Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Audience's 'earSmart' Technology Explains Siri's iPhone 4S Exclusivity

Clive At Five said:
Not at all! ... but I don't see anywhere I can BUY Siri for the iPhone 4, even though it's technically capable, do you? I would, as would many others, but that doesn't make Apple as much money as buying a new phone would. Apple is happiest if people's options are 1) Buy a new phone or 2) Ess-Tee-Eff-You.
Click to expand...

You can't buy it. Apple is trying to tell you the experience would suck more than they want. Again, Apple could have made the iPhone 4S LTE capable but they didn't-- it would suck. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Aside from the technical inadequacies of the iPhone 4 to support Siri, I'm sure there are also business decisions, such as making more money for something that cost them a lot to develop. There's a big picture, and some people just don't see it. What this comes down to is the free market and sales numbers. People are free to vote with their money, and are doing so.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Then Apple should come out and saying it. It is the BS excuses people are coming out with covering for Apple. They have been debunk one and a time and in many ways proven how wrong they are.

Noise cancellation excuse can be debunk by Apple allowing blue tooth to work with siri.

It is the excuses people are using to cover. This is just one more in a long list of excuses. The simple truth to the matter is Apple put a BS software block for no other reason than to sell more iPhone 4S. The upgrade from the 4 to the 4S is not that great over all so they were looking for some other excuse to encourage people to upgrade.
Click to expand...

Yes it's all a conspiracy. Hopefully apple will look to please you in the future with listing out every new feature with a reason why it's not on their previous devices. They owe you everything.
 
chazwatson said:
There's a big picture, and some people just don't see it. What this comes down to is the free market and sales numbers. People are free to vote with their money, and are doing so.
Click to expand...

Nobody sees the big picture. Not just some people. So you are one of those. To see the big picture, you need much much more information than publicly available. So anything we discuss here is without seeing the big picture and trying to guess the big picture.
 
Small White Car said:
Ok, let's assume Apple is being greedy in all things.

Well, Apple would probably make more sales and more money by being able to advertise that the iPad 2 and iPhone 4 have Siri right now.

Thus, the "Apple is Greedy" outlook should lead us to believe that Apple wants Siri on these devices. Given that, a technical problem makes the most sense.

Your worldview and your conclusion don't match.
Click to expand...

Or.... OR....

Apple knows that most of the people who buy their products will close their eyes and buy the newest, most-expensive model as soon as it's available.

SWC, I know you've been following Apple long enough to remember when they started pandering to the least common denominator with trash hardware in a user-friendly shell... and they did so under the guise of "simplicity." What Apple failed at then is the same thing that Apple fails at now, which is providing superior technology AND simplicity in the same package. Now our boards are flooded with these hive-mind types who open their wallets butt cheeks every time Apple says "Open-Apple Sphincter." I mean, "Command Sphincter." It's impossible to even criticise Apple without being completely smeared by the hive.

YOU, SWC, were someone I thought stood out as a voice of reason. Maybe I've become really jaded by Apple lately, but of all the people that put up with Apple's - admittedly occassional - excrement, I never thought you'd be one of them.

-Clive
 
unobtainium said:
Yeah, I'm not sure why you all seem to take it for granted that Apple "owes" you free new features for your iPhone 4.
Click to expand...
Yeah, most people do not buy the Apple hardware with their more or less hard earned money. No! Never! So why do the customers think they can use all iOS v5.x.x features on older Apple hardware? /sarcasmoff

----------
chazwatson said:
Stop trolling.
Click to expand...
Do you think you have an argument?
chazwatson said:
Clearly there's a difference between a mistake and an informed decision.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the topic.
 
Clive At Five said:
Or.... OR....

Apple knows that most of the people who buy their products will close their eyes and buy the newest, most-expensive model as soon as it's available.

SWC, I know you've been following Apple long enough to remember when they started pandering to the least common denominator with trash hardware in a user-friendly shell... and they did so under the guise of "simplicity." What Apple failed at then is the same thing that Apple fails at now, which is providing superior technology AND simplicity in the same package. Now our boards are flooded with these hive-mind types who open their wallets butt cheeks every time Apple says "Open-Apple Sphincter." I mean, "Command Sphincter." It's impossible to even criticise Apple without being completely smeared by the hive.

YOU, SWC, were someone I thought stood out as a voice of reason. Maybe I've become really jaded by Apple lately, but of all the people that put up with Apple's - admittedly occassional - excrement, I never thought you'd be one of them.

-Clive
Click to expand...

Apple started delivering cheap hardware in a friendly shell when they were founded. Apple never changed their policy about that. Even in their first ever computer, the CPU they used was one of the cheapest and slowest ones.

If you think Apple II or Macintosh were actually "superior" technology, you are daydreaming.
 
chazwatson said:
You can't buy it. Apple is trying to tell you the experience would suck more than they want.
Click to expand...

