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

Microsoft's Digital Assistant Cortana May Be Heading to iOS and Android

brianvictor7 said:
There is something to be said when two people with nothing but a lot of apple products in their signature blocks both agree that Microsoft is making a comeback. Windows 8.1 is attractive as a touch-oriented OS and at least usable as a PC OS. The Surface Pro 3, quite honestly, is a product that I wish Apple had made.

Now, I'm not looking to jump back into any MS hardware any time soon, but I already have to work with MS Office because iWork (except for Keynote) just doesn't cut it for my business needs. For some reason, Apple won't give their own productivity suite the features back that it took away from iWork 09. And that's a shame because I really prefer the clean, minimalistic layout of Pages and the beautiful graphs of Numbers. Keynote is the only iWork product that I prefer over its MS Office counter-part: the interface is much friendlier than PowerPoint's. The only drawback: converting to PPT for business partners cripples the transitions.

Honestly, I wish that iWork could offer the same feature package and formatting as MS Office, but with iWork's interface. The Sidebar is far preferable to the Ribbon in term of screen space management on a 13" notebook.

Siri too doesn't seem to be getting enough love. Neither does iCloud. I can sync a Word document through Dropbox faster almost every time than I can a Pages document through iCloud. And don't get me started on Handoff.

Apple can do better (as evidenced by the competition) and I wish they would step up.
Click to expand...
Agree on many points.
I actually like Microsoft much more than Google, as an alternative to Apple.
And one reason is that Microsoft actually is a software and hardware company, like Apple, while Google, no matter what supporters say here, is just a data mining company.

----------
bobenhaus said:
Like customs are really concerned about profits for multi billion dollar companie The truth be told that Android is the number #1 OS in the world. No matter how people try to twist it.
Click to expand...

Number one surely on crappy cheap devices. Enjoy it.
 
b166er said:
Cortana blows away Siri in my experience. I really like Windows Phones these days. It's a shame the developers don't do much with it or it would be a much better platform. Their app selection has always been the greatest crutch.
Click to expand...

I do too. For us, the apps don't matter because we only use our phones as, well, phones. But, if the platform continues to be left out or stagnates then we'll have to eventually get sucked into the bloated, obnoxious mess that is android or the overpriced, equally obnoxious Apple phones.

Alls we want our phones to be is phones. Texting and calling. That's it. Ugh.
 
Max(IT) said:
Agree on many points.
I actually like Microsoft much more than Google, as an alternative to Apple.
And one reason is that Microsoft actually is a software and hardware company, like Apple, while Google, no matter what supporters say here, is just a data mining company.

----------



Number one surely on crappy cheap devices. Enjoy it.
Click to expand...

Google is dabbling more and more with hardware, though I am not currently tempted by anything they make.

Each of the three companies, Apple, Microsoft and Google, do some things better than their peers. Google is superior at data mining (Maps!). It would seem Microsoft has the better digital assistant. Apple does hardware better, IMHO, though Microsoft is coming up with compelling products that, so far as I can tell, don't sell because they don't have an Apple logo on them. Ever see Simon Sinek's Ted Talk? I think he explains why as well as anyone
 
I'm looking forward to trying Cortana on my iPhone. Siri has been disappointing to me, especially in my car (over Bluetooth audio). Most of the time, I can't tell if Siri is processing my command or the result isn't what I want. I need more AI - for example, if traffic is slowing ahead, I want Siri to tell me enough to let me know if I should exit and take an alternate route. I guess I'm looking for something like the personal assistant that Apple showed in its Knowledge Navigator concept video in 1988. Interestingly, that was set in around 2011, so we should be beyond that by now. ;)
 
Renzatic said:
I think the better way to put it is to say that marketshare isn't a direct indicator of the health of a company. Most anyone would say that Google is doing pretty well for itself, but Apple isn't exactly suffering even with their considerably smaller share of the market.

Though marketshare and profits both are really nothing more than fanboy bragging points. As long as your favorite company is making a goodly chunk of money, and has enough marketshare to garner continued attention, then it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

I just get tired of people always talking about profit when the customer only really cares about is their products that are purchased. Thanks for the insight.

----------
Keirasplace said:
I'll throw you the ball bud, why should people care about market share for smart phones or even connected devices? Especially since most of them are not even on the same Android version or hardware capability making this large number useless to developers. The fact most of those buyers don't buy apps either doesn't help.

And there is no twist. Most of those OEM will be dead in 5 years because you need money to stay in business.

BTW, Wallmart is also the #1 retailer in the world but I'm sure that if someone could buy their clothes at Bloomingdales or Saks instead, they would select that instead.

Cheap doesn't equal quality, yet produce big sales volumes. Big surprise (not!).

