Siri Hacked to Run on an iPod Touch and iPhone 4

[rmwebs]

Come to these news item forum discussion and treat them like entertainment, for a laugh. Bring your pop corn. Read all the incorrect BS that goes on. The last one I read is a claim that Apple were the first smartphone manufacturer to update their software! Prior to the iPhone, no smartphones ever got their firmware updated in its lifetime.

Other non news forums tend to be a lot better.

Ditto. Its quite shocking how narrow minded some people can be. I love Apple, but I dont have wet dreams about them! Some people cant understand basic facts, like "Apple were NOT the first to come up with a touchscreen smartphone" or "Apple are NOT good at doing online services".

Its ok to be a fan and still be critical!

Then we get all the kids, silently down voting....as if that does anything other than back up that we've got a bunch of childish members.

Edit: See what I mean....pathetic.

 

[Widashy]

Can't wait to use Siri on my iPhone4

You won't be using it anytime soon( or ever). Siri is ported to iPhone 4 and iPod Touch 4G but only the GUI. It doesn't connect to Apple Servers as it would need specific Apple codes found in iPhone 4S. Using those codes in iPhone 4 and iPod would result in Copyright Infringement and Apple would sue the guy who did it. Hackers are not willing to take that risk. So take this video as a 'proof' that Siri doesn't require Dual-Core processor to work. Hell, it can even work on 3GS.

 

[bpeeps]

This post just reeks of iPhone 4 users who are madbro at not having the latest or greatest feature/phone. The iPhone 5 is coming out for you guys and it will surely have features the 4S does not.

Calm down and wait. You will have Siri eventually.

 

[nexsta]

You won't be using it anytime soon( or ever). Siri is ported to iPhone 4 and iPod Touch 4G but only the GUI. It doesn't connect to Apple Servers as it would need specific Apple codes found in iPhone 4S. Using those codes in iPhone 4 and iPod would result in Copyright Infringement and Apple would sue the guy who did it. Hackers are not willing to take that risk. So take this video as a 'proof' that Siri doesn't require Dual-Core processor to work. Hell, it can even work on 3GS.

siri-port-now-talking-to-apple-servers-avoiding-cydia

 

[jmpnop]

One less reason for people with iPhone 4's to upgrade to the iPhone 4S. I guess its true, Siri was just used to market the iPhone 4S. So typical of Apple.

Siri can definitely run on the iPhone 4 since all the processing is done on Apple's servers. Had they made Siri available for other iDevices, most people would not upgrade to the iPhone 4S. Also, if iPod Touch 4th gen. can run it, first gen. iPad can also run it. Most people here were defending Apple saying Siri requires powerful hardware...

 

[robeddie]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



Typical Apple? How about typical every company in the world with a product to sell and trying to make a profit.

New features help them sell products so that they don't go out of business.

Well, there is a bit of a distinction here. It's one thing to add a new 'feature' that only will work only on a certain hardware - IF that hardware is necessary to run it.

Here, however, Apple is more or less 'blocking' the iphone 4 from running an app that could run just fine on it.

A good compromise would be for Apple to sell Siri as an app for iphone 4 users, at a price of $29 or something.

All this said, personally, I HATE siri. I found it to be a clumsy pain in the *** and turned it off after a day anyway.

 

[Macboy Pro]

Apple: making a free app cost $199 and calling it magical

Maybe you can go down and "Occupy Cupertino" and demand Apple give everyone a magical 4s. After all its not fair some are stuck with a droid.

Cell phone justice for all.

 

[S.B.G]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



Typical Apple? How about typical every company in the world with a product to sell and trying to make a profit.

New features help them sell products so that they don't go out of business.

Well, there is a bit of a distinction here. It's one thing to add a new 'feature' that only will work only on a certain hardware - IF that hardware is necessary to run it.

Here, however, Apple is more or less 'blocking' the iphone 4 from running an app that could run just fine on it.

A good compromise would be for Apple to sell Siri as an app for iphone 4 users, at a price of $29 or something.

All this said, personally, I HATE siri. I found it to be a clumsy pain in the *** and turned it off after a day anyway.

It's no different than a car company adding a moonroof option to the latest model which you couldn't get on the previous ones. It's a new option which will help them sell more cars.

I do agree with you on the part about selling Siri in the App Store for the other iOS devices. That would make sense, just as you could add the moonroof to the older car model.

 

[Ubuntu]

Right. And no other company has ever done anything like that.

Oh, wait. I forgot that what other companies do doesn't matter because the only thing of importance is bashing Apple. So typical of MicroSoftees and Googlites.

