The use of the word "fanboi" is indicative of intent. Back under your bridge.
The term "trolling" stems from a fisherman who's angling, or dragging a line through the water with a lure on it to catch a fish, not the monstrosity that lives under bridges in fairly tales
If I'm the intended OP I actually am interested. I didn't intend to critisize Apple at all. Patent system maybe (if it's as simple as it looks at first glance). To me this looked like SMS playback with a twist combining SMS to voice conversion with PoC. The PoC and SMS text-to-voice have both been done before. They just haven't been put together.
That's why I put the "Am I missing something here?". It's hugely propable that I am as my first reaction was that there's nothing new here and that it's a data->Voice->data conversion type of thing (good old Modem) running on top of PoC.
As I pointed out earlier, It's the "twist" part that makes something novel. An invention need not be made up of wholly new parts, and never is. It's the combining them with a twist that constitutes innovation. It's also not necessary that every invention usher in an earth-shattering revolution for it to be considered an innovation. No, it's not as exciting as releasing an iPhone, but most patents aren't.
The term "trolling" stems from a fisherman who's angling, or dragging a line through the water with a lure on it to catch a fish, not the monstrosity that lives under bridges in fairly tales
Yes, but implying that an Internet troll has characteristics more in keeping with a loathsome monster with nasty personal habits living in a dark, dank environment is not only more satisfying but more apt as well. Replace "bridge" with "mom's basement" if you like.
I use something like this with my friends already. The Messenger app on my phone lets me record a quick voice clip, send it off, then it plays to someone on the other end of the IM, whether they're at their computer or using the messenger app on their own WM phone. I can even connect a bunch of people to a single conversation.
So if this is an iphone to iphone only feature, then I could easily say it's already been done as a WM to WM feature, or computer to WM, or WM to computer
So essentially Apple is looking to make their own version of BlackBerry Messenger?
Quote:
Originally Posted by itpromike
I can actually see practical application for this especially for the part where you can send a message directly to a persons voicemail. Everyone who said that this is just SMS/text to speech obviously didn't read the article. This is different in that the SENDER controls whether or not it is delivered as text or speech or directly to the unit or voicemail. This has practical application because I know if my Mate is driving he might not be able to read/respond to his text message so I can send him some quick instructions as voice or send him an address or phone number or other relevant information straight to his voicemail so it's there waiting for him when he arrives at his destination.
But what's the difference with an actual text message? The same information will be available on the text message screen, as opposed to him/her needing to dial voicemail and go through all the button-pressing hoops just to get it and write it back down.
That being said, when I had my BB, I believe that if any address was sent as via text or BBM, I had the ability to send it directly to Google Maps and route me to it. Or if it's a phone number, automatically call it. Much faster than having to listen to it via voicemail and then write it down again.
Also, don't some phones already have the option to automatically read texts as they come in?
I am missing the innovation here too, especially given that there is no analog voice channel in a gsm phone.
The network benefit to SMS is that you need minimal connection time/energy to get a message, so you can get the message with intermittent connectivity. I just wish Apple could use the SMS channel for push notification like the Blackberry, and extend that to voicemail.
The real innovation would be able to reduce the exorbitant cost that AT&T applies for use of their SMS!
5 grammatical errors in your story - You need to proofread!!
It's quite maddening. I have a wish that one day the authors credited with filing stories on AppleInsider be so fortunate to understand and gain the benefit of a skilled professional editor before they are published. This remains my wish. We should all be so lucky to read something that is both well written and accurate and that goes doubly for my posts!
It's not innovative at all, text messages work fine. Even better in fact.
But do they cost more? If users can send text-as-voice messages and side step the text message charge will they? It gets a bit more clever when Apple can encode the text in a known voice. So the voice-to-text recognition on the other end can be simpler than a general voice recognition tool. And if the iPhone already supports voice dialing, then voice recognition code & CPU power is already there to use.
Yes, but implying that an Internet troll has characteristics more in keeping with a loathsome monster with nasty personal habits living in a dark, dank environment is not only more satisfying but more apt as well. Replace "bridge" with "mom's basement" if you like.
He could live in a high-rise apartment with all the friends in the world, trolling will mean the same thing.
nvm. fine. He's a big bad troll with nasty teeth and eats children who stick their legs over the side of the bridge.
Another often heard criticism is that the iPhone isn't innovative because it lacks some feature that exists on some other phone, but, sometimes, what you leave out contributes just as much as what you put in, and I think this is a philosophy in ascendancy at Apple.