As for profits not mattering... People care about quality and they are ready to pay for it. Profit is related to quality because it provides the company money invest massively in R&D for future products. Samsung & LG will survive unlike other makers because they make money elsewhere than their mobile division.

Google subsidizes Android by making money elsewhere, but even can be undercut by Chinese makers not using any Google services. If those Chinese makers sold a lot outside China, Google would be in trouble in the mobile sphere.

A non profitable company will not be able to invest to differentiate its products, making them vulnerable to commodity pricing, further eroding their competitiveness. Making their products basically all like the others. The result of low or no profitability is stagnation like in the desktop PC arena. You get cheap, bland products with very little advancement from a generation to the next. That's why profitability matters.
Click to expand...

I said customers could care less about the profit of a company and more about the product(s) they are purchasing.
 
cmwade77 said:
Wow, Microsoft is getting desperate these days:
  • No one uses bing.....what do we do? I know, let's bribe them with Bing Rewards.
  • Still no one is using it, what do we do, let's offer them Swagbucks to get them to sign up for Bing Rewards.
  • No one will buy a Windows phone, what do we do? Let's make a mobile version of Microsoft Office and put it on Windows Phone only.
  • No one is using the mobile version of Microsoft Office, they are using Google Docs instead, which is driving them away from the desktop version of Office, what do we do? We will make Microsoft Office available on iOS and Android, but require them to buy Office 365.
  • Still no one is using the mobile version....let's make a basic version free and offer more features if they pay for Office 365.
  • Still no one is buying Windows phones, let's create a competitor to Siri and Google Assistant (name varies by phone) called Cortana.
  • Still no one is buying Windows phones or using Bing! Let's bring Cortana to iOS and Android, that should fix it.
  • No one is upgrading to Windows 8 because of the lack of a Start Menu, let's give them 8.1 and put a Start Menu that just brings up the Start Screen, that will fix it.
  • Still no one is buying Windows 8, ok we'll put a real Start Menu back into Windows 10 AND we'll give Windows 10 away for free to anyone using Windows 7 or newer, at least for the first year, after that we go back to selling licenses to anyone that didn't upgrade during the first year. This should force rapid adoption of Windows 10.

Seriously Microsoft, how long before you give up? Really, either make a quality product that people want or throw the towel in.
Click to expand...

While it doesn't seem like the moves of a dominant company, I think it's quite intelligent. And, though I can't argue that the incentives aren't gimmicky, I do think that they are allowing Microsoft better visibility. Microsoft has undergone a change of face under their new CEO, and is positioning itself once more as a "Software Company"-- which is why they're offering so many of their services as cross-platform.

Microsoft has been the clear underdog in the mobile game for the past 10 years (remember early windows 8? it was more niche and clunky than early Android), and I would go so far as to say looked upon unfavorably by the consumer industry, though still implemented in high numbers due to business use. In the time that Microsoft's products just...existed... Apple rolled out better versions of iWork, iTunes, iOS, Google made Docs/Drive, Google Play, Android.

So these efforts to push the Microsoft software platform (Office 365, Office for Mac beta, Cortana) is designed to attract customers back to the Microsoft ecosystem by gaining visibility on the more successful platforms. If nothing else, they're simply getting a slice of the pie on other platforms that they didn't before —which is still beneficial to MS in the short term— while they instead try to come up with a holy grail platform that draws users back to their software.
 
Cuban Missles said:
competition is always good, so bring on cortana. Having said that, it would seem that microsoft is giving up on its platform if it is going to migrate everything to iOS. Since their history is of a software house and not a hardware house, maybe this makes sense in the long term. Not sure.

Still unless apple allows me to switch which DA will be the default, I dont see this getting huge traction.
Click to expand...
What if Cortana gets the ability to be a plug-in to applications? Picture an executive working for Levi saying something to the effect of "Cortana, I want a list of the three highest selling jeans styles (501, 505, etc.) for every state; ordered by style, then by state."

Think about how much easier it would be if you did not need someone to write (static) SQL statements for you.
 
Max(IT) said:
Who are you to define my logic "poor" ?
Well, I know but can't say....

Google is not a software company, like my bank isn't a software company even if they released a few apps for multiple platforms.
Those aren't poor analogies, but facts.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy. Because you're comparing a bank with Google as if it's comparable. The fact that you think this is an acceptable analogy only illustrates you're either intentionally obtuse, or sincerely don't understand your flawed logic.

You've illustrated no facts to demonstrate why Google is not a software company. You've only stated your opinion.

Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? Perhaps we can start there.
 
Siri is an embarrassment for apple, great idea Awful execution.
Same with maps.
They really dropped the ball with them.

