With today’s introduction of Apple’s iPad 3 or iPad HD or whatever the hell they end up calling it, I think we’ll be entering a pretty Siri-ous phase when it comes to mobile Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. Apple has a winner in Siri, its iOS digital assistant app, and knows it, so we’ll soon be seeing all-Siri, all the time in Apple products to come this year including, no doubt, Cupertino’s own big-screen TV. But this is not to say that Google’s Android will be far behind. There are stories popping-up about Google doing its own Siri-like app. But I expect Google to go significantly beyond Siri capability and I base that belief on the fact that Google has been working in this area since at least 2008, when they hired one of the scientists who did the basic research behind this category-shaping product.
Siri, you may recall, was spun out of SRI International, the big contract research outfit in Menlo Park, California. What became Siri began a decade ago as a DARPA project called CALO for Cognitive Assistant that Learns and Organizes. The five year, $200 million CALO project involved 22 organizations and was the largest non-commercial AI project in history. CALO’s job was to locate, relate, and find a way to use all the information in a military unit. It was a cyber Radar O’Reilly. The project was CALO and the application it produced was CALO Express.
But that wasn’t enough. CALO looked inside the unit but didn’t look outside. That part was iLink, which applied CALO technology to external networks eventually including social networks. With iLink, CALO knew not just about the military unit but also about the war and even about the world. Siri is CALO and iLink downsized to work with mundane information like finding a tow truck.
“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp — or what’s a heaven for?” wrote the poet Robert Browning. What keeps Siri from being even more terrific (this is just my understanding, mind you, and may well be wrong — I am an idiot, remember) is this problem of reaching and grasping. When you have a bunch of potential correct answers to a natural language problem, how do you decide which one is most correct or even which ones are worthy of further consideration? One way is to very tightly define the subject area, which is why Siri doesn’t give relationship advice. But what if you actually wanted a Siri for relationship advice? Well that’s possible, too.
This solution harkens back to a previous column about Siri in which I compared it to the old Architext search engine technology from 1993. Architext just grabbed the N nearest web sites to the target question. Siri, which has to come up with just one answer, limits the subject matter enough so the problem is a lot easier. For harder problems you need something called the Minimum Bregman Information (MBI) Principle to both define the answer space and select the answer. This is where Apple and Google have to eventually go and where SRI has apparently already gone, reportedly thanks to a fine fellow there named Hung Bui.
Among the lead authors of those SRI CALO and iLink papers is Sugato Basu, who left SRI for Google Research in 2008. The presence of Sugato at Google (and his list of subsequent research papers) makes it virtually impossible that Siri was in any way a surprise to Google. They had to have seen it coming for at least four years.
So what’s going on here? Only Apple and Google can know for sure and neither is open to talking about this stuff, but I have a theory. I think Steve Jobs saw AI technology like Siri as key to future interfaces and future product categories including television (“I finally cracked it,” he told Walter Isaacson). Siri wasn’t really ready for prime time, but Steve was dying and couldn’t wait — hence Siri on the iPhone 4S.
Google was willing to wait. So when Google later this year rolls out its version of Siri, that Google product will be BIG Siri, fully MBI-enabled, tightly linked to Google data (not Wolfram Alpha), and able to take on a far broader range of topics, like how to balance the SU carburetors on your old MG sports car.
“I base that belief on the fact”
Siri? Basing anything on a technology that fails a significant percentage of the time is hardly sensible.
Laptops have had “HD” screens for years so what is at all special about an “HD” tablet? “HD” must be the most hyped, most pointless thing of all time. Watch the content not the pixels!
and one more thing about SIRI
Wittgenstein !
I have voice recognition on my blackberry cellphone and it is problematic, to say the least.
Customer:”Hi coffee please”
Clerk:”For a regular coffee, say Regular, for a cappucino say Cappucino, for a Cafe Latte say Cafe Latte…”
Customer:”Cafe Latte?”
Clerk:”You said Hot chocolate. To confirm your choice, say yes”
Customer:”Ah… nooooo?”
Clerk:”You said Hot chocolate”.
