PDA

View Full Version : Siri Shows Increasing Promise, But Accuracy Falls Short of Google Text Searches




MacRumors
Jun 29, 2012, 10:23 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/siri-shows-increasing-promise-but-accuracy-falls-short-of-google-text-searches/)


In what should not be a surprise given Siri's beta status and its use of new technology for voice interaction with mobile devices, a study from Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster finds that Siri's abilities are still eclipsed by the traditional text-entry Google searches that have been in place for years.

The study included presenting Siri with 800 queries in each of two environments, a quiet room and a busy urban street, and then assessing Siri's ability to correctly interpret the queries and provide correct responses. Specifically addressing the outdoor testing, Munster notes:While Google comprehends 100% of searches, Siri was only able to comprehend 83% of the prompted questions on a busy Minneapolis street. In terms of answer accuracy, Siri correctly answered 62% of queries on the street compared to Google's estimated 86% answer accuracy. Based on these results, we give Google an A+ for comprehension and a B+ for accuracy while we give Siri a B for comprehension and a D for accuracy.But while Siri has some room for improvement, Munster acknowledges that the technology is only in its infancy and he remains "optimistic about its future" with an eye toward iOS 6 as bringing substantial improvements.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/10/siri_examples.jpg


Piper Jaffray's testing was conducted using the iPhone's built-in microphone in the quiet setting and Skullcandy microphone headphones for the outdoor setting, with Siri's ability to correctly comprehend queries falling from 89% to 83% when moving outdoors to the noisy urban setting. On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results.

Piper Jaffray also analyzed the sources for Siri's results, finding that Google provided 60% of the answers, with Yelp and other sources filling in the remainder.Of queries excluding commands (i.e. call Jay, send text) Google would provide 60% of the answers, Yelp 20%, WolframAlpha 14%, Yahoo 4%, and Wikipedia 2%. Breaking down Siri's reliance further, Google provides 100% of navigation results, 61% of information results, 48% of commerce results and 42% of local results. Among other result aggregators, Yelp provided the most local results (51%) and commerce results (51%), while WolframAlpha provided 34% of information results.Munster estimates that Google's share of Siri results will drop to 48% with the launch of iOS 6 as navigation, sports, and movie queries shift over to Apple and its new partners.

Article Link: Siri Shows Increasing Promise, But Accuracy Falls Short of Google Text Searches (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/29/siri-shows-increasing-promise-but-accuracy-falls-short-of-google-text-searches/)



Penderworth
Jun 29, 2012, 10:26 AM
No links to sources? That's helpful.

jasonxneo
Jun 29, 2012, 10:30 AM
Many people have bashed siri for not being accurate/ helpful. Honestly when siri came out I never saw myself using it a whole lot. But now, I use it regularly on a daily basis. It has come a long way even though it was just released a couple months ago.

AustinIllini
Jun 29, 2012, 10:30 AM
I feel like Apple should do more delta updates to Siri. Pulling it off beta should be the last major publicized update to Siri. After that, just update it periodically.

Small White Car
Jun 29, 2012, 10:31 AM
I wonder if Apple's just going to continue with small, invisible background updates to Siri.

I kind of wonder if they're going to hold back on some of the big updates and have a big "1.0 announcement" when iOS 6 comes out. I sort of think that method might be a good idea since people's opinion of Siri seem to be sagging.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:31 AM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

RoboCop001
Jun 29, 2012, 10:31 AM
Not totally surprising. Google's been working on their search algorithms for years.

But the only fair comparison is when you ignore the times when Siri misinterprets what you're saying. Siri has vocal input, but after it processes your speech into text, it is still doing a text based search.

With iOS 6, it seems Siri is improving. And obviously Apple will continue to improve it's ability to answer correctly and more accurately.

In the end though, Siri is only as good as its sources.

HarryKeogh
Jun 29, 2012, 10:32 AM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

alexgowers
Jun 29, 2012, 10:33 AM
This is meaningless without testing multiple accents in all languages and having questions posed in different ways!

Pointless to the extreme is what comes to mind.

Siri is more of an experiment than a real feature, it's the interpretation of the sentance that is the exciting part of siri and it's ability to follow a thread.

Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

rockland
Jun 29, 2012, 10:34 AM
To me, there's no two ways about it. Uncharacteristically, Apple releases a "beta" product, repeatedly invoking that fact as if it were an excuse.

Which would be fine, if they charged a "beta-worthy" price for iPhone 4S.

Sorry, but it's been well over half a year, and Siri STILL underperforms. Badly.

In my experience and in all kinds of situations and environments, Siri works less than 50% of the time. More like a third of the time. I've pretty much given up on it.

We all love Apple, but to me it's hard not to state the obvious. Siri is (so far) a flop, in terms of living up to its profusely advertised promise. It is not even close to the usual high standards of Apple/SJ. And if he were alive now, I think he would be blowing a gasket about it.

basesloaded190
Jun 29, 2012, 10:34 AM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

What Google showed yesterday with offline support was very impressive, I agree.

iSeb
Jun 29, 2012, 10:34 AM
I tried since a week and I can say you that, in French as in English, when I ask from the keyboard, it works really really well, even with background music or tv. But when I ask the same phrase to Siri... it's very often wrong...

I think then Apple can after the beta (and dev prev) just update it to take the "speech" more correctly...

markieg
Jun 29, 2012, 10:35 AM
a sad man to spend so much time testing that

12dylan34
Jun 29, 2012, 10:36 AM
Siri is a great feature, but about 50% of the time when I try to use it, I end up canceling while she's thinking and just doing what I needed to do manually, since it's faster. I don't want to wait for 30 seconds to find out if it's going to wake me up at the right time, or at all in the morning. Luckily, it's software and can be improved.

MonkeySee....
Jun 29, 2012, 10:36 AM
Kids these days are too Ghetto for Siri. They don't realise you may have to, in life, use the "T" at the end of sentences etc.

I'm by no means posh but Siri understands me quite well. Obviously not so much if you're not a slack jawed idiot.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 10:36 AM
What terrible reporting. Why wasn't it mentioned when giving the comparative data that the Google queries were typed in? Of course typed text will be more accurate than voice recognition. Highly misleading dissemination of data here.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:36 AM
This is meaningless without testing multiple accents in all languages and having questions posed in different ways!

Pointless to the extreme is what comes to mind.

Siri is more of an experiment than a real feature, it's the interpretation of the sentance that is the exciting part of siri and it's ability to follow a thread.

Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

lol you're such a hater man. I hope Apple is paying you.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 10:37 AM
Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.
I think you've been living under a rock if you seriously believe in this...

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:38 AM
What Google showed yesterday with offline support was very impressive, I agree.

Thank you. See, we can all get along.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 10:38 AM
This is meaningless without testing multiple accents in all languages and having questions posed in different ways!
Siri fails even more when it comes to other accents, so you don't want to go there.

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
Doesn't using the headphones disable the built in noise cancelling? Seems like results might have been better if they used the built in mic.

Ciclismo
Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

Nominated for "Post of the Month" award.

RoboCop001
Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
Hopefully Apple adds offline processing for local actions. Could be an additional announcement with iOS 6 in the fall? Maybe exclusive to the new iPhone... that'd be lame though. When Siri exits beta, it should definitely have local processing for the local commands.

Lochias
Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
Munster's assessment compares two completely different resources, a search engine and a personal assistant.

It compares them only on search (since that is all that Google does).

Siri does search, but of a limited sort (e.g., "what is that plane overhead?" "NCA178 Boeing 747-400 at 18,000 feet."). Google does not do that. Nor does it set alarms or remind you to get gas when you leave work.

If you want Siri to do a web search, you can just ask for it.
"Google what team does Peyton Manning play for?"
"Search the Web for what spices are in Lasagna?"
"Yahoo when is the next Haley's comment?"*
* The comment: 'Haven't we already seen that taily thing?"

There is no learning curve.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:39 AM
siri fails even more when it comes to other accents, so you don't want to go there.

+1

Piggie
Jun 29, 2012, 10:42 AM
Siri is more of an experiment than a real feature, it's the interpretation of the sentance that is the exciting part of siri and it's ability to follow a thread.

Whilst there may be some truth in what you say here.

Let's be honest, can you imagine is Siri was not on Apple but on Windows devices, it would be slagged of here as totally useless.

It's only being given the slack it is being given as it's by Apple.

skellener
Jun 29, 2012, 10:42 AM
Sorry, but it's been well over half a year, and Siri STILL underperforms. Badly. iDisk is gone. iCloud only stores one version of each song/movie for everyone. They don't store all your pictures, only the lats 1000. Siri doesn't work. Hmmmm.....Makes you wonder, well what the heck are those data centers doing? Google releases beta products all the time. Only Apple charges you for them. Want Siri - gotta buy the latest hardware to get it.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:42 AM
Whilst there may be some truth in what you say here.

Let's be honest, can you imagine is Siri was not on Apple but on Windows devices, it would be slagged of here as totally useless.

It's only being given the slack it is being given as it's by Apple.

Bingo

MacFather
Jun 29, 2012, 10:43 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kDsOtdRtG0Q

deftdrummer
Jun 29, 2012, 10:43 AM
To me this is really a baseless study. Notice the testing environments were not even given the same hardware parameters? A Skullcandy wired headphone / microphone headset was used fur the outdoor testing.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the iPhone 4S has two really good mics on the phone itself. Top and bottom. So wouldn't using the Skullcandy - especially in the noisier environment be doing a disservice to the control of the experiment?

Really lame test if you ask me.

Roofy.
Jun 29, 2012, 10:44 AM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

a cure writ= accurate

pancakes urethra= ?

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:44 AM
Google S voice also sounds better than Siri. "I'm sorry Siri, just being real. "

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 10:45 AM
What terrible reporting. Why wasn't it mentioned when giving the comparative data that the Google queries were typed in? Of course typed text will be more accurate than voice recognition. Highly misleading dissemination of data here.It was mentioned. What's your point?

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 10:45 AM
Why would they use two different audio sources for a comparison? That's stupid. They should have used the same.

I find my 4S internal mic combined with it's noise cancelling mic to be superior to any other. In my car with the air on high, Siri has no clue what I'm saying through the Bluetooth car connection. If I switch to the 4S internal mic, she nails it everytime. I can't help but think the reduced accuracy outside in this test was due to the Skullcandy mic being WORSE than the internal one. I often stand next to diesel trucks at work talking on my phone and people have no clue, the built in mic is fantastic.

SunshineFires
Jun 29, 2012, 10:45 AM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.
Best post ever.

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 10:46 AM
To me this is really a baseless study. Notice the testing environments were not even given the same hardware parameters? A Skullcandy wired headphone / microphone headset was used fur the outdoor testing.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the iPhone 4S has two really good mics on the phone itself. Top and bottom. So wouldn't using the Skullcandy - especially in the noisier environment be doing a disservice to the control of the experiment?

Really lame test if you ask me.

+1 exactly!

jdmachogg
Jun 29, 2012, 10:47 AM
Well no s.h.i.t.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:47 AM
I like Apple products(obviously I stay on this blog) but I'm a TECH fan first and appreciate technology more than I do a company. Siri blows and it was a very good gimmick by Apple to sell the 4S to many people, I'm not saying ALL people. It doesn't work well most of the time and it's also basic.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 10:48 AM
It was mentioned. What's your point?

It was mentioned in the first paragraph, but not when giving the stats which is misleading. Also, the whole study is pretty stupid. If you really wanted to see Siri's accuracy, you would have asked Siri to Google those queries, that way we can compare exactly how Siri compares to typed-input. The problem with this study is it is comparing two things at once. Siri's accuracy/comprehension, and Wolfram Alpha vs Google for search queries. How about making some of those queries specific to Wolfram's strengths and then we'll see just how good Google's searching is. Ask it some advanced Math. That or just separate the two different factors being evaluated rather than mixing it all up at the same time. Just a terrible way to run these tests since they are not isolating the random variables.

Yelmurc
Jun 29, 2012, 10:49 AM
Siri still has a lot of work that needs to be done with it. But if Apple can do it right and add more services to it like shopping. They could really start chipping away at Googles revenues from Apple products.

I believe that the next interface war will be voice. Touch is already done and done well. From the Macintosh with a windowed interface to the iPhone and iPad with touch these major shifts in interfaces is where you see shifts the market and where profit is to be made.

WannaGoMac
Jun 29, 2012, 10:49 AM
I found Siri useless for how I use my 4GS (which is without a car).

It's slower than doing things myself (thanks AT&T), often MUCH slower than me doing it since not accurate, and then it uses more battery waiting for a command in the background.

So I turned it off and went back the iPhone Voice Commands (call x, play y). The best part? It works OFFLINE.

M-O
Jun 29, 2012, 10:50 AM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

google voice is a telecom service... it's not even in the same category as Siri.

allmIne
Jun 29, 2012, 10:51 AM
Siri's a bit **** in fairness, so this really comes as no surprise. It wouldn't surprise me if it's quietly binned at some point, although I suppose there's more chance of it being absorbed into other projects than binned outright.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 10:52 AM
It was mentioned in the first paragraph, but not when giving the stats which is misleading.

Oh is it really? :rolleyes:

If you really wanted to see Siri's accuracy, you would have asked Siri to Google those queries, that way we can compare exactly how Siri compares to typed-input.You've missed the point of this research. Read the article again. It's not about voice recognition, it's about finding information. Read it again.

allmIne
Jun 29, 2012, 10:52 AM
a cure writ= accurate

pancakes urethra= ?

It's a joke. It's supposed to be nonsense.

Liquorpuki
Jun 29, 2012, 10:53 AM
Munster's assessment compares two completely different resources, a search engine and a personal assistant.

It compares them only on search (since that is all that Google does).

Yeah it's a stupid comparison

Google Text Search = a single application

SIRI = speech recognition plus language modeling applied to many applications. Plus I think SIRI also has an adaptive learning component that lets it cater to the user's speech patterns and get more accurate over time. And the language modeling is so processor heavy you can't run the algorithms client side

I don't know why the guy is comparing the two. One is old tech, one is next gen

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 10:53 AM
I still say that if Apple touts Siri in commercials, as a selling point and all over their website as a clear differentiation - it's hard to "hide" behind the beta label.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:54 AM
google voice is a telecom service... it's not even in the same category as Siri.

Man Siri is useless for the most part. Get over it my dude. Apple didn't create man. It's okay it flopped. No one is perfect

----------

I still say that if Apple touts Siri in commercials, as a selling point and all over their website as a clear differentiation - it's hard to "hide" behind the beta label.

My point exactly

PJMAN2952
Jun 29, 2012, 10:54 AM
Siri is a joke. Google Now is far more advanced than Siri.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 10:55 AM
You've missed the point of this research. Read the article again. It's not about voice recognition, it's about finding information. Read it again.

What kind of information? The queries are already biased to Google, compromising the results. Also, if it wasn't about voice recognition why are they testing this in quiet and urban environments, reporting the accuracy/comprehension results along the way?

allmIne
Jun 29, 2012, 10:55 AM
I still say that if Apple touts Siri in commercials, as a selling point and all over their website as a clear differentiation - it's hard to "hide" behind the beta label.

That's a very good point Sam.

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 10:56 AM
It's a joke. It's supposed to be nonsense.

I doubt it. It's supposed to be a misinterpretation of a real phrase.

I'm wondering the same thing, what phrase was misinterpreted at "pancakes urethra"?

Johnny Vegas
Jun 29, 2012, 10:56 AM
I think the tests would have yielded a higher result if the instructions weren't spoken in a Minnesota accent. Dontcha know?

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 10:56 AM
What kind of information? The queries are already biased to Google, compromising the results. Also, if it wasn't about voice recognition why are they testing this in quiet and urban environments, reporting the accuracy/comprehension results along the way?

Just read the article dude, what am I suppose to say?

cmChimera
Jun 29, 2012, 10:57 AM
Munster's assessment compares two completely different resources, a search engine and a personal assistant.

It compares them only on search (since that is all that Google does).

Siri does search, but of a limited sort (e.g., "what is that plane overhead?" "NCA178 Boeing 747-400 at 18,000 feet."). Google does not do that. Nor does it set alarms or remind you to get gas when you leave work.

If you want Siri to do a web search, you can just ask for it.
"Google what team does Peyton Manning play for?"
"Search the Web for what spices are in Lasagna?"
"Yahoo when is the next Haley's comment?"*
* The comment: 'Haven't we already seen that taily thing?"

There is no learning curve. Agreed, Siri is performing a completely different function.