Oh that's hardly fair. Yes, other companies do it, but its quite a big habit for Apple. You know how Lion isn't supported on Core Duo/Core Solo macs? A simple hack once again unlocked the functionality and the results were that the machines ran pretty well. Compare that to Windows 7 running on my old Advent Pentium 4 machine - with no hack. At the end of the day, Siri is probably the key feature of the iPhone 4S (otherwise its just a spec bump) and its a bit sad that it took Apple even longer than usual to implement such a feature and then realise they should keep it on the iPhone 4S only as it doesn't have much else going for it. Imagine how successful it would have been if Siri was a free update for iPhone 4 users?

 

[k995]

It's no different than a car company adding a moonroof option to the latest model which you couldn't get on the previous ones. It's a new option which will help them sell more cars.

Thats hardware this is software.

Apple probably just doesnt have the processing capabilites to have the tens of millions of IOS 5 devices all use siri. But then simply say this, dont make u BS reasons.

 

[Stella]

I had a P800. From my recollection, I got some bug fixes, and that's about it. I also had several Nokia S60 phones, from the N95 to the N97. Again, I got mostly bug fixes, with some limited new functionality. Nokia released S60 v3 "Feature Pack 2" a few months after the N95 was released, and had it running on phones with lesser hardware than the N95. Did that phone ever receive it, even though it was still being sold as "new" for over a year? Here's a hint. It's the same answer as to whether Google will be making Android 4.0 available to the Nexus One.

Yes, correct, you got big fixes, improvements, some times better efficiency performance ( i.e memory speed ) and maybe some new functionality if you were lucky. However Arn was trying to say you got none of the above.

From Series60 fp2, I believe, it was also nice to be able to update OTA without having to backup and restore your phone!


Give apple credit were due: they've done a good job of making new iOS's available to older phones.

 

[unlinked]

Thats hardware this is software.

Apple probably just doesnt have the processing capabilites to have the tens of millions of IOS 5 devices all use siri. But then simply say this, dont make u BS reasons.

Apple could easily buy the processing power to handle that but it would cut into their profit margins so they didn't. Nothing wrong with that since that is how companies work. Apple is a profit making company not you mum or your best friend. Apple probably didn't say a word about why Siri is 4s only but people who love Apple a little too much have to come up with a reason other than it is the money.

 

[koobcamuk]

To be fair, it wasn't free to develop.

arn

To be fair, they bought it.

 

[marc11]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



It's no different than a car company adding a moonroof option to the latest model which you couldn't get on the previous ones. It's a new option which will help them sell more cars.

I do agree with you on the part about selling Siri in the App Store for the other iOS devices. That would make sense, just as you could add the moonroof to the older car model.

No what Apple does in cases like this is sell you a car with a moonroof but no button to make it work. Oh you want to OPEN that moonroof well you need the new car with the new powerful engine, which you don't. Hey I have nothing against making new hardware with new features specific to that hardware, but what Apple often does is artificially bring a product to EOL through forced obsolecense via upgrades to software even if the old hardware could actually use it. A perfect example are multi touch gestures on the iPad 1, why the heck are they not supported? No other reason than Apple decided it was time to force obselesence on that hardware.

Hey it is Apples marketing plan, and it is what it is, but in cases like Siri and gestures on the iPad 1 or forcing the ipod 3 out of the upgrade loop back with IOS 4 (when it was proven many of the features run on it via JB), well that is just how Apple forces you to buy new every two years.

But they are no different than any other tech company I suppose...but I agree, give owners of older hardware the buy in option for those features included as part of the new hardware where those new features could reasonably run on the older hardware. Of course, at some point your old hardware will just be obsolete, but for features like gestures, or air play or Siri, certainly the iPhone 4 and iPad 1 could run them, and people would pay for them.

 

[jrsower]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Gentlemen, I would be very surprised if Apple ends up offering Siri to IPhone 4 people. For this simple reason...if I just bought a 4s and then you offered Siri to 4 folks I'd be seriously ticked.

Apple doesn't want millions of 4s owners realizing they could have saved hundreds of dollars by buying the Siri app. (newer camera fact excluded). But how many people buy a new phone for the camera anyway? Seriously?

 

[buseman]

To be fair, it wasn't free to develop.

arn

If Siri's so great, then eventually making it available to all iOS 5 users is the way to go so that as many as possible get used to it. No one would then want an Android or other "non-Siri" device ever.

I doubt many iPhone users upgrade each generation anyway, so all this cannibalization talk is probably vastly overstated.

 

[WeegieMac]

Just like the iPhone 3G that couldn't shoot video due to hardware limitations lol.

Poor example, because that was down to hardware limitations. The iPhone 3G didn't have the hardware for recording video, it only had a still camera sensor.

Siri is more about Apple putting a new feature into a new model and saying the previous model can't support it, not Apple releasing a new phone and not giving us a feature that is easily available on other brands of phone.

