Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.
THe Voice Recognition is really Nuance but since we're talking about Apple licensing Nuance for use in Siri we can say that Siri is Voice Recognition but we should end the description with just that single Siri aspect.
Yeah. No. This is not obvious, and is obviously patentable.
You're saying that, but to me, as someone who has designed a number of electronic devices, it does seem obvious, since it's easy for me to understand. The only reason why most inventions aren't obvious is because there are thousands of people working in an industry (at least), and it's just one, or a very few who come up with something new. I'm always reading people saying that some such invention is obvious. Sure, now that they know of it it is.
Quote:
No, I don't believe that is what people think. I belive people think that, for example, trying to say a Galaxy Tab looks too much like a iPad is just an attempt to stifle legitimate competition.
I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple. If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.
Actually, it is what most people think. That why so much pirating goes on. If most people didn't think that way, they wouldn't steal other people's work. They would wait until they could buy it.
Companies are that way too. Google certainly is. They've taken from so many that it's hard to know where they started. They even stole from the Linux Foundation.
It's safe to say that if they hadn't, Android wouldn't be here today.
And there are design patents as well. Usually called "trade dress". This is just as legitimate as anything else. So when Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell which tablet was an iPad or a Tab from ten feet away when the judge held them both up, that's a pretty damning fact. One would expect that Samsung's own lawyers would be more familiar with both as that was the case they were being paid big bucks to refute. The average person on the street can be expected to be even less able to tell.
No, iOS isn't copying Android as much. don't try to condemn me because I don't agree with that. You're simply wrong.
There are some things that can only be done in a few ways, and so they are done one of those ways. So, let's take the example of notifications, which is one of the things you're obviously thinking of.
There are expected UI concerns, and also restrictions as to how something can be done because of what else is being done.
So Google has them sliding down from the top. now Apple has them sliding down from the top. a copy, right? Well, maybe. Some writers have jumped on this.
But why did Apple do it that way? Mostly because they had to.
If you swipe left, you run into the search screen, so Apple couldn't do that. If you swipe to the right, you run into more pages of apps, so Apple couldn't do that. It's considered to be unnatural to swipe up to get a screen, by convention, so Apple wouldn't want to do that. So what is left? Well, they can swipe from the top. But, but, Android does that, so they must be copying. Well, I guess they both read the same quidelines.
But Apple's notifications are much more sophisticated than Android's are now, so Apple went well beyond what Google had done. And now ICS, being designed to integrate phones and tablets is very different than either iOS or Android 2.x.
Likely iOS 6 will introduce more features, and change some things.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.
Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.
The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.
At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.
Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.
Except that at least most of those sites do explain why it's much more than just voice recognition.
MS's tech, as well as Google's current tech is basicly just voice recognition, with the limited ability to act on a few wired in commands. Siri also parses what is being said after the voice recognition is finished.
Try asking a WP7 or Android phone:
"What's it like outside?", and see the response. It works on my 4S. There are a lot of questions and statements that Siri understands from parsing the sentence that the other systems haven't got a chance of understanding.
They weren't touch phones. You may think its semantics, but it isn't. It took a couple of years for other phone manufacturers to come up with useful touch phones after Apple did. Befor the iPhone, restive screens were used. You should know that.
A problem that I'm finding is that even some web sites are using touch screen to mean resistive screens that require a stylus. That's not a touchscreen. A touchscreen requires no pressure at all.
OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.
I agee that Apple mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phone, I even bought a 1g iPhone because it WAS better than anything else available.
But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.
You're saying that, but to me, as someone who has designed a number of electronic devices, it does seem obvious, since it's easy for me to understand. The only reason why most inventions aren't obvious is because there are thousands of people working in an industry (at least), and it's just one, or a very few who come up with something new. I'm always reading people saying that some such invention is obvious. Sure, now that they know of it it is.
Actually, it is what most people think. That why so much pirating goes on. If most people didn't think that way, they wouldn't steal other people's work. They would wait until they could buy it.
Companies are that way too. Google certainly is. They've taken from so many that it's hard to know where they started. They even stole from the Linux Foundation.
It's safe to say that if they hadn't, Android wouldn't be here today.
And there are design patents as well. Usually called "trade dress". This is just as legitimate as anything else. So when Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell which tablet was an iPad or a Tab from ten feet away when the judge held them both up, that's a pretty damning fact. One would expect that Samsung's own lawyers would be more familiar with both as that was the case they were being paid big bucks to refute. The average person on the street can be expected to be even less able to tell.
