5 ms·
>People on Smartphones can ask a question of Siri in 2~3 seconds as opposed to typing that question in Google within 10~20. Umm...Siri is cool, but that's not
by SomeCallMeTim 15y ago
>People on Smartphones can ask a question of Siri in 2~3 seconds as opposed to typing that question in Google within 10~20.
Umm...Siri is cool, but that's not the advantage over Android. Android has had awesome voice recognition built in for ... over a year now? Not sure exactly how long, but my wife's dirt cheap ($150 with no contract) phone does voice recognition really well. I haven't had to type in a search query (with a 3G or WiFi connection active) since I got my new Android phone, either.
In addition to the basic Google search, it will send you to Google Navigation, send SMS messages to a friend in your contacts, and other things (I don't have the list in front of me). Siri adds to it by having a bit more context ("when I get home", for instance). It's cool, but it's not the voice recognition that's new. Except on the iPhone.
The big significance to Google is that it cuts them out of the iPhone search. But there are more Android phones than iPhones already, and the Android is growing faster, so that's becoming less relevant as well.
- jarcoal 15y agoJust to note, the iPhone has had voice recognition for a couple years as well (since the 3GS).
- jayfuerstenberg 15y agoSorry, maybe I didn't phrase my point correctly. Since Apple controls the iPhone they can make it favorable for people to avoid visiting google.com and typing in their query (of course they can dictate that query too). That's a very powerful position to be in. Apple has demonstrated this by making Wolfram Alpha available for answering some queries. I see Apple continuing on this road and maybe aggregating results from various search engines (including Google even) and presenting them outside of Google's format.
- itswindy 15y agoTrue, plus Apple can afford to have it ad free long enough to hurt Google. Try adding a 5 sec commercial each time someone asks