A better example would have been the lack of home screen wallpaper on the iPhone 3G with iOS 4 (although when enabled via a jailbreak, it slowed the 3G to an utter crawl if I'm being honest, and that was with drop shadows removed from icons and text), or saying the first gen iPhone was unable to send MMS when iOS 2 (if I remember) came out.

----------

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

Gentlemen, I would be very surprised if Apple ends up offering Siri to IPhone 4 people. For this simple reason...if I just bought a 4s and then you offered Siri to 4 folks I'd be seriously ticked.

Apple doesn't want millions of 4s owners realizing they could have saved hundreds of dollars by buying the Siri app. (newer camera fact excluded). But how many people buy a new phone for the camera anyway? Seriously?

As I keep saying to people, in my opinion the selling point of the iPhone 4S is not Siri, but the Dual Core A5 chip. I buy a lot of games for my iPhone, I play games on my iPhone more than I do my 360 (unless there's a big release), so to have the increased graphics capabilities would be great.

 

[JulianL]

Apple could easily buy the processing power to handle that but it would cut into their profit margins so they didn't. Nothing wrong with that since that is how companies work. Apple is a profit making company not you mum or your best friend.

That's fair but maybe it's not the end of the story. Apple might be willing to buy the extra processing power at some point but for the first public exposure of Siri they might have wanted to remove as many risk factors as they could so containing the load on the back end to only 4S clients is a way of minimising the risk of big server outages during the first few weeks or months.

Also, Siri is still in beta and beta code often has extra logging and/or error checking code in it for debug purposes and Siri is a brand new concept so Apple might be collecting log file statistics more aggressively than they would for a beta of the next Safari release (as a random example of a mature product). If this is the case then the back-end code will be using more cycles and generating more IO than it will when it goes to full release status which might be another reason to limit the clients that can connect in order to protect the servers.

Ultimately there's a good chance that Apple can generate worthwhile revenue from the back end transactions (e.g. referal fees from the "I've found 16 italian restaurants within 5 miles of you" types of request) and also negatively impact Google's revenue in the process so, depending on the revenue generated and/or Apple's assessment of the negative impact on Google, there might come a point where it is in their interest to make Siri officially available to more devices.

- Julian

 

[AnthonyHarris]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

There is a pretty big mention about Siri being a beta software, but from what I have read, I'm presuming they mean beta as far as language support goes. Also, not all of Siri is available in every country, like the local search of your area for restaurants and facilities, in fact, I do believe that is limited to the United States... Nobody at that keynote promised backwards compatibility with older devices, and it is rather silly to expect it to be released at a later date for anything older than the iPhone 4S.

Hackers will hack, but Apple can and will ignore the fact that Siri works perfectly well on the iPhone 4/iPod 4G/iPad 2... I dont know if they ever claimed that the A5 was reason enough for it not to work on older devices, or whether it is something somebody just made up.

 

[S.B.G]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)

It's no different than a car company adding a moonroof option to the latest model which you couldn't get on the previous ones. It's a new option which will help them sell more cars.

Thats hardware this is software.

Apple probably just doesnt have the processing capabilites to have the tens of millions of IOS 5 devices all use siri. But then simply say this, dont make u BS reasons.

Hardware or software, thats irrelevant, the principle remains the same.

 

[Thomas P.]

I would like to know about the authenticity of the video, I ve seen in too many forums that Siri is not yet jail-broken and all these people claiming is just a rumor.

 

[4miler]

Hopefully this will pressure Apple to ....

Apple does not care a stuff about pressure from users, except when it gets to the stage of mass humiliation, e.g. iPhone 4 antenna-gate, where the pressure got to that level because of TV/media exposure of the problem.

Case in point: people needing matte screens have been pressuring Apple for over 4 years, and Apple can't care a stuff. See the close to 2,000 petitions at http://macmatte.wordpress.com

In all these threads, the missing point is that Apple didn't get to be the 2nd largest company, with a cash pile larger than the US Treasury, by being nice to its consumers. Apple has found a way of extracting maximum cash from you guys, and surely you cannot be surprised when you discover another of Apple's cash-extraction deviousness.. Money is what drove Steve Jobs, and money-hunger is what is hard-wired into Apple.

 

[28monkeys]

That requires jailbreaking.

 

[ClaphamChris]

Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4S: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)



Typical Apple? How about typical every company in the world with a product to sell and trying to make a profit.

New features help them sell products so that they don't go out of business.

Exactly this. Apple is perfectly entitled to tie new features to new hardware. It's called 'running a business'.

 

[jmpnop]

What does that have to do with the fact that Siri was an app available freely on the App Store for over a year and a half?

He took Apple's marketing seriously