Microsoft had purchased TellMe a few years ago which is how they got into the 'voice navigated web' game. TellMe had great technology and I used to sell them Sun gear. The backend of their applications were built on x86 hardware and Solaris.
Nuance is also a former customer, of mine, and they seemed to have great technology too. I think relationships are probably as or more important when choosing a particular solution. One factor may be that Apple simply has much more leverage over a small company, like Nuance, then they do over a behemoth like Microsoft.
</lurking>
I've been intrigued by developments in this field since General Magic spun off from Apple in the mid nineties. Surely we are just seeing the fruition of their original vision for a voice oriented PDA. I wonder how many of the personalities from GenMagic/Portico are involved in this play?
Googles voice recognition software doesn't work very well.
Especially if you try a language like Dutch. But no matter what language, short sentence work only sometimes and fail to be recognized frequently. Another problem is that the voice recognition software frequently fails spectacularly and the end result doesn't come close to the meaning of the input.
It seems nearly impossible to create software thats able to perceive speech a good as humans do. But maybe Apple can improve significantly compared to Google.
A new report indicates that Apple has deepened its partnership with speech recognition firm Nuance to deliver voice recognition features in iOS 5, edging out alternative software from Microsoft
Well, they probably just wanted a product that works? without crashing every five minutes.
Apple (for the most part) buys companies for the people, not the technology.
Well, they bought Siri for the people who were BEST at doing Voice Recognition apps, and partner with Nuance to get the best Tech and avoid the most lawsuits.
No need to actually purchase Nuance,.. for that reason.
>> I think that Apple has been VERY SMART about their purchases. It isn't about owning the most IP -- it's about having the most CONCENTRATED TALENT. Every acquisition, requires attention, and someone SMART to integrate it -- otherwise, why acquire it in the first place? If your really SMART integrators, are wasting time with, you know, things like Skype, which is really a purchase of LOTS OF EYEBALLS from Microsoft for $8.5 Billion -- then you distract your talent pool developing something really cool, with lots of eyeballs that DOESN'T MAKE MONEY.
Apple seems to have 3 major laws - and this applies to their apps, hardware and strategic acquisitions;
1) If we implement (buy) this, will it make money -- if not, can someone else develop it without keeping us out (then, utilize open source). Microsoft and Google seem to buy things IN CASE others might use it against them -- and then they lose focus and build huge dead zones of once promising applications.
2) Does this technology work with and enhance our core competencies? (if not, then let it pass and keep an eye on it, but we cannot be ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE).
3) WHAT IS THE LEAST WE CAN DO, and still do what we do? Now, people might think that is a Lazy argument -- but it's really a matter of focus. You don't want Garageband applications sucking in Photos do you? The IOS made a great platform, and Apple was ridiculed (at first) for really lame, simple applications that shipped with it. The developer community, filled the void with really cool, really great applications -- and we've all forgotten this was the HUGE problem with the iPhone in the first 6 months, don't we? You can also call this; Keep it Simple Stupid.
It eventually became what is now their voice/speech recognition technology. They idea was to index audio within videos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
No they had a service which has since been discontinued Goog411. They discontinued it after they captured enough different speech patterns to develop and perfect their own algorithms which is now used in Google Voice and Google App. I think the Google recognition is about equal to Siri at least in terms of recognizing my voice, which I find to be about roughly 70-80%
3) WHAT IS THE LEAST WE CAN DO, and still do what we do? Now, people might think that is a Lazy argument -- but it's really a matter of focus. You don't want Garageband applications sucking in Photos do you? The IOS made a great platform, and Apple was ridiculed (at first) for really lame, simple applications that shipped with it. The developer community, filled the void with really cool, really great applications -- and we've all forgotten this was the HUGE problem with the iPhone in the first 6 months, don't we? You can also call this; Keep it Simple Stupid.
In the startup space this is called MVP - Minimal Viable Product (a term either created or popularized by Paul Graham of YCombinator).
So take your idea, distill it to the bare minimum that still interests people. Sell it.
It's nice to see that Apple's culture shares a lot with startup culture. Both of which can be wickedly efficient when done right (and ignored when it's not). In the startup world, users "pick" winners that the VCs fund. In the Apple world, creative and design team pick winners that Steve and the VPs fund (or not).
9to5Mac is reporting the voice paks in the latest Lion build match those belonging to Nuance. Pretty much confirms that's the direction Apple has chosen.
Yes, this was very disappointing after all the rumors concerning deep voice integration. How long before the acquisition of Sirus bear some discernible fruit?
