Siri is awful. It's amazing how slowly this tech has developed.
Slowly? You have no idea.
Machine speech recognition dates back to the early '50s, and didn't really get much serious focused work until the late '60s.
One of my first freelance jobs after college was researching the state of the art for a local business around 1976, when it was really rough around the edges. The closest they could have come to what they wanted to do would have exceeded the company's yearly operating budget.
It wasn't, and isn't, trivially simple. But we'll probably see it in full flower before, oh, commercial fusion power or true machine intelligence, so there's that to look forward to.
You know why Siri sucks? Because of Tim Cooks ridiculous stance on privacy. Without being able to data mine you, Siri is clueless and dumb.
Cook needs to stop his pious and extreme stance on privacy. Its hurting Apples cloud advancement, Siri, advertising platform, and Apple pay (wont share data with merchants)
Isn't your apostrophe key working?
There's a worldwide apostrophe shortage, given that so many people use the character merely as a warning that an "s" is about to follow.
IF APPLE IS SO CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY WHY IS GOOGLE STILL THE DEFAULT SEARCH ON SAFARI?
Contractual obligation?
I haven't used Google as my default search engine for a couple of years.
It's not like it's hard to change the default search engine invoked in your browser. Not even Safari.
Your borderline-unhinged obsession with Apple's privacy policies begins to come across as a shady data raper getting bent out of shape because it's getting to be too hard to strip information from people's online activities.
Seriously, either switch to decaf, or get some counseling. It's got to be bad for your health.
It's not unusual to have fears about the unknown. Reading about it should help allay at least a few of those fears. https://deepmind.com/health
No it didn't.
That was just a load of marketing hogwash designed to cover the fact that our corrupt government has sold our most private data to a company that was fined for raiding browser information even if the user had opted out.
People haven't caught on but Siri is Goog's worst enemy. Problem is, it isn't advanced enough to kill them yet.
Imagine the day one can ask "if I'm a size 9 and lose 10 pounds will I be able to fit in a size 8?" Siri: "Yes you should, but it'll be quite snug". THIS is the future. Googling a question and having thousands of results from articles, forums, yahoo answers, off topic pages, cat videos etc. will feel so outdated. Web search isn't the future that's so 1996.
When Siri is that smart "google it" will be a popular phrase of the past like "Xerox it".
How can Apple "learn" you without compromising privacy?
The answer is simple:
Apple could data mine your info but that info STAYS encrypted privately on Apple's servers. Notice Apple is building data farms?
Everything I ask Siri could be tied down to my Apple ID/Device. TouchID alone confirms who you are so this will solve problems between shared iPads/Macs/Apple TVs.
Apple will know my favorite food, location, sports interests, places I've been, media I own, how much exercise I get, etc. but this data NEVER leaves Apple. BUT Apple can take this a step further and sell data to third parties. This data NEVER leaves Apple and is encrypted. For example, a pizza restaurant pays Apple for advertising. The advertiser sees NOTHING and neither does Apple. All that happens is the pizza ads show up to hungry pizza lovers according to encrypted data.
I admit selling ads is borderline Google but there's absolutely no reason why Siri with user data would be a problem. As long as it's never sold or seen by anyone but yourself. Siri is acting as a middle man between your encrypted data and you.
My biggest concern is the slow rate that Siri is advancing at. Where is Watson? Voice search is the future. This is why Apple needs to keep acquiring technology including viv and pump billions into this tech.
With Goog making most of it's money off iOS devices, cutting off that arm almost completely will bring them to their knees. They'll fall to Yahoo profits maybe less.
It's not unusual to have fears about the unknown. Reading about it should help allay at least a few of those fears. https://deepmind.com/health
No it didn't.
That was just a load of marketing hogwash designed to cover the fact that our corrupt government has sold our most private data to a company that was fined for raiding browser information even if the user had opted out.
Cameron's mob has gone too far.
*sigh* 1. Your most private data wasn't sold to anyone, much less Google. 2. I wasn't aware Google was fined for "raiding browser information even if the user had opted out". I'll assume you're referring to Do Not Track? A whole lotta companies from Yahoo to Microsoft have ignored it. Any fine would have been for incorrect advice for HOW to opt out wouldn't it? http://recode.net/2016/01/04/how-do-not-track-ended-up-going-nowhere/
I still think a more informed view would help with the fears.
