Apple's Siri As Revolutionary As the Mac? 692
hype7 writes "The Harvard Business Review is running an article on Siri, the speech recognition technology inside the new iPhone. They make the case that Siri's use of artificial intelligence and speech recognition is going to change the way we interact with machines. From the article: 'The advantage of using speech over other interaction paradigms is that we have honed its use over thousands of years. It is entirely natural for us to talk to one another. Talking is one of the first things we learn how to do as children. It's second nature for us to ask a colleague or a friend a question and for them to answer the same way. Being able to talk to a phone like it's a personal assistant is something that people are going to get very used to, very quickly. It's a much more natural approach than using a mouse on a desktop. And I highly doubt the impact is going to stop at phones.'"
Not only... (Score:3, Funny)
I would rather iPhone has SIRI (Score:3)
as written in CAPS.
(FYI, SIRI is the abbreviation for Sirius XM satelite radio)
iPhone + satelite radio FTW
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Insightful)
You had me until the second to last paragraph. Macs wouldn't evolve nearly as fast if there wasn't Windows (and to some extent, Linux) adding new stuff. With a lot of the cool things Apple do, they aren't the one to first do something, they are the first to do it in a way that appeals to the mainstream. Look at smartphones, Windows Mobile phones were around way before the iPhone, but they were never popular in the mainstream because they didn't have the "cool factor". And if it weren't for webOS and Android, iOS would quite possibly still have the crap notifications system that just got replaced with iOS 5.
So, yes, Apple are great at what they do, but to say that they would be where they are without the competition is ridiculous.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at smartphones, Windows Mobile phones were around way before the iPhone, but they were never popular in the mainstream because they didn't have the "cool factor".
This is a reassuring geek fantasy (goes along with the 'great marketing' fantasy I suppose), but completely untrue.
Smartphones were made popular by the iPhone (and to some extent the blackberry before it) because it was better - better to look at sure, but more importantly better in design, better to use, and actually incredibly useful for the users who tried it. WM was a buggy, mediocre, hack-handed mess - people tried it and quite rightly gave up on it and went back to a simpler phone; not because it wasn't cool but because it crashed all the time, *and* top people at MS have no taste so it looked and felt awkward to use.
So, yes, Apple are great at what they do, but to say that they would be where they are without the competition is ridiculous.
Completely agree with you there - some things Apple do are duds (notifications in early iOS are a good example, they were terrible modal distractions), and some things they do are just OK till they see someone doing something better and copy it. Siri was bought in so it was not even developed at Apple, but they do know how to integrate things like that well, and how to steal ideas from competitors and do them better (Notifications from Android for example). One thing they do better than all of their competition though is to actually design their products (as opposed to letting them organically grow), throw out old ideas that aren't working, and to refine ideas which other people have had till they work really smoothly.
None of that is really 'cool', it's hard work and a willingness to go their own way when it suits them and shamelessly steal ideas when they see a better product. There's a lot of work that goes in behind the scenes to make iOS a pleasure to use (not just programming work).
They do need competitors to keep them at their best, without question.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Informative)
"Losing ground" = higher sales year-over-year? Record sales to the tune of 1,000,000 units preordered in one day for the 4S? Android has more market share, but that doesn't mean that Apple is hurting. At all. The market is growing, and both Android and Apple are doing well.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Interesting)
"Losing ground" = higher sales year-over-year?
Why not? RIM has been growing year-over-year, though if you listen to the tech-press and slashdot commenters you'd think they were on the verge of bankruptcy.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Informative)
I'd never actually looked at the raw data before, so I decided to based on your post. And...yeah, that's pretty interesting.
Anyone interested... http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/financials/financials.asp?ticker=RIM:CN [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:3)
You have heard of the iPod haven't you? How is Apple "losing ground", with 66% of the worldwide industry profits in cell phones?
Some truth about iProducts (Score:5, Insightful)
> with 66% of the worldwide industry profits in cell phones?
No. Maybe in smartphones, but they are a minority of the market. There is a whole world beyond the 1st world and nobody there can afford a smartphone yet. It is a volume business but there is a lot of profit there in churning out cheap phones by the container. And who the fsck cares about profits unless you are an Apple shareholder, units moved are what counts for everyone else. Developers don't give a crap how much Apple is making, they want to know how many potential customers they have to justify developing for the platform to judge how much THEY stand to make. Most users don't really care how much Apple is making in profit except if they learn Apple makes 50 juicy points it might piss some off while some fanboys like yourself seem to get off on how hard Apple is screwing you.