Comments
Microsoft had purchased TellMe a few years ago which is how they got into the 'voice navigated web' game. TellMe had great technology and I used to sell them Sun gear. The backend of their applications were built on x86 hardware and Solaris.
Nuance is also a former customer, of mine, and they seemed to have great technology too. I think relationships are probably as or more important when choosing a particular solution. One factor may be that Apple simply has much more leverage over a small company, like Nuance, then they do over a behemoth like Microsoft.
</lurking>
I've been intrigued by developments in this field since General Magic spun off from Apple in the mid nineties. Surely we are just seeing the fruition of their original vision for a voice oriented PDA. I wonder how many of the personalities from GenMagic/Portico are involved in this play?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic
The other thread of interest is the whereabouts of Andrew Taylor: Power Secretary > MacSpeech > Nuance >> ?
Especially if you try a language like Dutch. But no matter what language, short sentence work only sometimes and fail to be recognized frequently. Another problem is that the voice recognition software frequently fails spectacularly and the end result doesn't come close to the meaning of the input.
It seems nearly impossible to create software thats able to perceive speech a good as humans do. But maybe Apple can improve significantly compared to Google.
J.
A new report indicates that Apple has deepened its partnership with speech recognition firm Nuance to deliver voice recognition features in iOS 5, edging out alternative software from Microsoft
Well, they probably just wanted a product that works? without crashing every five minutes.
Apple (for the most part) buys companies for the people, not the technology.
Well, they bought Siri for the people who were BEST at doing Voice Recognition apps, and partner with Nuance to get the best Tech and avoid the most lawsuits.
No need to actually purchase Nuance,.. for that reason.
>> I think that Apple has been VERY SMART about their purchases. It isn't about owning the most IP -- it's about having the most CONCENTRATED TALENT. Every acquisition, requires attention, and someone SMART to integrate it -- otherwise, why acquire it in the first place? If your really SMART integrators, are wasting time with, you know, things like Skype, which is really a purchase of LOTS OF EYEBALLS from Microsoft for $8.5 Billion -- then you distract your talent pool developing something really cool, with lots of eyeballs that DOESN'T MAKE MONEY.
Apple seems to have 3 major laws - and this applies to their apps, hardware and strategic acquisitions;
1) If we implement (buy) this, will it make money -- if not, can someone else develop it without keeping us out (then, utilize open source). Microsoft and Google seem to buy things IN CASE others might use it against them -- and then they lose focus and build huge dead zones of once promising applications.
2) Does this technology work with and enhance our core competencies? (if not, then let it pass and keep an eye on it, but we cannot be ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE).
3) WHAT IS THE LEAST WE CAN DO, and still do what we do? Now, people might think that is a Lazy argument -- but it's really a matter of focus. You don't want Garageband applications sucking in Photos do you? The IOS made a great platform, and Apple was ridiculed (at first) for really lame, simple applications that shipped with it. The developer community, filled the void with really cool, really great applications -- and we've all forgotten this was the HUGE problem with the iPhone in the first 6 months, don't we? You can also call this; Keep it Simple Stupid.
It eventually became what is now their voice/speech recognition technology. They idea was to index audio within videos.
No they had a service which has since been discontinued Goog411. They discontinued it after they captured enough different speech patterns to develop and perfect their own algorithms which is now used in Google Voice and Google App. I think the Google recognition is about equal to Siri at least in terms of recognizing my voice, which I find to be about roughly 70-80%
...
3) WHAT IS THE LEAST WE CAN DO, and still do what we do? Now, people might think that is a Lazy argument -- but it's really a matter of focus. You don't want Garageband applications sucking in Photos do you? The IOS made a great platform, and Apple was ridiculed (at first) for really lame, simple applications that shipped with it. The developer community, filled the void with really cool, really great applications -- and we've all forgotten this was the HUGE problem with the iPhone in the first 6 months, don't we? You can also call this; Keep it Simple Stupid.
In the startup space this is called MVP - Minimal Viable Product (a term either created or popularized by Paul Graham of YCombinator).
So take your idea, distill it to the bare minimum that still interests people. Sell it.
It's nice to see that Apple's culture shares a lot with startup culture. Both of which can be wickedly efficient when done right (and ignored when it's not). In the startup world, users "pick" winners that the VCs fund. In the Apple world, creative and design team pick winners that Steve and the VPs fund (or not).
http://www.9to5mac.com/66921/nuance-...ch-technology/