It was extremely innovative that they left out cut and paste, but that didn't stop the whiner's!
Now they innovate by finally banning flash, and all the whiner's can say is that they left out flash.
Whats next with these whiners? Will they say the iPad is not innovative because it uses a standard screen size?
Well the iPad won't drive you to work either, and it will not make breakfast. So the whiner's say it is no good. Yeah that makes sense.
It was extremely innovative that they left out cut and paste, but that didn't stop the whiner's!
Now they innovate by finally banning flash, and all the whiner's can say is that they left out flash.
Whats next with these whiners? Will they say the iPad is not innovative because it uses a standard screen size?
Well the iPad won't drive you to work either, and it will not make breakfast. So the whiner's say it is no good. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm curious...
How was leaving out copy/paste innovative? It's extremely useful when you get information from one place and you want to put it in another.
For example, a business name that you receive via e-mail that you want to search more about online. Or information from a website that you want to save in a note app to reference later.
It's not innovative at all, text messages work fine. Even better in fact.
You MIGHT wanna re-read what I actually wrote..
Perhaps cutting them down into bite sized chunks will help you better understand my REALY feelings on the feature.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this EXTREMELY innovative engineering marvel"
"took hundreds of man years to develop"
"can be all yours of a low low low low low price of $19.95 per month (for 10 messages) or $5.99 per use when not tied to any discount plan. "
I was simply mocking the entire idea and included a totally ridiculous price that some carrier would likely charge for this stupid and redundant feature. I was sure that me indicating a $5.99 per use fee would make that quite clear I was mocking it not to mention the "took hundreds of man years to develop" jab.
As for me, I still don't get the reason why they feel they can charge separately for IMs on top of an 'unlimited data' plan... And yes yes yes.. someone will likely post a followup and explain how IMs don't use data but a different cellular mechanism to shuttle the information and are entitled to charge for them but I still don't believe they should be able to charge users for this ability.
So how come no one's done it yet, if it's so obvious?
And it's not voice SMS playback.
Ever hear of profit motive? No one wants to pay for it and jahonen is correct. Just about all Nokia phones have had this capability for YEARS. Nothing new here, but because Apple decided to do it, it is new worthy.
Ever hear of profit motive? No one wants to pay for it and jahonen is correct. Just about all Nokia phones have had this capability for YEARS. Nothing new here, but because Apple decided to do it, it is new worthy.
It is newsworthy in the sense that if Apple WERE to roll out a feature such as this WITHOUT a patent of their own to show the original idea and/or implementation (design?) then the first thing Nokia would is SUE... Something that they will likely do ANYWAY (just as Apple would if the roles were reversed) but with Apple having an approved patent it goes along way in defending their case.
So NO this isn't 'new' it wasn't 'new' when Nokia did it either and it wasn't new when Nextel did it.. this form of communication goes back to WAY before the telegraph... The pony express, Indian smoke signals, etc. Sure the technology has advanced but 'send something' ... 'hear something' ... 'send something' has been the basis of long distance communication for an extremely long time.
Sure in todays world we're able to do lots of different forms of communications all in one go.. but the concept of asynchronous communication is as old as dirt.
Nokia uses the DATA channel to push voice over with it's "Push to Talk" service.
This is a different kettle of fish altogether, using the VOICE channel to push data over.
jahonnen is wrong.
This is novel and can be used on a CDMA network to enable voice AND data at the same time.
If someone had done it before we would have heard about it during the Verizon Droid campaign, someone, somewhere would have used it to counter AT&T's and Apple's claims re: simultaneous voice and data.
A lot of people are probably scratching their heads, going, "why didn't we think of that?"
Such is the nature of invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Ever hear of profit motive? No one wants to pay for it and jahonen is correct. Just about all Nokia phones have had this capability for YEARS. Nothing new here, but because Apple decided to do it, it is new worthy.
Comments
The use of the word "fanboi" is indicative of intent. Back under your bridge.
The term "trolling" stems from a fisherman who's angling, or dragging a line through the water with a lure on it to catch a fish, not the monstrosity that lives under bridges in fairly tales
If I'm the intended OP I actually am interested. I didn't intend to critisize Apple at all. Patent system maybe (if it's as simple as it looks at first glance). To me this looked like SMS playback with a twist combining SMS to voice conversion with PoC. The PoC and SMS text-to-voice have both been done before. They just haven't been put together.
