iPad What prevented ipad 2 from having Siri?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by bniu, Mar 18, 2014.

  1. bniu macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #1
    It had the A5 chip, just like 4S, iPT 5G, and the ipad 3 and the iPad mini 1, so what technical reason was there that the ipad 2 not able to have Siri?
     
  2. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #2
    It came out before the 4S and the debut of Siri. On a technical level, it only has one microphone and it lacks the noise cancellation feature that the 4S and other devices has.
     
  3. gatearray macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #3
    And on an even more technical level, regulatory filings for the original iPad 2 did not include Siri, which would be considered added value if made available after-the-fact.

    This is the same reason that FaceTime was $.99 in the Mac App Store for any Mac that came out before it was available, it's not that Apple needs that dollar, it's a legal issue.

    Along these same lines, I'm not sure how they would charge a fee for a core OS feature like Siri through the App Store for iPad 2 users, etc.
     
  4. Dustman macrumors 65816

    Dustman

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    #4
    I remember Apple also had to charge for a driver update to add Draft N to white iMacs for this reason.

    ----------

    Whats the cut off for this rule? Out of curiosity, what makes 'Siri' as a feature any different than say iMessage?
     
  5. carjakester macrumors 68020

    carjakester

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Location:
    Midwest
    #5
    do you have a source for the FaceTime legal issues? I'm interested about why, or if you know and would like to enlighten me.
     
  6. csixty4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    #6
  7. carjakester macrumors 68020

    carjakester

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Location:
    Midwest
    #7
  8. scaredpoet macrumors 604

    scaredpoet

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    #8
    Though, you think if that was really the blocking issue, they could've "sold" Siri to iPad 2 owners for $1.99 or so.
     
  9. MisakixMikasa macrumors 6502a

    MisakixMikasa

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Location:
    Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    #9
  10. PBG4 Dude macrumors 68000

    PBG4 Dude

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    #10
    There's also a new chip in each device the supports Siri that was not installed in the iPad 2.
     
  11. aarond12 macrumors 65816

    aarond12

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX USA
    #11
    Bull. Siri was a stand-alone application that ran just fine on the iPhone 4. Apple discontinued the application when they purchased the company.

    It was a free application until Apple purchased Siri.

    Don't post false conjecture. That is incorrect. Siri (the stand-alone application) ran just fine on my iPad 1!
     
  12. Tork macrumors regular

    Tork

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    #13
    There probably was a technical reason on their end. Since Siri relies heavily on servers to do pretty much anything, they probably didn't want tens of millions of people (iPad 2 users) suddenly using it and making it a potentially terrible experience for new 4S owners

    Why they didn't add that functionality to the iPad 2 later on when they did add it to the iPad 3 -- it could be for the same reason. Servers are expensive, and since it's a free service, it might've made financial sense to offer the service only to newer buyers of the latest devices. Siri is different than most software upgrades, all of which historically have been added to older iOS devices whenever technically possible, since it continuously costs Apple money to provide. iCloud does too, but that brings money into Apple. Siri doesn't. That's been my guess anyway.
     
  13. jrswizzle macrumors 603

    jrswizzle

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2012
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #14
    Because Apple isn't responsible for retroactively adding features of newer devices to older ones.

    It was debuted as a feature of the 4S. Any device before it did NOT have the feature. Therefore why should we expect them to add it?

    I've always been mystified by the arguments people come up with here - as if somehow Apple is in the wrong for not making every older device the same as their newer device regarding feature parity.

    Ultimately, I'm sure they had their reasons. But none of them matter. You buy an iPhone 4 knowing the 4S will come out with better internals and new features. That's the way it is. There's nothing wrong here....
     
  14. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #15
    Apple's Siri is more powerful than the App Store Siri and requires more resources to work at the high standards Apple sets forth for its products. It uses noise cancellation features that are not available on the iPad 2. The iPhone 4+, iPad 3+, iPad Mini+, and iPod Touch 5 all have noise cancellation built in. Nothing male bovine about it when you become learned.
     
  15. csixty4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    #16
    You'd have to talk to an accountant to get anything close to the right answer, and probably someone at Apple or the SEC to get all the details. My hunch would be that iMessage could be considered a riff off the existing email "messaging" functionality so it's not like they added anything really, and FaceTime Audio came out WAY past the 24 months during which the first iPad 2s' revenue was recognized under the old rules. After that, I'm pretty sure it's fair game.
     
  16. Abazigal macrumors 604

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #17
    Same reason why the iPad 2 received fewer new features from Ios6 compared to the 4s, despite both sporting the same specs, like no 3G FaceTime or turn by turn.

    I wouldn't go so far as to claim that forced obsolescence is the main driving force here, but it definitely is one of the many factors Apple considers when considering which devices receive what features.
     
  17. iPodJedi, Mar 19, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 20, 2014

    iPodJedi macrumors 6502a

    iPodJedi

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2013
    Location:
    Apple Store, USA
    #18
    Although the ipad 2 does lack a second microphone and sound cancellation software, apple didn't allow the ipad 2 or any other ios devices released prior to the iPhone 4s because it was another quality of their new phone that would make you want to buy it.

    It isn't that the ipad can't handle Siri because I definiatly could... I had the OFFICIAL SIRI app on my ipad 2, iPhone 4, and my iPod touch 4 before Apple even had Siri or the iPhone 4s. Apple discontinued the Siri application after they bought the Siri company which sucks because now the app does nothing and just has a notification that says the service is no longer available.

    ----------

    Apple lets us have FaceTime and iMessage because they are made to compete with skype and messaging apps like bump, text now, and others. Siri wasn't competing with anything at the time of its release, therefore Apple had the luxury of making Siri exclusive to newly released Apple products so people would have another reason to buy.

    Think about it. If Apple allowed the iPhone 4 to have Siri, the only reason to buy the 4s would be for the newer processor which isn't that important to most people (especially back then when the two processors were about equal in performance) so it would have drove people to buy the iPhone 4 instead because it would be $200 less than the 4s and would have all the same features.
     
  18. blackhand1001 macrumors 68030

    blackhand1001

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    #19
    Absolute fud. The galaxy nexus did not have google now when it shipped but was added in the free Jellybean update.
     
  19. aarond12 macrumors 65816

    aarond12

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX USA
    #20
    Although the app store Siri didn't have as many features as built-in Siri, that's primarily because of the development time, not any noise cancellation hardware. You apparently never used the app-store version.

    Think about it -- requiring noise cancellation hardware to work? Sure that will improve speech recognition, but it will not *prevent* it from working. :rolleyes:
     
  20. saberahul macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2008
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    You also have to consider how Siri actually works (the non- app store version). Users can either place the handset to their ear or hold the home key from anywhere. Given iOS's structure, an app store downloadable would be unable to do the same.
     
  21. macfacts macrumors 68000

    macfacts

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Location:
    Cybertron
    #22
    From your link ... "The company was assailed for charging the nominal fee as lots of accountants lined to testify that the law does not specifically require payments for such upgrades, but only forces companies to estimate the value of any post-sale upgrades and withhold the booking of that revenue, something that Apple had not done when it first sold the MacBooks with better hardware than advertised."

    Also, why was my other post to this thread deleted by a mod?
     
  22. FSMBP macrumors 68020

    FSMBP

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    #23
    True, but when the original iBooks app debuted, it did things that Apple didn't allow third-party apps to do (ex. adjust screen brightness).

    Basically, this issue comes down to Apple not supporting old-devices due to possible performance concerns (ex. iPad 2 didn't have the extra mic) and "greediness" (after all, they are a business).

    It reminds of me Apple charged for iOS updates for iPod touches in 2008. Steve Jobs said they had to charge because of an "accounting" matter; if that was truly the case, why didn't Apple just charge $0.99 for iOS updates instead of $19.99? There may be rules to charge customers to due Sarbanes/Oxley/GAAP, but at the end of the day, they were being greedy as Apple was free to pick the price of the update (as future updates were cheaper, and eventually free).

    Source: http://www.macworld.com/article/1131991/ipodtouch.html
     
  23. Intell macrumors P6

    Intell

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Inside
    #24
    I have used the App Store version and found its performance in a noisy environment to be very poor. It's development time had very little to do with its feature set. Most of its limitations came about from the limitations of the APIs available at the time. In Apple's point of view, noise cancellation is required. Without it the performance would suffer to a degree to where it would bring an unacceptable amount of negative feedback from the end user. Because Apple is very much about creating a positive public image with a loyal user base, this would not have ever been allowed.
     
  24. aarond12 macrumors 65816

    aarond12

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Location:
    Dallas, TX USA
    #25
    What does that have to do with not being able to run on the iPad 2? (original topic)

    We've gotten WAY off topic. The original topic is what prevented the iPad 2 from having Siri. There was no technological problem against it (I jailbroke my iPad 1 and got Siri to run [albeit poorly due to a lack of RAM]), but I would say that Intell is probably the most accurate reasoning why it wasn't included -- the lack of noise cancellation and a potentially poor user experience.
     

Share This Page