to your face when you're not making a phone call:
It's like the way that 45% of all iPhones ever sold can't use Siri.
Which is worse, millions who cannot use Siri, or millions who cannot use Facebook Home?
Neither seems like a huge tragedy.
People seem to be forgetting that Siri wasn't an internally-developed technology. Apple bought a company that already had an app on the app store (which ran on the iPhone 3G).
The reasons for Siri being limited to newer phones are purely business-related.
Correct. As you said, it would still work, though.
The primary reason for Apple requiring the second generation processor was reportedly because of its ability to filter speech when the device was held far away from the mouth.
With the iPhone 5, Apple has apparently switched to its own preprocessor built by Cirrus, and using multiple microphones for noise canceling. No one knows if Siri uses it or not.
True, but it's another data point proving that special hardware isn't necessary to do voice recognition.
This has nothing to do with open source. It's about the OS having public APIs to do things that some other OSes (e.g. iOS - (*)) reserve for themselves.
This is simply a replacement launcher, which is basically the app that runs when you click the Home button. With Android, any user can replace the stock launcher(s) with one of their own choice.
There are many such replacements available for Android. They might display big icons / SMS / email for seniors, or can be an iOS lookalike, or have fancy 3D animations, or the ability to download other people's created looks.
There's a HTML based launcher that's quite beautiful on tablets, using the extra screen space well, that started on Kickstarter. Supposedly you can write your own HTML widgets for it.
There are also kid oriented launchers, for devices that children are using. Those launchers let the parent lock down the icons so they can't be accidentally moved or removed, prevent displaying notifications, and only show the apps that you allow.
You can even set things up so that you pick which launcher to use each time you click Home, although that's better just for testing.
Heck, the second Android app I ever wrote was a simple replacement launcher for my wife, so she couldn't mess up her icons. (The first app was a live wallpaper that changed photos per homepage.) It was a lot more interesting than writing user apps for iOS or Android or RIM or WM.
(*) If you jailbreak your iPhone, then you can use a replacement launcher.
All of them.
Hey, bastardized is bastardized.
"Does that mean iOS has malware and viruses and is insecure?"
"YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE IT BOT—"
Yes, we do.
Originally Posted by asdasd
Originally Posted by asdasd
Judging from those unrelated comments, you obviously do not "get it" at all.
Android launchers are apps like any other app, and can be written and distributed and downloaded and installed or changed by anyone.
Instead of being sarcastic, why not just ask and learn?