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 10:58 AM
Man Siri is useless for the most part. Get over it my dude. Apple didn't create man. It's okay it flopped. No one is perfect[COLOR="#808080"]




It's a bit too early to say if flopped. Until it's pulled and no longer part of iOS, or absolutely nobody uses it, it hasn't flopped.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 10:58 AM
Just read the article dude, what am I suppose to say?

I did read the article, the original one that is. How about you respond to my arguments rather than continue with these red herrings?

daneoni
Jun 29, 2012, 10:59 AM
People have unreasonable expectations. You're talking to a computer that in itself is quite something. But NO thats not enough, you automatically expect it to respond like a human at first go. Not only that it must recognize any and all accents too.

Even if some accents sound like the individual has some kind of butt plug attached.

I think Siri is already quite amazing at what it does and i know it'll only get better and better. Comparing it to typing in a Google search just seems weird to me. Where is the comparison in that? you're comparing a virtual personal assistant to typing something into Google...and you expect parity?

Fair point my friend but to me it's useless. Maybe not to others.

Its only useless to you because Google didn't make it.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 10:59 AM
It's a bit too early to say if flopped. Until it's pulled and no longer part of iOS, or absolutely nobody uses it, it hasn't flopped.

Fair point my friend but to me it's useless. Maybe not to others.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 11:02 AM
People have unreasonable expectations. You're talking to a computer that in itself is quite something. But NO thats not enough, you automatically expect it to respond like a human at first go. Not only that it must recognize any and all accents too.

Even if some accents sound like the individual has some kind of butt plug attached, and/or their nose is sealed off like Voldemort's.

I think Siri is already quite amazing at what it does and i know it'll only get better and better.

People have been talking to computers for well over a decade. It's nothing new. What Siri is supposed to be doing (differently) and well is what is up for debate.

I think Siri is ok. I have little need for it. Most of the time when I use any sort of voice control - it's for dictation of a short message and that doesn't require Siri.

akbarali.ch
Jun 29, 2012, 11:02 AM
Many people have bashed siri for not being accurate/ helpful. Honestly when siri came out I never saw myself using it a whole lot. But now, I use it regularly on a daily basis. It has come a long way even though it was just released a couple months ago.

the technology is extremely complex, after having ears since birth humans still quite often miss word and make mistakes in understanding what that person meant to say, SIRI is very new and in BETA.

Even i started SIRI using quite often, its like getting used to.

Mr_Ed
Jun 29, 2012, 11:05 AM
I found Siri performs quite well for me. Not perfect by any means, but I use it regularly and rarely have issues. A lot of my use is in the car with the A/C on so that's a fairly noisy environment. I use it with the built-in mic, not a BT or wired one.

The main difference I see is that the article seemed to focus on searching. While I occasionally use Siri to search, I mostly use it for things like:

- Read an incoming text message to me while I'm driving and reply to it.
- Take a note (in the car or anywhere else). I even add-on to the note using voice.
- Check my calendar.
- Set up appointments in my calendar.
- Initiate calls
- Set up reminders (I'm especially fond of location-based reminders)

As others posted, accent and diction probably make a significant difference so YMMV.

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 11:05 AM
Fair point my friend but to me it's useless. Maybe not to others.

I don't use it as extensively as others, but I think if you tried, you could easily find uses for it.

My favorite uses that work well are:
1) Turning on the countdown timer when I'm grilling meat
2) Setting reminders
3) Setting appointments
4) The occasional web search (I usually type these in though...out of habit)

Saying "Set timer to 4 minutes" is never misinterpretted (unless I stutter). Setting reminders are occasionally misinterpretted, but I always know what I meant to they get the job done. My favorites are things like "Remind me to return my Redbox movie when I leave work" or something along those lines.

On the frustrating side, setting appointments often confuses me as I don't know the right words to use. I can say "Set an appointment for Anthony's Wedding on September 2nd at noon" and the appointment just comes up with a subject of "Appointment". Any suggestions on getting this right would be helpful. Apple really needs to work on Siri's logic on that one.

I'm really looking for iOS 6 and hoping for some real improvments as well as the ability to interface with 3rd party apps.

zeromeus
Jun 29, 2012, 11:06 AM
It's like giving my students some oral instructions Tuesday and write the directions on the board on Wednesday and saying that students have better comprehension skills on Wednesdays than they do on Tuesday.

Oral queries will always be less accurate than written queries, just as this analyst had done. Of course oral queries from Siri would be less accurate than text input queries done on Google.

This ONLY PROVES that Google FAILED. :eek:

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 11:10 AM
I did read the article, the original one that is. How about you respond to my arguments rather than continue with these red herrings?

Fine, if you want to embarrass yourself...
If you really wanted to see Siri's accuracy, you would have asked Siri to Google those queries, that way we can compare exactly how Siri compares to typed-input.
On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results.

So this the point. Will you get information quicker using Siri or googling? So you've completely missed the point here.

The problem with this study is it is comparing two things at once. Siri's accuracy/comprehension, and Wolfram Alpha vs Google for search queries.It's not comparing two things at once. It is comparing how accurately you can get information using both tools. That's just one thing.

How about making some of those queries specific to Wolfram's strengths and then we'll see just how good Google's searching is.That would be biased. Secondly, read again: Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results. So if you ask Siri "how tall is the empire state building", you'll get a precise answer from Siri (hopefuly) and find that information on the first page of Google results (actually, if you google that you'll now get an answer too). So this is what they're comparing. So again, you're completely missing the point.

And again, just go and read the article.

----------

It's like giving my students some oral instructions Tuesday and write the directions on the board on Wednesday and saying that students have better comprehension skills on Wednesdays than they do on Tuesday.

Oral queries will always be less accurate than written queries, just as this analyst had done. Of course oral queries from Siri would be less accurate than text input queries done on Google.

This ONLY PROVES that Google FAILED. :eek:
Another person who missed the whole point of this research...

I'm wondering if we should check your reading comprehension guys...

OldSchoolMacGuy
Jun 29, 2012, 11:11 AM
So they're saying that a newer technology performs better than an older +6 month old one? STOP THE PRESSES!

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 11:13 AM
So they're saying that a newer technology performs better than an older +6 month old one? STOP THE PRESSES!

Nope. This has nothing to do with Siri vs Google Now.

Guys, read the whole article goddamit!

mysticbluebmw
Jun 29, 2012, 11:13 AM
Munster's assessment compares two completely different resources, a search engine and a personal assistant.

It compares them only on search (since that is all that Google does).

Siri does search, but of a limited sort (e.g., "what is that plane overhead?" "NCA178 Boeing 747-400 at 18,000 feet."). Google does not do that. Nor does it set alarms or remind you to get gas when you leave work.

If you want Siri to do a web search, you can just ask for it.
"Google what team does Peyton Manning play for?"
"Search the Web for what spices are in Lasagna?"
"Yahoo when is the next Haley's comment?"*
* The comment: 'Haven't we already seen that taily thing?"

There is no learning curve.
Well, of course. The article relates to accuracy of speech. Siri has potential to perform other tasks. However, if speech accuracy falls shorts, it doesn't matter much. One hundred percent of everything I say, including using Google navigation and maps, is understood and interpreted correctly to do what I wanted. Siri on my wifes iphone 4s has potential to be cooler, but it often mistakes what I say, and can be painfully slow to respond even at home on 30 Mbps wifi. Still maybe iOS 6 will bring better accuracy and we could all certainly benefit from that. **crossing fingers**

nagromme
Jun 29, 2012, 11:13 AM
Siri, when I get home, remind me that Siri does more than just search and dictation.

gnasher729
Jun 29, 2012, 11:14 AM
If you want Siri to do a web search, you can just ask for it.
"Google what team does Peyton Manning play for?"
"Search the Web for what spices are in Lasagna?"
"Yahoo when is the next Haley's comment?"*
* The comment: 'Haven't we already seen that taily thing?"

I just googled for "what spices are in Lasagna". Google says there are 2,790,000 search results. None of them will just answer the question. Well, none of the first five, I didn't check the other 2,789,995.

robjulo
Jun 29, 2012, 11:16 AM
This is meaningless without testing multiple accents in all languages and having questions posed in different ways!

Pointless to the extreme is what comes to mind.

Siri is more of an experiment than a real feature, it's the interpretation of the sentance that is the exciting part of siri and it's ability to follow a thread.

Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

Really? An experiment? Funny, I don't see "experiment" or even "beta" being used on their commercials.

ganymedes13
Jun 29, 2012, 11:21 AM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

It's one thing to say that Siri isn't great yet. It isn't. It gets it right for me about 65% of the time when I'm doing general queries.

However, I've actually used Android devices and Voice Actions on Google isn't great either. Neither is Google Maps for that matter. It's just that Android users won't openly complain. I get about the same level of accuracy(maybe a tiny bit more accurate?).

The oddity is that Google is never held accountable for things such as routes I would never take or subway directions that tell me to take five trains when I can just take two.

Apple should be held accountable because they heavily promoted a feature in beta but this idea that Google's version is dramatically better is simply ridiculous, especially when Apple is using Nuance for voice recognition on the back end.

kdarling
Jun 29, 2012, 11:21 AM
For once, I haven't read the original article, but it sounds like the tests need to be broken up into three areas:

1) How well the microphones work on various phones. That is, test the same recorded speech in various environments.

2) How well the speech recognition works (i.e. Nuance versus Google's unknown engine). That is, speech -> text for the search.

3) How well the resulting search works.

PS. Okay, that's engineer thinking. A user simply cares how it works end to end :)

Mr_Ed
Jun 29, 2012, 11:22 AM
Really? An experiment? Funny, I don't see "experiment" or even "beta" being used on their commercials.

I agree. What's more, when something is in beta or open beta, it's typically something optional that you have to install or otherwise elect to participate in order to have it. Example: The early beta of FaceTime on Mac. I don't think Siri is an "optional" feature in that it's installed whether you want it or not.

gotluck
Jun 29, 2012, 11:22 AM
Siri has been beta for too long. Apple markets it as a core feature.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 11:23 AM
Siri, when I get home, remind me that Siri does more than just search and dictation.

Hmmm..

Making phone calls and sending text-messages are the most popular activities, according to the report, a sign that Siri usage is mirroring how people use their phones more generally. Roughly a third of 4S owners use Siri to place phone calls, send text messages, or look up information daily or almost daily.

Many other Siri services are getting little pickup, however. They include playing music and scheduling meetings. Thirty-two and 35% of 4S users, respectively, said they had never used Siri to perform those actions. Those categories also had some of the lowest percentage of users that did either daily or almost daily.

Email usage is pretty split, with 30% saying they have never used Siri to send an email while 26% say they use it to send email daily or almost daily.

Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/03/26/apple%E2%80%99s-siri-gains-traction-for-some-things/

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 11:25 AM
On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results.

So this the point. Will you get information quicker using Siri or googling? So you've completely missed the point here.

Seeing how Siri can use Google's search engine if instructed to do so, the answer is you won't get it any faster using one or the other. The only difference is the speech recognition is a little less accurate than typed-input, but the result will be the same.


It's not comparing two things at once. It is comparing how accurately you can get information using both tools. That's just one thing.

Again what you fail to comprehend apparently is Siri can use Google as it's tool, so it isn't an either or case. One tool is subsumable under the other. So, to make this clear to you, Siri can use either Google or Wolfram Alpha, your choice. So depending on what kind of search you want to do, you would be best advised to use the engines that yields the best results.


That would be biased. Secondly, read again: Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results. So if you ask Siri "how tall is the empire state building", you'll get a precise answer from Siri (hopefuly) and find that information on the first page of Google results (actually, if you google that you'll now get an answer too). So this is what they're comparing. So again, you're completely missing the point.

But again you fail to realize you can ask Siri to "Google how tall is the empire state building". You are not forced to only say "how tall is the empire state building". Just because you don't know how to use Siri effectively doesn't diminish it's capabilities.


And again, just go and read the article.

Again, try and understand what I'm saying and try again if you like.

SleeplessChaos
Jun 29, 2012, 11:31 AM
Fine, if you want to embarrass yourself...

On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results.

So this the point. Will you get information quicker using Siri or googling? So you've completely missed the point here.

It's not comparing two things at once. It is comparing how accurately you can get information using both tools. That's just one thing.

That would be biased. Secondly, read again: Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results. So if you ask Siri "how tall is the empire state building", you'll get a precise answer from Siri (hopefuly) and find that information on the first page of Google results (actually, if you google that you'll now get an answer too). So this is what they're comparing. So again, you're completely missing the point.

And again, just go and read the article.

----------


Another person who missed the whole point of this research...

I'm wondering if we should check your reading comprehension guys...

I don't think he is missing the point of the experiment, I think that he, like me, thinks the point is stupid.

Think about it for more than a millisecond and you'll realize that it's comparing apples and oranges. Google, like every other text based search engine on the web, is simply matching text keywords with a large indexed database built by years of crawling through the web. The search is basically brute force and simple.

Siri is receiving a digital waveform from the microphone, eliminating frequencies from that waveform that are not commonly found in the human voice, translating those remaining frequencies into readable text via a remote server and then interpreting that into a command which it then uses to either search the web using what it assumes to be the correct web search service or perform a function using a local app. That service list includes google search.

The fact of the matter is that the two services are not comparable whatsoever and that for all intents and purposes siri expands upon the abilities of google regardless of the situation.

Dr McKay
Jun 29, 2012, 11:32 AM
Gave up on Siri towards the end, I don't have a regional accent, or a speech impediment and it routinely got most of the things I said wrong. The "beta" excuse has long run dry, you don't release something and advertise the heck out of it as an amazing core feature, and then hide behind the Beta tag for nearly a year.

SandboxGeneral
Jun 29, 2012, 11:33 AM
Fascinating. Were the tests done with iOS 5.1.1 or iOS 6?

zeromeus
Jun 29, 2012, 11:36 AM
Fine, if you want to embarrass yourself...

On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results.

So this the point. Will you get information quicker using Siri or googling? So you've completely missed the point here.

It's not comparing two things at once. It is comparing how accurately you can get information using both tools. That's just one thing.

That would be biased. Secondly, read again: Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results. So if you ask Siri "how tall is the empire state building", you'll get a precise answer from Siri (hopefuly) and find that information on the first page of Google results (actually, if you google that you'll now get an answer too). So this is what they're comparing. So again, you're completely missing the point.

And again, just go and read the article.

----------


Another person who missed the whole point of this research...

I'm wondering if we should check your reading comprehension guys...

Wow! Your reading comprehension is so great that you failed to check in with reality. When comparing two things, one should not try to compare apples to oranges. You also failed to understand my comment, so you need to check your comprehension skills.

Some other really stupid comparisons that have been posted lately include" Surface Pro (full windows 8) vs. iPad (mobile OS), Google Map vs Apple Map (UNRELEASED BETA), etc....

Caliber26
Jun 29, 2012, 11:38 AM
I actually find Siri to be practical on those rare occasions I remember she's there to assist. The things I mostly use it for are placing calls, playing specific songs, setting reminders, and setting alarms. I also like the fact that I can ask it to call a specific business and if it's not in my contacts, it'll do a web search and ask me which of the local search results I want to call. Sure beats having to look it up myself.

JohnDoe98
Jun 29, 2012, 11:39 AM
Snip

Exactly, thanks for this very clear explanation.

foobarbaz
Jun 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
Did they really give Google an A+ for correctly recognizing (i.e. copying?) *typed* text?

imgonephishin
Jun 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results.

Wait, huh?

This is wrong in so many ways that it makes my head hurt.


They used a MEAN of the number of pages used. So, if one person clicks through 101 pages, and 99 people find their result on the first page, it would look like the average person had to click view 2 results pages to find their result.
There's no reason that only viewing the first page results is proof that someone found what they're looking for. Perhaps the results were so grossly inaccurate that they simply performed another search or closed the browser window. This happens to me frequently but it's almost always user error in not searching on the right terms. Still, it would appear in this data as me finding my result on the first page.
How in the world do you decide that to determine an accuracy percentage all you have to do is subtract the average number of result pages viewed from 2? Huh? See points 1 and 2 as to why this number is not accurate.
Donít get me wrong. Googleís results are incredibly accurate. In fact, Iíd guess that 86% success rate on the first page is grossly underestimating. The point is that the statistical analysis performed is just silly number mangling.

zeromeus
Jun 29, 2012, 11:40 AM
I don't think he is missing the point of the experiment, I think that he, like me, thinks the point is stupid.

