Where, by "swallowed their pride" you mean "allowed Google, et al. to completely rip them off". I suggest if your home is ever robbed, or your car stolen, you just "swallow your pride" and don't bother filing a police report.
May I modify that analogy, since nothing is being physically stolen?
My mother, when she bought the house in which she currently lives, set out a garden plan for it. The house itself (full two story, about 100 years old now) had just been moved, as a whole, all the way across town on a semi (traffic stopped on the main thoroughfares, power lines taken down, the whole nine yards) and was sitting on a bare plot of grass. She laid out string in the grass where she wanted the border of the garden and my father spraypainted over that line. They then got a variety of bushes, trees, and flowers and they went to town.
Now, everyone (literally) else in the city had their landscaping right up against their houses in the two or so feet of land around the foundation (the bare square that all houses will have), with only ever trees in their yards further out. My mother's plan was far more organic, curving all around the house in flowing shapes, also with trees.
When our landscaping was finished, my mother began to notice dozens of other people in town driving by, stopping, and taking pictures of our house. She was put off and worried by that until she asked one of them what they were doing.
They wanted her plans. Now every house in the city has landscaping like ours.
We also have the oldest backyard fence in the city. And now you see fences everywhere. I wouldn't mention that at all since 'putting up a fence' isn't usually something you'd consider 'unique', but the council actively protested us doing it (it's a beautiful wooden fence, not some gaudy metal trash), and everyone else in town, for decades, apparently didn't have the stones to go up against them to protect their children. But once they let us do it, boy howdy.
Now, the validity of the analogy ends here, as my mother didn't expect, want, or receive compensation for her landscaping plans being photocopied, but everyone knows on whose plans theirs are based.
She also wasn't the first to have landscaping around the house, but ask anyone, and they'll tell you she was the first to do it right.
Originally Posted by rednival
My only point is that Watson came before Siri, and no one wants to address that because they have no rebuttal.
That's only because it doesn't have anything to do with it.
That's only because it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Thanks for making my point. If Apple mimics a concept pioneered by someone else, it is irrelevant. If Google mimics an idea you think was pioneered by Apple, it is theft.
You people are so blinded by bias you can't even think rationally.
Surely you are aware that Google Now is MUCH more than just question and answer. It actually gives you information without you having to ask since it understands what you like, where you work, where you drop off your kids, your fav team, where you live, what bus you take, what train you take....it KNOWS you.
Of course, some people have privacy issues with it, obviously, but its opt in. You can choose to ask siri about the same thing everyday, if the train is on time, what the weather is, who won the game, etc
OR you can have Google Now give you these things automatically without you doing a thing.
Well....that is if the google search feature is Google Now functionality, and not just search functionality. If it is just search, well then yeah, i see your point. The only advantage would be speed, as many youtube tests have shown Google voice search is faster and more natural sounding.
I'm sorry, if I want someone bossing me around and telling me what I think, I'll ask my wife.
I want no part of Google running every part of my life.
Apple didn't have to start the lawsuits. They could swallowed their pride. "They copied! No, they copied!" The time and effort wasted on these lawsuits is just silly Now, as you said, they are going to loose out on much of what Google has to offer.
Apple can't afford to let everyone lie to and mislead its customers and make them think they're buying Apple products when they're actually buying something else. Aside from the obvious loss of sales, when the customer who bought a fake iPad or iPhone finds out how much it stinks, it reflects badly on Apple.
Now, the validity of the analogy ends here, as my mother didn't expect, want, or receive compensation for her landscaping plans being photocopied, but everyone knows on whose plans theirs are based.
She also wasn't the first to have landscaping around the house, but ask anyone, and they'll tell you she was the first to do it right.
Your mother was not in the landscape business and had nothing to lose by other people using similar garden styles. If she was in the landscape business and drew up some plans that another contractor got hold of and reproduced them with his own logo and went about selling his service to your mother's prospective clients, then she would have cause for concern. As it is, she only lost a sense of uniqueness although on the other hand she might have been flattered. I don't think Apple is flattered when competitors borrow their patented designs because a corporation shouldn't have emotions of either pride or hate, just good business. Unfortunately Apple does exhibit too much pride and hate and sometimes 'cuts off nose to spite face'.
Making a 7" tablet isn't really hard or particularly innovative. The hard part is making one a success.
Bagging on Apple for keeping the 4" displays to maintain application usability and compatibility is ignorant. Their methodical selection of displays and careful adaptations for changes is one of the reasons they have been so successful. Android has suffered immensely as an ecosystem due to differentiation among devices and manufacturers.