That's why I put the "Am I missing something here?". It's hugely propable that I am as my first reaction was that there's nothing new here and that it's a data->Voice->data conversion type of thing (good old Modem) running on top of PoC.
As I pointed out earlier, It's the "twist" part that makes something novel. An invention need not be made up of wholly new parts, and never is. It's the combining them with a twist that constitutes innovation. It's also not necessary that every invention usher in an earth-shattering revolution for it to be considered an innovation. No, it's not as exciting as releasing an iPhone, but most patents aren't.
Wow you're a natural born BSer I see. I don't think it's criticism towards Apple when things like that are saud but more to shut a fanboi up.
You've made three posts of exactly zero content. Shut.
The term "trolling" stems from a fisherman who's angling, or dragging a line through the water with a lure on it to catch a fish, not the monstrosity that lives under bridges in fairly tales
Yes, but implying that an Internet troll has characteristics more in keeping with a loathsome monster with nasty personal habits living in a dark, dank environment is not only more satisfying but more apt as well. Replace "bridge" with "mom's basement" if you like.
I use something like this with my friends already. The Messenger app on my phone lets me record a quick voice clip, send it off, then it plays to someone on the other end of the IM, whether they're at their computer or using the messenger app on their own WM phone. I can even connect a bunch of people to a single conversation.
So if this is an iphone to iphone only feature, then I could easily say it's already been done as a WM to WM feature, or computer to WM, or WM to computer
So essentially Apple is looking to make their own version of BlackBerry Messenger?
I can actually see practical application for this especially for the part where you can send a message directly to a persons voicemail. Everyone who said that this is just SMS/text to speech obviously didn't read the article. This is different in that the SENDER controls whether or not it is delivered as text or speech or directly to the unit or voicemail. This has practical application because I know if my Mate is driving he might not be able to read/respond to his text message so I can send him some quick instructions as voice or send him an address or phone number or other relevant information straight to his voicemail so it's there waiting for him when he arrives at his destination.
But what's the difference with an actual text message? The same information will be available on the text message screen, as opposed to him/her needing to dial voicemail and go through all the button-pressing hoops just to get it and write it back down.
That being said, when I had my BB, I believe that if any address was sent as via text or BBM, I had the ability to send it directly to Google Maps and route me to it. Or if it's a phone number, automatically call it. Much faster than having to listen to it via voicemail and then write it down again.
Also, don't some phones already have the option to automatically read texts as they come in?
I am missing the innovation here too, especially given that there is no analog voice channel in a gsm phone.
The network benefit to SMS is that you need minimal connection time/energy to get a message, so you can get the message with intermittent connectivity. I just wish Apple could use the SMS channel for push notification like the Blackberry, and extend that to voicemail.
The real innovation would be able to reduce the exorbitant cost that AT&T applies for use of their SMS!
5 grammatical errors in your story - You need to proofread!!
It's quite maddening. I have a wish that one day the authors credited with filing stories on AppleInsider be so fortunate to understand and gain the benefit of a skilled professional editor before they are published. This remains my wish. We should all be so lucky to read something that is both well written and accurate and that goes doubly for my posts!
It's not innovative at all, text messages work fine. Even better in fact.
But do they cost more? If users can send text-as-voice messages and side step the text message charge will they? It gets a bit more clever when Apple can encode the text in a known voice. So the voice-to-text recognition on the other end can be simpler than a general voice recognition tool. And if the iPhone already supports voice dialing, then voice recognition code & CPU power is already there to use.
- Jasen.
Yes, but implying that an Internet troll has characteristics more in keeping with a loathsome monster with nasty personal habits living in a dark, dank environment is not only more satisfying but more apt as well. Replace "bridge" with "mom's basement" if you like.
He could live in a high-rise apartment with all the friends in the world, trolling will mean the same thing.
nvm. fine. He's a big bad troll with nasty teeth and eats children who stick their legs over the side of the bridge.
Another often heard criticism is that the iPhone isn't innovative because it lacks some feature that exists on some other phone, but, sometimes, what you leave out contributes just as much as what you put in, and I think this is a philosophy in ascendancy at Apple.
It was extremely innovative that they left out cut and paste, but that didn't stop the whiner's!
Now they innovate by finally banning flash, and all the whiner's can say is that they left out flash.
Whats next with these whiners? Will they say the iPad is not innovative because it uses a standard screen size?
Well the iPad won't drive you to work either, and it will not make breakfast. So the whiner's say it is no good. Yeah that makes sense.