Customer:”!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12QUs7cIvNU
I think the fact that your Blackberry makes coffee is impressive enough. A slight language barrier in the ordering process should not deter its use.
If that’s true, why does google search suck so much? No matter what you type in, the result is always “shopping results for…” Shopping results for cumulo nimbus clouds.
um … fail?
If you Google cumulo nimbus clouds there’s no mention of shopping for at least the first four pages of results. In fact all the entries are pretty relevant (though I’m uncertain about the Qu’ran and cumulo nimbus clouds.)
Maybe I’m being too literal? Perhaps this was all a metaphor too deep for me to understand. Or perhaps you are wrong.
just maybe…
… it says more about what google thinks is important to Joe?
Maybe google doesn’t think. Perhaps it just lets us know what other people care enough about to click on.
“lets us know what other people care enough about to click on.”
… sounds like Google likes to hang around the water-cooler too!
Here is the google phone voice to text of a call I received:
Hi this is a mile from on the form of patients, Hi Susan, Sending the mon my dependent. Whether you think, ID 17053 and that is 11 of the for the fill the see. It’s 150 and 50 and up to a C P and, hey you and daddy 9002 HI sweetie. It’s a skating canceled by 7. I have sent an email. It information please check it. Okay, thank you.
I guess your spouse needs to learn how to speak more clearly.
Not everyone has a Thick American accent!
this is very ordinary but sufficient post its a power house of information about google
You know what, I don’t know anything about Siri but I watched Watson on Jeopardy and that was some impressive technology. I wonder if IBM ever intends to do anything with Watson?
I was one of the first to give Powerset a try when they went online back in 2008, they are a Microsoft property now. MIT is giving it a whirl with their START. None of it is that impressive however, I generally fall back to Google and other search engines, such as the card catalog.
IBM is gearing Watson towards medical solutions for now:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/ibm-watson-wellpoint.html
While the Jeopardy performance was impressive, it did show that there are still some cases of complicated multi-constraint questions that confused it. It also left me with a lot of questions about the underlying architecture, as it appeared to be a very good data retrieval mechanism, but did’t go into how that data got in there in the first place.
I think that IBM’s Watson has the potential to be a big game changer in a lot of spaces besides just medical and now recently announced financial (Citibank). While this technology is expensive right now it will be focused in the high value market spaces but this will inevitably change. Competition from Google and SRI/Siri or others will drive the price down dramatically.
There is a huge market for AI and voice response in the customer service realm. I could see products like this completely replacing a lot of level 1 customer service reps. A cloud-based offering could wipe out a lot of entry level jobs in India, Philippines, etc.
I would also guess that knowledgebase vendors will have to step up their game or else OEM the technology. If they don’t, they can kiss that market goodbye.
Watson was just the current iteration of Max Headroom. The outward appearance of AI with humans in the back room doing all the “work”.
Google has had voice search for ages. Go to their search page in Chrome and you can use it right now. Same story on Android. Android also has an excellent system for componentizing apps and providing loose coupling between them (lookup Intents). Google could have done a really excellent job with all this with a depth of integration that would make Siri look pathetic.
But instead what they have is passable and unexciting. That just seems to be Google’s DNA these days. Apple has a haughty “we know what is good for you, take or leave it” attitude and often they are right, usually because they limit scope. Google has a far broader community of users, and more people willing to share. But Google’s DNA is also to avoid interacting with people at all costs. That is what will eventually lead to their downfall.
I think the brilliance of Apple is that they actually say “we know what we are able to offer you that we feel is worth your time and money. If you are looking for something else, sorry, please look elsewhere.” I have yet to receive the message that so many people seem to think they have gotten that I am forbidden to look on the open marketplace for solutions Apple doesn’t offer.
Siri doesn’t always “come up with just one answer,” it frequently returns a number of items for you to select from.
It’s flawed reasoning to think that an intelligent assistant must always come up with a single best answer. See the behind the scenes parts of the Watson episodes of Jeopardy, or the NOVA special about it, “Smartest Machine on Earth.” Watch where Watson was coming up with several potential answers and then weighting them. Due to the nature of its task, it ALWAYS had to pick a “single best” result. Generally when it failed, however, the correct result was still in the top 5, if not top 2 or 3 potential choices.