Apple is trying to tell me that the experience would suck. Luckily I'm wise enough to look for a second opinion... which reveals Apple's deceit. Siri works equitably well on older hardware.

chazwatson said:
Aside from the technical inadequacies of the iPhone 4 to support Siri, I'm sure there are also business decisions, such as making more money for something that cost them a lot to develop. There's a big picture, and some people just don't see it. What this comes down to is the free market and sales numbers. People are free to vote with their money, and are doing so.
Click to expand...

Of all the development costs that went into Siri, I think most would agree that the majority of the work was done before Apple bought it. But, for the twelfth time, I never said Apple wasn't completely within their rights to limit Siri to the 4S, and try to recoup the costs of their investment.

I think as a community, however, we would be well-served to examine the evidence that has been presented to us (Siri on iPhone 4 & earlier, working "well"), and realize that Apple simply wants to make an extra buck up-selling the 4S and call it a day.

-Clive
 
bushido said:
to be honest i have yet to see someone use Siri out in public. I havent used mine on the streets either, i dont want to look like a tool.
Click to expand...

Depending on where you live it might be like wearing a sign that says "come steal my iPhone 4S."
 
iBug2 said:
Apple started delivering cheap hardware in a friendly shell when they were founded. Apple never changed their policy about that. Even in their first ever computer, the CPU they used was one of the cheapest and slowest ones.

If you think Apple II or Macintosh were actually "superior" technology, you are daydreaming.
Click to expand...

lol, fair point. There was a time when Apple tried to offer superior hardware, even though all they achieved was over-glorified, over-priced third-party spin-offs of mainstream technology. PowerPC, I'm looking at you.
 
Clive At Five said:
I think as a community, however, we would be well-served to examine the evidence that has been presented to us (Siri on iPhone 4 & earlier, working "well"), and realize that Apple simply wants to make an extra buck up-selling the 4S and call it a day.

-Clive
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that supporting Siri on iPhone 4 would cost Apple money in terms sales.

You are forgetting that Apple is still selling iPhone 4, and 3GS. Supporting Siri on iPhone 4 may make more people want to buy iPhone 4 instead of 3GS, which is being given for free. So that might mean more iPhone 4 sales which is more money for Apple.

So if you have further evidence that Siri featured 4 eating into 3GS market being less than Siri featured 4 eating into 4S market, please do share.
 
Clive At Five said:
YOU, SWC, were someone I thought stood out as a voice of reason. Maybe I've become really jaded by Apple lately, but of all the people that put up with Apple's - admittedly occassional - excrement, I never thought you'd be one of them.

-Clive
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for the sort-of compliment, I guess. But the way I see it, the VAST majority of people don't upgrade their phones or iPads every year.

So I regard all the "they want to make you upgrade!" theories with a heavy sense of suspicion. All of these ideas strike me as coming from the sort of people who often upgrade yearly (macrumors posters) and assume that the rest of the world is tempted to do the same. "All they need is a little push," we think. And then the public would be just like us!

I don't buy that. I think the average buyer upgrades their phone every 2 or 3 years and therefore I think the theories here aren't really based in reality.

If my dad ever buys an iPad he'll buy it when he decides to buy it. He's not going to make that decision based on whether or not it has Siri or an A5 or A6 or whatever. THAT'S normal and I really think that's who Apple is selling to. THAT'S the pandering down you're talking about. They're advertising to the average consumer now, and the average consumer is not going to upgrade an iPad 2 to and iPad 3 because of Siri. It's just not gonna happen. And given that, I don't think Apple is making an unlikely thing a central plan for their hardware upgrades.

Look, I know Apple can be greedy. I call them on it when they are. But this...holding Siri back and hoping it'll make people upgrade...that's more 'crazy' than 'greedy.' And Apple is many things, but crazy is not one of them.

So I just don't think 'greed' is the reason here. And trust me, I'm happy to call out Apple on their BS when I see it. If you've noticed anything about me, I hope it's that.
 
Last edited:
Clive At Five said:
Apple is trying to tell me that the experience would suck. Luckily I'm wise enough to look for a second opinion... which reveals Apple's deceit. Siri works equitably well on older hardware.
Click to expand...

Okay, what's your evidence? Who's tests are you using as your proof?

Clive At Five said:
Of all the development costs that went into Siri, I think most would agree that the majority of the work was done before Apple bought it. But, for the twelfth time, I never said Apple wasn't completely within their rights to limit Siri to the 4S, and try to recoup the costs of their investment.

I think as a community, however, we would be well-served to examine the evidence that has been presented to us (Siri on iPhone 4 & earlier, working "well"), and realize that Apple simply wants to make an extra buck up-selling the 4S and call it a day.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself with those two paragraphs. You acknowledge other factors in the first, then dismiss them in the second. LOL
 
Clive At Five said:
lol, fair point. There was a time when Apple tried to offer superior hardware, even though all they achieved was over-glorified, over-priced third-party spin-offs of mainstream technology. PowerPC, I'm looking at you.
Click to expand...

Power PC was not over priced. Power PC costed around half as much as intel, sometimes even less than that. Why do you think Mac Pro prices are twice as high as PowerMac G5 prices?