And in volume of Smartphones Apple is at 18% and falling fast into their 5-10% market niche they have stayed within on the desktop since the 1980s. Give it another year and they will probably be falling fast in tablets until they hit boutique luxury good territory. Because that is what Apple is, a premium brand experience. The only reason developers still care about iOS is they (rightly it appears) assume anyone who can afford an iProduct has enough disposable income to afford to pay for lots of apps so while in absolute percentage of potential customers they may be shrinking, they rakeoff per customer is high enough to justify porting.
Re:Some truth about iProducts (Score:5, Informative)
Not smartphones, all phones....
http://www.asymco.com/2011/07/29/apple-captured-two-thirds-of-available-mobile-phone-profits-in-q2/ [asymco.com]
There is not much profit in $30 phones -- ask Nokia
The claim was that Apple was "losing". How is a profit seeking entity losing when it makes 2 out of every $3 in the industry?
units moved are what counts for everyone else. Developers don't give a crap how much Apple is making, they want to know how many potential customers they have to justify developing for the platform to judge how much THEY stand to make.
Developers care about the people who are willing to buy stuff. The Apple app store generates over 17x the revenue of the Android app market.
http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/21/861-5-percent-growth-android-puny/ [techcrunch.com]
Well it doesn't matter what "most users care about". A statement was made, I refuted it with facts.
I paid $200 for a $700 iPhone 4 under contract. A high-end Android user paid the same $200 for a $450 phone. We are both paying the same monthly bill. Why do I care that the carrier paid a higher subsidy to Apple than the Android manufacturer?
If by falling fast, you mean holding steady....
Google just announce 190 Million Android devices sold during their quarterly report today. Apple just announced 220 million iOS devices sold during the iPhone 4S launch.
Didn't you just say that developers care about units sold? So which is it? Do developers care about units sold are the number of people who actually have money to buy stuff?
Re: (Score:3)
What the...? How is it losing ground? Apple is the #1 smartphone vendor and had its highest sales ever with the iPhone 4, even in spite of the phony antenna controversy. In fact, with the iPad and iPod touch counted, iOS is the #1 mobile OS by a large margin.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Informative)
Really, is Apple going to be the only company in the world that gets human interaction? It's staggering how much they've advanced society on their own and all their profound technical achievements
I guess that you are not aware that Apple purchased the company that made Siri [scobleizer.com] and then immediately stopped the development of the Blackberry and Android versions. They basically did a Microsoft.
Actually, that is not fair - you could say they did an Apple. The question of whether Siri is a revolutionary as the Mac is telling as both of these products were based on groundwork made by other companies. This is not to say that Apple didn't add the pizzazz to them though, but even those pizzazz elements can be found elsewhere (so many of iOS's user interface ideas that people love can be found in other people's work). Apple's great trait is that they can commercialize the ideas of others. Want another example:
Maybe learn painting or drawing or something. Maybe start liking turtles. (remember Apple LOGO??)
Logo was created in 1967 - 15 years before Apple Logo came on the scene. Did you think that Apple invented it?
Re: (Score:3)
Many Apple products and technologies were acquired: Rosetta, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, Garageband, hell even OS X itself. The magic is in how they transform the software to make it Apple-like and fold it so completely into their ecosystem that it seems a natural fit. Not a lot of companies in the industry are able to get such milage out of their acquisitions.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Insightful)
So?
Did you not read the post to which I replied? It starts off by saying that "Siri does look amazing, and will become really useful in a couple of years as developers outside of Apple operate on it" and yet Apple have deliberately prevented developers outside Apple from being able to use this on their platforms.
It suggests that Apple is the only company that innovates in terms of creating intuitive user interfaces, and asks "Are there absolutely NO actual designers at any other tech company?". My point was that obviously other companies "get human interaction" because it was another company that created this very technology under discussion, and that Apple just bought it out.
The original poster was seeing the tech world through Apple-shaped, rose-coloured glasses. I am not saying that Apple have done anything wrong. Nor do I claim that Apple do not innovate themselves at all. I am just correcting the misperception that it is the only company in the world that innovates with good ideas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Funny)
If you are a hacker, want power, or are smart, Apple makes mediocre products.
(What do I mean? The command line, emacs, etc.)
Exactly. If only someone could merge a *nix box (with niceties like the command line and emacs and such) with good hardware and a nice design aesthetic.
That would be awesome.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Funny)
iWhoosh.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
are you kidding?!?
Mac computers are the closest thing to Linux you're going to get off the shelf.