Siri Sucks.
 
samcraig said:
Poor analogy. Because you're comparing a bank with Google as if it's comparable. The fact that you think this is an acceptable analogy only illustrates you're either intentionally obtuse, or sincerely don't understand your flawed logic.

You've illustrated no facts to demonstrate why Google is not a software company. You've only stated your opinion.

Do you understand the difference between fact and opinion? Perhaps we can start there.
Click to expand...



His example was actually perfect, AFAIC.

A software company sells software, and realizes the lion's share of its profits from those sales. A hardware company, likewise sells hardware, etc. In either of these cases you own the products, either outright (hardware), or through a perpetual single user license (software).
If any bank gives out apps and software to administrate the services that bank offers, it could hardly be considered a software company. Even though you take possession of the software and have a single user license for essentially no cost, the bank doesn't realize a direct profit from the software since its never "sold". Its simply a value-add.
Now, if you really want a misnomer, lets get into how banks call loans and credit cards "products"... :mad:

Google could best be described as a "services" company, or a "service provider". They provide tons of software, but you never own it. You're allowed to use it, in return for complete and total management of your personal and business information, and one hundred percent of the rights to any money they make off data mining that information.
 
Sill said:
His example was actually perfect, AFAIC.

A software company sells software, and realizes the lion's share of its profits from those sales. A hardware company, likewise sells hardware, etc. In either of these cases you own the products, either outright (hardware), or through a perpetual single user license (software).
If any bank gives out apps and software to administrate the services that bank offers, it could hardly be considered a software company. Even though you take possession of the software and have a single user license for essentially no cost, the bank doesn't realize a direct profit from the software since its never "sold". Its simply a value-add.
Now, if you really want a misnomer, lets get into how banks call loans and credit cards "products"... :mad:

Google could best be described as a "services" company, or a "service provider". They provide tons of software, but you never own it. You're allowed to use it, in return for complete and total management of your personal and business information, and one hundred percent of the rights to any money they make off data mining that information.
Click to expand...

Selling our not selling software isn't a dividing line. Go look on hoovers, Wikipedia and other sites and see how they classify Google. They are a software company among other things. There's no real argument.
 
Lol, gee i wonder why
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    164.1 KB · Views: 96
winston1236 said:
"The virtual assistant, named after an artificial intelligence character who appears in most of the main Halo games, could go so far as to plan out a trip to the airport. She would prep boarding passes, check traffic and flight delays, all from reading emails related to the matter. "




GoogleNow has been able to do all of that for over a year now...
Click to expand...

Google Now is ridiculously flawed, in that the synthesised voices are inconsistent, VERY VERY often hugely delayed, and sound like odd pieces (the voice samples, accents, regions, tone etc...) of an audio "jigsaw", jammed together any-old-how-just-to-get-the-job-done-well-enough.

As an example, you might ask "Google Now" a question, it might reply in an English accent (which sounds like a VERY uptight, nerdy librarian), and the next time you ask it something, you get a 10 second delay....... AND THEN A VERY HARSH, BRASH, SHOUTY AMERICAN LADY... an example below:


Me: "Send an email"

Google now: <wait.... wait.... wait.... zzzzzz.................> (VERY shouty woman's voice, sounding robotic and angry)"WHO DO YOU WANT TO EMAIL?!"


Google need to polish their assistant, it's VERY cobbled together in an audio sample respect.

----------
brianvictor7 said:
Until Apple (or Android or Microsoft) keep all of voice recognition software on the device itself, any digital personal assistant will be seriously hamstrung by limited data-connectivity. They will remain little more than half-baked gimmicks. I use Siri an average of two or three times a week for finding music, recording a reminder or dictating a text. Right now, Siri gets my requests right maybe 3 in 4 tries. That's better than when it was first released, but far less precise than a human assist for even basic tasks. I hope they keep working at this because it will payoff over time.
Click to expand...

Siri can't do ANYTHING offline; Cortana can, at least.

----------
fredf said:
Don't you wish Apple would stop pissing around with things like a possible car or even launching the iWatch in April and instead concentrate of things like Siri, battery life on the iPhone, an updated Apple TV?

I think they need to concentrate on core improvements before they launch into new areas. Otherwise I feel a crash of increasing and mounting software problems.
Click to expand...

"Hey Siri"

<boop boop>

"Turn left..." .... "Hey Siri, TURN LE...." **SMASH!!!!**


<sirens> :(

----------
The Mercurian said:
The only thing I want to know here is this: does Cortana have the same voice as Cortana in the Halo games ?
Click to expand...

Seach: Youtube - "Cortana test"

Not so hard.
 
[Mod Note]

Several off-topic posts bickering about Google's business model have been deleted. Please keep the discussion on the thread subject.

"Microsoft's Digital Assistant Cortana May Be Heading to iOS and Android"
 
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