In some ways I see Apple as a "micro-innovator" on hardware, software, and systems. The small refinements that they make to their products end up being quite substantial over time. This goes for everything such as usability, performance, and even to features like AirTunes and it's evolution to AirPlay, etc. While you can argue that even these are not revelations, or sometimes not even first to market, they end up being ubiquitous across most of Apple's products which provides immense value to users of their product ecosystems. ReplyQuote Multi
I'm glad somebody finally summed it up the way you did. Some people accuse Apple of playing "catch up" when they are actually doing what you said.
Watching that video, even with the context of it being a "Google App" I found myself thinking "It behaves a lot like Siri, but something is a bit off…"
Siri IS "search by voice" with context… the Siri voice is a tad less annoying… this one talks too much about the results...
I thought Google didn't think this was the way to go. I guess the success of the Siri-phone has changed their collective minds, or…?
True but using your logic Siri is stolen. The entire point of Watson was to show that a computer could interpret natural language, search the Internet, and answer the question. If Google stole Siri, Apple stole Watson. I don't believe what either did qualifies as theft.
Your supposition isn't really accurate though. First, Apple bought Siri… they didn't steal it.
Yes, Watson proved that a computer could be used to interpret natural language questions. It didn't do it very well, but concept proven.
Fast WAY forward… Siri "interprets" fairly abstract REAL TIME SPEECH, and extrapolates a response across a very broad range of possible topical results…
The way Siri "behaves", and considering its overall feature set, is WAY beyond anything Watson was capable of and so I see something "evolutionary" there, one case perhaps building on another, but not a direct emulation, copy or "theft" of technology.
I'm not directly accusing Google of that either, but…. Looking at the video for this 'google voice search', I basically saw "Siri reproduced with Google's name on it".
It isn't "evolutionary" or building something new… it's for all intents and purposes functionally the same thing as Siri, right down to the mildly annoying female "voice" coming back with clever, conversational responses to 'voice queries'…
Measured simply on the surface (as it's being represented/marketed in this video) how is it materially different from Siri?
And, regardless of whether Siri's arguable "similarities" to Watson are "infringements"… that doesn't invalidate the question mark regarding Google voice search and Siri. I think Google is treading a fine line here… for sure...
What I find interesting is they always put Apple's products in their ads. They don't use a Galaxy Nexus S for example or any of the leading Android devices. That says to me the people at Google are willing to admit who deserves the credit. I think Google's motivation is not to damage Apple but do what they do with Chrome. Take a core product from Apple and offer it to a wider audience than Apple's philosophy allows. Webkit is now the world's most popular rendering engine and the world is better off for it.
Despite competing with Apple, I'm happier that Google will satisfy this audience than Microsoft.
I thought it was interesting that the ad in the article not only uses an iPhone but also looks and sounds like an Apple ad in tone and production.
"To achieve that, Google will need to follow the lead of Apple's Siri, which was designed to figure out the question users were posing, rather than simply finding potential answers to property formed questions."
"A full 80 percent of the active user base are suck with a version of Android 2.x, which came out 2010."
Did anyone proof this before it was published?
It looks like tit.
What's your problem woth the proofreeding og the aricle?
"To achieve that, Google will need to follow the lead of Apple's Siri, which was designed to figure out the question users were posing, rather than simply finding potential answers to property formed questions."
"A full 80 percent of the active user base are suck with a version of Android 2.x, which came out 2010."
Did anyone proof this before it was published?
Apparently not, and the article cites no official sources for the alleged claims made by Google. It reeks of anti-Google bias.
That's only because it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Thanks for making my point. If Apple mimics a concept pioneered by someone else, it is irrelevant. If Google mimics an idea you think was pioneered by Apple, it is theft.
You people are so blinded by bias you can't even think rationally.
I don't believe that anyone is saying that the concept of voice-recognition/interpretation as a basis for queries or commands is owned by Apple. All that is being pointed out, I think, is that Google seems to have implemented an interface rather coincidentally similarly to Siri. A topical observation given the current legal action, and somewhat ironic since they seemingly both pooh-poohed the idea and said that they had been doing it for years already back when Siri was released.
Comments
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Where, by "swallowed their pride" you mean "allowed Google, et al. to completely rip them off". I suggest if your home is ever robbed, or your car stolen, you just "swallow your pride" and don't bother filing a police report.
May I modify that analogy, since nothing is being physically stolen?