One of the tricks of building an intelligent assistant is to train or balance the system at the point where it decides just one of the results is canonical, or its confidence isn’t high enough and it has to ask the user (if it can) to pick one. Watson didn’t have the freedom to offer several possible results when it was playing Jeopardy, but Siri can and does actually ask the user for help a lot. It’s tuned conservatively, with its “low confidence” threshold set fairly high. This is essentially the opposite of the initial handwriting recognition in the Newton in the early 90’s, which NEVER gave up to ask the user. It always returned a single result that was “true” (i.e. a word in the dictionary), even if it wasn’t CORRECT. Apple didn’t want to repeat this mistake and its resulting negative publicity with Siri.
The nature of these systems is also that it’s essentially impossible to release them in a finished, perfect state. That’s why Apple did something uncharacteristic and released Siri in beta–which it’s still in, 5 months later. They needed more data to tune it. Lots and lots and lots of data. With the iPhone 4S, they’ve been getting it.
Bob, you wrote “Siri wasn’t really ready for prime time, but Steve was dying and couldn’t wait.” But there’s simply NO WAY Siri would have actually been “ready for prime time” and up to the standards that Apple strives for if they had held it back in their labs and kept working on it only internally until it was “perfect.”
It’s also crazy to think that Steve Jobs would want the last thing that Apple released before he died to be something that really WASN’T ready for release. Do you really think Steve wanted Apple to release something that wasn’t ready to go out to the public just so that he could gaze upon it as an accomplishment from his deathbed? Come on, this was STEVE JOBS. He wouldn’t have seen that as an accomplishment, he would have seen it as a failure.
As for Google, they’re so in love with the “release early, release often” mindset it’d be really hard to believe they’re doing what you say with building up and waiting and polishing and perfecting of an amazing intelligent assistant that’ll blow everything else away. Thoughts like that just hearken back to the bad old days of Microsoft in the ’90’s, when anticipation of their products always built up so high, only to find the final product never lived up to the expectations.
Google’s past shows that they’re really not up to nailing a “perfect” version 1.0 right out of the gate. In fact it’d be much wiser of them to not try to compete with Apple in this way. Google’s better off when they avoid the potential embarrassments that they’ve had with big 1.0 product releases like Google TV, Chrome OS, Wave, Buzz, Knol, etc. They’ve had much more success by slowly building up momentum in products like search, maps, the Chrome browser, Gmail, Docs, and Android (though the Nexus One direct sales program and Motorola’s early release of the Xoom tablet with Honeycomb were more an example of the former category).
“As for Google, they’re so in love with the “release early, release often” mindset it’d be really hard to believe they’re doing what you say with building up and waiting and polishing and perfecting […]
Google’s past shows that they’re really not up to nailing a “perfect” version 1.0 right out of the gate. In fact it’d be much wiser of them to not try to compete with Apple in this way.”
Spot on. I don’t think Google has any “silver bullet” hiding in their labs.
I guess time will tell!
Regarding the quote from Robert Browning…
As seen in a stall in a restroom at the EE building at Georgia Tech in 1970:
“Man’s wretch should be beyond his gasp, else what is heaving for…”
s/wretch/retch/
Thank you
Right the first time: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wretch
Cringe said: “…like how to balance the SU carburetors on your old MG sports car.”
I used to know how to do that … and got paid to do it.
But that is easy. The real test will be when GOOGLE-Siri can teach those “old” MG (and “old” Jaguar) owners how to rebuilt those ersatz shock absorbers that keep blowing out.
Would you like to see shopping results for “wiring smoke”?
Would you like to search for “Lucas, Prince of Darkness”?
Would you like to enroll for “Roadside Repairs – An Educational Journey”?
I used to tune the SU carbs on my Volvo P1800. Although I no longer have the car, I would definitely have paid for technology that could do it for me!
BTW, Bob, the links and research for this article were great, thanks! Those are the kind of things I come here for.