Think about it for more than a millisecond and you'll realize that it's comparing apples and oranges. Google, like every other text based search engine on the web, is simply matching text keywords with a large indexed database built by years of crawling through the web. The search is basically brute force and simple.

Siri is receiving a digital waveform from the microphone, eliminating frequencies from that waveform that are not commonly found in the human voice, translating those remaining frequencies into readable text via a remote server and then interpreting that into a command which it then uses to either search the web using what it assumes to be the correct web search service or perform a function using a local app. That service list includes google search.

The fact of the matter is that the two services are not comparable whatsoever and that for all intents and purposes siri expands upon the abilities of google regardless of the situation.

At least someone here has a brain, some logic, and the will power to put both into good use...

slffl
Jun 29, 2012, 11:41 AM
Are you joking??? Comparing Google text search to Siri? OMG people will write anything negative about Apple for link bait.

How about comparing these two while driving in your car. Oh ya google has a 90% more chance of crashing.

Or sleeping in your bed. Google has a 100% chance of opening your eyes.

This is getting out of control.

P.S. and usually macrumors does a good job of filtering this crap out, but lately they seem to be enjoying the extra clicks they get from these stories.

Dun Properly
Jun 29, 2012, 11:42 AM
Man Siri is useless for the most part. Get over it my dude. Apple didn't create man. It's okay it flopped. No one is perfect

Siri may be useless for web searches, but I find it wholly useful for setting up reminders, alarms, task, making lists, texting while driving, etc...

Saying otherwise would be silly.

AppleFan1984
Jun 29, 2012, 11:45 AM
kids these days are too ghetto for siri. They don't realise you may have to, in life, use the "t" at the end of sentences etc.T
ftfy ;)

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 11:50 AM
OK, I'm a bit sleep deprived and therefore slow today.....I thought they were comparing Siri to Google's voice recognition solution. Are you guys saying that the Google comparison was done via keyboard and not voice? WTH?? That's not Apples and Organges, that's Apple's and Horses!!! What the heck were they thinking they would accomplish here? Just telling everyone to type it in instead???

Rocketman
Jun 29, 2012, 11:52 AM
Piper Jaffray's testing was conducted using the iPhone's built-in microphone in the quiet setting and Skullcandy microphone headphones for the outdoor setting, with Siri's ability to correctly comprehend queries falling from 89% to 83% when moving outdoors to the noisy urban setting. On the accuracy side, Google's 86% rating is derived from comScore data showing that Google generates 1.14 search result pages per search, suggesting that roughly 86% of time Google presents the data the user is looking for within the first few results. So, a 1 year old Beta system is within 2-3 percentage points accuracy as compared to a 10 year old, vetted, and vastly more widely used system, and is hands free, voice activated, and can be used in a noisy urban environment?

Siri sucks!

At failing. :D

Rocketman

VulchR
Jun 29, 2012, 11:53 AM
I am sure those of us who actually own an iPhone and actually use Siri will be happier once it is a finished product. Typing in queries into Google is bound to be more accurate both on the input and the search sides of things. However, the degree to which this is true is no doubt dependent on the accuracy of the typist and the nature of the search. Mind you - 'Search Google for [search term]' works fine in Siri. :)

Belgrano
Jun 29, 2012, 11:53 AM
It's only being given the slack it is being given as it's by Apple.

Actually, I think more people would view Siri as a questionably-functional gimmick if it were, e.g., a Windows Phone feature.

Instead, it gets the support of a zealous apple fanbase that doesn't actually use it too much.

Edit: Oops! think I misread your post, and we're actually in agreement. :)

shk718
Jun 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
I find siri quite accurate in the translation of my voice. where i have problems is when ATT has a week data connection (which in nyc is almost all the time) . then she just spins around. at home on my wifi - shes incredibly fast with the results and 95% accurate. this year i'm going to switch to verizon which is better in NYC - plus w/ 4g (assuming iphone 5 has it) i bet siri will be as amazing outside my apartment.

as far as her abilities... i asked her for a cheep italian restaurant - she came back with a list of shops and then added a reply - to the effect that she cant search by price range. which means she understood exactly what i was looking for but doesn't yet have the data. all apple needs to do is feed her more and more info and she will be amazing. the original siri was amazing - you could have conversations with her - "find a restaurant" - "make it chinese" "book a table there" - and it would follow the conversation exactly - those capabilities are still there - but apple needs to (and they are) add the connections - yelp - open table fandango ... obviously they are having problems getting the deals. i agree i wish apple would do more and more incremental upgrades - not just once a year.

----------

Actually, I think more people would view Siri as a questionably-functional gimmick if it were, e.g., a Windows Phone feature.

Instead, it gets the support of a zealous apple fanbase that doesn't actually use it too much.

i disagree - i use SIRI all the time. calling people, selecting songs, meetings, alarms text messages. once they start adding more capabilities i think SIRI will be unbelievable. my complaint is ATT and the crappy data connections they give me

Blimpy
Jun 29, 2012, 11:56 AM
Stumbled across this and it makes me worry about Siri. Google's offering is faster and has a much more natural voice. What is so much better about Siri that Apple had to buy them and spend so long working on it? Can it be purely explained by the need for more data centres to support the massive number of queries, or is Apple falling behind?

kDsOtdRtG0Q

applephysci
Jun 29, 2012, 12:01 PM
The most important point of the test has been ingeniously omitted by macrumors.

"Apple's version of Siri is tainted because it's marketing driven, giving preference to commercial sites like Yelp or companies over actual, useful results. (http://gizmodo.com/5922332/google-search-beats-the-crap-out-of-siri-in-1600-question-test)"

SBlue1
Jun 29, 2012, 12:01 PM
curious where this is gonna take us in 10 years. :)

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 12:03 PM
This is meaningless without testing multiple accents in all languages and having questions posed in different ways!

Pointless to the extreme is what comes to mind.

Siri is more of an experiment than a real feature, it's the interpretation of the sentance that is the exciting part of siri and it's ability to follow a thread.

Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

And the awards for "Person who pulls the most bull out of the air" goes to you.

Google have a hell of a lot more information at their disposal than Apple. Information such as world wide weather (yes, Google have their own weather systems), traffic data, business locations, etc - Google have been building up a massive library of info for years. Apple have not. This is why Google's alternative will always beat Siri when it comes to information. Be it questions or local info.

To call Google a "dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet" clearly shows just how little you know about anything.

AustinIllini
Jun 29, 2012, 12:04 PM
Stumbled across this and it makes me worry about Siri. Google's offering is faster and has a much more natural voice. What is so much better about Siri that Apple had to buy them and spend so long working on it? Can it be purely explained by the need for more data centres to support the massive number of queries, or is Apple falling behind?

YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kDsOtdRtG0Q)

Does it really make you worry though? Siri was equally good at everything except finding pictures of dogs. It certainly wasn't a blowout either way. I thought the display for Kobe Bryant's height was better on Siri, and the reminder was screwed up by the host.

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 12:05 PM
curious where this is gonna take us in 10 years. :)

If Google Glass (or Glasses or whatever they call it) is any indication, I'd like to think we will have iHud - a 'heads up display' on a set of glasses, which will replace your touch-screen tablets and phones with 100% voice and visual based control.

For the first time ever these odd sci-fi technologies are actually very close to becoming a reality. Google are looking at launching Glasses in a year or so. I'd hope that Apple at very least have a research team looking into their own options for this...maybe iOS would become eyeOS :p

drumcat
Jun 29, 2012, 12:07 PM
This should have been a test of Siri vs Google Voice app. This was apples to watermelons.

Blimpy
Jun 29, 2012, 12:07 PM
Does it really make you worry though? Siri was equally good at everything except finding pictures of dogs. It certainly wasn't a blowout either way. I thought the display for Kobe Bryant's height was better on Siri, and the reminder was screwed up by the host.

It makes me worry in the sense that Siri is so hyped up, while Google quietly has a pretty competitive, maybe even better alternative. The naturalness of the voice to me is a big deal. One of the main arguments against Apple is that their products are nothing special and they are just great marketers. I have always disagreed with this (though they are certainly great marketers) but in this case it seems to be true. If I were deciding between and iPhone and a Nexus and saw that comparison, I would wonder what else the Nexus can do better given the fact that I only hear about the Apple stuff in the media.

If Siri is using such great and unique technology that can understand context and all that, how come Google can so easily do the same thing, with faster response times?

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 12:08 PM
Does it really make you worry though? Siri was equally good at everything except finding pictures of dogs. It certainly wasn't a blowout either way. I thought the display for Kobe Bryant's height was better on Siri, and the reminder was screwed up by the host.

I think you're being kind. While the google search wasn't great at setting a reminder - there was a clear speed advantage to getting info from Google's implementation over Siri each time.

If the situation was reversed - no matter how quick - people would be giving high fives to Siri.

And as far as aesthetics. I don't discount them AT ALL. However - 9/10 times I just want the information. And as long as it's presented in a readable way - it's more than fine.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 12:10 PM
Stumbled across this and it makes me worry about Siri. Google's offering is faster and has a much more natural voice. What is so much better about Siri that Apple had to buy them and spend so long working on it? Can it be purely explained by the need for more data centres to support the massive number of queries, or is Apple falling behind?

YouTube: video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=kDsOtdRtG0Q)

Watch Tom Gruber's presentation on Siri from a couple of years ago. It's on Youtube. Siri isn't about speed or a sexy voice.

Oletros
Jun 29, 2012, 12:10 PM
Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

That is a joke, isn't?


And regarding the report, useless as most of Munster. It would have been a better comparison if he have been used voice input in an Android device to test Google

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 12:12 PM
This should have been a test of Siri vs Google Voice app. This was apples to watermelons.

Sorry, what would the point in that be? Jelly Bean added this feature, and its the android equivalent to Siri - its built into the OS - just like Siri...

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 12:14 PM
Watch Tom Gruber's presentation on Siri from a couple of years ago. It's on Youtube. Siri isn't about speed or a sexy voice.

Really? it's not about speed? Maybe it should be. Because when I do searches - especially voice vs text - I'm looking for convenience AND SPEED.

The voice is a nice "perk." and shows progress over synthesized computer speech. Again - if Siri had the better voice I would bet you'd be asking or high fives.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 12:16 PM
Really? it's not about speed? Maybe it should be. Because when I do searches - especially voice vs text - I'm looking for convenience AND SPEED.

The voice is a nice "perk." and shows progress over synthesized computer speech. Again - if Siri had the better voice I would bet you'd be asking or high fives.

Don't act like you know me, what are you "betting" with virtual money? Keep your non currency bets please.

Speed is important to a point but i'm not going to quibble about a second or two if the accuracy is sufficient

Blimpy
Jun 29, 2012, 12:18 PM
Don't act like you know me, what are you "betting" with virtual money? Keep your non currency bets please.

Speed is important to a point but i'm not going to quibble about a second or two if the accuracy is sufficient

What if they are equally accurate? I guess we won't know until both products are out in the wild, but the demo indicates both do a good job in that regard. If it's not about speed and voice what is it about?

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 12:20 PM
Don't act like you know me, what are you "betting" with virtual money? Keep your non currency bets please.

Speed is important to a point but i'm not going to quibble about a second or two if the accuracy is sufficient

Key word being IF. And I believe that was part of the study this article is about.

As for knowing you - relax. Figure of speech. I might not know you, but now I know how sensitive you can be.

genovelle
Jun 29, 2012, 12:21 PM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

It not even the same type of service. Google voice is a telephone service where they re-route all of your calls through their servers via a google number you give your friends and family. It then transfers the call after of course recording and transcribing it to get as much data as possible.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 12:22 PM
What if they are equally accurate? I guess we won't know until both products are out in the wild, but the demo indicates both do a good job in that regard. If it's not about speed and voice what is it about?

Tom Gruber
Siri

Watch his videos. LEARN!

shk718
Jun 29, 2012, 12:22 PM
Does it really make you worry though? Siri was equally good at everything except finding pictures of dogs. It certainly wasn't a blowout either way. I thought the display for Kobe Bryant's height was better on Siri, and the reminder was screwed up by the host.


hardly a blow out - plus what happens when you phrase the questions differently? will google be able to parse it correctly? and this was the 1st test release of ios - googl is coming out next month so i'm sure its been tuned. apples 1st release is always slow because they have the debugging tools turned on. isn't that galaxy a newer device? so not quite a fair comparison.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 12:25 PM
hardly a blow out - plus what happens when you phrase the questions differently? will google be able to parse it correctly? and this was the 1st test release of ios - googl is coming out next month so i'm sure its been tuned. apples 1st release is always slow because they have the debugging tools turned on. isn't that galaxy a newer device? so not quite a fair comparison.

All I read from your post are excuses and dismissals. Here's a secret - you'll never get the data you want because phones/specs will always be different and come out at a different time - as will their OSes. So what do you do - dismiss every single comparison?

genovelle
Jun 29, 2012, 12:25 PM
Sorry, what would the point in that be? Jelly Bean added this feature, and its the android equivalent to Siri - its built into the OS - just like Siri...

The point is that this article is comparing Siri voice search on the iPhone to typing a search into the Google search box on the iPhone.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 12:30 PM
Key word being IF. And I believe that was part of the study this article is about.

As for knowing you - relax. Figure of speech. I might not know you, but now I know how sensitive you can be.

No worries mate. Just pointing out the fact that you don't now how i'd respond.

I'm a Siri fan or at the least a fan of the semantic technology behind Siri and other technologies.

The end game is not to feed simple 1 query 1 answer. That's not how humans interact. Humans interact through queues of commands and prioritize and delegate (Hey I need you to help me with this can you...."

A basic test for technologies like Siri should be

1. Basic search query

2. Advanced search query where multiple items are requested

3. Multi Lingual testing - Siri is about semanics which change depending on the language.

4. Ability to delegate

and more than I can't think of off the top of my head. It doesn't really matter to me of Google is a second faster at giving me a stupid sports score. I've ESPN chiming my phone for those. Give me something I can really use.

Oletros
Jun 29, 2012, 12:30 PM
It not even the same type of service. Google voice is a telephone service where they re-route all of your calls through their servers via a google number you give your friends and family. It then transfers the call after of course recording and transcribing it to get as much data as possible.

Any links where it is stated that calls are being recorded and transcribed?

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 12:34 PM
and more than I can't think of off the top of my head. It doesn't really matter to me of Google is a second faster at giving me a stupid sports score. I've ESPN chiming my phone for those. Give me something I can really use.

Actually - the thing I liked best about the video is that google went right to search to show pictures of dogs vs Siri having an interstitial to ask if the user wanted to look for a search (confirmation). That's a big time waster and isn't a streamlined process to/for me. Yes - a simple search. But many times - that's what I'm doing IF (and I say IF because I'm not big on voice input anyway) I am searching.

I agree that there would be better tests and I would love to see how both parse the queries.

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 12:35 PM
The point is that this article is comparing Siri voice search on the iPhone to typing a search into the Google search box on the iPhone.

Yes, but its not comparing the audio input quality on siri - you could type the questions out to siri and the result would still show the google option to be faster and more accurate with results, that's a no brainer.

Stewie
Jun 29, 2012, 12:36 PM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

You are correct. Siri is on a much higher level.

I have yet to find any android app that will "Reming me to do XYZ when I get home" or "Add abc to my shopping list". These are the things that are important to me.

shk718
Jun 29, 2012, 12:36 PM
All I read from your post are excuses and dismissals. Here's a secret - you'll never get the data you want because phones/specs will always be different and come out at a different time - as will their OSes. So what do you do - dismiss every single comparison?

no excuses - but don't compare beta software - do the comparison on final versions. i'm a software developer - i'd never let anyone near my test versions - i leave all kinds of debugging code turned on during the development phase and write out enormous result files which slow everything down. when both os's are done then test them and if google wins so be it. but this is a completely meaningless test to me at this point. google only won by mili-seconds not minutes.

pmz
Jun 29, 2012, 12:37 PM
Siri's reliability is extremely poor. As far as I'm concerned, its only useful AT ALL if it works when I need it to work ie: in a hurry, in the car, hands are full, etc...

Its always when you NEED it to work, that it fails and you realize you would have saved time by doing it the old fashion way.

Its not its accuracy in deciphering what you say, that I always find excellent.

Siri's biggest problem is its HORRIBLY SLOW and OFTEN FAILING connection to the internet, whether it be WIFI, 4G, or 3G.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 12:42 PM
You are correct. Siri is on a much higher level.