If you're really smart, you want as little friction between you and doing what you want as possible. get a Imac with a 27" screen, shipped to your door and working out of the box.
That said, I hate the OSX UI, but if you're really looking for a powerful command line out of the box, OSx is the way to go.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Linux computers are the closest thing to Linux you're going to get off the shelf. Netbooks, some Dells. Also if you order from PC builders you can easily get Linux out of the box with anything.
If you're really smart, you buy your 27" monitor separately rather than built into a computer that's going to be obsolete in a couple of years.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:4, Insightful)
which actually is another way to say that merging computers and their displays is dumb.
Re: (Score:3)
If all you value is ease of use, Apple makes fine products.
If you are a hacker, want power, or are smart, Apple makes mediocre products.
(What do I mean? The command line, emacs, etc.)
My iPhone is a phone, yes I want ease of use in my phone. The iPhone is a very good phone first, and a very good smartphone second. I think that's where they really won. Before the iPhone smartphones didn't really do anything right. They weren't good at being phones and they weren't really all that "smart", and the market was fragmented. I remember having a Motorola Q smartphone running Windows Mobile 5. Nice phone for email and such (similar to blackberries) but it wasn't a touchscreen and unfortunat
It's more than just marketing (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, though sometimes I think Apple has it easier because they don't promote technical excellency as their strength. Like for example the iPhone antenna problems, the market mostly shrugged and kept using iPhones because they're intuitive and people figure out how to use them. If on the other hand you bought your phone because it supports triband dual UTMS 4G or whatever, then the antenna not working properly is like disaster. Yes, the 4GS has faster CPU, faster graphics, improved camera and doubled some t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah case in point is the magnetic power connector on macbooks. Such a beautiful, robust thing. My new eeepc has a tiny cylindrical power plug, similar to those on small nokia phones. I am sure it will break within the next year.
Don't be so sure that it's going to break -- my 2.5 year old eeepc netbook with its tiny cylindrical connector is still working fine - my first magsafe adapter lasted about 9 months before the cable started to fray where it enters the connector and it stopped working. 6 months with my "new" adapter and it looks like it's going to suffer a similar fate.
The Asus Netbook gets plugged/unplugged much more often since I usually take the Netbook with me.
Re:MIght as well be (Score:4, Insightful)
The manuals that used to come with DOS and Windows were actually useful. The fact that they existed didn't mean that Windows was inherently difficult. It's like how people said that the Tucker was unsafe just because it had seat belts. The only significance of Macs not coming with any real documentation is the fact that Apple left something out of the package. They can save a few cents on ink and paper and push off the problem to someone else (like the Genius Bar).
PCs that don't have any documentation anymore aren't easier. Corporations are just too cheap to include a manual.
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC, the hardware was invented by the Israeli company, and the software was made by Microsoft Research.
Purely out of curiosity (Score:3)
I've heard from a number of Android users that Android also has voice & language recognition - can anyone comment how it works compared to how Siri's been pushed and demoed?
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
Voice Actions, it works exactly the same. Maps, Nav, post updates to social, schedules reminders/ calendars. send email / sms. Its been there since the start of 2.3
Except it doesn't have a fancy interface . it just shows a big microphone icon on the screen and lights up green when you talk
Re: (Score:3)
Also, Siri has access to Wolfram Alpha, which has some natural language abilities that Google lacks.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:4, Interesting)
I asked Voice Actions [android.com], "Who would win - Superman or Batman?". It answered (out loud), "Superman, because he has super strength, and Batman only has fancy gadgets and hand-to-hand combat."
Its thoughts on pirates vs ninjas were also enlightening and extensive. And it'll even read you a poem, if you ask for one.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
Looked basically the same, but with some extra commands added that, while they look sexy on the marketing blurb, I would never use. That said, I use the shit out of Voice Actions on Android, and I love them to death. Still, Siri isn't going to be the killer app that pulls me over to the iPhone side.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
Oh boy, some people never learn. Android voice functions is literary the same things that has been in the archaic nokia phones from back in the day.
Voice Actions for Android is almost identical to Siri [youtube.com] (another example) [youtube.com]. The iPhone actually had Siri before Voice Actions came out for Android, [youtube.com] only difference is now Siri is built into the 4S and Apple bought Siri and removed it from the App Store and made it only for the 4S :( [nytimes.com] That's a pretty jerk thing for apple to do
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Funny)
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Back in the olden days, talking into your phone was all you could do with it.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:4, Funny)
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Back in the olden days, talking into your phone was all you could do with it.