Conclusions from that research resulting in speculative bets against Apple and its future successes… Not so much.
What is Google’s incentive here?
The better Siri is, the more products Apple sells, thus more profit.
For Google, voice search circumvents display ads, thus no money for Google. While voice search may make Android more attractive, Google makes no money on it, either.
Anyone have any ideas?
I think this is a very incisive comment. Google performs extraordinarily well at tasks related to their mission as a corporation of making profits. I think many of the peripheral things they do are simply intended to be good enough to remove the wind from the sails of competitors to their primary profit generators.
“What is Google’s incentive here?”
I’m under the impression Google is sensitive to freaking people out with their technology. They have more to lose by being first.. safer to let someone else desensitize people to the technology.
Compare the government and Google.. who gets the least hassle for the data they collect? Why?
Robert X Cringely: Open the car door please, Hal.
Hal: I’m sorry, I can’t do that, Bob.
… and this is the *real* reason Google needs all that personal data about us. It’s to build the context for our questions. There’s some very smart people working there …
No, it is so they can accurately predict the questions we will ask, and be able to answer them before we ask them. Maybe there will be a new off-shoot of the Calvanist movement that believes our future is, in a sense, preordained by Google, and that we have lost our ability to shape our own future. Well, our on-line future, anyway.
“… and this is the *real* reason Google needs all that personal data about us. It’s to build the context for our questions. There’s some very smart people working there …”
I asume you mean “evil”, as in “There’s some very smart people working there…”
If it wasn’t for this whole “don’t be evil” -charade, google would be just another profit-seeking corporation. Now OTOH, they pretend to be something totally different, while actually being very much like the rest.
Does anyone know of a good web search engine, not owned by either google or Microsoft?
I happened to post on this very subject on Feb. 29 in the previous “China and Google” Cringely article.
Oops.
Sorry Bob L. Did not read that – have no intention of plagiarizing your notion. Shall we agree that we have independently come to the same conclusion?
Relatedly, I jus yesterday spoke to dear friend of mine, a natural hacker with 20+ years in extreme programming (most of the obscure languages you can think of, he’s worked with). Furthermore, I consider him a sole mate of sorts. BUT, his big dream is working for Google. To this date, his family (located far from any of google’s hacker caves) has kept him from joining the army of “don’t be evil”, but…
The thing is, like any irrational fanboy, he really buys into the mantra. Oh sure, a part of the attraction is certainly in the environment google offers world class hackers, but if he was into any form of idolatry, he’d surely have posters of Page&Brin adorning his personal space.
I, on the other hand, have always thought that if you make big promises, you will be scrutinized all the more. At least that’s how I react. Therefore, any company making outlandish promises like that is automatically “suspect, until proven innocent”.
I’ll reiterate: google’s business practices are certainly not the worst in the business, granted, they may even be above average (more a statement on the business than on google), but they fall grievously short of the promise. Had google not made these promises, they would maybe (in my view) be a company with an above par record, now they’re just plain liars, and hypocrites to boot.
Pekka
Oops to the oops power, Pekka, you didn’t step on my toes at all! All I said in the previous thread was that I use ask.com for searching 95% of the time, and some of my reasons why. I guess by trying to keep the post in this thread so short, I didn’t make that clear, though.
With Google it will be 3 ads before your results I.e. “before I tell you how to tune your old MG carburetor, did you know Bob’s autoshop is accepting new customer, would you like me to place a call?; MG online outlet has carburetors on-sale…; etc… ” Similar to the now defunct GOOG411 service.
This. They’ll screw up the last mile by stuffing it with ads.
You nailed it – The big problem Google has is monetization – ads inserted into Siri-like results would just suck, there’s no easy way to do it.
Also, unlike Apple, the android ecosystem is so fragmented at the OS level – most devices (even new) are running v2 – that they’d be hard pressed to roll it out in any kind of unified way. Apple has held it back to just iPhone 4S but it can actually be used across the device spectrum if they wanted as iDevice owners update the OS in a timely fashion.