My mother, when she bought the house in which she currently lives, set out a garden plan for it. The house itself (full two story, about 100 years old now) had just been moved, as a whole, all the way across town on a semi (traffic stopped on the main thoroughfares, power lines taken down, the whole nine yards) and was sitting on a bare plot of grass. She laid out string in the grass where she wanted the border of the garden and my father spraypainted over that line. They then got a variety of bushes, trees, and flowers and they went to town.
Now, everyone (literally) else in the city had their landscaping right up against their houses in the two or so feet of land around the foundation (the bare square that all houses will have), with only ever trees in their yards further out. My mother's plan was far more organic, curving all around the house in flowing shapes, also with trees.
When our landscaping was finished, my mother began to notice dozens of other people in town driving by, stopping, and taking pictures of our house. She was put off and worried by that until she asked one of them what they were doing.
They wanted her plans. Now every house in the city has landscaping like ours.
We also have the oldest backyard fence in the city. And now you see fences everywhere. I wouldn't mention that at all since 'putting up a fence' isn't usually something you'd consider 'unique', but the council actively protested us doing it (it's a beautiful wooden fence, not some gaudy metal trash), and everyone else in town, for decades, apparently didn't have the stones to go up against them to protect their children. But once they let us do it, boy howdy.
Now, the validity of the analogy ends here, as my mother didn't expect, want, or receive compensation for her landscaping plans being photocopied, but everyone knows on whose plans theirs are based.
She also wasn't the first to have landscaping around the house, but ask anyone, and they'll tell you she was the first to do it right.
Originally Posted by rednival
My only point is that Watson came before Siri, and no one wants to address that because they have no rebuttal.
That's only because it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's only because it doesn't have anything to do with it.
Thanks for making my point. If Apple mimics a concept pioneered by someone else, it is irrelevant. If Google mimics an idea you think was pioneered by Apple, it is theft.
You people are so blinded by bias you can't even think rationally.
Originally Posted by rednival
You people are so blinded by bias you can't even think rationally.
Of course.
I'm sorry, if I want someone bossing me around and telling me what I think, I'll ask my wife.
I want no part of Google running every part of my life.
Nonsense. Read this:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/08/half_of_the_tv_audience_mistook_samsung_galaxy_tab_for_ipad_in_ads.html
Apple can't afford to let everyone lie to and mislead its customers and make them think they're buying Apple products when they're actually buying something else. Aside from the obvious loss of sales, when the customer who bought a fake iPad or iPhone finds out how much it stinks, it reflects badly on Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Now, the validity of the analogy ends here, as my mother didn't expect, want, or receive compensation for her landscaping plans being photocopied, but everyone knows on whose plans theirs are based.
She also wasn't the first to have landscaping around the house, but ask anyone, and they'll tell you she was the first to do it right.
Your mother was not in the landscape business and had nothing to lose by other people using similar garden styles. If she was in the landscape business and drew up some plans that another contractor got hold of and reproduced them with his own logo and went about selling his service to your mother's prospective clients, then she would have cause for concern. As it is, she only lost a sense of uniqueness although on the other hand she might have been flattered. I don't think Apple is flattered when competitors borrow their patented designs because a corporation shouldn't have emotions of either pride or hate, just good business. Unfortunately Apple does exhibit too much pride and hate and sometimes 'cuts off nose to spite face'.
Making a 7" tablet isn't really hard or particularly innovative. The hard part is making one a success.
Bagging on Apple for keeping the 4" displays to maintain application usability and compatibility is ignorant. Their methodical selection of displays and careful adaptations for changes is one of the reasons they have been so successful. Android has suffered immensely as an ecosystem due to differentiation among devices and manufacturers.
In some ways I see Apple as a "micro-innovator" on hardware, software, and systems. The small refinements that they make to their products end up being quite substantial over time. This goes for everything such as usability, performance, and even to features like AirTunes and it's evolution to AirPlay, etc. While you can argue that even these are not revelations, or sometimes not even first to market, they end up being ubiquitous across most of Apple's products which provides immense value to users of their product ecosystems.
ReplyQuote Multi
I'm glad somebody finally summed it up the way you did. Some people accuse Apple of playing "catch up" when they are actually doing what you said.
Cannot include quotes on beta iOS 6.0
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
That's a mean thing to say about them.
ah, the cruel truth...
It's Siri, right…? For all intents and purposes…
Watching that video, even with the context of it being a "Google App" I found myself thinking "It behaves a lot like Siri, but something is a bit off…"
Siri IS "search by voice" with context… the Siri voice is a tad less annoying… this one talks too much about the results...