No, iOS isn't copying Android as much. don't try to condemn me because I don't agree with that. You're simply wrong.
There are some things that can only be done in a few ways, and so they are done one of those ways. So, let's take the example of notifications, which is one of the things you're obviously thinking of.
There are expected UI concerns, and also restrictions as to how something can be done because of what else is being done.
So Google has them sliding down from the top. now Apple has them sliding down from the top. a copy, right? Well, maybe. Some writers have jumped on this.
But why did Apple do it that way? Mostly because they had to.
If you swipe left, you run into the search screen, so Apple couldn't do that. If you swipe to the right, you run into more pages of apps, so Apple couldn't do that. It's considered to be unnatural to swipe up to get a screen, by convention, so Apple wouldn't want to do that. So what is left? Well, they can swipe from the top. But, but, Android does that, so they must be copying. Well, I guess they both read the same quidelines.
But Apple's notifications are much more sophisticated than Android's are now, so Apple went well beyond what Google had done. And now ICS, being designed to integrate phones and tablets is very different than either iOS or Android 2.x.
Likely iOS 6 will introduce more features, and change some things.
So we go round and round.
So it is, in your mind, ok for Apple to do that "because they had too" and the fact that you think the notifications are better make it ok.
This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.
Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.
The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.
At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.
Not the argument.
Quote:
But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.
OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.
I agee that Apple mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phone, I even bought a 1g iPhone because it WAS better than anything else available.
But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.
You might have noticed that they aren't preventing anyone from using a real touchscreen. Not a single company is being threatened by Apple, or sued by Apple to prevent them from using a touchscreen. Please get it right.
What Apple is doing is trying to prevent companies from using a few features that Apple either invented themselves, or owns because they bought the company that invented them. Perfectly legitimate. Apple uses these features to distinguish their products. There is no reason why they should allow others to use them.
Prada, or at least one person there threatened to sue Apple, but that never happened. After all the Prada was first mentioned near the end of 2006, the first press release was AFTER Apple announced the iPhone, and Apple announced the iPhone in January of 2007. There was no time for Apple to copy anything.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
Oh please. Apple has had voice on their computers before Brin and Page went to junior high school.
This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.
Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.
The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.
At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.
Here's a MS TellMe vs Apple Siri Assist comparison:
Be sure and watch the whole thing -- it is hilarious!
Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.
Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.
Be sure and watch the whole thing -- it is hilarious!
Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.
Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.
Tell Me is just a joke. MS and Google's tech is just want Apple had before the Phone 4S with Siri.
I do love the 2nd video where it finally gets a command right after many frustrating attempts and he says thank you, which then causes it to write thank you on the screen. Despite all the issues it does show that the Voice Recognition in Vista or from his Perl Scripting is pretty good. It offers nothing of the other features Siri has to make a complete feature, but that single aspect seems like it was working well enough.
Be sure and watch the whole thing -- it is hilarious!
Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.
Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.
I had seen the first one. It was declared by some to not be fair to Tellme. Well, gee, if fair only means that it would work then what would be the point to the test?
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates
And?
You do realize the iBook (Jul 99) and iMac (Aug 98) both predate the iPaq PDA (Apr 2000)?
Quote:
Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Not funny at all since it is completely incorrect. How could Apple have copied Compaq when they had it before them? I don't think they had invented Time Machine yet...
iMac / iPaq.
Hmmm? Does kinda sound the same.
Maybe Compaq was onto something (like someone else's coat tails)?
Comments
Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.
THe Voice Recognition is really Nuance but since we're talking about Apple licensing Nuance for use in Siri we can say that Siri is Voice Recognition but we should end the description with just that single Siri aspect.
Yeah. No. This is not obvious, and is obviously patentable.
You're saying that, but to me, as someone who has designed a number of electronic devices, it does seem obvious, since it's easy for me to understand. The only reason why most inventions aren't obvious is because there are thousands of people working in an industry (at least), and it's just one, or a very few who come up with something new. I'm always reading people saying that some such invention is obvious. Sure, now that they know of it it is.
No, I don't believe that is what people think. I belive people think that, for example, trying to say a Galaxy Tab looks too much like a iPad is just an attempt to stifle legitimate competition.
I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple. If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.
Actually, it is what most people think. That why so much pirating goes on. If most people didn't think that way, they wouldn't steal other people's work. They would wait until they could buy it.
Companies are that way too. Google certainly is. They've taken from so many that it's hard to know where they started. They even stole from the Linux Foundation.
It's safe to say that if they hadn't, Android wouldn't be here today.
And there are design patents as well. Usually called "trade dress". This is just as legitimate as anything else. So when Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell which tablet was an iPad or a Tab from ten feet away when the judge held them both up, that's a pretty damning fact. One would expect that Samsung's own lawyers would be more familiar with both as that was the case they were being paid big bucks to refute. The average person on the street can be expected to be even less able to tell.
No, iOS isn't copying Android as much. don't try to condemn me because I don't agree with that. You're simply wrong.
There are some things that can only be done in a few ways, and so they are done one of those ways. So, let's take the example of notifications, which is one of the things you're obviously thinking of.
There are expected UI concerns, and also restrictions as to how something can be done because of what else is being done.
So Google has them sliding down from the top. now Apple has them sliding down from the top. a copy, right? Well, maybe. Some writers have jumped on this.
But why did Apple do it that way? Mostly because they had to.
If you swipe left, you run into the search screen, so Apple couldn't do that. If you swipe to the right, you run into more pages of apps, so Apple couldn't do that. It's considered to be unnatural to swipe up to get a screen, by convention, so Apple wouldn't want to do that. So what is left? Well, they can swipe from the top. But, but, Android does that, so they must be copying. Well, I guess they both read the same quidelines.
But Apple's notifications are much more sophisticated than Android's are now, so Apple went well beyond what Google had done. And now ICS, being designed to integrate phones and tablets is very different than either iOS or Android 2.x.
Likely iOS 6 will introduce more features, and change some things.
So we go round and round.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.
Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.
This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.
Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.
The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.
At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.
Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.
Except that at least most of those sites do explain why it's much more than just voice recognition.
MS's tech, as well as Google's current tech is basicly just voice recognition, with the limited ability to act on a few wired in commands. Siri also parses what is being said after the voice recognition is finished.
Try asking a WP7 or Android phone:
"What's it like outside?", and see the response. It works on my 4S. There are a lot of questions and statements that Siri understands from parsing the sentence that the other systems haven't got a chance of understanding.
They weren't touch phones. You may think its semantics, but it isn't. It took a couple of years for other phone manufacturers to come up with useful touch phones after Apple did. Befor the iPhone, restive screens were used. You should know that.
A problem that I'm finding is that even some web sites are using touch screen to mean resistive screens that require a stylus. That's not a touchscreen. A touchscreen requires no pressure at all.
OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.
I agee that Apple mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phone, I even bought a 1g iPhone because it WAS better than anything else available.
But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.
Except that at least most of those sites do explain why it's much more than just voice recognition..
In this case you and I are on the same page. I completely agree it's much more than voice recognition, moving closer into the realm of AI.
Given another 5 years, the current crop of input, control and search features will look like the Dark Ages.
You're saying that, but to me, as someone who has designed a number of electronic devices, it does seem obvious, since it's easy for me to understand. The only reason why most inventions aren't obvious is because there are thousands of people working in an industry (at least), and it's just one, or a very few who come up with something new. I'm always reading people saying that some such invention is obvious. Sure, now that they know of it it is.
Actually, it is what most people think. That why so much pirating goes on. If most people didn't think that way, they wouldn't steal other people's work. They would wait until they could buy it.
Companies are that way too. Google certainly is. They've taken from so many that it's hard to know where they started. They even stole from the Linux Foundation.
It's safe to say that if they hadn't, Android wouldn't be here today.
And there are design patents as well. Usually called "trade dress". This is just as legitimate as anything else. So when Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell which tablet was an iPad or a Tab from ten feet away when the judge held them both up, that's a pretty damning fact. One would expect that Samsung's own lawyers would be more familiar with both as that was the case they were being paid big bucks to refute. The average person on the street can be expected to be even less able to tell.
No, iOS isn't copying Android as much. don't try to condemn me because I don't agree with that. You're simply wrong.
There are some things that can only be done in a few ways, and so they are done one of those ways. So, let's take the example of notifications, which is one of the things you're obviously thinking of.
There are expected UI concerns, and also restrictions as to how something can be done because of what else is being done.