Thats so 2007.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:4, Informative)
I'll never forget the day when people walking around gesturing and talking to the air apparently stopped being crazy behavior and began to be perfectly acceptable behavior. It was sometime during 1999, right before the internet bubble burst. I miss those days. Now people don't look up from their smart phones to do the things they need to do, such as cross the street, disembark an elevator, talk to their families, etc.....
Re: (Score:3)
Around 1999/2000 I remember seeing a guy talking on his phone very loudly about some deal he was handling, while walking out of a major London tube station. Then his phone rang and he couldn't figure out how to answer it. Many people laughed quite loudly.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Interesting)
The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Once upon a time, before they became internet terminals, everybody talked into their phone. I hadn't realised it had become so rare!
You don't have to press the home button and talk into it like a walkie-talkie you know. The proximity sensor will switch Siri on if you put the iPhone to the side of your head, if you're not making a phone call. And you can also operate it via the handsfree kit.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Funny)
Works fine as a speech to text engine, but doesn't infer what you want done from what you said. The real issue with it is how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone.
Yeah, it's hard to believe people actually talk into a phone...
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
According to the writeup on wired [cnn.com] (reprinted at cnn), they already addressed that problem by having you hold the phone to your ear when talking to it (instead of at arms length as when typing into it) to make it look normal.
(I would imagine this was also done to improve the quality of speech recognition by putting the microphone closer to your mouth.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
how much of a dork you look like talking to your phone
Yeah what kind of weirdo would talk into a telephone?
Re: (Score:3)
Others are mocking you, but I think there's an interesting difference between talking into your phone and talking to your phone.
When I've seen people try to use speech recognition on their phones, it's obvious which one they're doing. And they really do look like dorks. The real advance will be when telling your phone what you want to do is as smooth and as fluid as talking to an assistant on the other end of the phone line.
Maybe Siri has done that?
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
Android's 'Voice Actions' can only understand a predefined set of phrases and keywords. Siri can understand very natural language, and even follow context. Siri is far more advanced. But Google has some of the best engineers on the planet. A nice upgrade for Voice Actions will likely come sooner than later.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Funny)
That would be awesome
Almost is always listening (Score:3)
I think it'll really become useful once it all becomes standard, and is "always listening".
One thing I read is that Siri is activated automatically simply by holding the phone to your head as though you were making a call.. that's probably about as close to always listening as we will get for a while, or even would want to get... that alone makes it seem more useful to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:4, Informative)
Siri can understand very natural language
Did you seriously fall for that? All this means is that they have multiple predefined phrases that mean the same thing. Siri is *not* new! At all! Ignoring the fact that it was an app that Apple acquired, there are nearly identical programs for both iOS and Android. All they did was integrate it a bit more with the OS, and removed the app from the app store, forcing people to upgrade to the 4S if they want to use it, even though previous hardware is perfectly capable. The other apps speak back, at least one can access Wolfram Alpha, and do everything I've seen Siri do.
Siri does not work based on multiple predefined phrases. Siri actually understands the meaning of words in a given context and the word order does not matter either. You can talk naturally without specific vocabulary or even like Master Yoda and Siri will likely infer the meaning of what you are asking it based on based on an inferred context. That is where the AI comes in.
What is available on Android is barely beyond voice control that shipped with the display-less iPod shuffles which did work based on a combination of predefined phrases and voice recognition and what currently ships on the iPhones prior to the iPhone 4S. Google just integrated a few more services but they still rely on a strict syntax.
You really don't have to take my word for it though, go try it out for yourself after the launch or simply "google" it for youtube videos with first looks/reviews of siri on the iPhone 4S.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:4, Informative)
This is what makes Siri revolutionary in my book. Yeah, it's been out in app form for a while now, but this is the first platform to really show off this kind of natural language recognition.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to manually launch anything.
Just start voice search and say "Navigate to McDonalds" and it will launch your navigation app and plot a course to McDonalds for you.
This also works with your other example: "Text Bob Dole Hey man" will launch your messaging app and put "Hey man" in the message.
It's pretty neat once you start using it a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Just start voice search and say "Navigate to McDonalds" and it will launch your navigation app and plot a course to McDonalds for you.
Nifty. How good is it? Could you say "Navigate to McDonalds or Burger King", and have it find either? Or could you say "Navigate to Fast Food but not McDonalds" and get anything but McDonalds?
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Interesting)
Even better, if you press and hold the search button, it'll automatically start voice actions. I don't think I've sent but five typed text messages since I started using it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Siri is not the first by about 13 years (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:4, Interesting)
PCs have had it for ages too, I tried it 10 years ago... Felt like a dork (and that was all on my lonesome in my room, not in a crowded street), was slower than typing (on a keyboard though, not a touchscreen), and misunderstood me enough to make it a pain.