I thought Google didn't think this was the way to go. I guess the success of the Siri-phone has changed their collective minds, or…?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Wasn't Google's response when Siri was introduced that having a voice assistant was the wrong approach for mobile phones?
I don't remember. I do remember a lot of talk about "That's nothing. We had that a year ago!"
I guess they figured out there was a bit of a difference between what they had and what Siri was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
True but using your logic Siri is stolen. The entire point of Watson was to show that a computer could interpret natural language, search the Internet, and answer the question. If Google stole Siri, Apple stole Watson. I don't believe what either did qualifies as theft.
Your supposition isn't really accurate though. First, Apple bought Siri… they didn't steal it.
Yes, Watson proved that a computer could be used to interpret natural language questions. It didn't do it very well, but concept proven.
Fast WAY forward… Siri "interprets" fairly abstract REAL TIME SPEECH, and extrapolates a response across a very broad range of possible topical results…
The way Siri "behaves", and considering its overall feature set, is WAY beyond anything Watson was capable of and so I see something "evolutionary" there, one case perhaps building on another, but not a direct emulation, copy or "theft" of technology.
I'm not directly accusing Google of that either, but…. Looking at the video for this 'google voice search', I basically saw "Siri reproduced with Google's name on it".
It isn't "evolutionary" or building something new… it's for all intents and purposes functionally the same thing as Siri, right down to the mildly annoying female "voice" coming back with clever, conversational responses to 'voice queries'…
Measured simply on the surface (as it's being represented/marketed in this video) how is it materially different from Siri?
And, regardless of whether Siri's arguable "similarities" to Watson are "infringements"… that doesn't invalidate the question mark regarding Google voice search and Siri. I think Google is treading a fine line here… for sure...
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I'm confused. When Siri came out many Fandroids wrote here upon this very blog that Android already had the same thing and had had for ages.
They're still saying that. Somehow this isn't any different from what they've had on their phones since before Steve Jobs was born.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
When was the last original idea out of Google?
More than anything else, this looks like a panicked reaction to Siri routing search away from Google and their ads.
How about search and AdSense?
Oh yeah, stolen from Yahoo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
There's not a single microphone on the face of the planet that looks different. Nope. Google had to use that icon.
Also, it's just Samsung that copies. Regular Android and the stuff Google does aren't copies at all.
http://team-nocturnal.tumblr.com/post/26388747742/proof-apple-stole-from-google-boycottapple
That microphone icon has been on Android for quite a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
What I find interesting is they always put Apple's products in their ads. They don't use a Galaxy Nexus S for example or any of the leading Android devices. That says to me the people at Google are willing to admit who deserves the credit. I think Google's motivation is not to damage Apple but do what they do with Chrome. Take a core product from Apple and offer it to a wider audience than Apple's philosophy allows. Webkit is now the world's most popular rendering engine and the world is better off for it.
Despite competing with Apple, I'm happier that Google will satisfy this audience than Microsoft.
I thought it was interesting that the ad in the article not only uses an iPhone but also looks and sounds like an Apple ad in tone and production.
Originally Posted by Evoken
http://team-nocturnal.tumblr.com/post/26388747742/proof-apple-stole-from-google-boycottapple
That's a hilarious image. It's astounding the lengths to which the Androiders will go to justify Google's gang-raping of phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noneareleft
"To achieve that, Google will need to follow the lead of Apple's Siri, which was designed to figure out the question users were posing, rather than simply finding potential answers to property formed questions."
"A full 80 percent of the active user base are suck with a version of Android 2.x, which came out 2010."
Did anyone proof this before it was published?
It looks like tit.
What's your problem woth the proofreeding og the aricle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by noneareleft
"To achieve that, Google will need to follow the lead of Apple's Siri, which was designed to figure out the question users were posing, rather than simply finding potential answers to property formed questions."
"A full 80 percent of the active user base are suck with a version of Android 2.x, which came out 2010."
Did anyone proof this before it was published?
Apparently not, and the article cites no official sources for the alleged claims made by Google. It reeks of anti-Google bias.
I don't believe that anyone is saying that the concept of voice-recognition/interpretation as a basis for queries or commands is owned by Apple. All that is being pointed out, I think, is that Google seems to have implemented an interface rather coincidentally similarly to Siri. A topical observation given the current legal action, and somewhat ironic since they seemingly both pooh-poohed the idea and said that they had been doing it for years already back when Siri was released.