I have yet to find any android app that will "Reming me to do XYZ when I get home" or "Add abc to my shopping list". These are the things that are important to me.

Oh stop. You're soo damn blinded by Apple it's ridiculous. You fanboys would give your arms for a shiny Apple product. You (as in ridiculous crazy Apple fanboys, not ppl who like the company in general) are PATHETIC. Yes Apple is a great company, they make bank!!! But don't act as if their ***** don't stink.

NumberNine
Jun 29, 2012, 12:46 PM
Oh stop. You're soo damn blinded by Apple it's ridiculous. You fanboys would give your arms for a shiny Apple product. You (as in ridiculous crazy Apple fanboys, not ppl who like the company in general) are PATHETIC. Yes Apple is a great company, they make bank!!! But don't act as if their ***** don't stink.

Well said!

bushido
Jun 29, 2012, 12:48 PM
Siri sucks because it cant differentiate between german and english unlike google's voice.

i cant use half the features starting with the iPod control because siri always tries to understand german words when i actually mean something in english like "Macrumors" turns into "mark lammers ka" (thats not even german btw) yet it works fine on the just released chrome browser

Google ON the iPhone
http://i46.tinypic.com/j14sx2.png

SIRI On the iPhone BY APPLE
http://i46.tinypic.com/11lu684.png

Krazy Bill
Jun 29, 2012, 12:50 PM
Who cares about all this Siri nonsense. Just give turn-by-turn voice directions already. It should have been there on Siri's release.

Was driving with a colleague yesterday. His $79 android put my 4S to shame. :(

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 29, 2012, 12:51 PM
i'm using siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

lmao!!!!!

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 12:56 PM
Well said!

Thanks man. :) And yes I like Apple stuff. I LOVE Macs. (Best product IMO). If I were to buy my daughter a phone or my mother I would buy them an iPhone because they are good phones and easy to navigate but to me the OS is getting stale. Almost the same since June 29th, 2007. The gap of competition is very small and in some cases Google and other products are better at what they do point blank period. Give props when they are due. Stop being so arrogant and narrow minded. Apple's ***** smells like the rest of ours bro. They didn't create mankind man lol geez.

----------

Who cares about all this Siri nonsense. Just give turn-by-turn voice directions already. It should have been there on Siri's release.

Was driving with a colleague yesterday. His $79 android put my 4S to shame. :(

Man!!! That Google Navigation is nice isn't it?!

lzyprson
Jun 29, 2012, 12:56 PM
It is a B-E-T-A... It's artifical intelligence, capable of doing much much more, but it's not entirely there yet. It's 100% better than anything out there on the market - What the heck is wrong with people that they can't understand this??

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 12:59 PM
It is a B-E-T-A... It's artifical intelligence, capable of doing much much more, but it's not entirely there yet. It's 100% better than anything out there on the market - What the heck is wrong with people that they can't understand this??

Why advertise a B-E-T-A sooo strongly in commercials with celebrities and make it the main selling point of the 4S?

the8thark
Jun 29, 2012, 01:01 PM
No links to sources? That's helpful.
I second this. It's bad form to quote something and not give the quote source as a link somewhere in the article.

Swift
Jun 29, 2012, 01:05 PM
You don't ever have to be right about anything, in fact you seldom are, yet no-one puts a "Beta" label on Munster.

----------

Who cares about all this Siri nonsense. Just give turn-by-turn voice directions already. It should have been there on Siri's release.

Was driving with a colleague yesterday. His $79 android put my 4S to shame. :(

Try Motion X. $10 a year for great nav.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 01:06 PM
Why advertise a B-E-T-A sooo strongly in commercials with celebrities and make it the main selling point of the 4S?

Gmail was beta for years yet that didn't make it any less functional. You're basically getting caught up over a word.

thelink
Jun 29, 2012, 01:09 PM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

^lol^

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 01:15 PM
Gmail was beta for years yet that didn't make it any less functional. You're basically getting caught up over a word.

Actually - many people here are. People want to excuse Siri for its shortcomings because it's still labeled beta. Yet as a "beta" - Apple is certainly promoting it like a jesus feature.

As you said - gmail was beta for years and "didn't make it any less functional" only proves this silliness of the beta claim.

People need to stop referring to Siri as beta. It's not. It's a v1 and will get upgraded over time.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 01:28 PM
Actually - many people here are. People want to excuse Siri for its shortcomings because it's still labeled beta. Yet as a "beta" - Apple is certainly promoting it like a jesus feature.

As you said - gmail was beta for years and "didn't make it any less functional" only proves this silliness of the beta claim.

People need to stop referring to Siri as beta. It's not. It's a v1 and will get upgraded over time.

Yes indeed Beta means different things to different people. With voice technology I think it's important to have a lot of voice samples so that your system can tailor how someone in Taiwan speaks Mandarin versus someone in China.

It's fascinating but I don't think anyone can hit the ground running without collecting a lot of data.

Iamthinking
Jun 29, 2012, 01:31 PM
Whilst there may be some truth in what you say here.

Let's be honest, can you imagine is Siri was not on Apple but on Windows devices, it would be slagged of here as totally useless.

It's only being given the slack it is being given as it's by Apple.

Interesting comparison. I have both kinect and iphone4s, and I think SIRI wins hands down. The XBOX barely works for voice for me (works a bit better for my son), while SIRI is about 95%-99% accurate for me.

Maybe all the frustrated SIRI folks need to stop mumbling so much with the stereo blasting!

Westside guy
Jun 29, 2012, 02:01 PM
I thought Siri was cool tech at first - and, as tech goes, it certainly is. But man, having to listen to all this annoying blathering drives me nuts! Thanks to stuff like Siri, Google Voice - people are walking around spewing even more inane chatter even more of the time! If you're a transit rider, you can't get away from it!

"Siri, remind me to get coffee when I get to work"

"What should I get tonight? I'm in the mood for, oh, hmmm... Chinese? Mexican? A sandwich?"

"Siri, remind me to ask the doctor about that boil"

I now hate Siri.

mjtomlin
Jun 29, 2012, 02:01 PM
Many people have bashed siri for not being accurate/ helpful. Honestly when siri came out I never saw myself using it a whole lot. But now, I use it regularly on a daily basis. It has come a long way even though it was just released a couple months ago.

Completely agree... I'm actually amazed sometimes that it picks up what I'm saying. I demo'ed it for a friend the other who was skeptical - he was talking about Apple being sued - and I just asked him what he thought it couldn't do ...

He told me to ask it a few things one of which was where he could get Venezuelan food. All I said was, "I'm hungry for Venezuelan." Siri came back and said "I couldn't find any Venezuelan restaurants." Then I said, "How about Mexican" and Siri came back with a list of Mexican restaurants.

Yeah, needless to say he was amazed that I didn't need to say restaurant or food or repeat it when I changed my mind to Mexican food.

That's a big difference from asking it a direct question and I think a lot of people don't realize that about Siri. It doesn't just understand commands it understands language.

When I type that same phrase into Google search, guess what I get? A bunch of hits with the exact same phrase. It doesn't give me a list of restaurants, it gives me a links to posts of people saying the same thing.

nuckinfutz
Jun 29, 2012, 02:06 PM
I now hate Siri.

You misogynistic bastard! Next you're going to be smacking "her" around a bit.

:D

Defactomonkey
Jun 29, 2012, 02:06 PM
Interesting though completely invalid as a means of judging Siri's comparative usefulness. How about time to type a search versus speak a search or testing with 100% apple hardware? Why use skullcandy headphones unless this is to test Siri's accuracy with skullcandy products? Seems highly suspect and biased similar to the "man on the street" advertising Samsung did to show how superior its note was. How are sales on the note anyways? Lol

This article was a waste for front page

robjulo
Jun 29, 2012, 02:15 PM
It is a B-E-T-A... It's artifical intelligence, capable of doing much much more, but it's not entirely there yet. It's 100% better than anything out there on the market - What the heck is wrong with people that they can't understand this??

Find me the word "beta" in any of the tv commercials.

mjtomlin
Jun 29, 2012, 02:16 PM
Yes indeed Beta means different things to different people.

Beta means one thing and one thing only... still not ready for final release and in testing phase.

It doesn't matter what other people think it means. That's like saying "water" means different things to different people, which doesn't make any sense. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Siri is a social/learning technology. It needs mass testing to learn about language; accents, inflection, enunciation, dialects, slang, etc.

petsounds
Jun 29, 2012, 02:24 PM
It usually understands me pretty well, though if music is on it sits there for a few extra seconds trying to figure out if I've stopped talking or not. That's really annoying.

I've been a fan of Siri since the pre-Apple app, but they really need to improve on the services it provides. Google seems to have surpassed what Siri can do with its voice features in Jelly Bean. I'm not sure why Apple is being coy about rolling out new Siri APIs; I expected much more from Siri in iOS6 than some sports scores and movie listings. Perhaps they underestimated their competition. I sure hope Jelly Bean gives them a needed kick in the ass.

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 02:34 PM
Who cares about all this Siri nonsense. Just give turn-by-turn voice directions already. It should have been there on Siri's release.

Was driving with a colleague yesterday. His $79 android put my 4S to shame. :(

Not sure why, you could have easily loaded Waze and had a great turn by turn GPS for free. The fact that it isn't installed on the device upon purchase is irrelevant if a good free solution exists and is easily installed.

Edit: let me add that I do think it's a shame that we haven't had one included for all this time, I blame it on the tumultuous Google and Apple relationship. However, my bitterness ended once I found Waze.

SBlue1
Jun 29, 2012, 02:50 PM
If Google Glass (or Glasses or whatever they call it) is any indication, I'd like to think we will have iHud - a 'heads up display' on a set of glasses, which will replace your touch-screen tablets and phones with 100% voice and visual based control.

For the first time ever these odd sci-fi technologies are actually very close to becoming a reality. Google are looking at launching Glasses in a year or so. I'd hope that Apple at very least have a research team looking into their own options for this...maybe iOS would become eyeOS :p

As someone who is wearin glases and contacts i have to say there is no way people will wear google glases on a regulrr basis all day long. Glases are heavy and unconveniant, no mater how light. Can you wear them together with sunglases? What about biking glases? Any other protective glases? What about your own glases togethet with the google glases? I dont think so.

Believe me. Glases are unconvenient. Why would people wear contacts othervise? The future will be start trek kind of wearable communicators that can be attached to your shirt or be inside your pocket and that can connect you to your iPhone or your Mac at home or your cloud data.

uknowimright
Jun 29, 2012, 02:52 PM
the whole point of this is to show that Siri is advertized and hyped as something that would make you receive the information you want fast and it's not as fast as just going to a web site and typing it in, the accuracy of the speech even if 100% wouldn't matter because essentially you are still wasting more time talking to the phone

----------

also Google didn't make you buy a new computer to use Gmail beta

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 02:55 PM
<snip> I'd hope that Apple at very least have a research team looking into their own options for this...maybe iOS would become eyeOS :p

Or eyePhone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaHUpWuqNHY)? :p

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 03:07 PM
As someone who is wearin glases and contacts i have to say there is no way people will wear google glases on a regulrr basis all day long. Glases are heavy and unconveniant, no mater how light. Can you wear them together with sunglases? What about biking glases? Any other protective glases? What about your own glases togethet with the google glases? I dont think so.

Believe me. Glases are unconvenient. Why would people wear contacts othervise? The future will be start trek kind of wearable communicators that can be attached to your shirt or be inside your pocket and that can connect you to your iPhone or your Mac at home or your cloud data.

You've missed so much of what this technology can offer it's astounding. From pilots who can have their instruments, etc displayed in front of them, to assisting some visually impaired people to so many other applications.

You're getting bogged down on one aspect - those who need a prescription for eyewear. If that's your biggest issue... you are being very "short sighted" - pun intended.

CplBadboy
Jun 29, 2012, 03:29 PM
Just been watching the Jelly Bean demo on Jon4Lakers Youtube channel. he pits Siri against the Android and boy does Android wipe the floor with Siri. the voice is more natural. the speed is 2 maybe 3x as fast as Siri. In fact that little nexus 7 tablet and the JellyBean software looks incredibly polished. More polished than iOS, as much as it kills me to say it. Google are certainly on the up and I only hope Apple are taking note of the competition. :apple:

rmwebs
Jun 29, 2012, 03:33 PM
You've missed so much of what this technology can offer it's astounding. From pilots who can have their instruments, etc displayed in front of them, to assisting some visually impaired people to so many other applications.

You're getting bogged down on one aspect - those who need a prescription for eyewear. If that's your biggest issue... you are being very "short sighted" - pun intended.

^Ditto.

There's also nothing to stop a 'retrofit' to existing glasses and sunglasses. From the looks of the prototypes, a few of them appear to literally be a left and right addon to a pair of standard glasses.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 03:37 PM
^Ditto.

There's also nothing to stop a 'retrofit' to existing glasses and sunglasses. From the looks of the prototypes, a few of them appear to literally be a left and right addon to a pair of standard glasses.

Further - I think if people parachuting from a plane can wear them comfortably (the OP mentioned biking) then I think "sporting" them will be just fine. Not to mention - who says you would be walking around with these 24/7?

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 03:37 PM
I don't think he is missing the point of the experiment, I think that he, like me, thinks the point is stupid.
No, he clearly missed the point of the experiment and thus think it's stupid.

Seeing how Siri can use Google's search engine if instructed to do so, the answer is you won't get it any faster using one or the other. The only difference is the speech recognition is a little less accurate than typed-input, but the result will be the same.But Siri wasn't instructed to perform a Google search for crying out loud! They were asking questions, not asking siri to google something and then googling the same thing on Google........

Again what you fail to comprehend apparently is Siri can use Google as it's tool, so it isn't an either or case. One tool is subsumable under the other. So, to make this clear to you, Siri can use either Google or Wolfram Alpha, your choice. So depending on what kind of search you want to do, you would be best advised to use the engines that yields the best results.I fail to comprehend?


But again you fail to realize you can ask Siri to "Google how tall is the empire state building". You are not forced to only say "how tall is the empire state building". Just because you don't know how to use Siri effectively doesn't diminish it's capabilities.
Why. Is it. So difficult. For you. To understand. The point. Of this research.

Wow! Your reading comprehension is so great that you failed to check in with reality. When comparing two things, one should not try to compare apples to oranges. You also failed to understand my comment, so you need to check your comprehension skills.

Some other really stupid comparisons that have been posted lately include" Surface Pro (full windows 8) vs. iPad (mobile OS), Google Map vs Apple Map (UNRELEASED BETA), etc....

*Sigh*

Just...
Both of you.
This article and the work of researchers seems to be above you. You think it's stupid because you clearly don't understand it. I don't have energy for your ignorance.

How hard is it to understand an article written in English.

They were both asking Siri and Google questions.

Siri comes up with an answer using it's sources.

In case of Google, it's 86% accuracy is based on finding an answer for your question on the first page of the search results. As clearly stated in the article.

These. Two. Things. Were. Compared.

Basically they want to answer the questions whether it is better to ask Siri a question or ask it in Google. Siri uses several sources of information for it's answers, including Google. It then spits out an answer. So to your point JohnDoe98, it could be iether Google or Wolfram, or a combination of both. And then Google, you ask the question, and then look for an answer in the results, as clearly stated in the article.

Now, is this so hard to understand?

Or do I have to go through it again?

Where do you people come from?

EDIT: Going through this topic I'm shocked to see a large number of people who still don't get this research. It's so simple, yet people try to make it more complicated. Of course it's stupid to compare voice recognition with typing, but that's not the bloody point...

uknowimright
Jun 29, 2012, 03:48 PM
^Ditto.

There's also nothing to stop a 'retrofit' to existing glasses and sunglasses. From the looks of the prototypes, a few of them appear to literally be a left and right addon to a pair of standard glasses.

yup

http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/46304/sergey-brin-shows-off-google-project-glass-shades-edition

SleeplessChaos
Jun 29, 2012, 03:51 PM
No, he clearly missed the point of the experiment and thus think it's stupid.

But Siri wasn't instructed to perform a Google search for crying out loud! They were asking questions, not asking siri to google something and then googling the same thing on Google........

I fail to comprehend?

Why. Is it. So difficult. For you. To understand. The point. Of this research.



*Sigh*

Just...
Both of you.
This article and the work of researchers seems to be above you. You think it's stupid because you clearly don't understand it. I don't have energy for your ignorance.

How hard is it to understand an article written in English.

They were both asking Siri and Google questions.

Siri comes up with an answer using it's sources.