I’ve been disappointed in Google quite recently. The push to get people to use Google+ has been destroying their search abilities. Bad suggestions keep popping up becase those are Google’s sites. I’ve seen a few screenshots of searches with so many ads, that the actual search results now appear on the bottom of the page.
Google’s escapade into web user tracking where they found a way to override the user’s preferences just so they could add in +1 buttons is just creepy. The changes in their privacy policy probably violates E.U. standards. All for pushing Google+.
Back in the days before Google, I used Yahoo as my search engine. I switched to Google not because it provided me with “better results”, but because Yahoo decided that it should become an “Internet Portal” in order to better monitze its users. I switched to Google because the ads were not pushed into my face. I switched to Google because Yahoo started pushing their services when I did a search. Google’s clean page just made searching easier.
Google is now more interested in “monitizing their user base” than in providing services that people want. Sign up for any Google service, and you get Google+ whether you want it or not. Searches in Google now are being cluttered in ads. A few screenshots are making their way around the Internet showing Google search results where there are so many ads pushing so many Google services that the actual search results are practically appearing “below the fold” on the browser window.
Google may have some neat technology, but I have my doubts about their ability to deploy it. Somewhere in the past two years, the marketing people have taken over. If they came out with a Siri like service, would it be better than Siri, or too busy pushing Google services?
Apple became the world’s largest company because the man behind Apple had a vision of providing well designed products that people enjoy using. It appears that Apple is still heading toward those goal even with the change of leadership. Somewhere, Google has lost touch with what made Google Google. Somewhere, they’ve turned into some sort of almalgomation of AOL, Yahoo, and Microsoft.
Actually, Microsoft is an excellent example of what’s happening at Google. Microsoft labs has some really great stuff, but most of it never makes it out. Remember Surface? Microsoft’s touch top table? Where is the technology behind that? My friend at MS has told me that most of what is done in the lab is “filtered” by the people who run Windows. If it doesn’t help advance Windows, it simply isn’t done.
Google is doing the same with Google+. I can imagine my conversation with Googl’e assistant:
Me: Where can I find a Chinese Restaurant
Assistant: There’s one about 20 miles away that has a Google+ page. Should I find it’s webpage and press the +1 button for you.
Me: No. Can you find one a bit closer?
Assistant: I notice you haven’t setup a Google+ page. Do you want me to set one up for you? Then, I can put that restaurant in your circle. Wouldn’t that be great?
🙂
Google has two problems…
1) They’re a one-trick pony (advertising)
2) They’re a public company that has to report earnings every quarter and try to make wall-street happy and keep up the appearance of being a golden boy startup.
The combination is that they will screw their Siri up as you’ve described.
Personally I see only one serious problem with Google and that is the ad-based nature of their revenues. And that’s my problem — I fully understand that lots of people would gladly provide complete personal information on their grandmothers for “free” services. It remains to be seen whether offering privacy and a relative absence of ads will be a viable model for people in the current free-lunch era.
Exactly. Well said.
I interned with a video post-production house in Seattle in 1995. One task was to supervise VHS duplication. One say, the video being copied was a Parrot named Polly. It lived in a 3D environment, talked to you, listened to you (seemed somewhat natural in its conversation, no doubt specially chosn keywords, but still…) accessed your playlists and even suggested similar song. And when you weren’t interacting with it, it slept, preened, or flew around its environment, complete with grand sweeping camera moves.
That was, of course, something at Microsoft. Was this another case of being so far ahead of its time that now that it’s time that’s old and dusty on the shelf, or can we expect Microsoft Bob or Polly to make a reappearance to challenge Siri or Majel?
wow.
Thanks !
Astounding wrap up of history. Do publish this if it isn’t already.
I’m going to express doubt about an Apple TV. The key point about the new Ipad is that it obviates the need for apple to do anything other than have a cable connection possible between the ipad (which is now going to be a huge conduit of any and all possible source of video) and one’s own HD TV (which no longer has a high profit margin). (I could find your previous articles to back up my contention, but I assume you already have them).
No cable needed. AirPlay works amazingly well today…
Come back, Clippy, all is forgiven…
Jeez! Get a life! Oracle OpenOffice???
Ya think!