People haven't caught on but Siri is Goog's worst enemy. Problem is, it isn't advanced enough to kill them yet.
Imagine the day one can ask "if I'm a size 9 and lose 10 pounds will I be able to fit in a size 8?" Siri: "Yes you should, but it'll be quite snug". THIS is the future. Googling a question and having thousands of results from articles, forums, yahoo answers, off topic pages, cat videos etc. will feel so outdated. Web search isn't the future that's so 1996.
When Siri is that smart "google it" will be a popular phrase of the past like "Xerox it".
How can Apple "learn" you without compromising privacy?
The answer is simple:
Apple could data mine your info but that info STAYS encrypted privately on Apple's servers. Notice Apple is building data farms?
Everything I ask Siri could be tied down to my Apple ID/Device. TouchID alone confirms who you are so this will solve problems between shared iPads/Macs/Apple TVs.
Apple will know my favorite food, location, sports interests, places I've been, media I own, how much exercise I get, etc. but this data NEVER leaves Apple. BUT Apple can take this a step further and sell data to third parties. This data NEVER leaves Apple and is encrypted. For example, a pizza restaurant pays Apple for advertising. The advertiser sees NOTHING and neither does Apple. All that happens is the pizza ads show up to hungry pizza lovers according to encrypted data.
I admit selling ads is borderline Google but there's absolutely no reason why Siri with user data would be a problem. As long as it's never sold or seen by anyone but yourself. Siri is acting as a middle man between your encrypted data and you.
Cali, that's not unlike Google is it? They don't sell data either but keep it securely encrypted on their own servers. Apple and Google have similar if not near-identical privacy policies when it comes to when permissible sharing of identifiable user information is allowed. That's assuming my reading of the two is somewhat accurate. Have you compared them?
My biggest concern is the slow rate that Siri is advancing at. Where is Watson? Voice search is the future. This is why Apple needs to keep acquiring technology including viv and pump billions into this tech.
With Goog making most of it's money off iOS devices, cutting off that arm almost completely will bring them to their knees. They'll fall to Yahoo profits maybe less.
My question is why hasn't Apple already cut off Google?
Why hasn't Cook removed Google search as the default search?
Why is he allowing the ONE COMPANY that can destroy Apple to continue to flourish?
How the heck could Google destroy Apple!! It just gets sillier and sillier.
That was just a load of marketing hogwash designed to cover the fact that our corrupt government has sold our most private data to a company that was fined for raiding browser information even if the user had opted out.
Cameron's mob has gone too far.
*sigh* 1. Your most private data wasn't sold to anyone, much less Google. 2. I wasn't aware Google was fined for "raiding browser information even if the user had opted out". I'll assume you're referring to Do Not Track? A whole lotta companies from Yahoo to Microsoft have ignored it. Any fine would have been for incorrect advice for HOW to opt out wouldn't it? http://recode.net/2016/01/04/how-do-not-track-ended-up-going-nowhere/
I still think a more informed view would help with the fears.
I think the Google fine refers to the time Apple users thought they had opted out but Google was actually still in the window harvesting. Google made their window scraper invisible but they got caught. Big fine. Anyone have a link?
That was just a load of marketing hogwash designed to cover the fact that our corrupt government has sold our most private data to a company that was fined for raiding browser information even if the user had opted out.
Cameron's mob has gone too far.
*sigh* 1. Your most private data wasn't sold to anyone, much less Google. 2. I wasn't aware Google was fined for "raiding browser information even if the user had opted out". I'll assume you're referring to Do Not Track? A whole lotta companies from Yahoo to Microsoft have ignored it. Any fine would have been for incorrect advice for HOW to opt out wouldn't it? http://recode.net/2016/01/04/how-do-not-track-ended-up-going-nowhere/
I still think a more informed view would help with the fears.
I think the Google fine refers to the time Apple users thought they had opted out but Google was actually still in the window harvesting. Google made their window scraper invisible but they got caught. Big fine. Anyone have a link?
I can dredge up the link for you if you can't find one. The fine was not because Google ignored Do Not Track settings. The FTC fined 'em for giving Safari users incorrect advice for how to opt out of Google's tracking. Lots of companies ignore the Safari setting, the comparable Chrome setting, and Do Not Track settings in other browsers.
EDIT: Here 'ya go https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented Quote: In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google’s DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Google specifically told Safari users that because the Safari browser is set by default to block third-party cookies, as long as users do not change their browser settings, this setting “effectively accomplishes the same thing..."
So tracking isn't a problem, just don't give consumers the wrong information about whether they're opted out. Whether it was on purpose (and perhaps it was) or not it doesn't change the fact Google broke an existing agreement with the FTC. Thus the fine. But that's why Yahoo or Facebook for example aren't fined for tracking Safari users who opted out in Safari settings.
Cali, that's not unlike Google is it? They don't sell data either but keep it securely encrypted on their own servers.
If that's the case then Apple should be like Google.
Data is power. Data is empowering.
Tim Cook is acting like China during its closed door policy era. You can't shut off yourself from the rest of the world. This is another example of Tim Cook's utter lack of vision and business sense.
Tim Cook only knows about building hardware. That's it. He should be the COO of Apple not its CEO.
Apple should buy Tesla. Make Musk the CEO of Apple Inc. the umbrella corp. Make Cook the CEO of Apple Hardware (under the umbrella) Then go poach one of the top guys at Google/Amazon and make them the CEO of Apple Services. Fire Cue and Shiller.
I am surprised at myself how much I wouldn't mind exactly that. Not sure if any of it is remotely possible though. No way should Cook leave, he is the REASON Apple scaled up to where it is now. His pov on inventory management is valuable.
Much as I appreciate Musk as a true visionary, I am quite sure he is incompatible with most of the Apple philosophy. In any article about him he tends to talk about his Google friends. He was roommates with one of them, and has a zillion ties. Hates patents and anything proprietary and says so over and over.
You know, I always tended to favor open source work, a lot. Until Apple came along and showed a reason for proprietary tech in building computers. Forget their stupid mistakes like reinventing the floppy drive. Apple did show me that when a company specs out parts and puts them together to make stuff that works better it's good. A whole lot better than banging your head on the wall trying to figure out what driver is incompatible like on your Windows box.
Apple finds the "sweet spot" and that is not ever going to be understood from a spec sheet. Only in using the products to DO something do people realize it is a better system. So, they are vulnerable to spec quotes.
Look, Cook gets ragged for not being a flaming extrovert? Typical American view. His demeanor is quiet and reflective. Not a bad thing. I think he handles most of his role just fine. Americans seem to want glad-handers and backslappers. It can be silly.
the whole world would like to stuff Musk in the CEO seat of Apple. Superficially it looks like a great thing.
But it read any articles quoting Musk and you will find a Google person at heart. All of his most basic views are opposite of Apple's. You may as well pound sand as suggest he could ever be CEO here.
My question is why hasn't Apple already cut off Google?
Why hasn't Cook removed Google search as the default search?
Why is he allowing the ONE COMPANY that can destroy Apple to continue to flourish?
How the heck could Google destroy Apple!! It just gets sillier and sillier.
Google can easily destroy Apple. To me destroy is to half Apple's revenue and profits.
At this point Apple is 80% dependent on hardware. Android hardware is catching up rapidly with the iPhone and even surpasses it in some features. If Google keeps improving Android it will eventually be 'good enough' in comparison to Apple. Google's services are rapidly getting better and more encompassing. So then why would people spend $700 on an iPhone when you buy an Android with just as good hardware and superior services for HALF THE PRICE?
I see only 3 possible companies that can destroy Apple in the next 10 years: Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.
Tim Cook is not viewing his position as a War King or Commander and Chief. He is way too passive and is not willing to stamp out the competition. Eventually the competition will get strong enough to destroy him.
Ummm, aren't you confusing computer and smartphone manufacturers with Google who is simply supplying an OS? If the smartphones are getting better it's because the companies like LG, Sony and Samsung are getting better building them, right? As far as the OS it's been "good enough" for some time according to various reviews and publications.