It's indeed also on my Android phone, never cared until Siri, tried it out when it seemed to be the next magical thing... dropped it as fast as the first time around.
From what I've read, Siri might be more accurate and more intelligent, but my guess is, not enough to override the basic dorkiness and inaccuracy of a speech interface.
Re: (Score:3)
Watch the video [apple.com]. If it really works like it does in the video, we're talking about a whole new speech recognition experience. Once it's out, you can bet the Apple store will be filled with people putting it to the test.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Interesting)
I had computer graphics on my computer back in 1982. So these modern day "consoles" can't be anything special, eh?
Every product with speech recognition is not the same, just as every product with graphics is not the same.
And whilst people might feel dorks talking to a desktop, they're very used to holding a phone up to the side of their face and speaking into it. It's not seemed like a bizarre occupation for many decades.
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Funny)
Android speech-to-text actually works pretty well. I'm using it now to write this and I find bark bark shaddup I find that it bark bark shut up damnit bark bark don't make me come down there I find that bark bark okay that's it I'm coming down there argh crash thud bark bark bark bark bark bark
Shamelessly stolen [slashdot.org]
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Funny)
Android speech-to-text actually works pretty well. I'm using it now to write this and I find bark bark shaddup I find that it bark bark shut up damnit bark bark don't make me come down there I find that bark bark okay that's it I'm coming down there argh crash thud bark bark bark bark bark bark
Troubles with the wife?
Re:Purely out of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
(Reply written before most other posts, was distracted by work, going to post anyhow even with some now redundant info. Hope it helps.)
Android's voice recognition is mostly a search input box, driven by voice instead of text. It's pretty clever how Google built the system, they used voice input from the old GOOG411 number to help adapt it to different languages and accents. For the most part though, it will parse what you say and do the equivalent of "I'm Feeling Lucky" on google.com.
It also does dictation for typing in notes, or other apps. Basically anywhere the keyboard will appear, voice can be used as a dictation input.
Siri is a step beyond what Google offers, due to the conversational style of input vs just basic voice commands/dictation. You can say "Joanne Moore is my mother" to Siri once. Later, saying "Text Mom that I'll be late for dinner", and Siri remembers mom = Joanne Moore, or whoever. This just scratches the surface, the other power of Siri is the capability to understand questions like "Do I need a raincoat today?". It turns that into a search of the weather at the current location, scanning the days forecast for the possibility of rain. A followup of "what about Saturday?" would cause Siri to recognize this is a followup request, and it would link it to the previous weather query. The logic is in the Siri system, not in a search engine being queried. Minor detail, and either approach can work.
Google can improve their services on Android by improving what Google.com does, and this benefitting web users as well. For Apple, they have to decide what services to tie into. Many queries in Siri are farmed out to Wolfram Alpha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siri_(software) [wikipedia.org] has more info on other services it integrates with to try and answer questions. If none of those work, it defaults to running a web search similar to Android.
Indeed, and for a LONG TIME. (Score:4, Informative)
I am getting really sick of all the Siri hyperbole. Here are a few facts for people:
- Siri itself has been around for nearly two years. It was a standalone app available for a long time until Apple purchased the company and pulled it from the app store.
- Android has had voice recognition built into it that knows 99% of the commands Siri does since at least 2010 (Froyo), and I believe even before that.
- There is at least one third party company / app (Vlingo) which supports all the commands Siri does *AND MANY MORE*, and is available for ALL PLATFORMS, inclufing Android, Blackberry, iPhones.
Basically - Siri is neat, but it is NOT new, and it is NOT revolutionary. Calling Siri revolutionary is like calling a touchscreen revolutionary at this point in the game.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple pretty much is never the first company to do something.
What Apple is famous for (in recent times) is being the first to do something _well_. They don't ride the bleeding edge, but rather take the bleeding edge tech and polish and hone it until they have something an average Joe would use.
The world hasn't had enough time with iOS 5 Siri yet. I expect it will be much more polished than anything you mention, but it's simply too soon to tell. Also, I found it telling Apple calls this "Beta" technology
Re:Indeed, and for a LONG TIME. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is patently false.
Techcrunch: [techcrunch.com] Yes, others have done voice controls before — even Apple has had them baked into iOS for a few years. But most, including Apple’s previous attempt, have been awful. Others, like Google’s voice services built into Android, are decent. Siri is great.