In case of Google, it's 86% accuracy is based on finding an answer for your question on the first page of the search results. As clearly stated in the article.

These. Two. Things. Were. Compared.

Basically they want to answer the questions whether it is better to ask Siri a question or ask it in Google. Siri uses several sources of information for it's answers, including Google. It then spits out an answer. So to your point JohnDoe98, it could be iether Google or Wolfram, or a combination of both. And then Google, you ask the question, and then look for an answer in the results, as clearly stated in the article.

Now, is this so hard to understand?

Or do I have to go through it again?

Where do you people come from?

It's very apparent that you don't understand how google and siri both work very differently.

For instance when you type into google "Why is my hair turning grey?" it turns those words into keywords and tries to find the result that contains the most of them. This will produce mostly forum pages and probably a couple of yahoo and wiki answers. This is not intelligent in any way and isn't actually trying to answer your question, it's just matching keywords.

When you ask siri the same question it literally tries to comprehend what you said and then attempts to answer your question based on information contained in it's many knowledge bases. The technology in siri is far more advanced than in a google search and is actually moving devices toward sentience.

For now google might be more efficient, but that's just because there's so much knowledge present on the internet forums and wikis and because siri is so young. Eventually, (hopefully) asking siri a question will be like asking an expert in the field and it will yield the most accurate and comprehensive result.

I hope you now know where I'm coming from. It's not me that doesn't understand, it's you.

morpheuzlal
Jun 29, 2012, 04:04 PM
Honestly i think that Siri would be better if they let me teach it...


for instance, if siri understands my words but cant understand what i mean....i could just touch a button and then teach it ..


Isnt that a good ideia?! If Siri cant memorize what i mean...it would be easier.

bozzykid
Jun 29, 2012, 04:09 PM
It's very apparent that you don't understand how google and siri both work very differently.

For instance when you type into google "Why is my hair turning grey?" it turns those words into keywords and tries to find the result that contains the most of them. This will produce mostly forum pages and probably a couple of yahoo and wiki answers. This is not intelligent in any way and isn't actually trying to answer your question, it's just matching keywords.


Google use to work that way. It is much more complex than that now breaking search queries into fragments in much the same way siri does. Have you tried typing "What is the weather in new york city"? Google is doing a lot of the same things Siri is doing. I think for the most part people are use to searching a certain way so you don't see a full on natural search ability on Google.com yet. But I'm sure it is coming.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 04:22 PM
It's very apparent that you don't understand how google and siri both work very differently.

For instance when you type into google "Why is my hair turning grey?" it turns those words into keywords and tries to find the result that contains the most of them. This will produce mostly forum pages and probably a couple of yahoo and wiki answers. This is not intelligent in any way and isn't actually trying to answer your question, it's just matching keywords.

When you ask siri the same question it literally tries to comprehend what you said and then attempts to answer your question based on information contained in it's many knowledge bases. The technology in siri is far more advanced than in a google search and is actually moving devices toward sentience.Yes. Bravo. That's how both systems work. A bit of a comical exaggeration towards the end but well, I forgive you. Good job. Really good. Have a cookie.

Now.

This is the point of this research.

Compare an answer prepared by Siri with the first page of search results from Google.

Accuracy and effectiveness of getting information on a mobile device using both methods, asking Siri or Googling it.

Get it? Finally?

Get it? Or do you all still think these researchers are stupid?

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 04:56 PM
EDIT: Going through this topic I'm shocked to see a large number of people who still don't get this research. It's so simple, yet people try to make it more complicated. Of course it's stupid to compare voice recognition with typing, but that's not the bloody point...

So explain it to me, why are they comparing a voice recognition/AI to a search engine. Should we compare a Mustang to President Obama next? (Hint: President Obama can use the Mustang to get me to the White House or he could take me in his Limo...but it doesn't mean I should critique him on his use of the limo and how much slower "he" his when doing so).

----------

Get it? Or do you all still think these researchers are stupid?

Yes, they are stupid. And I think the term "researcher" is being used way too loosely in this situation.

modemthug
Jun 29, 2012, 05:00 PM
I can tell you personally that this is complete ********. I'm a dev and I have a 4S running iOS 6 and a Galaxy Nexus on Jelly Bean. Google now is absolutely useless compared to Siri. I really should post a youtube comparison and show the world, but I'm a little busy. Maybe if I'm feeling industrious. Take it from someone who carries both devices in his pocket every day, Siri is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Google Now.

AbyssImpact
Jun 29, 2012, 05:04 PM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.

Go back to the Android forums. Siri is way better than Google's assistant.

stuffradio
Jun 29, 2012, 05:06 PM
It's very apparent that you don't understand how google and siri both work very differently.

For instance when you type into google "Why is my hair turning grey?" it turns those words into keywords and tries to find the result that contains the most of them. This will produce mostly forum pages and probably a couple of yahoo and wiki answers. This is not intelligent in any way and isn't actually trying to answer your question, it's just matching keywords.

When you ask siri the same question it literally tries to comprehend what you said and then attempts to answer your question based on information contained in it's many knowledge bases. The technology in siri is far more advanced than in a google search and is actually moving devices toward sentience.

For now google might be more efficient, but that's just because there's so much knowledge present on the internet forums and wikis and because siri is so young. Eventually, (hopefully) asking siri a question will be like asking an expert in the field and it will yield the most accurate and comprehensive result.

I hope you now know where I'm coming from. It's not me that doesn't understand, it's you.
You must work at Google, because you think you know the Google algorithms for programs. Good job, you're smart.

funkybudda
Jun 29, 2012, 05:11 PM
This is meaningless without testing multiple accents in all languages and having questions posed in different ways!

Pointless to the extreme is what comes to mind.

Siri is more of an experiment than a real feature, it's the interpretation of the sentance that is the exciting part of siri and it's ability to follow a thread.

Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

spoken like a true Apple fanboy, lol.


More link on same subject:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/29/minneapolis-street-test-google-gets-a-b-apples-siri-gets-a-d/

bozzykid
Jun 29, 2012, 05:20 PM
Go back to the Android forums. Siri is way better than Google's assistant.

Google doesn't have an Assistant yet. Notice they are still calling it Voice Search. Yes, Siri is still better at doing things like sending messages, setting up calendar events. But what a lot of demonstrations have shown is Google is actually responding to natural language queries on par (and sometimes better than Siri) with the way it responds. Most of the demos have shown the way it displays the result to be more intuitive than Siri as well. In the end, there is no clear winner as both have their pros and cons depending on what you feed it.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 05:25 PM
Google doesn't have an Assistant yet. Notice they are still calling it Voice Search. Yes, Siri is still better at doing things like sending messages, setting up calendar events. But what a lot of demonstrations have shown is Google is actually responding to natural language queries on par (and sometimes better than Siri) with the way it responds. Most of the demos have shown the way it displays the result to be more intuitive than Siri as well. In the end, there is no clear winner as both have their pros and cons depending on what you feed it.
Their Jelly Bean assistant can now set up calendar events, reminders etc.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 05:27 PM
I can tell you personally that this is complete ********. I'm a dev and I have a 4S running iOS 6 and a Galaxy Nexus on Jelly Bean. Google now is absolutely useless compared to Siri. I really should post a youtube comparison and show the world, but I'm a little busy. Maybe if I'm feeling industrious. Take it from someone who carries both devices in his pocket every day, Siri is LIGHT YEARS ahead of Google Now.

You mean your experience is more important than someone else's who has a video on YouTube with both devices? Tell me why your experience is more valid than the video that was shown?

Very self important aren't you - so busy. Maybe if you're feeling industrious. Oh my. What a life you have...

bozzykid
Jun 29, 2012, 05:30 PM
Their Jelly Bean assistant can now set up calendar events, reminders etc.

Yes, but what I have seen from the demos is it is still limited in what you have to say to get it to work and it still requires user interaction for most assistant actions to complete. There's been rumors that later this year Google will be turning it into Google Assistant which will be the full blown 'majel' project that they have been working on. In the meantime, I'm not sure the comparisons are really useful.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 05:38 PM
Yes, but what I have seen from the demos is it is still limited in what you have to say to get it to work and it still requires user interaction for most assistant actions to complete. There's been rumors that later this year Google will be turning it into Google Assistant which will be the full blown 'majel' project that they have been working on. In the meantime, I'm not sure the comparisons are really useful.This guy over here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXRyvY8hXXM) sets up a reminder (calendar event). In my opinion both systems are pretty comparable. I don't think it requires more "user interactions" to complete those actions, it's just a different UX choice (e.g. you set the date by hand instead of telling the assistant when you want it).

SleeplessChaos
Jun 29, 2012, 05:41 PM
In said article: "'In order to become a viable mobile search alternative,' Munster writes, 'Siri must match or surpass Google's accuracy of B+ and move from a grade D to a B or higher.'"

This is what I'm arguing against (I'm still not sure what you're arguing for, your position is a bit vague), siri is not meant to be a "viable mobile search alternative," it's meant to be a semi-sentient AI. There is a huge difference between those two things (a difference that I've laid out in my previous posts).

But don't take my word for it, google: "What spices are in Lasagna?" and then look at the bold words, those are the keywords it matched in those results. Sure, right now siri can't answer that, but eventually it will, better than google even, because google will still rely on keywords because that's what it's made to do.

Also, stop with the childish condescension it makes you look dumb.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 05:47 PM
I think you're splitting hairs. First of all - google search uses more than just keywords. That's simplifying to a BIG degree. Second of all - the conclusion you quoted is perfectly accurate. Siri might be a personal assistant - but part of that is being able to be a viable mobile search alternative since a big part of siri's use case is searching. Siri can't tell you what spices are in lasagna you say YET. But you dismiss google for not being able to. When who says which one will get their first? You?

Sorry - but it's all conjecture and perhaps a biased one at that. Technology is moving forward. But that doesn't negate the findings for "today."

In said article: "'In order to become a viable mobile search alternative,' Munster writes, 'Siri must match or surpass Google's accuracy of B+ and move from a grade D to a B or higher.'"

This is what I'm arguing against (I'm still not sure what you're arguing for, your position is a bit vague), siri is not meant to be a "viable mobile search alternative," it's meant to be a semi-sentient AI. There is a huge difference between those two things (a difference that I've laid out in my previous posts).

But don't take my word for it, google: "What spices are in Lasagna?" and then look at the bold words, those are the keywords it matched in those results. Sure, right now siri can't answer that, but eventually it will, better than google even, because google will still rely on keywords because that's what it's made to do.

Also, stop with the childish condescension it makes you look dumb.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 05:53 PM
In said article: "'In order to become a viable mobile search alternative,' Munster writes, 'Siri must match or surpass Google's accuracy of B+ and move from a grade D to a B or higher.'"

This is what I'm arguing against (I'm still not sure what you're arguing for, your position is a bit vague), siri is not meant to be a "viable mobile search alternative," it's meant to be a semi-sentient AI. There is a huge difference between those two things (a difference that I've laid out in my previous posts).

Even if Siri is not meant to be a "viable mobile search alternative", Siri is suppose to give you answers to your questions and this is what the researchers were comparing. That's the point of this research which many people clearly don't seem to understand and think those researchers are idiots, while it was a very insightful research.

But don't take my word for it, google: "What spices are in Lasagna?" and then look at the bold words, those are the keywords it matched in those results. Sure, right now siri can't answer that, but eventually it will, better than google even, because google will still rely on keywords because that's what it's made to do.This is semantic search and Google has been working on it for years and I'm sure will get there a lot sooner than Siri, because Google is a bloody search engine company, that's their main thing.

Also, stop with the childish condescension it makes you look dumb.Not understanding a clearly written article about a research makes you look dumb.

----------

siri can't tell you what spices are in lasagna you say yet. But you dismiss google for not being able to. When who says which one will get their first? You?
+1

SleeplessChaos
Jun 29, 2012, 06:02 PM
Even if Siri is not meant to be a "viable mobile search alternative", Siri is suppose to give you answers to your questions and this is what the researchers were comparing. That's the point of this research which many people clearly don't seem to understand and think those researchers are idiots, while it was a very insightful research.

This is semantic search and Google has been working on it for years and I'm sure will get there a lot sooner than Siri, because Google is a bloody search engine company, that's their main thing.

Not understanding a clearly written article about a research makes you look dumb.

----------


+1

I understand the article just fine, I just disagree with what the researcher's definition of siri is. If you think that the only thing siri is supposed to do is replace a search engine, that's your prerogative. That's it, it's not worth saying anymore. I'm out.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 06:04 PM
I understand the article just fine, I just disagree with what the researcher's definition of siri is. If you think that the only thing siri is supposed to do is replace a search engine, that's your prerogative. That's it, it's not worth saying anymore. I'm out.

He never said that Siri was supposed to be any ONE thing. But you can't deny that search is a pretty big function of Siri.

Consider that controlling music and setting appointments has been considered very low on the usage meter based on statistics. That leaves dictation and search primarily - doesn't it? I'm asking you sincerely.

Bezetos
Jun 29, 2012, 06:20 PM
I understand the article just fine, I just disagree with what the researcher's definition of siri is. If you think that the only thing siri is supposed to do is replace a search engine, that's your prerogative. That's it, it's not worth saying anymore. I'm out.
You say that yet a moment ago you were describing how Siri will be able to search for spices entailed in a Lasagna.

normwood
Jun 29, 2012, 06:27 PM
I don't use Siri all that often, but today I fired her up on my way out to lunch and said "I'd like some Chinese food." She responded: "Good for you Steve." I just about went off the road laughing.

Steve

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 06:50 PM
I found Siri performs quite well for me. Not perfect by any means, but I use it regularly and rarely have issues. A lot of my use is in the car with the A/C on so that's a fairly noisy environment. I use it with the built-in mic, not a BT or wired one.

The main difference I see is that the article seemed to focus on searching. While I occasionally use Siri to search, I mostly use it for things like:

- Read an incoming text message to me while I'm driving and reply to it.
- Take a note (in the car or anywhere else). I even add-on to the note using voice.
- Check my calendar.
- Set up appointments in my calendar.
- Initiate calls
- Set up reminders (I'm especially fond of location-based reminders)

As others posted, accent and diction probably make a significant difference so YMMV.

I wish there was a setting for Siri to ignore Bluetooth connectivity. I still want phone calls and music to work with my car's BT, but I'd like to be able to hold the phone up and talk directly to Siri because the internal mic is so much better than the one in my car's BT. I pretty much don't use Siri at all in the car because it sucks so bad with the BT, but I want to use the phone/music function.

Mr_Ed
Jun 29, 2012, 06:58 PM
I wish there was a setting for Siri to ignore Bluetooth connectivity. I still want phone calls and music to work with my car's BT, but I'd like to be able to hold the phone up and talk directly to Siri because the internal mic is so much better than the one in my car's BT. I pretty much don't use Siri at all in the car because it sucks so bad with the BT, but I want to use the phone/music function.

Thinking about it, that's a pretty good idea. Maybe you should give Apple the feedback. Who knows. It may show up at some point.

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 06:58 PM
Who cares about all this Siri nonsense. Just give turn-by-turn voice directions already. It should have been there on Siri's release.

Was driving with a colleague yesterday. His $79 android put my 4S to shame. :(

Who cares about turn by turn on a phone? Every once in a while, maybe - but for everyday use a dedicated unit is so much better. My $79 Garmin on mute would easily school any phone including my iPhone when it gets it. Half the time road names and such are wrong due to mapping (so doesn't matter what GPS brand since it's recorded in the raw map data). It tells you to turn onto Highway 41. The road you are coming up on says Main Street. Technically the same road but easy to miss due to differences in naming. Much easier to see on a display that this turn is about to happen NOW. Lane assistance is just icing on the cake, it was fantastic when we were in Orlando a month ago.

Volume is an issue on phones too. A few weeks ago we were using some new Android that one of my employees just got . We could barely hear the thing saying anything over the car's AC noise, and we had it up in the center of the dash. We ended up pulling over and getting the Garmin out of my suitcase.

YMMV, but I travel for work week after week and this is my experience.

FreeState
Jun 29, 2012, 07:00 PM
Siri is getting better for me. There are still times it does not understand me at all, however its fewer and fewer. I also noticed the amount of information Siri can give keeps growing (I asked her when the Olympics were today and she had the dates, location and where the next winter Olympics are as well - all as feedback, not a google search.).

funkybudda
Jun 29, 2012, 07:04 PM
as usual, the Apple fanboys and fangirls come out in droves to defend how great and awesome Siri is, lol.

buxtone17
Jun 29, 2012, 07:06 PM
Google is just a dumb engine with no possible applications other than being a directory of the internet. They have never developed beyond coder style searches for specifics and their engineer backgrounds suggest they never will.