Switching to intel was actually Apple going more expensive than usual for the sake of the product.

There was no time that Apple tried to offer superior hardware. Apple was always a consumer company. They never catered to the supercomputer market and they started catering to the workstation market only after the intel switch.

Apple's "superior" technology always came in terms of software, never hardware.
 
Small White Car said:
Well, thanks for the sort-of compliment, I guess. (...) So I just don't think 'greed' is the reason here. And trust me, I'm happy to call out Apple on their BS when I see it. If you've noticed anything about me, I hope it's that.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about when I talk about a well-argued difference. Up-voted.

I do agree that the "gene-pool" here (if you will) is tainted by fanatics who update at the drop of a hat, but I think you underestimate the gullible out there who get pressured into buying more than they need... either by pushy Apple or Best Buy employees, or by generic media that tells them they're "behind the times."

...which leads into:

iBug2 said:
There is no evidence that supporting Siri on iPhone 4 would cost Apple money in terms sales.

You are forgetting that Apple is still selling iPhone 4, and 3GS. Supporting Siri on iPhone 4 may make more people want to buy iPhone 4 instead of 3GS, which is being given for free. So that might mean more iPhone 4 sales which is more money for Apple.

So if you have further evidence that Siri featured 4 eating into 3GS market being less than Siri featured 4 eating into 4S market, please do share.
Click to expand...

The flaw in your argument is that it doesn't acknowledge the many other benefits of 4 over 3GS. Why add more up-sell to the 4 vs the 3GS when it already has a lot of up-sell?

iBug2 said:
Power PC was not over priced. Power PC costed around half as much as intel, sometimes even less than that. Why do you think Mac Pro prices are twice as high as PowerMac G5 prices?

Switching to intel was actually Apple going more expensive than usual for the sake of the product.

There was no time that Apple tried to offer superior hardware. Apple was always a consumer company. They never catered to the supercomputer market and they started catering to the workstation market only after the intel switch.

Apple's "superior" technology always came in terms of software, never hardware.
Click to expand...

The Xeon processors in the Mac Pro are today's equivalent of the Power PC processors.

And I guess the Power PCs were equitably-priced if you didn't have to purchase any 3rd-party cards! LOL. "Support another architecture? No thanks."

chazwatson said:
Okay, what's your evidence? Who's tests are you using as your proof?

You're contradicting yourself with those two paragraphs. You acknowledge other factors in the first, then dismiss them in the second. LOL
Click to expand...

Do we have two different versions of the English language? Where's the contradiction? While you fish that out...

My "evidence" comes from 1) using Siri on my iPhone 4 before it was purchased by Apple and shut down. Granted, it went through a few modest feature-enhancements, but those were being handled predominantly on Apple's servers. 2) Siri side-by-sides on jail-broken iPhones, which came to light thanks to tech-loving geniuses who wanted to increase the iPhone 4's utility. Where did your evidence come from? A company who profits from the (planned) obsolescence of their existing products? Hmm...

Open-Apple Sphincter!
 
Aidoneus said:
The A5 in the 4S and the A5 in the iPad 2 are not identical. Why would you think they are? Because they have the same name?

Additionally, the iPad 2 does not have dual microphones for noise cancellation.
Click to expand...

Do you have any proof of that? They run on different speeds, iPad 1GHz, iPhone 0.8GHz which is just related to battery life. Other than that, if I remember correctly, at the teardown, the pictures showed identical part codings and no new element on-die which was not there on the iPad. It even tells the clock speed as 1GHz on the iPhone even though it is clocked at 80%...

Yea, I mentioned the mics, I think that is the downfall of the iPad on Siri. :(

Edit:

Teardown iPhone 4S at ifixit.com shows "A5 processor is the APL0498"

Teardown iPad 2 at ifixit.com shows APL0498 in the picture (it is upside-down but I figure you can read it).

...in other words, it will be hard for you to back up your claim that they are different.
 
Last edited:
Mad-B-One said:
Do you have any proof of that? They run on different speeds, iPad 1GHz, iPhone 0.8GHz which is just related to battery life. Other than that, if I remember correctly, at the teardown, the pictures showed identical part codings and no new element on-die which was not there on the iPad. It even tells the clock speed as 1GHz on the iPhone even though it is clocked at 80%...

Yea, I mentioned the mics, I think that is the downfall of the iPad on Siri. :(
Click to expand...

Careful. Any facts that could be construed as "dissenting opinion" is subject to down-voting by the mindless masses.
 
D.T. said:
"Thend my thstaff a meeting reminder for Wedthsday"

*Siri* ?

"Thunofabitch!"
Click to expand...


"Sthiri?"

"Theory is a tested and provable concept used to explain an occurrence."

"Not theory, Sthiri!"

"Knot theory is a branch of mathematics analyzing the embedding of a circle in three-dimensional Euclidian space."

"It's not theory!"

"Snot theory is the study of the origin of loogies, which are particularly prevalent in winter seasons"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back