In the coming weeks and months, we’re going to hear: “both fill-in-the-blank-Android-phone and the iPhone 4S have voice control functionality”. But that’s like saying both Citizen Kane and BioDome are films. True on paper. Decidedly less true when you have to actually experience them.
You really have to use it yourself to see just how great Siri actually is. Using it for the past week, I’ve done everything from getting directions, to sending emails, to sending text messages, to looking up information on WolframAlpha, to getting restaurant recommendations on Yelp, to taking notes, to setting reminders, to setting calendar appointments, to setting alarms, to searching the web. The amount of times Siri hasn’t been able to understand and execute my request is astonishingly low. I’ll say something that I’m sure Siri won’t be able to understand, and it gets it.
Re:Indeed, and for a LONG TIME. (Score:5, Informative)
I tried the same voice actions from the Apple trailer for Siri:
It could write a text message to a named contact. That's actually pretty useful.
I asked it "what's the traffic like around here" and I got... a Google search for "what's the traffic like around here".
I said "text mom I'm going to be 30 minutes late" and I got... a Google search of what I said. I'm beginning to see a pattern here...
I tried "is it going to be chilly in San Francisco this weekend?" and I got... you already know what I got. A fucking Google search.
"Set my timer for 30 minutes" got me... a Google search!
Based on that all-too-brief test Vlingo does not support all the commands Siri does, at least on my phone; it does not understand natural language very well; does not speak back at all (let alone to refine a query) and has no idea about context.
So it'll work for 90% of the population? (Score:3)
Always the problem with engineering something like Speech Recognition is you'll have to train people to enunciate correctly - though with Siri the opposite may become true, where the LOL, WTF, UR, etc. generation adopt an entirely new dialect to communicate with their devices.
Thank goodness, for the remaining 10% we'll still have the comedy of a person standing on a street corner yelling at their iPhone. "No! Phone home! ET want PHONE HOME! No! Not Rome! PHONE HOME!!"
Hype much? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple fans can take comfort from this evidence that while Steve Jobs may no longer be with us in the flesh, he lives on in the hearts of journalists. And the reality distortion field is still fully operational.
Inside? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Inside? (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. It's done in the cloud, just like Android's implementation. You need a data connection for it to work. Apple stated this in the introductory announcement.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I am the only one seeing potential privacy issues there.
(of a phone that sends constant audio surveilance of its surrounding to the creator)
Re:Inside? (Score:4, Informative)
Heh, you bought that one hook, line, and sinker too. The reason why it's only available on the 4S is because they want to sell 4Ses.
"Encode" the message? It's a freaking blob of audio data. The worst that would need to be done is compression. My dinky little HTC Hero had no problem passing audio data back to the server farm for processing, I'm sure the suddenly-woefully-inadequate iPhone 4 could handle it just fine too.
--Jeremy
Mr Scott will be pleased (Score:3)
But can you actually talk into the mouse?
Ben there done that (Score:5, Interesting)
Based on *what*? (Score:3)
The article makes no mention of having tested or even *seen* a Siri-equipped iPhone, yet he claims it will revolutionize the way we interact with electronics just as dramatically as the mouse changed the personal computing experience.
My favorite example: "Siri, is there any football on right now? When is my team next playing? Could you record it for me?" He's just talking about the same voice-activated, computer-controlled house they've been promising us since 1950. How does he know that yet another random voice recognition program will suddenly make it possible?
What a bunch of empty drivel.
Wildfire did that. (Score:4, Interesting)
Listen to this Wildfire demo [virtuosity.com]. 1990s technology. Used by Orange Mobile. Used a lot of compute power for the 1990s. Cost about $5/day originally; became cheaper by 2005 or so. Bought by Microsoft. Run into the ground. Sold off to a small company, Virtuosity. Still available.
Way ahead of its time.
Revolutionary as the Mac? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Mac was not really that revolutionary. However it did greatly popularize an existing revolution in graphical user interfaces started by Xerox PARC.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure sure, I've seen the early Xerox screenshots and they had scroll bars and were relatively advanced to what you see on the Lisa and early Macs. And PARC is usually credited with the pioneering the desktop metaphor. Jobs visited PARC in 1979, and yet in Smalltak-80 version 1 you see a full featured GUI (granted oriented to the programmer and not general public), and the Xerox Star in 1981 was very advanced with desktop icons and scrollbars (though not a market success due to cost).
Apple did do a
Re: (Score:3)
That it did, but until the Mac came out, did you honestly remember reading anything at all about what they were doing at PARC back then?