Says the guy who has clearly never used an Android phone...

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 07:10 PM
Just been watching the Jelly Bean demo on Jon4Lakers Youtube channel. he pits Siri against the Android and boy does Android wipe the floor with Siri. the voice is more natural. the speed is 2 maybe 3x as fast as Siri. In fact that little nexus 7 tablet and the JellyBean software looks incredibly polished. More polished than iOS, as much as it kills me to say it. Google are certainly on the up and I only hope Apple are taking note of the competition. :apple:

Maybe because no one is using the Google Now servers yet? Apple has pretty much admitted Siri is getting slammed. Let's see how fast Google is with 20 million people using it. If it's 2x as fast now, that means it will probably be 4x slower with traffic.

The Android stuff always looks so great in marketing then when you pick one up it's like awwww. So clunky, even my non-tech inclined mother can tell. Fanboy or not, I don't see anything Android even close to as polished as iOS is overall. One to two features, who cares - it's just to get articles published about how Android is beating iOS - hardly the case.

At the end of the day, Apple knows exactly what the competition is doing and they really don't care. Look at market cap, Apple almost three times bigger than Google, and Google is trying to make money all over the place with their hand in everything including having to license Android out. It's obvious who is actually winning and laughing about it all the way to the bank.

pmz
Jun 29, 2012, 07:12 PM
Intersting how this article/research couldn't possibly matter less.

They both understand voice very well. Too bad Siri can't connect to the internet any more reliably than my old mac mini that has no airport card.

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 07:12 PM
as usual, the Apple fanboys and fangirls come out in droves to defend how great and awesome Siri is, lol.

And all the Android fanboys and fangirls are right there claiming how crappy it is.

Fact is, it's probably right in the middle for now. It's not crap, but it's not great either. Time will tell how it end up being after some tweaks, and how the competition stacks up once they get millions of people using it.

tech4all
Jun 29, 2012, 07:17 PM
a sad man to spend so much time testing that

Not as sad as you posting about it. And he probably makes good money doing what he does.


as usual, the Apple fanboys and fangirls come out in droves to defend how great and awesome Siri is, lol.

And as usual a newbie comes on to call people who may actually have no problems with Siri fanboys and fangirls.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 07:19 PM
So you know what servers are being used by Google Now and whether they share resources?

As someone who uses both iPhone (and iOS) and a Skyrocket (on Android) I would say you're completely wrong. Both have their pluses and minuses. Neither one is without it's clunky behavior. People see what they want to see. "Fanboy or not."

Even funnier is your comment about how one or two features are just to get articles published. Same could be said about Apple. And often they are the same features or variants.

But there's always going to be posters like you who come on and say "oh.. even my mom..." just like there will always be posters like me who say I speak from actual experience, a passion (agnostic at that) for technology.

Finally - I think both Google and Apple are enjoying their riches. You can talk marketcap, etc all day. But I don't think Google is crying poor. It's all relative. Both companies are very successful. And push each other to excel. That's good business. And good for the consumer.

Maybe because no one is using the Google Now servers yet? Apple has pretty much admitted Siri is getting slammed. Let's see how fast Google is with 20 million people using it. If it's 2x as fast now, that means it will probably be 4x slower with traffic.

The Android stuff always looks so great in marketing then when you pick one up it's like awwww. So clunky, even my non-tech inclined mother can tell. Fanboy or not, I don't see anything Android even close to as polished as iOS is overall. One to two features, who cares - it's just to get articles published about how Android is beating iOS - hardly the case.

At the end of the day, Apple knows exactly what the competition is doing and they really don't care. Look at market cap, Apple almost three times bigger than Google, and Google is trying to make money all over the place with their hand in everything including having to license Android out. It's obvious who is actually winning and laughing about it all the way to the bank.

MACdaddy859
Jun 29, 2012, 07:29 PM
Go back to the Android forums. Siri is way better than Google's assistant.


lol honestly my man, Im not on one single Android forum surprisingly. Im an Apple guy who just doesnt have his head up their arse

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 07:37 PM
So you know what servers are being used by Google Now and whether they share resources?

As someone who uses both iPhone (and iOS) and a Skyrocket (on Android) I would say you're completely wrong. Both have their pluses and minuses. Neither one is without it's clunky behavior. People see what they want to see. "Fanboy or not."

Even funnier is your comment about how one or two features are just to get articles published. Same could be said about Apple. And often they are the same features or variants.

But there's always going to be posters like you who come on and say "oh.. even my mom..." just like there will always be posters like me who say I speak from actual experience, a passion (agnostic at that) for technology.

Finally - I think both Google and Apple are enjoying their riches. You can talk marketcap, etc all day. But I don't think Google is crying poor. It's all relative. Both companies are very successful. And push each other to excel. That's good business. And good for the consumer.

I have no idea what servers they use, but you probably don't either. I was just plain speculating. Like I said, we'll have to see what it's really like with millions of people using it. Just doesn't seem like a fair comparison for now with very few people using the service.

It's pretty obvious to me seeing the average Joe's experience with Android vs. iOS, whether it's my mother or a stranger. Just sit in the Verizon store for an hour and listen to complaints and watch people play with each one. Unfortunately for Android, my observation is that many people are still buying Android because it's cheaper. That point can be driven home with the Nexus 7 - it's not a $499 iPad competitor but rather a smaller, cheaper version. Everyone I know or met that had/has a Kindle Fire made the comment "well, it's cheaper than getting in iPad". Many of the Android phones are <$100, many down to the $free.99 level. The cheaper iPhone option has certainly been successful, but I do think many people are more inclined to get the brand new $99 Android because they feel the $99 iPhone 4 is old - which it is. The mostly $200+ iPhone is still outselling all the Android models, with many of them being <$100. I'd like to see a current survey of random Android owners - would you swap to an iPhone right now if there was zero cost involved?

If I could do a survey of each person looking to buy a new phone before they went into the store, I probably could pick 95% of the outcome based on this conversation. I find for the most part, there are two schools. Those who like to fool around with their technology and those that wish not to fool around with it and for it just to work. You can guess which is which. I'm not saying it's bad to wish for customization, but personally I could care less - I don't have time to fool with the massive bugs that comes with. Other are exactly the opposite. That's fine, we can all get along.

Apple's one or two things tend to be new features, but yes - many are to gain the public's eye. My comment should have been worded more to indicate that Google's one or two things seem to be features already available, but "improved" to trump iOS somehow.

buxtone17
Jun 29, 2012, 07:44 PM
Who cares about turn by turn on a phone? ... Half the time road names and such are wrong due to mapping (so doesn't matter what GPS brand since it's recorded in the raw map data). It tells you to turn onto Highway 41. The road you are coming up on says Main Street.

People who don't want to pay another $80 for a Garmin after spending $200 on a phone with built in GPS.

I'm a landscaper and I use Navigation on my Android phone every day to get to new jobs. My phone has never given me an incorrect street name and I've never had an issue with volume, even with the A/C on full blast.

Oh, and I use voice actions to navigate all the time (ie:"Navigate to [address]) and 99 times out of 100, my phone understands the address perfectly. If I asked Siri to "Navigate to" an address, what would it say? "Sorry, you have to download a third party app that probably requires a subscription to effectively use the GPS in your phone."?

Final note: The iPhone is better than Android phones at some things and Android phones are better than the iPhone at other things. And if you truly believe that one or the other is the absolute best and the other is absolute garbage, and if you truly believe that one or the other steals features and the other doesn't, well... Apple/Google thanks you for being such a loyal customer, and they'll be happy to accept another $200 from you when you fork it over without even considering the competition.

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 07:58 PM
People who don't want to pay another $80 for a Garmin after spending $200 on a phone with built in GPS.

I'm a landscaper and I use Navigation on my Android phone every day to get to new jobs. My phone has never given me an incorrect street name and I've never had an issue with volume, even with the A/C on full blast.

Oh, and I use voice actions to navigate all the time (ie:"Navigate to [address]) and 99 times out of 100, my phone understands the address perfectly. If I asked Siri to "Navigate to" an address, what would it say? "Sorry, you have to download a third party app that probably requires a subscription to effectively use the GPS in your phone."?

Final note: The iPhone is better than Android phones at some things and Android phones are better than the iPhone at other things. And if you truly believe that one or the other is the absolute best and the other is absolute garbage, and if you truly believe that one or the other steals features and the other doesn't, well... Apple/Google thanks you for being such a loyal customer, and they'll be happy to accept another $200 from you when you fork it over without even considering the competition.

I didn't spend $200 on a phone with GPS. I knew it didn't have it to begin with. And the $80 is well worth it, IMO.

And I suppose some areas are worse than others, but I've had the wrong road name thing happen many times. I probably travel around to more cities than the average person, so perhaps it's not a big issue to most people. It's not so much a "wrong" name per se, but rather a "different" name. State roads that happen to run through small towns have this issue LOTS. Ya, it's been Main Street here for several years, but it's also part of Highway 41. Problem is, mapping does not have all the local names. The only way I know to turn at the right time is by seeing the distance on the display. Another issue I've had lately is NO street signs. Apparently they are going out of style now with cities no longer marking roads? Again, I know to turn because it says to turn. If I only went by "Turn left on Main Street", I would be screwed (and have been) because there is no street sign.

As far as I know, phones still don't have the same level GPS chips as in extrernal devices, making accuracy tricks to be able to have lane assist a no go. This is certainly an issue with older iPhones, with third party companies really wanting you to use a backpack for the phone with a better GPS chip. The 4S supposedly has a better quality chip, probably why it's the only one listed to work with the new navigation. Once you've used lane assist, it's hard to go without it when driving in a BIG city with 6+ lanes that you've never seen before in your life. Doubtful it would be much use on a smaller screened device (although some Android phones are near external GPS sizes) as it's something you need to see, not hear.

There are just some things however that are better suited to other devices. That's up to each person I guess, but for me I could care less about navigation in a phone.

Geckotek
Jun 29, 2012, 07:58 PM
People who don't want to pay another $80 for a Garmin after spending $200 on a phone with built in GPS.


Why on earth would someone do that when there is a perfectly good GPS app w/ voice recognition in the app store for free??????

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 08:04 PM
Why on earth would someone do that when there is a perfectly good GPS app w/ voice recognition in the app store for free??????

Because there isn't. I love my iPhone, and I tried several. They (apps) and it (iPhone) sucks at GPS. But it (iPhone) is not the only one...

I am quite fond of Google Maps in general however, I find it to be very accurate. I was hoping Google would come out with a stand alone GPS using their data somehow. Instead they went this route, yuck.

bozzykid
Jun 29, 2012, 08:05 PM
Who cares about turn by turn on a phone? Every once in a while, maybe - but for everyday use a dedicated unit is so much better.

You mean a dedicated unit that has an old map and a lousy list of outdated POIs? No thanks. I'll take Google Maps w/ Navigation or Apples Maps any day of the week. As for the GPS in phones, they have gotten much better in the last year or two. Plus using triangulation of towers, phones can actually work better in cities where GPS units can't get a signal.

Krazy Bill
Jun 29, 2012, 08:10 PM
Who cares about turn by turn on a phone? Every once in a while, maybe - but for everyday use a dedicated unit is so much better.

Dedicated GPS units will soon be relics. Just like car radar and Citizen Band radios. Not saying Smart Phones are better... that's just the way it's going to be.

Volume is an issue on phones too. Bluetooth speaker synch in cars is pretty common these days. I've had mine for years.

Just drove 2600 miles, 27 cities with my passenger's HTC phone. Other than the occasional road with the wrong name, it was like driving on auto pilot. Suffice it to say my iPhone stayed in my pocket. :(

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 08:13 PM
I find for the most part, there are two schools. Those who like to fool around with their technology and those that wish not to fool around with it and for it just to work. You can guess which is which. I'm not saying it's bad to wish for customization, but personally I could care less - I don't have time to fool with the massive bugs that comes with. Other are exactly the opposite. That's fine, we can all get along.

Apple's one or two things tend to be new features, but yes - many are to gain the public's eye. My comment should have been worded more to indicate that Google's one or two things seem to be features already available, but "improved" to trump iOS somehow.

Apple copies other features as well.

And I would argue about massive bugs. I've had the same or less issues with my Skyrocket as I do with my iPhone 4.

And the whole "just works" is a misnomer. Just about any piece of tech requires a learning curve. We can argue all day which OS takes more - but that's subjective. Obviously since many people are choosing the cheaper/inferior phones (your implication) they must be able to learn how to use the phone or they wouldn't be keeping it regardless of the price. Note my sarcasm. Like I said - both OSes have their strengths and weaknesses. And both have and have issues.

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 08:24 PM
Dedicated GPS units will soon be relics. Just like car radar and Citizen Band radios. Not saying Smart Phones are better... that's just the way it's going to be.

Bluetooth speaker synch in cars is pretty common these days. I've had mine for years.

Just drove 2600 miles, 27 cities with my passenger's HTC phone. Other than the occasional road with the wrong name, it was like driving on auto pilot. Suffice it to say my iPhone stayed in my pocket. :(

I drove 2300 miles last week alone, so perhaps still different. And it all depends what you do in each city. Working in the film industry, we often have several different points to hit each day, often in a different part of town or a different town altogether.

And yes, BlueTooth helps. But while my personal car has it, none of the 8 vehicles my company owns does. And of the 17 rental car's I've had so far, only one had BT.

This certainly seems like a YMMV kinda thing.

Lastly, you'll have to pry my Valentine One out of my cold, dead hands. It's certainly still VERY relevant. You can keep the CBs...

----------

You mean a dedicated unit that has an old map and a lousy list of outdated POIs? No thanks. I'll take Google Maps w/ Navigation or Apples Maps any day of the week. As for the GPS in phones, they have gotten much better in the last year or two. Plus using triangulation of towers, phones can actually work better in cities where GPS units can't get a signal.

Yes, that was certainly the case prior to the smart phone. However, all current GPS units come with lifetime map updates, they had two or risk being extinct even sooner. I'm not that worried about the location of the Taco Bell that moved down the street a month ago. Once a year seems fine, but you could update it as often as you like. The new ones don't even need to be hooked to your computer to update anymore.

GPS technology itself has come a long way too, my newest Garmin works like a charm right through a tunnel - where the first one I ever bought would click off from a passing tree branch. I haven't had any trouble with the new ones working in tall buildings.

nickn
Jun 29, 2012, 08:38 PM
Just sit in the Verizon store for an hour and listen to complaints and watch people play with each one.

Unfortunately for Android, my observation is that many people are still buying Android because it's cheaper.

would you swap to an iPhone right now if there was zero cost involved?

I find for the most part, there are two schools. Those who like to fool around with their technology and those that wish not to fool around with it and for it just to work. You can guess which is which.

1. Go go a genius bar and stand around for an hour and listen to all of the complaints/problems.....
2. Far more people buy the Honda Civic over the Ferrari Calfornia. Is the Civic thus a bad car?
3. You would literally have to pay me to get me to switch from my evo 3D to any iPhone. Why would I switch when my HTC is spec wise better in almost every single way to even the 4S? Honestly, every iPhone besides the first is just a collection of last gen parts...
4. I have two Android phones, one from LG, and the other from HTC, and neither have had any issues at all. Perhaps battery life could be better, but that is a manufacturer issue. My iPad 1 on the other hand crashes around every 10-15 minutes, is now stuck on ****** firmware that can't be upgraded or downgraded, and has a significant screen burn in problem. Additionally, software that I previously used for networking side jobs, such as WiFiFoFum, has been banned, and network printing I used very often was removed, meaning the tablet became far less useful as time went on. You know what is really annoying? When an "update" actually removes features, and I then have to "fool around" by shopping around for a new printer to replace something that I already have... I went to the Apple store and they just said that was all normal though, as iOS 5 is slow on the iPad 1, and that I could buy a new faster iPad 3, and HP at the store to print, even though my Canon worked fine in iOS4... The screen was also ok, as apparently that can happen after long use, which is apparently 20 minutes in my case... I called HTC simply to ask about my new phones warranty, and they said that basically any problem I report in the 1 year warranty period would cause me a whole new phone to be mailed out, free of charge... Who is the better company.........

proaudio22
Jun 29, 2012, 08:54 PM
1. Go go a genius bar and stand around for an hour and listen to all of the complaints/problems.....
2. Far more people buy the Honda Civic over the Ferrari Calfornia. Is the Civic thus a bad car?
3. You would literally have to pay me to get me to switch from my evo 3D to any iPhone. Why would I switch when my HTC is spec wise better in almost every single way to even the 4S? Honestly, every iPhone besides the first is just a collection of last gen parts...
4. I have had two android phones, one from LG, and the other from HTC, and neither have had any issues at all. Perhaps battery life could be better, but that is a manufacturer issue. My iPad on the other hand crashes around every 10-15 minutes, is now stuck on ****** firmware that can't be upgraded or downgraded, and has a significant screen burn in problem. Additionally, software that I previously used for networking side jobs, such as WiFiFoFum have been banned, and network printing I used very often was removed, meaning the tabled became far less useful as time went on. I went to the Apple store and they just said that was all normal though, as iOS 5 is slow on the iPad 1, and that I could buy a new HP to print, even though my canon worked fine in iOS4... The screen was also ok, as apparantly that can happen... I called HTC simply to ask about the warranty, and they said that for basically any problem I report I the 1 year wants time would allow me to get whole new phone mailed to me... Who is the better company.........