It’s all about context and timing as the abstraction works more “natural” than MBI:
Neurons discriminate among signals based on the signals’ “shape,” (how a signal changes over time), and Forger and coauthors found that, contrary to prior belief, a neuron’s preference depends on context. Neurons are often compared to transistors on a computer, which search for and respond to one specific pattern, but it turns out that neurons are more complex than that. They can search for more than one signal at the same time, and their choice of signal depends on what else is competing for their attention.[1]
“Second, we found that the optimal stimulus is context-dependent,” he said, “so the best signal will differ, depending on the part of the brain where the implant is placed.” [1]
1. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110708124538.htm
I have certin reservations about the future of AI. Will the source informtion used by the AI system be identified as between reality (facts, hard science, engineering, or mathematics) or beliefs (opinions, assumptions, rules of thumb, social conventions, and so on)?
I don’t believe that even Asimov’s three laws of robots is sufficient to guide AI when dealing with humans.
Just a thought.
A much more important blog post than the superficial humour suggests! Bob points to the future with a firm hand – science-fiction turned fact… Love this stuff!
Liked the R Browning quote and also the Jobs one. Both incredibly deep though neither sounds it.
More reason not to stop this stuff, Bob!! 🙂
Another instance of Douglas Adams’ prescience. Here we have Siri (Sirius Cybernetics?) inhabiting a bit of personal technology and dispensing cheerful advice with genuine personality.
Share and enjoy.
You might also have mentioned that Siri is linked to Yelp which seriously limits is utility.
I’m surprised that nobody has mentioned AdWords in relation to Google’s push towards voice search, as that it the primary source of revenue which the company is currently mining. I have to concur with others that Google’s text searches are becoming progressively less useful, and I suspect this is a consequence of their search algorithm placing progressively more weight on AdWords while websites continue to find improved ways to game the engine through search-optimized pages.
Voice search just extends the opportunity for Google to monetize queries – want to bid on that word? Would you like to bid on the text-usage, voice-usage, or both? From their perspective there is no downside. From the consumer perspective things get murky. On the one hand, AdWords has proven to be very useful as a mechanism for matching consumers to geographically proximate services and niche products. On the other hand it’s cluttered our general informational searches with a ton of irrelevant product placement.
As long as Apple refrains from offering a pay-to-win search system, SIRI is likely to remain the front runner in terms of providing useful information, but at the cost of less targeted consumer-centric data. If you want to know the value of Pi, ask SIRI. If you want to know where to buy a pie, ask Google.
Bob,
Love the column. Great insights as to the foundation of Siri and what’s coming next If you’re right, then voice really is the next big thing.
CALO? I thought it was called WOPR.
They are both in Wikipedia. “Cognitive Assistant…” vs “War Operation…”.
I’m pretty sure that Japan would have spent much more than $200m on their 5th Generation AI project in the 80s, even in that day’s money.
Some people have already mentioned IBM’s Watson; it absolutely caned the human competitors (who were previous champions) when the questions were straight-forward, but faltered when the questions were phrased cryptically (as they often are in Jeopardy. But even then, Watson was competitive). Luckily they separated the to-the-point questions from the cryptic ones in different rounds, so you got a good idea of how good Watson really was. A point to keep in mind though is that Watson’s data was all stored locally, no internet searching (googling!) allowed! Still, I have much greater hopes for Watson (i.e. IBM) than anything Google can come up with or the crap that comes out of Apple (my only experience of Siri is when Stephen Colbert tried it out on his show — that was enough).
Add me to the list of people who have noticed that Google is useless for more and more types of search. That company should have been chopped up in an anti-trust process a while ago. The way they have a secret closed PageRank algorithm is EVIL; time for an open-source search engine where both the raw data and any algorithms are open to anyone.
>The way they have a secret closed PageRank algorithm is EVIL
Because if you came up with a vastly superior algorithm, that would put all existing search engines to shame, you wouldn’t set up your own search company and make billions. You’d open source it, and let Google and everyone else use your algorithm for free.
Sure you would.