It was extremely innovative that they left out cut and paste, but that didn't stop the whiner's!
Now they innovate by finally banning flash, and all the whiner's can say is that they left out flash.
Whats next with these whiners? Will they say the iPad is not innovative because it uses a standard screen size?
Well the iPad won't drive you to work either, and it will not make breakfast. So the whiner's say it is no good. Yeah that makes sense.
I'm curious...
How was leaving out copy/paste innovative? It's extremely useful when you get information from one place and you want to put it in another.
For example, a business name that you receive via e-mail that you want to search more about online. Or information from a website that you want to save in a note app to reference later.
It's not innovative at all, text messages work fine. Even better in fact.
You MIGHT wanna re-read what I actually wrote..
Perhaps cutting them down into bite sized chunks will help you better understand my REALY feelings on the feature.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, this EXTREMELY innovative engineering marvel"
"took hundreds of man years to develop"
"can be all yours of a low low low low low price of $19.95 per month (for 10 messages) or $5.99 per use when not tied to any discount plan. "
I was simply mocking the entire idea and included a totally ridiculous price that some carrier would likely charge for this stupid and redundant feature. I was sure that me indicating a $5.99 per use fee would make that quite clear I was mocking it not to mention the "took hundreds of man years to develop" jab.
As for me, I still don't get the reason why they feel they can charge separately for IMs on top of an 'unlimited data' plan... And yes yes yes.. someone will likely post a followup and explain how IMs don't use data but a different cellular mechanism to shuttle the information and are entitled to charge for them but I still don't believe they should be able to charge users for this ability.
It was extremely innovative that they left out cut and paste, but that didn't stop the whiner's!
Now they innovate by finally banning flash, and all the whiner's can say is that they left out flash.
Whats next with these whiners? Will they say the iPad is not innovative because it uses a standard screen size?
Well the iPad won't drive you to work either, and it will not make breakfast. So the whiner's say it is no good. Yeah that makes sense.
Well, I guess that confirms my theory that iLuv is a new teckstud persona.
So how come no one's done it yet, if it's so obvious?
And it's not voice SMS playback.
Ever hear of profit motive? No one wants to pay for it and jahonen is correct. Just about all Nokia phones have had this capability for YEARS. Nothing new here, but because Apple decided to do it, it is new worthy.
Ever hear of profit motive? No one wants to pay for it and jahonen is correct. Just about all Nokia phones have had this capability for YEARS. Nothing new here, but because Apple decided to do it, it is new worthy.
It is newsworthy in the sense that if Apple WERE to roll out a feature such as this WITHOUT a patent of their own to show the original idea and/or implementation (design?) then the first thing Nokia would is SUE... Something that they will likely do ANYWAY (just as Apple would if the roles were reversed) but with Apple having an approved patent it goes along way in defending their case.
So NO this isn't 'new' it wasn't 'new' when Nokia did it either and it wasn't new when Nextel did it.. this form of communication goes back to WAY before the telegraph... The pony express, Indian smoke signals, etc. Sure the technology has advanced but 'send something' ... 'hear something' ... 'send something' has been the basis of long distance communication for an extremely long time.
Sure in todays world we're able to do lots of different forms of communications all in one go.. but the concept of asynchronous communication is as old as dirt.
You're talking to someone and they ask for a number from your contacts, cut, paste, send without hanging up the call!
Cue the 'Twilight Zone' music, let the speculation begin.
I spy with my little eye something beginning with...
...V.
Nokia uses the DATA channel to push voice over with it's "Push to Talk" service.
This is a different kettle of fish altogether, using the VOICE channel to push data over.
jahonnen is wrong.
This is novel and can be used on a CDMA network to enable voice AND data at the same time.
If someone had done it before we would have heard about it during the Verizon Droid campaign, someone, somewhere would have used it to counter AT&T's and Apple's claims re: simultaneous voice and data.
A lot of people are probably scratching their heads, going, "why didn't we think of that?"
Such is the nature of invention.
Ever hear of profit motive? No one wants to pay for it and jahonen is correct. Just about all Nokia phones have had this capability for YEARS. Nothing new here, but because Apple decided to do it, it is new worthy.
Nokia uses the DATA channel to push voice over with it's "Push to Talk" service.
"Push to talk" isn't a Nokia technology, they are one of many companies that have implemented it.
This is novel and can be used on a CDMA network to enable voice AND data at the same time.
CDMA networks do have this ability, if they upgrade to the correct software levels that is.