And why buy Apple? Well in the first place it's Apple. Few companies have such committed users.
Google can easily destroy Apple. To me destroy is to half Apple's revenue and profits.
At this point Apple is 80% dependent on hardware. Android hardware is catching up rapidly with the iPhone and even surpasses it in some features. If Google keeps improving Android it will eventually be 'good enough' in comparison to Apple. Google's services are rapidly getting better and more encompassing. So then why would people spend $700 on an iPhone when you buy an Android with just as good hardware and superior services for HALF THE PRICE?
I see only 3 possible companies that can destroy Apple in the next 10 years: Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.
Tim Cook is not viewing his position as a War King or Commander and Chief. He is way too passive and is not willing to stamp out the competition. Eventually the competition will get strong enough to destroy him.
Ummm, aren't you confusing computer and smartphone manufacturers with Google who is simply supplying an OS? If the smartphones are getting better it's because the companies like LG, Sony and Samsung are getting better building them, right? As far as the OS it's been "good enough" for some time according to various reviews and publications.
And why buy Apple? Well in the first place it's Apple. Few companies have such committed users.
If Google had its way all smartphones would sell for $99.
And that is exactly how Google would destroy Apple.
Obviously Google doesn't have their way so what's your point?
Ummm, aren't you confusing computer and smartphone manufacturers with Google who is simply supplying an OS? If the smartphones are getting better it's because the companies like LG, Sony and Samsung are getting better building them, right? As far as the OS it's been "good enough" for some time according to various reviews and publications.
And why buy Apple? Well in the first place it's Apple. Few companies have such committed users.
If Google had its way all smartphones would sell for $99.
And that is exactly how Google would destroy Apple.
The 80/20 rule says you're wrong. If Google could sell phones for $99 they might indeed get 80% of user but only 20% of the Revenue. Leaving 80% of potential revenue on the table for Apple. Google isn't a threat to Apple. A rule that is back by the fact that the customers Apple services are the ones making Google a large chunk of their revenue.
The biggest threat would be not focusing their energies on the 20% who are willing to pay for silly things like interface smoothness, privacy, build quality. The real threats to Apple are someone else seriously competing in the same space like Sony,LG and Samsung are starting to do. Also not fixing iTunes horrible performance.
Comments
Machine speech recognition dates back to the early '50s, and didn't really get much serious focused work until the late '60s.
One of my first freelance jobs after college was researching the state of the art for a local business around 1976, when it was really rough around the edges. The closest they could have come to what they wanted to do would have exceeded the company's yearly operating budget.
It wasn't, and isn't, trivially simple. But we'll probably see it in full flower before, oh, commercial fusion power or true machine intelligence, so there's that to look forward to.
https://deepmind.com/health
Contractual obligation?
I haven't used Google as my default search engine for a couple of years.
It's not like it's hard to change the default search engine invoked in your browser. Not even Safari.
Your borderline-unhinged obsession with Apple's privacy policies begins to come across as a shady data raper getting bent out of shape because it's getting to be too hard to strip information from people's online activities.
Seriously, either switch to decaf, or get some counseling. It's got to be bad for your health.
That was just a load of marketing hogwash designed to cover the fact that our corrupt government has sold our most private data to a company that was fined for raiding browser information even if the user had opted out.
Cameron's mob has gone too far.
Imagine the day one can ask "if I'm a size 9 and lose 10 pounds will I be able to fit in a size 8?"
Siri: "Yes you should, but it'll be quite snug".
THIS is the future. Googling a question and having thousands of results from articles, forums, yahoo answers, off topic pages, cat videos etc. will feel so outdated.
Web search isn't the future that's so 1996.
When Siri is that smart "google it" will be a popular phrase of the past like "Xerox it".
How can Apple "learn" you without compromising privacy?
The answer is simple:
Apple could data mine your info but that info STAYS encrypted privately on Apple's servers. Notice Apple is building data farms?
Everything I ask Siri could be tied down to my Apple ID/Device. TouchID alone confirms who you are so this will solve problems between shared iPads/Macs/Apple TVs.
Apple will know my favorite food, location, sports interests, places I've been, media I own, how much exercise I get, etc. but this data NEVER leaves Apple.
