4 ms·

They shouldn't have to. If there are no technical reasons why this can't work it should.

• doctoboggan 15y ago
  Yeah but there is a monetary reason why this shouldn't work, and that is reason enough for most companies.
• blhack 15y ago
  This has been standard operating procedure on iOS devices since...ever. There's also no reason that Safari can't upload photos out of the browser...except the fact that it would allow devs to write web-based apps that use the camera, meaning less mindshare going to iOS dev. Right now (well, as of about a month ago, the last time I looked), that's impossible.
  • Terretta 15y ago
    Agreed about Safari, but iCab for iOS can upload photos from the browser. I have uploaded avatars to Twitter etc using iCab and those sites' regular upload forms.
• jcampbell1 15y ago
  I think the main issue is they don't want to rollout a beta product to 100M devices all at once. The secret to quality voice recognition is a great training set. The experience will get better over time. My guess is it will be rolled out to all devices after a beta period.
• rkudeshi 15y ago
  They probably don't want to worry about backwards compatibility. By focusing exclusively on the newest model, they can maximize the power of the feature.
• illumin8 15y ago
  I believe the voice recognition accuracy of Siri is far superior to Google Voice Actions and requires the dual core CPU. Google has taken a different approach, where your voice sample is uploaded to a Google server, processed, and downloaded back to the device. This takes less CPU power but is also far less accurate, as the voice sample must be very low quality to have a quick response time from Google's server. Apple/Siri are taking the approach that high quality voice recognition must be done on device in order to provide the level of performance and accuracy that voice recognition requires. I think we will find that Siri actually works and doesn't have as many errors as Google's voicemail transcription. This is the reason for requiring iPhone 4S.
  • rwolf 15y ago
    This takes less CPU power but is also far less accurate, as the voice sample must be very low quality to have a quick response time from Google's server. Has there been a comparison of the accuracy of the two services? This claim seems unsupported.
  • drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    Why would it be less accurate? I've worked with voice quite a bit at my last job and the codecs and bitrates for voice don't need to be this heavy-duty CD-quality stuff. Your big limitation is going to be those cheesy mics and background noise, wind, etc. Voice compresses nicely. Turns out we humans aren't capable of making such varied sound that it can't compress. Our mouth holes are ancient technology. In practice, I'm in love with Google's voice capabilities. It seems to understand context. Its crazy how accurate it is. I often tease my iphone friends with it. I'm also highly skeptical that an application on a phone can outdo google's massive libraries and server infrastructure. If anything, I'd expect the Apple voice to be worse. Regardless, I can't wait to see this stuff in action. A war for the best voice recognition would be great right now as its been a patent blocked and ignored field for the most part.
  • brandonb 15y ago
    You've got it backwards. Modern speech recognizers have a vocabulary of a million words and multi-gigabyte models. It's generally much more accurate to do speech recognition in the cloud, since you have more processing power and more RAM to hold large statistical models. The rumor is that Apple is sending the audio to Nuance servers, i.e., they're doing cloud-based speech recognition.
    • illumin8 15y ago
      False, they're doing on device speech recognition. Servers are only used if you request information from the Internet. Look at the demos and read the hands on reports. On device recognition makes it much more usable than Google Voice Actions.
    • timrichard 15y ago