Of course the Civic is not a BAD car, but that wasn't the point there. It's still the same situation - the Ferrari certainly is a better car, but everyone cannot afford to buy the Ferrari so they go for the Civic. Nothing wrong with that on those counts. Now, let's go ask some Civic owners if the would like to have a Ferrari - of course. Ok, so price is a concern, fair enough. What if we gave you the Ferrari - of course.

Better specs on what? The iPhone hardware is so much better optimized that it does better with less processing, the 4S easily tops these silly dual core 1.2s. Camera? iPhone. Screen. iPhone. You are leading in to my next comment...

I know from your comments exactly what category you would fit in to per my previous comment. You want more control than iOS gives you. Fine. I don't, also fine. iOS is not for you.

If HTC will give you a new phone for any issue you report, they are idiots and will be out of business soon. Now, I don't know anything about your iPad situation and I won't guess about it. Perhaps Apple did drop the ball here.

nickn
Jun 29, 2012, 09:12 PM
What if we gave you the Ferrari - of course.

Better specs on what? The iPhone hardware is so much better optimized that it does better with less processing, the 4S easily tops these silly dual core 1.2s. Camera? iPhone. Screen. iPhone. You are leading in to my next comment...

iOS is not for you.

If HTC will give you a new phone for any issue you report, they are idiots and will be out of business soon.

1. Hypothetical situation. I have a typical family of four. How do I transport them? I have an average income, how do I afford the $500 dollar oil change, extremely high insurance, and gas for my extremely low MPG cruiser? It would come down to either having a Ferrari that I could park and look at in my garage, or, a Civic I could afford and thus drive... I would take the far more practical Civic over the Ferrari....
2. I have a HTC EVO 3D. It has a 1.2Ghz dual core CPU, 1GB RAM, an Adreno 220 GPU, a 4.3 in 960x540 3D display, a WiMax 4G radio, an FM tuner, a microSD slot, an HDMI port, and, a user replaceable 1730mah battery. Later, the iPhone 4S arrived with a 1Ghz dual core CPU, 512MB RAM, an SGX543MP2 GPU, a 3.5 in 960x640 regular display, a 3G only modem, and a smaller 1420Mah battery... To recap, my HTC has a faster CPU, double the RAM, a slightly faster GPU, a larger and better display, faster 4G service, expandability with an SD card slot, and a better battery... It beats the iPhone 4S in almost every category, and it cost less than half, at $300 off contract. Perhaps the iPhone really only wins in the camera department. Software wise I am on ICS 4.0.3, which is the latest major Android release fyi, though I won't touch on that as the iOS vs Android debate is really subjective. Of course I like Android 4 way more than any iOS though, and I have extensively used iOS 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, unlike many people here who bash Android without ever using it...
3. I didn't write enough there. Basically, HTC will give you a new unit if they can't help you over the phone, though they likely will try a billion troubleshooting methods before they end up sending one off. That is better than Apple though, who refuses to even admit any of their products have a problem.


EDIT* I screwed up and thought my phone was released in 2010, while it was actually released in 2011. Any quoted text will thus be a bit different from the edited text above.

samcraig
Jun 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
Of course the Civic is not a BAD car, but that wasn't the point there. It's still the same situation - the Ferrari certainly is a better car, but everyone cannot afford to buy the Ferrari so they go for the Civic. Nothing wrong with that on those counts. Now, let's go ask some Civic owners if the would like to have a Ferrari - of course. Ok, so price is a concern, fair enough. What if we gave you the Ferrari - of course.




Big assumption there. Because I know plenty of people - while they might like driving a ferrari a bit - ultimately would prefer (day to day) to have the civic. "Better" is subjective once again. Why do you say the ferrari is better. Because it cost more? Is it better built? Do they last longer? Which handles a really bad potholed road? Which one gets better gas mileage and has a lower total cost of ownership? Which car can you go to costco with?

I would say they retain their value longer. But that doesn't necc. mean they are better cars. Both cars have their strengths and weaknesses. Sound familiar.

Try and remember that your use case isn't everyone in the world's use case.

----------

Shhhh Specs ONLY matter when it's the iPhone who has better ones. Don't forget where you are ;)

1. I have 2010 HTC EVO 3D. It has a 1.2Ghz dual core CPU, 1GB RAM, an Adreno 220 GPU, a 4.3 in 960x540 3D display, a WiMax 4G radio, an FM tuner, a microSD slot, an HDMI port, and, a user replaceable 1730mah battery. One year later the iPhone 4S arrived with a 1Ghz dual core CPU, 512MB RAM, an SGX543MP2 GPU, a 3.5 in 960x640 regular display, a 3G only modem, and a smaller 1420Mah battery... To recap, my HTC has a faster CPU, double the RAM, a slightly faster GPU, a larger and better display, faster 4G service, expandability with an SD card slot, and a better battery, yet my phone is a whole year older... It still beats the iPhone 4S in almost every category, and it cost less than half, at $300 off contract Perhaps the iPhone really wins in the camera department. Software wise I am on ICS 4.0.3, which is the latest major Android release fyi, though I won't touch on that as the iOS vs Android debate is really subjective. Of course I like Android 4 way more than any iOS though, and I have extensively used iOS 1, 2, 3, 4,and 5, unlike many people here who bash Android without ever using it...
2. I didn't write enough there. Basically, HTC will give you a new unit if they can't help you over the phone, though they likely will try a billion troubleshooting methods before they end up sending one off. That is better than Apple though, who refuses to even admit any of their products have a problem.

StyxMaker
Jun 29, 2012, 10:56 PM
Gave up on Siri towards the end, I don't have a regional accent, or a speech impediment and it routinely got most of the things I said wrong. The "beta" excuse has long run dry, you don't release something and advertise the heck out of it as an amazing core feature, and then hide behind the Beta tag for nearly a year.

How, exactly, is Apple 'hiding' behind the 'beta tag'. I have not seen a single instance of Apple using 'beta' to explain or excuse any of Siri's perceived short comings.

ganymedes13
Jun 29, 2012, 11:00 PM
Big assumption there. Because I know plenty of people - while they might like driving a ferrari a bit - ultimately would prefer (day to day) to have the civic. "Better" is subjective once again. Why do you say the ferrari is better. Because it cost more? Is it better built? Do they last longer? Which handles a really bad potholed road? Which one gets better gas mileage and has a lower total cost of ownership? Which car can you go to costco with?

I would say they retain their value longer. But that doesn't necc. mean they are better cars. Both cars have their strengths and weaknesses. Sound familiar.

Try and remember that your use case isn't everyone in the world's use case.

----------

Shhhh Specs ONLY matter when it's the iPhone who has better ones. Don't forget where you are ;)

Let's be real here. The first OP included price into the equation so that throws 3/4 of what you said out the window. Unless you're truly dedicated soccer mom, there's no way anyone going to choose a Honda over a Ferrari. Even then you'll take a Range Rover.

'Better' may be a relative term in many cases but not when it comes to a Ferrari and a Honda.

MacAddict1978
Jun 29, 2012, 11:21 PM
"In what should not be a surprise given Siri's beta status"

It's a cop-out at this point to excuse Siri for being in "beta status." This is one hell of a beta... you know, with no updates, no fixes, nadda, and in full use for almost an entire year on one of the best selling consumer electronic devices ever.

If they keep the "beta" status in IOS 6, someone needs smacked.

----------

How, exactly, is Apple 'hiding' behind the 'beta tag'. I have not seen a single instance of Apple using 'beta' to explain or excuse any of Siri's perceived short comings.

They plaster "beta" on all references to Siri. In multiple interviews about Siri, apple execs have reminded the interviewer that its "still in beta." I think they even tossed that out this year in the WWDC keynote when explaining how Siri was going to be better than it was with IOS than it is in it's "beta" form.

This is one of those things where fan boyism gets in the way of reality. They absolutely have hid behind the beta excuse, and I agree with the OP.

And already said it, but who keeps a live shipping product in beta for a year? NO ONE!!!!

modemthug
Jun 30, 2012, 12:22 AM
You mean your experience is more important than someone else's who has a video on YouTube with both devices? Tell me why your experience is more valid than the video that was shown?

Very self important aren't you - so busy. Maybe if you're feeling industrious. Oh my. What a life you have...

Not so self important that I go name-call people on the internet; but I am able to detect irony. Regardless, these are just my personal findings. Didn't mean to insinuate that I was more important than anyone, so take it easy.

boraxatude
Jun 30, 2012, 12:27 AM
I never use Siri. I tried many many times in the beginning to try and get useful information but found it to be about 75% completely inaccurate. I think this tech was released a year too early. Great idea but it doesn't work very well at all. That being said, I do use the voice command option quite frequently when texting and emailing as it's quicker than me typing.

Geckotek
Jun 30, 2012, 01:10 AM
Because there isn't. I love my iPhone, and I tried several. They (apps) and it (iPhone) sucks at GPS. But it (iPhone) is not the only one...

I am quite fond of Google Maps in general however, I find it to be very accurate. I was hoping Google would come out with a stand alone GPS using their data somehow. Instead they went this route, yuck.

That's not true at all. Waze works great. And what about the iPhone itself is an issue?

princigalli
Jun 30, 2012, 02:25 AM
"Italian Restaurant, North Beach " ,should be enough to generate accurate searches. Why would anyone tell a telephone device "I'm in the mood for...", obviously the device couldn't care less and couldn't even understand the concept. Some users feel lonely, others are grown children that like to think their telephones have human feelings. In both cases those people would probably need a better social life.

doelcm82
Jun 30, 2012, 03:35 AM
"Italian Restaurant, North Beach " ,should be enough to generate accurate searches. Why would anyone tell a telephone device "I'm in the mood for...", obviously the device couldn't care less and couldn't even understand the concept. Some users feel lonely, others are grown children that like to think their telephones have human feelings. In both cases those people would probably need a better social life.
If Siri required you to say "i'm in the mood for", then I'd agree with you. But that's not the only way you could say it. Not everyone speaks like John Malkovich, and if you think everyone should, I suggest you go rent the movie.

princigalli
Jun 30, 2012, 04:02 AM
If Siri required you to say "i'm in the mood for", then I'd agree with you. But that's not the only way you could say it. Not everyone speaks like John Malkovich, and if you think everyone should, I suggest you go rent the movie.

I agree, and that's what I mean. But the advertising world is very fictional.

samcraig
Jun 30, 2012, 07:11 AM
Not so self important that I go name-call people on the internet; but I am able to detect irony. Regardless, these are just my personal findings. Didn't mean to insinuate that I was more important than anyone, so take it easy.

Where did I name call you?

SpyderBite
Jun 30, 2012, 07:25 AM
And already said it, but who keeps a live shipping product in beta for a year? NO ONE!!!!

Everybody. Otherwise there would never be patches or updates to any software products.

Just because it isn't stamped "In Beta" doesn't mean your are not in fact beta testing the product.

Flitzy
Jun 30, 2012, 09:32 AM
Doesn't matter what Siri does or doesn't.

The simple fact is that Google always has been and always will be terrible.

Not to mention that I'd rather take a beta Siri then a spyware ridden Google anything.

And already said it, but who keeps a live shipping product in beta for a year? NO ONE!!!!

You mean like Google when they had Gmail in beta status for nearly three years?

bobajoul
Jun 30, 2012, 09:40 AM
Siri is not on the same level as Google voice. Just saying.
Voice recognition compared to typing is less accurate? Duh. The real issue is how it compares to traditional voice recognition packages. It is about equivalent.

gotluck
Jun 30, 2012, 09:49 AM
You mean like Google when they had Gmail in beta status for nearly three years?

Except that Gmail worked.

Flitzy
Jun 30, 2012, 09:50 AM
Except that Gmail worked.

Siri does too.

samcraig
Jun 30, 2012, 10:07 AM
Doesn't matter what Siri does or doesn't.

The simple fact is that Google always has been and always will be terrible.

Not to mention that I'd rather take a beta Siri then a spyware ridden Google anything.


You mean like Google when they had Gmail in beta status for nearly three years?

It's not really spyware. Spyware is "a type of malware (malicious software) installed on computers that collects information about users without their knowledge. "

Fact is - Google, when you sign up for their services states quite clearly (as do any app you install from the play store, etc) what they do and do not collect.

Google isn't anymore spyware that iOS is or was.

Except that Gmail worked.

Exactly.

Siri does too.

Almost all of the time...

brewcitywi
Jun 30, 2012, 01:52 PM
I like Siri and have an iPhone 4S. Even though siri is technically beta, I think people want Siri to work better, and the article's assessment is probably fair, even though I don't like to read parts of it.

I can ask directions, "where am I?", weather (sometimes inaccurate), create reminders, play songs, and other things, but pushes me to a general internet search too often. Obviously, I've written e-mails and texted while in the car, using Siri, too.

I can ask how many moons does jupiter have, and Siri knows it natively.
I can say, remind me to wash my car on the summer solstice, and it does it.
So there are funny surprises.

But, there are some mix ups that are frustrating. And, I think people dream of Siri being a bit more in command of its own data, even though I'm sure it's not easy.

If Siri soon becomes a feature where voice can naturally do 80% or more of what you could type, it becomes more "magical."

StyxMaker
Jun 30, 2012, 02:07 PM
You mean your experience is more important than someone else's who has a video on YouTube with both devices? Tell me why your experience is more valid than the video that was shown?

Very self important aren't you - so busy. Maybe if you're feeling industrious. Oh my. What a life you have...

And what makes the experience of the video maker more valid than the experience of the poster?

Ingot
Jun 30, 2012, 02:38 PM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

hmmmm... urethra pancakes.

SBlue1
Jun 30, 2012, 02:46 PM
You've missed so much of what this technology can offer it's astounding. From pilots who can have their instruments, etc displayed in front of them, to assisting some visually impaired people to so many other applications.

You're getting bogged down on one aspect - those who need a prescription for eyewear. If that's your biggest issue... you are being very "short sighted" - pun intended.

I think from a technological point of view this may be something great. I can picture a surgeon wearing those to help him make the cut without having to look up to check machines or an x-ray.

But from s consumer point of view people just do not like to wear glases. Just look how many people wear contacts and look how many wear glases. I believe its something like 5 to 1 in numbers. And you would have to wear them pretty much all day long. Because what is the point of having them in your pocket when you have to get them out and put them on every ten or so minutes whenever you want to read your new Facebook posts, mails, tweets and so on?

doelcm82
Jun 30, 2012, 03:49 PM
I think from a technological point of view this may be something great. I can picture a surgeon wearing those to help him make the cut without having to look up to check machines or an x-ray.

But from s consumer point of view people just do not like to wear glases. Just look how many people wear contacts and look how many wear glases. I believe its something like 5 to 1 in numbers. And you would have to wear them pretty much all day long. Because what is the point of having them in your pocket when you have to get them out and put them on every ten or so minutes whenever you want to read your new Facebook posts, mails, tweets and so on?

Both Google Glass and Siri are precursors to the technology our children will take for granted. I don't expect Google Glass to be a breakaway product, because I agree with you that many people will not want to wear the equipment. It will be a niche project, the way cell phones were when they were very expensive and had to be built in to a car, or carried around in a largish bag.

But the equipment will be changing, so it is less and less obtrusive. Would people use google glass if the images were on the contact lenses themselves? How about on a corneal implant?