BUT
Apple can take this a step further and sell data to third parties. This data NEVER leaves Apple and is encrypted. For example, a pizza restaurant pays Apple for advertising. The advertiser sees NOTHING and neither does Apple. All that happens is the pizza ads show up to hungry pizza lovers according to encrypted data.
I admit selling ads is borderline Google but there's absolutely no reason why Siri with user data would be a problem. As long as it's never sold or seen by anyone but yourself. Siri is acting as a middle man between your encrypted data and you.
THIS is:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/04/technology/google-lenses/index.html?section=money_news_international
Google wants to turn us into cyborgs.
P.S.
@sog
AppleMusic isn't falling behind my friend.
Goog.
My biggest concern is the slow rate that Siri is advancing at. Where is Watson? Voice search is the future. This is why Apple needs to keep acquiring technology including viv and pump billions into this tech.
With Goog making most of it's money off iOS devices, cutting off that arm almost completely will bring them to their knees. They'll fall to Yahoo profits maybe less.
1. Your most private data wasn't sold to anyone, much less Google.
2. I wasn't aware Google was fined for "raiding browser information even if the user had opted out". I'll assume you're referring to Do Not Track? A whole lotta companies from Yahoo to Microsoft have ignored it. Any fine would have been for incorrect advice for HOW to opt out wouldn't it?
http://recode.net/2016/01/04/how-do-not-track-ended-up-going-nowhere/
I still think a more informed view would help with the fears.
thank you you for your thoughts on Data an Siri.
Possibilities!
EDIT: Here 'ya go
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2012/08/google-will-pay-225-million-settle-ftc-charges-it-misrepresented
Quote:
In its complaint, the FTC charged that for several months in 2011 and 2012, Google placed a certain advertising tracking cookie on the computers of Safari users who visited sites within Google’s DoubleClick advertising network, although Google had previously told these users they would automatically be opted out of such tracking, as a result of the default settings of the Safari browser used in Macs, iPhones and iPads.
According to the FTC’s complaint, Google specifically told Safari users that because the Safari browser is set by default to block third-party cookies, as long as users do not change their browser settings, this setting “effectively accomplishes the same thing..."
So tracking isn't a problem, just don't give consumers the wrong information about whether they're opted out. Whether it was on purpose (and perhaps it was) or not it doesn't change the fact Google broke an existing agreement with the FTC. Thus the fine. But that's why Yahoo or Facebook for example aren't fined for tracking Safari users who opted out in Safari settings.
Much as I appreciate Musk as a true visionary, I am quite sure he is incompatible with most of the Apple philosophy. In any article about him he tends to talk about his Google friends. He was roommates with one of them, and has a zillion ties. Hates patents and anything proprietary and says so over and over.
You know, I always tended to favor open source work, a lot. Until Apple came along and showed a reason for proprietary tech in building computers. Forget their stupid mistakes like reinventing the floppy drive. Apple did show me that when a company specs out parts and puts them together to make stuff that works better it's good. A whole lot better than banging your head on the wall trying to figure out what driver is incompatible like on your Windows box.
Apple finds the "sweet spot" and that is not ever going to be understood from a spec sheet. Only in using the products to DO something do people realize it is a better system. So, they are vulnerable to spec quotes.
Messaging could be better.
the whole world would like to stuff Musk in the CEO seat of Apple. Superficially it looks like a great thing.
But it read any articles quoting Musk and you will find a Google person at heart. All of his most basic views are opposite of Apple's. You may as well pound sand as suggest he could ever be CEO here.
And why buy Apple? Well in the first place it's Apple. Few companies have such committed users.
If Google could sell phones for $99 they might indeed get 80% of user but only 20% of the Revenue. Leaving 80% of potential revenue on the table for Apple.
Google isn't a threat to Apple. A rule that is back by the fact that the customers Apple services are the ones making Google a large chunk of their revenue.
The biggest threat would be not focusing their energies on the 20% who are willing to pay for silly things like interface smoothness, privacy, build quality. The real threats to Apple are someone else seriously competing in the same space like Sony,LG and Samsung are starting to do.
Also not fixing iTunes horrible performance.