There already is a ‘better’ PageRank algorithm, it’s the one they had before the current one which highly favours recent pages and chucks everything else down Orwell’s memory hole. Anyway that’s just my opinion of what a ‘better’ algorithm would be. The point is if both the algorithm and database (like I said) are open, people can develop their own queries which don’t get polluted with pages that are just copy-pastes or shopping sites.
As for your quip, this overwhelming assumption that people only ever do anything for greed and profit is one of the world’s biggest problems, so shame on you.
re: Google being a one-trick, ad company: I think they’ve seen beyond that; one CxO said they were now an AI company. And, witness their car. Still, it’s a huge, pioneering leap to a) invent b) productize c) monetize that stuff. A recent talk by Rodney Brooks of IRobot said they had 14 business plans that died before they came up with anything that would sell. It might just take time and other companies to do it. But I hope Google does change, there’s too much brainpower tied up not doing real-world things, like Steve Yegge said.
Speaking of non-ads, what’s to stop Google from straight-out charging for Big Siri, or bundling it in money-producing ways?
I concur, calling them just an ad company is not a useful way to analyse the company. It would be like calling apple just a one-trick hardware company. Sure, their software revenues are tiny compared to hardware, but without their deep investment in software they’d just be a high-end version of HTC.
I should expand on that.
Google makes money by selling ads. True. They can sell adds because they have a highly desirable set of software services to hang the ads on. No software services -> no ad revenue.
Newspapers and magazines make more money from ads than they do from sales of their product (less so now than years ago, but still more http://goo.gl/W77xO) – that doesn’t make them just, or mainly ad companies.
Ads are important to google in the same way that they are for many other very different businesses. It’s an important insight to bear in mind when discussing google, but it’s far from the only thing that matters.
How will google continue to make money if they develop their own version of Siri? Doesn’t it cut off their main source of revenues, namely advertising?
https://www.easysafemoney.com/dont-bet-on-dying-stocks/
Bob,
Of the very few people left in the world who have any idea what balancing SU carburettors means, even fewer have ever done it. A very small percentage of those, including myself, have actually done it for a living. Of that miniscule population, how many of us still have the tools, including a Uni-Syn, necessary to do the job?
I have one in the toolbox. 🙂
“Siri–how does one synchronise SU carburetors?”
Hopefully google will use the technology to improve Google Voice – transcription is barely readable at best.
Perhaps I’m missing something, but I have not noticed the problem with ads interfering with Google search results. Ever since day one Google has designated the ads with a lightly colored background. Ever since day one I have trained myself to ignore those results no matter where they are or how relevant they sound. Of course other companies have created link farms to game Google, some of which seem semi-legit so I’ve also learned to ignore sites like “shopping.com” even if I’m shopping. It also helps to customize the advanced search page to produce 100 results instead of the default 10 (and eliminate “Google instant”) so you can quickly scroll past the link farms. You can do all of the above without signing in to Google but you need to let Google set a cookie to remember your advanced search preferences. And one more thing: it helps to use a Hosts file (Google it), so just in case you accidentally click on a 3rd party tracking site, the link will not work.
Yes, that’s right. Any day now someone is going to come out with that thing that Apple beat them to, and then Apple will really be going down. How many times have we read this linkbait?
Effectively import products from China at very competitive price.
Find a qualified manufacturer in China.
Find right Chinese business partners.
Have their own office in China and run their business by ther own.
Be your representative in China for your business in China
[…] Siri’s big brother from Google – I don’t care how shiny it is, I don’t want to talk to my phone. […]
I’ll wait for version 2.1! 🙂
JaF
SU carbs don’t balance. Get it close enough and then drive to the pub.
How will bigger Siri pay the bills?
fat loss…
[…]I, Cringely » Blog Archive » Siri’s big brother from Google – Cringely on technology[…]…
good article. I like Android phone
[…] su Bing, dove finirebbe Google?Ma a Mountain View non sono stupidi ed ecco Android, inoltre la società lavora ad un assistente vocale da anni e presto uscirà.Minaccia numero due, Facebook. Sappiamo bene come la pensata di Zuck abbia […]
merter…
[…]Siri’s big brother from Google[…]…