Siri will also evolve, to understand more languages, and more accents, to be more aware of context, to respond appropriately if it detects anger, frustration, or mirth in your voice.

Fraaaa
Jun 30, 2012, 08:42 PM
I don't use it as extensively as others, but I think if you tried, you could easily find uses for it.

My favorite uses that work well are:
1) Turning on the countdown timer when I'm grilling meat
2) Setting reminders
3) Setting appointments
4) The occasional web search (I usually type these in though...out of habit)

Saying "Set timer to 4 minutes" is never misinterpretted (unless I stutter). Setting reminders are occasionally misinterpretted, but I always know what I meant to they get the job done. My favorites are things like "Remind me to return my Redbox movie when I leave work" or something along those lines.

On the frustrating side, setting appointments often confuses me as I don't know the right words to use. I can say "Set an appointment for Anthony's Wedding on September 2nd at noon" and the appointment just comes up with a subject of "Appointment". Any suggestions on getting this right would be helpful. Apple really needs to work on Siri's logic on that one.

I'm really looking for iOS 6 and hoping for some real improvments as well as the ability to interface with 3rd party apps.


"remind me anthony's wedding (whenever)"

If you "set an appointment" siri guess that the "appointment" is to be setted

Also the timer works well for me too, and is the only thing I use.

rockarollr
Jul 1, 2012, 02:09 AM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

Hahaha! That post is pure effing genius. Funny stuff!

Lepton
Jul 1, 2012, 08:30 AM
I'm not sure that all the posters here realize that the update to iOS that is coming in a couple of weeks will include built in turn by turn navigation. I've been using it for a while and it works great (around here, Long Island). I can tell Siri "Take me home" or "Let's drive to mom's house" and it understands. It knows those because of my own contact, and because I've told it who mom is. But I can also say "Navigate to the Walt Whitman Mall" which isn't in contacts. It finds it and starts off. That's pretty decent.

I also have no trouble with Siri recognizing my voice, but that must be because of my dulcet tones and Long Island accent.

SkyShields
Jul 1, 2012, 10:42 PM
I love Apple & the iphone, Am a total fanboy but Apple's been dropping the ball. After playing with google now on my cousins nexus phone man it worlds better then siri. It doesn't have problem understanding different english accents, it super fast, looks good (cards) & it just does more. Only advantage I give to Siri is reminders it does that better. Scott Forstall aught to be ashamed of himself. Almost a year & still in beta. Also google now sounds human not like a robot that huge. Come on Apple I luv ya but damn. Iphone 5 better bring it.

Lochias
Jul 2, 2012, 06:04 AM
"In what should not be a surprise given

And ... who keeps a live shipping product in beta for a year? NO ONE!!!!

Except Google.
Gmail, as I recall, was in beta from 2004 to 2009. Similarly Google Docs, Calendar.

Why is this supposed to be so terrible? Betas, with a willing audience, are a way (eventually) to get it right. It seems to me far better than to pretend perfection from year one.

By the way, one great beta was leap year, started in 45 BC, changed to every four years a few years later, then again in 1582 to what we have now. I think we are out of beta.

diamond.g
Jul 2, 2012, 07:51 AM
Except Google.
Gmail, as I recall, was in beta from 2004 to 2009. Similarly Google Docs, Calendar.

Why is this supposed to be so terrible? Betas, with a willing audience, are a way (eventually) to get it right. It seems to me far better than to pretend perfection from year one.

By the way, one great beta was leap year, started in 45 BC, changed to every four years a few years later, then again in 1582 to what we have now. I think we are out of beta.

I think that Google didn't sell those products to businesses (Google Apps/Appliance) until it was no longer in beta.

MacNewsFix
Jul 2, 2012, 08:41 AM
I think that Google didn't sell those products to businesses (Google Apps/Appliance) until it was no longer in beta.

Apologies for interjecting, but Google was selling government contracts (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_apps_microsoft_dc.php) on their services before they were out of beta in 2009.

Geckotek
Jul 2, 2012, 09:34 AM
"remind me anthony's wedding (whenever)"

If you "set an appointment" siri guess that the "appointment" is to be setted

Also the timer works well for me too, and is the only thing I use.

Doesn't "remind me" set a reminder instead of a calendar item?

IPexpress
Jul 2, 2012, 09:43 AM
I am sure Siri will evolve and improve, like all good new technology, if there is a will to make it work.

diamond.g
Jul 2, 2012, 11:31 AM
Apologies for interjecting, but Google was selling government contracts (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_apps_microsoft_dc.php) on their services before they were out of beta in 2009.

Thanks for the link.

Siri should be constantly improving. It shouldn't need a new version of iOS to get new features. Especially since most of it is server side.

gwmacosx
Jul 2, 2012, 12:53 PM
I wonder how Apple will respond to the new Google Now coming in Jellybean in July. I have watched a number of videos and it is damned impressive. The voice sounds a lot more natural, it is faster than Siri, and you can also ask a lot more varied questions and get the answers right away. I have not installed the iOS 6 beta with the new and improved Siri, but from what I have seen in videos, Google Now seems to blow it away. Like another poster said, Apple needs something more robust than WolframAlpha and Yelp to tie in with Siri. Maybe Yahoo could be a good fit.

They also need to improve the accuracy of the voice recognition. This could be done similar to Dragon by having you read a story aloud. Let me give you an example. I asked Siri is a very clear voice with no background noise. "How tall is Big Ben?" But no matter how many times I tried it kept hearing Big Bend with a D and not Ben for some reason.

I also hope they improve Siri's voice to sound more natural. The robotic voice was quirky and funny at first, now it is a bit annoying. The Google Now voice really sounds far more natural and realistic. Personally, I would also like a choice between a few voices and would prefer a male voice. The Alex voice for example in OS X sounds the most natural for me and the easiest to understand.

AT&T also has some really fantastic sounding voices and offer a demo here. Would it be too expensive for Apple to license these voices from AT&T?
http://www2.research.att.com/~ttsweb/tts/demo.php/

MacNewsFix
Jul 2, 2012, 03:58 PM
Thanks for the link.

Siri should be constantly improving. It shouldn't need a new version of iOS to get new features. Especially since most of it is server side.

I agree. I think they are already tweaking things behind the scenes from my own experience.

As for iOS 6 (which should be a free upgrade for anyone with an iPhone 4S and, therefore, already enjoying Siri), I'm not exactly sure how much the discussed improvements are tied to the new OS, which I believe is your point. The exceptions would be new Siri attributes that are reliant on other new features exclusive to iOS 6, such as Apple's new maps.

As someone who had the original Siri running on his first gen iPod Touch before Apple purchased the company, I can attest to the fact that some of the future features will be well utilized (at least by me :p), so I hope those new data centers are ready to go. It won't be just the iPhone 4S owners who are going to be hammering the data centers, but everyone with the new iPads too.

I wonder how Apple will respond to the new Google Now coming in Jellybean in July.

The results are impressive. However, how Google Now operates (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google-now-knows-more-about-you-than-your-family-does-are-you-ok-with-that.php) is an anathema to Apple. Apple is going to leave it to a Congressional subcommittee, the FTC (http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm), or EU data privacy commissions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6704013.stm) to respond.

Fraaaa
Jul 2, 2012, 05:32 PM
Doesn't "remind me" set a reminder instead of a calendar item?

True. Say: "Create Anthony's Wedding tomorrow at nine."

Create "name of the event" at "time"

It works quite well even with my broken accent. Saying create SIRI gives you the calendar, with remind gives you a reminder.

Appsman
Jul 3, 2012, 10:13 AM
I'm using Siri to post this message and, as you can see, it's 100% a cure writ and pancakes urethra.

An awesome SIRI jokes, if really happened. Do you have screenshots of this?

Sensamic
Jul 3, 2012, 06:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHkhp6BwnGo


Looks like Google Voice Search is... awesome? :D:D

Bezetos
Jul 5, 2012, 07:15 AM
But don't take my word for it, google: "What spices are in Lasagna?" and then look at the bold words, those are the keywords it matched in those results. Sure, right now siri can't answer that, but eventually it will, better than google even, because google will still rely on keywords because that's what it's made to do.
I just thought I'll return here to prove you wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_729769&src_vid=fHkhp6BwnGo&v=h8ePUYp6HPU&feature=iv).

----------

An awesome SIRI jokes, if really happened. Do you have screenshots of this?

He was joking obviously.

diamond.g
Jul 5, 2012, 07:26 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHkhp6BwnGo


Looks like Google Voice Search is... awesome? :D:D

The speech to text accuracy is pretty good too.

itsjayswelly
Jul 6, 2012, 10:05 AM
I think a lot of people are confused about what this test is all about. The article is a little misleading because it doesn't specifically state the parameters of the experiment. It makes it seem as if the tester is using Google Now vs. Siri (which I mention below).

As we all know Google is the most popular search engine on any computing platform. What Gene Munster was trying to determine is if Siri could compete with Google to be a top mobile search application without directly using Google search results. So Munster is not going to ask Siri to Google the answer - that would be pointless. The idea was to see if Siri, using voice, was able to produce the same results as Google Search without saying "Google blah blah blah." The noise and quiet test were for Siri, not Google. He later states that for Siri to become a viable search alternative, it needed to reduce its reliance on Google and increase its score from a D to a B.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2406580,00.asp (Munster: Google Beats Apple's Siri for Accurate Answering)

As far as Google Now vs. Siri, this seems like a really competition. I have used neither extensively but it looks as if Google has presented a real competitor to Siri. Not only does it provide answers quickly, but it can also take note of your routine, and assist you by providing relevant information without you even asking. To some that may be creepy, but I think that carriers can already track your movements (FBI, police), so at least Google is making the creepiness useful. IMO if you are worried about being tracked then you might want to ditch technology and move to Africa before 2015.

SleeplessChaos
Jul 11, 2012, 10:01 AM
I just thought I'll return here to prove you wrong (http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_729769&src_vid=fHkhp6BwnGo&v=h8ePUYp6HPU&feature=iv).[COLOR="#808080"]

----------


I'd just like to thank you for proving my point. If the tests were between that program and siri, then the research would've been even remotely relevant.

Bezetos
Jul 11, 2012, 11:04 AM
I'd just like to thank you for proving my point. If the tests were between that program and siri, then the research would've been even remotely relevant.

How does that prove your point and not disprove your statement:

Sure, right now siri can't answer that, but eventually it will, better than google even, because google will still rely on keywords because that's what it's made to do.

It's like you've never heard about the Knowledge Graph (http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/search/knowledge.html)

SleeplessChaos
Jul 11, 2012, 11:40 AM
How does that prove your point and not disprove your statement:



It's like you've never heard about the Knowledge Graph (http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/search/knowledge.html)

Because neither of those things are google text search...

I figured it would be obvious when I said "google" that I was specifically referring to the text based search engine that the article used to test siri's "usefulness," I guess not...

Not only that, but the knowledge graph provides information that is even more ambiguous than a google text search would.

Bezetos
Jul 11, 2012, 12:25 PM
Because neither of those things are google text search...

I figured it would be obvious when I said "google" that I was specifically referring to the text based search engine that the article used to test siri's "usefulness," I guess not...

Not only that, but the knowledge graph provides information that is even more ambiguous than a google text search would.
Mate.

Please.

Google (text-search!) stuff like "who is the lead singer of Marron 5" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22).
Or "Who is Dr. Dre married to (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Who+is+dr.+dre+married+to&oq=Who+is+dr.+dre+married+to&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i30.20149.28664.0.28792.37.33.3.0.0.0.148.1559.31j2.33.0...0.0.uPm4qqH70Qo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69f1c60047c60e0c&biw=1513&bih=943)".
Or "What is the cast of Titanic (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=What+is+the+cast+of+Titanic&oq=What+is+the+cast+of+Titanic&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.3896.7054.7.7141.28.17.0.10.10.0.108.1064.14j3.17.0...0.0.3e0icb3FjGA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69f1c60047c60e0c&biw=1513&bih=943)".
Or "When did Michael Jackson die?" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=when%20did%20dennis%20ritchie%20died&cp=14&gs_id=y0&xhr=t&q=when+did+michael+jackson+die&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22whe+did+micha&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69f1c60047c60e0c&biw=1513&bih=943)

You get the exact answer. Google has been working on this for years.

Siri is just a bloody gimmick. It's nothing revolutionary. It's just an extension of what Google did years ago (4 years ago to be precise) for the iPhone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ3Glr5Ff28) by adding a few gimmicks like setting up a reminder or checking your calendar. I don't care that Siri can tell me a joke. I don't care that it will try to answer my question to meaning of life. It's just a canned response. A gimmick.

Siri will never be better than Google Search, and suggesting that "the technology in siri is far more advanced than in a google search and is actually moving devices toward sentience" (your own words) is extremely naÔve and makes me roll on the floor laughing.

SleeplessChaos
Jul 11, 2012, 01:25 PM
Mate.

Please.

Google (text-search!) stuff like "who is the lead singer of Marron 5" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22).
Or "Who is Dr. Dre married to (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Who+is+dr.+dre+married+to&oq=Who+is+dr.+dre+married+to&gs_l=serp.3..0j0i30.20149.28664.0.28792.37.33.3.0.0.0.148.1559.31j2.33.0...0.0.uPm4qqH70Qo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69f1c60047c60e0c&biw=1513&bih=943)".
Or "What is the cast of Titanic (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=What+is+the+cast+of+Titanic&oq=What+is+the+cast+of+Titanic&gs_l=serp.3..0i30.3896.7054.7.7141.28.17.0.10.10.0.108.1064.14j3.17.0...0.0.3e0icb3FjGA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69f1c60047c60e0c&biw=1513&bih=943)".
Or "When did Michael Jackson die?" (https://www.google.co.uk/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22who+is+the+lead+singer+of+Marron+5%22#hl=en&gs_nf=1&pq=when%20did%20dennis%20ritchie%20died&cp=14&gs_id=y0&xhr=t&q=when+did+michael+jackson+die&pf=p&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&oq=%22whe+did+micha&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=69f1c60047c60e0c&biw=1513&bih=943)

You get the exact answer. Google has been working on this for years.

Siri is just a bloody gimmick. It's nothing revolutionary. It's just an extension of what Google did years ago (4 years ago to be precise) for the iPhone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ3Glr5Ff28) by adding a few gimmicks like setting up a reminder or checking your calendar. I don't care that Siri can tell me a joke. I don't care that it will try to answer my question to meaning of life. It's just a canned response. A gimmick.

Siri will never be better than Google Search, and suggesting that "the technology in siri is far more advanced than in a google search and is actually moving devices toward sentience" (your own words) is extremely naÔve and makes me roll on the floor laughing.

*Sigh* This whole thread and you still can't understand what I'm saying in plain English. I don't give a crap about who came up with siri's technology first, I'm no apple fanboy I assure you of that.

The only thing that I'm saying is that what google text search intends to be and what the technology that is in siri intends to be are two completely different things. That's it. I give google text search props where it's due, it's likely the most efficient text based search engine on the web, but in most scenarios comparing the two is like comparing a shotgun to a sniper rifle. Sure right now siri's not the most accurate rifle but it doesn't ever intend to be a shotgun.

I'm not saying that google hasn't already made a sniper rifle and I'm not saying they're incapable of creating a better sniper rifle than apple, but I'm saying that the things being compared in the research are things with two different designs.

samcraig
Jul 11, 2012, 01:41 PM
And I think you keep missing the point of his posts which is back to the original article. The test was on finding accurate information based on what you were asking the search feature - whether it was voice or not. If you are going to search for information - Siri comes up short. You can't seem to let that one go - apple fan or not. Is it that hard to just admit that it's an accurate statement.

Siri vs Google Text Search - you are better off IF YOU WANT THE BETTER RESULT - using Google Text Search. That's all. Not a big deal.

*Sigh* This whole thread and you still can't understand what I'm saying in plain English. I don't give a crap about who came up with siri's technology first, I'm no apple fanboy I assure you of that.

The only thing that I'm saying is that what google text search intends to be and what the technology that is in siri intends to be are two completely different things. That's it. I give google text search props where it's due, it's likely the most efficient text based search engine on the web, but in most scenarios comparing the two is like comparing a shotgun to a sniper rifle. Sure right now siri's not the most accurate rifle but it doesn't ever intend to be a shotgun.

I'm not saying that google hasn't already made a sniper rifle and I'm not saying they're incapable of creating a better sniper rifle than apple, but I'm saying that the things being compared in the research are things with two different designs.