There was a whole industry selling UNIX workstations with GUIs years before the Mac cam out. Apollo, Sun, Three Rivers, etc. They were quite nice, but cost upwards of $10K. The original Mac was a crappy imitation of those, with one floppy drive and no hard drive. Having used both, I wasn't impressed with the original Macintosh. And, in fact, it was a commercial flop. Not until the product line acquired a hard drive and 512K of memory did it cease to suck.
The Apple Lisa was actually a rather nice machine
Common mistake (Score:3)
The article makes the common mistake of assuming that since language is optimized for human-to-human communication then it is a preferable form of communication between humans and other entities.
For starters human-to-human communication has a huge amount of redundancy. We repeat, reinforce, gesture with our hands and gesticulate with our faces to make sure our message is coming across. Mr. Spock wouldn't need all of that repetition, and neither does the computer.
You don't want to have to tell to the car "can you please apply the brakes now?" it is much easier, and yes, more natural to simply press a button or step on the brake pedal.
You don't believe me still? Armies all over the world establish a special communication protocol that purposely moves away from natural language communication with all its ambiguities to a command/control sparse language with just the right amount of redundancy to deal with noisy communications.
Captain: "Right full rudder, degree down angle."
Pilot: "Right full rudder, degree down angle, sir"
Think back (Score:3)
How many people back then actually thought the Mac (or the GUI) would change computing? Well, it certainly did, but for quite a while very many people (among them most of the computer geeks) thought it was an inferior, silly way to deal with computers.
I think in the long run maybe it won't be Siri as such that will be revolutionary, but natural language recognition of course will change things. Not by controlling a computer as such (this would be as saying that a GUI would revolutionize entering CLI commands by clicking keys on an on-screen keyboard) but by actually interacting with data and data processing resources and networks out there without consciously interacting with a computer at all. The computer will be realized fully only when you aren't aware at all that you're actually using a computer.
You don't need to praise Apple for what they're doing. I'm just happy that ANYONE has the balls to introduce such technology, even in its humble beginnings, to the masses.
If you're interested in what Siri can understand and act on: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/10/05/iphone-4s-what-can-you-say-to-siri/ [tuaw.com]
BTW, Siri also kicks in if you just hold the iPhone to your ear without being in a call (via the proximity sensor), which makes using it not as awkward as many seem to think.
Apple TV (Score:3)
"Record all new episodes of Family Guy."
"Show a slideshow of my photos from January of this year."
"What games are on ESPN today?"
"Turn on when Game of Thrones is on."
"When is the next NFL game?"
"Play my Coldplay channel on Pandora"
the T-shirt (Score:3)
'I helped wreck a nice beach' I am hopping that Siri will be better that speech recognition that has been floating around for the last 15+ years, it isn't new. What the young people have missed is the video done by Apple Developers in about 1987 which showed a tablet with great speech recognition, but was Sculley's dream and not Steve's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_Navigator
The same dumb voice recognition as always (Score:4, Insightful)
Voice recognition is about as stupid as it's always been. People forget that the reason voice recognition didn't catch on in the '80s wasn't because of any lack of accuracy in the recognition side. It was because of lack of accuracy on the voice side.
So I'll propose the exact same experiment for you today. Take your normal, non voice recognition smartphone, and give it to your friend. Then telly our friend what to do with it.
You'll discover that your friend frequently has no idea what you mean, does the wrong thing, doesn't understand that your new commands are corrective commands, and accidentally e-mails your mother.
The reason we invented buttons was to quantify our actions into ones that can be controlled, both positively and negatively. It's very easy to never click on the big red button with the mouse. It's not so easy to never accidentally say "launch missle", ever.
Like I said, there's no voice recognition system that can get more than 95% accuracy, and I'm including your friend. When it comes to something technical, 95% isn't anywhere near enough. That's like dictating a 10-digit telephone number, and missing one digit every other time.
So, would you accept your smartphone asking you to clarify your statements? That's just ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it like a speech input for an Infocom game?
Some of these games also were able to understand pronouns like "it", "him", "there" ...
Re:Except not? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps, but isn't that the point?
Every so often someone comes along trying to reinvent the wheel on computer interfaces, and it usually falls flat - like the "arms up in the air Minority Report UI", or 3D UIs etc.
Taking a bunch of features that people use all the time and combining it into a system that you can interact with quickly and easily when you're not "actively using" your device might be exactly what we need.
Being able to pick up your phone and say "remind me to call mom when I get home" and then put it right back down and have the phone be able to work out what you want is a great idea. It takes you about 5 seconds and then you can go back to whatever you were doing.