So Google has them sliding down from the top. now Apple has them sliding down from the top. a copy, right? Well, maybe. Some writers have jumped on this.
But why did Apple do it that way? Mostly because they had to.
If you swipe left, you run into the search screen, so Apple couldn't do that. If you swipe to the right, you run into more pages of apps, so Apple couldn't do that. It's considered to be unnatural to swipe up to get a screen, by convention, so Apple wouldn't want to do that. So what is left? Well, they can swipe from the top. But, but, Android does that, so they must be copying. Well, I guess they both read the same quidelines.
But Apple's notifications are much more sophisticated than Android's are now, so Apple went well beyond what Google had done. And now ICS, being designed to integrate phones and tablets is very different than either iOS or Android 2.x.
Likely iOS 6 will introduce more features, and change some things.
So we go round and round.
So it is, in your mind, ok for Apple to do that "because they had too" and the fact that you think the notifications are better make it ok.
This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.
Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.
The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.
At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
It certainly did use a touch screen. I dialed numbers with my finger. No stylus required.
By tapping. I used it too.
OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.
But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.
Not in the slightest what they're doing.
OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.
I agee that Apple mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phone, I even bought a 1g iPhone because it WAS better than anything else available.
But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.
You might have noticed that they aren't preventing anyone from using a real touchscreen. Not a single company is being threatened by Apple, or sued by Apple to prevent them from using a touchscreen. Please get it right.
What Apple is doing is trying to prevent companies from using a few features that Apple either invented themselves, or owns because they bought the company that invented them. Perfectly legitimate. Apple uses these features to distinguish their products. There is no reason why they should allow others to use them.
Prada, or at least one person there threatened to sue Apple, but that never happened. After all the Prada was first mentioned near the end of 2006, the first press release was AFTER Apple announced the iPhone, and Apple announced the iPhone in January of 2007. There was no time for Apple to copy anything.
In this case you and I are on the same page. I completely agree it's much more than voice recognition, moving closer into the realm of AI.
Given another 5 years, the current crop of input, control and search features will look like the Dark Ages.
Things are REALLY getting interesting.
So it is, in your mind, ok for Apple to do that "because they had too" and the fact that you think the notifications are better make it ok.
I see you can't really respond to the post.
But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?
Oh please. Apple has had voice on their computers before Brin and Page went to junior high school.
Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.
SIRI was an independent product before Apple bought it.
Oh please. Apple has had voice on their computers before Brin and Page went to junior high school.
You're correct. Apple invested in voice recognition in 1990, anyone remember Plain Talk?
Apple introduced it in 1993. Did Android have voice recognition in 1993?
I can remember asking my Apple computer to tell me joke a long time ago.
Apple haters got to hate matter the facts.
Siri is AI already. Google Voice is a joke compared to Siri.
This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.
Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.
The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.
At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.
Here's a MS TellMe vs Apple Siri Assist comparison:
TellMe vs Siri
and the classic
Microsoft Vista Speech Recognition Tested - Perl Scripting
Be sure and watch the whole thing -- it is hilarious!
Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.
Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.
Here's a MS TellMe vs Apple Siri Assist comparison:
TellMe vs Siri
and the classic
Microsoft Vista Speech Recognition Tested - Perl Scripting
Be sure and watch the whole thing -- it is hilarious!
Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.
Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.
Tell Me is just a joke. MS and Google's tech is just want Apple had before the Phone 4S with Siri.
I do love the 2nd video where it finally gets a command right after many frustrating attempts and he says thank you, which then causes it to write thank you on the screen.
Here's a MS TellMe vs Apple Siri Assist comparison:
TellMe vs Siri
and the classic
Microsoft Vista Speech Recognition Tested - Perl Scripting
Be sure and watch the whole thing -- it is hilarious!
Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.
Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.
I had seen the first one. It was declared by some to not be fair to Tellme. Well, gee, if fair only means that it would work then what would be the point to the test?
The second is interesting.
You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates
And?
You do realize the iBook (Jul 99) and iMac (Aug 98) both predate the iPaq PDA (Apr 2000)?
Funny, apple even copied naming convention from compaq.
Not funny at all since it is completely incorrect. How could Apple have copied Compaq when they had it before them? I don't think they had invented Time Machine yet...
iMac / iPaq.
Hmmm? Does kinda sound the same.
Maybe Compaq was onto something (like someone else's coat tails)?