Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Android Google Apple

Google Unveils New Search Features, Including iOS Voice Search 96

First time accepted submitter sohmc writes "Some time ago, Google admitted that the biggest threat was not other search engines but services like Siri. However, Google just bridged that gap with Google Voice Search, already available in Jelly Bean, but also available via downloadable app. Google also submitted this app to the iOS App Store and is currently waiting approval. However, Slashdotters are no doubt recalling to mind the 'Google Voice' fiasco, in which Apple refused to allow it to appear, saying that it replaces a native function. It wasn't until Apple was brought before Congress to answer questions on how it approves or rejects apps that Google Voice was brought in."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Unveils New Search Features, Including iOS Voice Search

Comments Filter:
  • Re:gay (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nerdfest ( 867930 ) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @07:38PM (#40924711)

    Coincidentally (perhaps), "Siri" was the name of a gay starship captain in "The forever War".

  • Re:not equivalent (Score:5, Informative)

    by SoftwareArtist ( 1472499 ) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @07:52PM (#40924909)

    Not true. It's done much more than simple text entry for a long time, and it got a major upgrade in Jelly Bean. Reviews are now generally calling it superior to Siri.

  • Re:Not a monopoly... (Score:5, Informative)

    by cpu6502 ( 1960974 ) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @07:52PM (#40924921)

    You don't have to be a monopoly to be prosecuted. Microsoft certainly wasn't a monopoly on the desktop when it was prosecuted. Or Standard Oil when it was prosecuted. You only have to have a large enough share of a certain market that your presence is "anti-competitive" and blocks other companies from succeeding. Apple certainly fits that description in the cellphone & tablet markets.

  • Re:Not a monopoly... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @07:54PM (#40924939)

    The monopoly "requirement" only applies to Section 2 violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    Section 1 "anti-competitive" violations have no such requirement.

  • Re:Nothing new here (Score:2, Informative)

    by EGSonikku ( 519478 ) <petersen DOT mobile AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:50PM (#40925531)

    Helll, the 3GS had voice controls and access to voice search apps. I guess "finally getting it" means "has had it as long as the other players".

  • Re:Not a monopoly... (Score:2, Informative)

    by EGSonikku ( 519478 ) <petersen DOT mobile AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:52PM (#40925555)

    And Apple hasn't been nailed for it, nor is anyone but the Android fan boys even bringing it up. So who's the moron?

  • Re:Not a monopoly... (Score:4, Informative)

    by rgbrenner ( 317308 ) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @08:53PM (#40925561)

    microsoft controlled 90% of the operating system market when the antitrust suit was filed in 1998 []

    Countries define what percentage qualifies as a monopoly. In the UK, a company is defined as having monopoly power when it passes 25% market share. []

    In the US, 100% has never been required to qualify as a monopoly. Standard Oil controlled 91% of production, and 85% of US sales four years before the antitrust suit was filed.

    Section 2 of the sherman antitrust act:

    Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony

    And to be prosecuted under that section, two things have to be proven:

    (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and
            (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.

    #2 is called the rule of reason - []

  • Re:not equivalent (Score:4, Informative)

    by R3d M3rcury ( 871886 ) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @09:49PM (#40926009) Journal

    And it does little to address either the vertical search gap presented by Yelp, or the "diagonal" functionality gap that Siri addresses by smoothly integrating with your other iOS apps like text message, alarm or calendar.

    Can't speak for Google Voice Search on Android, but...

    Awhile ago, we were making a McDonald's run and I asked Jennifer what she wanted. She told me to pick her up a 6-piece McNuggets with Barbecue sauce. I pulled out my iPhone and wrote myself a note in the notepad: Jennifer's order is a 6-piece McNuggets with Barbecue sauce. I then brought up Siri and said, "Siri, what is Jennifer's order?" Siri thought for a moment and said, "I don't know. Would you like me to search the web for Jennifer's order?"

    What's funny is that when I went to the iOS Search Screen, turned on the microphone, and said, "Jennifer's order," the first thing to pop up was the note that I had written.

    So, no, Siri only integrates with some of Apple's apps.

  • Re:google now (Score:2, Informative)

    by Black LED ( 1957016 ) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @10:55PM (#40926585)
    It seems Google Voice Search in Jelly Bean works a little better. Asking for sunset gives me the correct answer. Asking for sunrise this morning gives me sunrise for tomorrow. Asking for sunrise or sunset in Cleveland, Ohio works fine, but asking about a specific date brings up a Google search result which does have links to accurate information.
  • Re:Citation needed (Score:4, Informative)

    by immaterial ( 1520413 ) on Thursday August 09, 2012 @12:09AM (#40927195)
    The FCC asked some questions, yes. And then did nothing at all about it. It wasn't until a year and a half later when Apple revised their App Store Review Guidelines [] that Google Voice was approved (along with many other apps that had been rejected previously). There's no evidence whatsoever that the FCC had any more to do with that than Congress did (read: none). The submitter is either woefully misinformed or intentionally trolling; either way the editors should have caught it.
  • Re:Nothing new here (Score:3, Informative)

    by Plumpaquatsch ( 2701653 ) on Thursday August 09, 2012 @06:11AM (#40929185) Journal

    Voice search has been on Android for about three years now. Just because IOS users are finally getting it does not make it news.

    Wrong on so many counts, it isn't even close.

    The "voice search" that is talked about in the article is new in Jellybean, so only a few weeks old.

    Searching by voice as part of "Voice Actions for Android" has been available since Froyo, a little over 2 years.

    The same searching by voice has been in the Google Search [] App for iOS for an unknown time, but at least since before the last update in June 2012.

    The fact that iOS had "Voice Control" for a year before Android had Voice Actions is just the icing on your cake of wrongness.

"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban