Apple’s Siri vs Google’s Voice Search

inews's picture
Rank: Senior Baboon | 183

When Siri was first advertised, I was certainly very impressed and really wanted to update my iPhone. However, once the product was launched, several people had problems with Siri and the dream seemed to turn into a nightmare.

Google Voice Search, available in the latest operating software for Android phones, is a much better listener. It's definitely smarter. If I ask Google Voice Search a question, like, "Who is Tim Cook?" it responds with an answer. (He's the chief executive of Apple.) If I ask Siri the same question, the response is: "I don't see Tim Cook in your contacts."

Do you think voice recognition is the 'next revolution in smartphones' or do you think something better/more useful out there? Even after refining Siri, do you think it can ever actually be as 'amazing' as Apple make it out to be? Do you think Apple are better at innovating but Google are better at implementing?

What new feature on a smartphone would you like to see in the future (assume anything is possible)?

Check out the article here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/with-apple's-siri-a-romance-gone-sour/?ref=business

Comments (8)

Jul 16, 2012
inews:

Do you think Apple are [sic] better at innovating

No, they're just better at bending the lemmings to their will

    • 1
Jul 16, 2012

Don't think voice assistance is really at a point where its useful in every day life. More a gimmick for the foreseeable future.

Jul 16, 2012

I think it's more of a bonus, fun feature rather than an essential thing in life.

Personally, I wouldn't use Siri or Google Voice Search. Just imagine yourself on a subway (or a bus). No one is talking and people are just minding their own business. Suddenly, you pull out your iPhone 4s and say "What's the weather in New York?" Then everyone turns their head towards you and thinks "wtf?" To me that's just embarrassing.

Jul 16, 2012

Apple is great at marketing, people want a no-fuss, easy-to-use item and Apple delivers. Google offers a much more functional item but that's not what the masses want.

But the battle between Apple and Google/Microsoft will always be the same, fanboys on either side arguing.

Jul 16, 2012

The interesting story that will play out over the longer run is the struggle between open and closed systems. Apple is a polished, closed system- a walled garden, if you will. Whereas Google is a less refined, but vastly more open platform. An apt analogy is the difference between AOL and the Internet of the 1990s. AOL was a walled service that tried to keep you enclosed in their ecosystem of services; and the Internet was/is a filthy, unguided, chaotic open place of unlimited potential. Throughout history- politically, economically, and socially- open systems beat closed systems. Where does Apple's fate lie? We shall see.

Learn More

Boost your resume and land a finance job by passing the FINRA SIE. 264 pages & 1981 smart flashcards written by a former 8X top Fidelity instructor. Try it for 0 bananas here.

Jul 16, 2012
rls:

The interesting story that will play out over the longer run is the struggle between open and closed systems. Apple is a polished, closed system- a walled garden, if you will. Whereas Google is a less refined, but vastly more open platform. An apt analogy is the difference between AOL and the Internet of the 1990s. AOL was a walled service that tried to keep you enclosed in their ecosystem of services; and the Internet was/is a filthy, unguided, chaotic open place of unlimited potential. Throughout history- politically, economically, and socially- open systems beat closed systems. Where does Apple's fate lie? We shall see.

Most consumers are sheep so Apple is going to have a majority market share unless they royally fuck things up I think. With that being said, a sizeable minority (tinkerers for phones like the S3 and One XL and low-income consumers for budget android phones) are going buy android.

To be honest, I think this is going to be a two horse race for a while, with Apple always have a lead, but never really pulling too much ahead. Blackberry and Windows 8 phones aren't really legitimate competitors.

Jul 17, 2012
kidflash:
rls:

The interesting story that will play out over the longer run is the struggle between open and closed systems. Apple is a polished, closed system- a walled garden, if you will. Whereas Google is a less refined, but vastly more open platform. An apt analogy is the difference between AOL and the Internet of the 1990s. AOL was a walled service that tried to keep you enclosed in their ecosystem of services; and the Internet was/is a filthy, unguided, chaotic open place of unlimited potential. Throughout history- politically, economically, and socially- open systems beat closed systems. Where does Apple's fate lie? We shall see.

Most consumers are sheep so Apple is going to have a majority market share unless they royally fuck things up I think. With that being said, a sizeable minority (tinkerers for phones like the S3 and One XL and low-income consumers for budget android phones) are going buy android.

To be honest, I think this is going to be a two horse race for a while, with Apple always have a lead, but never really pulling too much ahead. Blackberry and Windows 8 phones aren't really legitimate competitors.

Don't be so sure. History is littered with companies and countries/empires people never thought would die. Remember that despite the avid, if not rapid, fan base of Apple, the Android platform is used on more mobile devices. So, in terms of ubiquity and distribution, Google is in the lead. And Samsung sells the most hardware. Let me illustrate with an example looking at Apple's current flagship product- the iPhone. It may be harder to see in the United States, because in our cellphone/service model, service providers (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc.) are actually subsidizing the iPhone. In Europe, the iPhone is largely not subsidized by carriers and it has little market penetration. Imagine what would happen to Apple's iPhone popularity in the U.S. if the carriers decided that subsidizing Apple's iPhone (and thus Apple's balance sheet) to the tune of tens of billions of dollars a year is too much. How popular would the iPhone be if each one had a direct cost of $649 (minimum) to the consumer (with no protection, no coverage, or service)? The iPhone, I daresay, would return to being a luxury device and thus cutting Apple's market share and profits.

Not to mention, we cannot even quantify new entrants (or improved current competitors) years from now that may overturn the apple cart (pun intended).

Jul 17, 2012
Comment

Whats the matter? Scared of my little red fuzzy anus? Don't be shy,let me show you the way, give me your hand and I will take you to paradise <3

Kind Regards,

ElmElm