4 ms·

Calling Siri innovation is revisionist history. Google had voice search nearly a year when Apple launched Siri. Also, Apple bought Siri, they didn't invent it.

Calling Siri innovation is revisionist history. Google had voice search nearly a year when Apple launched Siri. Also, Apple bought Siri, they didn't invent it. Based on the interactions I've had with Siri/Google search (I have an Android) there haven't really been any innovations in the space since Google introduced voice search. It's useful, but imperfect.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
If you want to be picky about that sort of thing Google bought Android, they didn't invent it.
- eloisant 14y ago
  They probably bought it, but it's Google who brought Android to the state it is today. Just look how Android was when the G1 launched - and that's 2 years after Google acquired them.
- runjake 14y ago
  If you really want to be picky about that sort of thing, Android wasn't even a pseudo-Blackberry OS-looking, D-Pad-controlled OS when Google bought it. In other words, anything notable about Android today was created at Google, from the kernel up to the UI to the frameworks to all the little features all these Android "switchers" are raving about.
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    The things that make Siri as useful as it is (which for the record IHMO is not very) is tight integration with iOS contacts, calendars and text messages for instance - all things not in the product when Apple bought it and all things which may ultimately enable the sort of integrated experiences people are saying are great with Google Now. Seriously, when Apple bought it Siri was interesting and pretty cool, but it's a different beast now. The parallel between it and original Android is fair - they're both evolved versions of something which was acquired.
    - runjake 14y ago
      That may be, but don't use a myth to posit your position. The Android that Google acquired is a grain of sand of what it is today. Anything remotely notable or worthwhile out of Android came out of Google. FWIW, Siri is great and I currently use an iPhone.
      - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        Except perhaps the most important thing - the idea? Possibly worth looking too at what I was originally doing - refuting the idea that Android was a major Google innovation where Siri was merely an acquisition. Even if you say that Google have reworked Android to the extent that it's essentially new, the same is largely true of Siri if you look what it was when Apple bought it (small scale, movie tickets and restaurant bookings). The only difference is one is three years on, the other is ten years on.
        runjake 14y ago
        What idea? Android? Android was essentially an unknown brand when Google bought it. It certainly wasn't a technology (or at least a technology that has any similarity to Android today).
        Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        It was a mobile operating system. That seems pretty similar to me.
mikeash 14y ago
Siri is not "voice search". Siri was very much an innovation when it was originally released as a standalone app, and was still ahead of the game when Apple bought it and integrated it. Google certainly may be ahead now, but to compare Siri to plunking what you say into a Google search box is just wrong.
- calinet6 14y ago
  Sure, it was innovative back before Apple bought it, but what Apple did to Siri was basically dumbing it down to the level of plunking things into a Google Search box. Google Now really has improved things a lot.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    The most useful parts of Siri for me are time and location-based reminders, locating friends, and alerting me when a friend goes somewhere. All of this was in Apple's version of Siri, and as far as I know isn't duplicated by tossing text into Google.
    - cma 14y ago
      Google had voice tasks (initiation reminders, text messages, emails, navigation requests) before Siri was released. The only difference is they are pretty strictly keyword initiated ("Navigate to X", "Text Y Z"), whereas Siri can parse natural language for tasks (or at least appear to; it may well just have a bunch of hardcoded variations).
roc 14y ago
Siri isn't about voice search. It's about voice-initiated tasks. Sometimes that's search, but sometimes it's a reminder, or a calendar appointment, etc. The innovation is in that distinction and in the context awareness. [1] And that truly is innovation. Regardless of where it came from. If/As Siri is expanded, it's going to become a Big Deal. And Google's going to deliver something similar. Something beyond literal transcription and voice search, because what Siri presents really is an innovative improvement. And as to the question of Apple buying Siri vs developing it -- where does that argument end? How could we possibly apply it fairly and objectively? Shall we wave off all of Android as Google's innovation, simply because Google bought it? How many improvements and integrations would it take to (dis)qualify an innovation as being fairly creditable to the current owner? How could we even know what the new owner 'created' vs what these acquired firms had in development at the time of purchase? Does Apple's SoC line count or not count, given they bought PA Semi, but we have no idea what they did pre- or post-acquisition? How in the world is anyone outside capable of knowing? It's essentially impossible for an outside party to fairly apply in a comparison between two companies. The selective application of that qualifying logic winds up looking like nothing more than making excuses for whatever doesn't fit our preconceived positions. [1] Being able to refine/adjust a command without restating the entire thing: e.g. the whole example of "make an appointment for 1 tomorrow" "here's your appointment, shall I create it" "wait, make that 2". To say nothing of the detection of things like scheduling conflicts in the first place, where the conversational context-awareness truly shines. i.e. It's not just simple input, it's an 'intelligent' exchange in the pursuit of the task.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  Google search is also about voice-initiated tasks. Back in late 2010 /early 2011, when voice search was launched, I pulled out my phone and said "Navigate to <friend's name>." It automatically pulled my friend's address out of my contact book and started turn-by-turn navigation. Obviously there are things about Siri that are different and better suited to certain tasks. I'm not saying Google search is better, I'm not even saying Google search is a great innovation to come out of Google. I'm just saying Siri is a bad example of something ground-breaking that Apple created.

Tyrannosaurs 14y ago

If you want to be picky about that sort of thing Google bought Android, they didn't invent it.

eloisant 14y ago
They probably bought it, but it's Google who brought Android to the state it is today. Just look how Android was when the G1 launched - and that's 2 years after Google acquired them.
runjake 14y ago
If you really want to be picky about that sort of thing, Android wasn't even a pseudo-Blackberry OS-looking, D-Pad-controlled OS when Google bought it. In other words, anything notable about Android today was created at Google, from the kernel up to the UI to the frameworks to all the little features all these Android "switchers" are raving about.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  The things that make Siri as useful as it is (which for the record IHMO is not very) is tight integration with iOS contacts, calendars and text messages for instance - all things not in the product when Apple bought it and all things which may ultimately enable the sort of integrated experiences people are saying are great with Google Now. Seriously, when Apple bought it Siri was interesting and pretty cool, but it's a different beast now. The parallel between it and original Android is fair - they're both evolved versions of something which was acquired.
  - runjake 14y ago
    That may be, but don't use a myth to posit your position. The Android that Google acquired is a grain of sand of what it is today. Anything remotely notable or worthwhile out of Android came out of Google. FWIW, Siri is great and I currently use an iPhone.
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      Except perhaps the most important thing - the idea? Possibly worth looking too at what I was originally doing - refuting the idea that Android was a major Google innovation where Siri was merely an acquisition. Even if you say that Google have reworked Android to the extent that it's essentially new, the same is largely true of Siri if you look what it was when Apple bought it (small scale, movie tickets and restaurant bookings). The only difference is one is three years on, the other is ten years on.
      - runjake 14y ago
        What idea? Android? Android was essentially an unknown brand when Google bought it. It certainly wasn't a technology (or at least a technology that has any similarity to Android today).
        Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
        It was a mobile operating system. That seems pretty similar to me.

mikeash 14y ago

Siri is not "voice search". Siri was very much an innovation when it was originally released as a standalone app, and was still ahead of the game when Apple bought it and integrated it. Google certainly may be ahead now, but to compare Siri to plunking what you say into a Google search box is just wrong.

calinet6 14y ago
Sure, it was innovative back before Apple bought it, but what Apple did to Siri was basically dumbing it down to the level of plunking things into a Google Search box. Google Now really has improved things a lot.
- mikeash 14y ago
  The most useful parts of Siri for me are time and location-based reminders, locating friends, and alerting me when a friend goes somewhere. All of this was in Apple's version of Siri, and as far as I know isn't duplicated by tossing text into Google.
  - cma 14y ago
    Google had voice tasks (initiation reminders, text messages, emails, navigation requests) before Siri was released. The only difference is they are pretty strictly keyword initiated ("Navigate to X", "Text Y Z"), whereas Siri can parse natural language for tasks (or at least appear to; it may well just have a bunch of hardcoded variations).

roc 14y ago

Siri isn't about voice search. It's about voice-initiated tasks. Sometimes that's search, but sometimes it's a reminder, or a calendar appointment, etc. The innovation is in that distinction and in the context awareness. [1] And that truly is innovation. Regardless of where it came from. If/As Siri is expanded, it's going to become a Big Deal. And Google's going to deliver something similar. Something beyond literal transcription and voice search, because what Siri presents really is an innovative improvement. And as to the question of Apple buying Siri vs developing it -- where does that argument end? How could we possibly apply it fairly and objectively? Shall we wave off all of Android as Google's innovation, simply because Google bought it? How many improvements and integrations would it take to (dis)qualify an innovation as being fairly creditable to the current owner? How could we even know what the new owner 'created' vs what these acquired firms had in development at the time of purchase? Does Apple's SoC line count or not count, given they bought PA Semi, but we have no idea what they did pre- or post-acquisition? How in the world is anyone outside capable of knowing? It's essentially impossible for an outside party to fairly apply in a comparison between two companies. The selective application of that qualifying logic winds up looking like nothing more than making excuses for whatever doesn't fit our preconceived positions. [1] Being able to refine/adjust a command without restating the entire thing: e.g. the whole example of "make an appointment for 1 tomorrow" "here's your appointment, shall I create it" "wait, make that 2". To say nothing of the detection of things like scheduling conflicts in the first place, where the conversational context-awareness truly shines. i.e. It's not just simple input, it's an 'intelligent' exchange in the pursuit of the task.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lukeschlather 14y ago
Google search is also about voice-initiated tasks. Back in late 2010 /early 2011, when voice search was launched, I pulled out my phone and said "Navigate to <friend's name>." It automatically pulled my friend's address out of my contact book and started turn-by-turn navigation. Obviously there are things about Siri that are different and better suited to certain tasks. I'm not saying Google search is better, I'm not even saying Google search is a great innovation to come out of Google. I'm just saying Siri is a bad example of something ground-breaking that Apple created.