I don't think we'll be using it like Star Trek just yet as the main way we interact with computers, but for simple things like that I think it could be awesome (dare I say, "magical (TM)").
As many people will point out here, this is not Apple's original technology, they weren't the first to do it, there will be use cases where it won't work, you can do it much more cheaply and non-walled-garden-y with a rooted Nexus GTi Turbo running cyanogen, Apple steals everything, they're an evil empire tracking your every move and other such tiresome memes etc etc, but Siri is one of the first attempts to really pull this sort of thing together cohesively. Whether it is successful or not, who can say yet? It's certainly interesting and I expect we'll see it on many other smartphones in a similar guise - it's not like the technology is unique.
Re: (Score:3)
The advent of Siri is nothing revolutionary. It is simply combining already existing apps/features with a few things added. Sure, contextual voice interaction is interesting, but it's not a revolutionary thing.
Ah, if the damn thing actually works and works well, trust me that alone IS revolutionary.
I remember going to computer conventions 15 years ago with people selling various voice recognition software, promising that the keyboard will be a thing of the past, and yet here we are years later still banging away on these little clicking squares, mainly because most solutions suck at being anywhere near "natural"...
Re: (Score:3)
"page up, page up, down, down, down, shift o, slash splat quot FIXME -- who wrote this shit ques ques splat slash quot CR escape"
Re:speech recognition is noisy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you can't eat soup with a fork doesn't make a fork a bad eating implement.
Speech recognition isn't for saying the name of keystrokes whilst editing a document. You use a keyboard for that. It's not for drag and drop tasks, you use a mouse or trackpad for that (keyboards suck at dragging and dropping). It's for requesting the kind of things you might as ask of a secretary. Including dictation, calendar, to-dos, simple enquiries etc.
A toolbox doesn't have only one tool, it has many. Siri is another way to interact with an iPhone - it not intended to replace the other ways, but add another option to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Daily I wish people would indeed stop doing this.
Re:Bah (Score:5, Interesting)
A good touch typer can accurately do 60 wpm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touch_typing). I've seen ones that can come close to 100 wpm with relatively few errors, at least in short bursts.
Typical speech rates are 140-200 wpm, depending on the subject and the speakers mood (http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/005018.html). Pretty much everyone can speak and comprehend 300 wpm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute), and some people can speak as high has 500 wpm. You can read around 300 wpm.
I suspect the reality is you type at somewhere between 25-50% of the speed you can talk, and that's for ordinary words. Throw in special characters that require you to do complex keystrokes and your typing will tank, but your speech will not. For instance, check your words per minute typing something like this vrs reading it (assuming you have a standard US keyboard).
Please tell Mr Muños that it is £200 or ¥20,000; and Mr Schröder would like a response immediately.
I bet you can say that as fast as any other sentence, but typing it will require you to look up a character or two unless you type international stuff a lot.
Re:Bah (Score:4, Funny)
Pistol missed your moon Otis 200 bouncer 20,010 and mistress rotor would like a responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet you can say that as fast as any other sentence, but typing it will require you to look up a character or two unless you type international stuff a lot.
Now, dictate a letter. You think anything short of a human being currently could possibly punctuate it correctly, filter out any thing that wasn't intended for the letter...
The reason typing is faster than dictation is that I can type exactly what I want. And if I decide to revise it the user interface is ideal for that. Copy/paste, select, delete... tr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
There is a difference in text-to-speech which has been around forever and natural speech recognition
Yes, text-to-speech and speech recognition are very different technologies. So different, in fact, that they're virtually exact opposites.
Re: (Score:3)
I can type almost as fast as i can talk
Not on a phone you can't.
Re:Office Use? (Score:4, Funny)
"Can you honestly see this being used in an office environment?"
You're right. Nobody ever talks into phones in an office. /s
Re:Office Use? (Score:5, Funny)
Of course. Half the point of Apple's gadgets seem to be to draw attention to them all the fucking time. Case in point: the story above.
Totally!
Posted from my iPhone
Re: (Score:3)
Now you just think what you want to do, and it will be done.
No need for that. In the utopia of Jobsism, in a few years your iThings will not need a control interface because they'll just tell you what to think.
Re: (Score:3)
Because it's Apple it is suddenly world changing technology. Had it been anybody else it would have been: Well when Apple implements it properly...
It's world changing when the masses can easily use it, or when it impacts everyday life. An honest-to-God working teleportation device wouldn't be world changing if it never got out of the research lab and only a few scientists used it.