Slashdot Mirror
Talk of an Apple Search Engine To Thwart Google
Hugh Pickens writes "eWeek reports that the data Apple collects about users from its iPhone is so valuable that the company may build its own iPhone-centric search engine just to keep Google from gleaning insight from that data. 'The data generated on the iPhone OS platform must become an increasing priority for Apple and we believe the company has the resources to develop its own products in both maps and search in the next five years,' writes analyst Gene Munster. Google is currently the default search engine on the iPhone, but Google has increasingly encroached on Apple's mobile turf, offering the Android operating system and several mobile applications. As the search provider for the iPhone, Google sees what iPhone users are searching for, which can help it tailor software and services for its own mobile smartphones — a competitive advantage that has not gone unnoticed by Apple. Apple lacks the experience and engineering wherewithal to build a large, scalable search engine, but Munster says Apple could buy a search startup with a Web index, such as Cuil or Taptu, and use its index as the seed for its own search engine. 'Apple is in an inside position to tap into the current pent-up demand for better mobile search, and add a new competitive differentiation from other search providers and device makers,' adds IDC analyst Hadley Reynolds."
Apple isn't going to put together a search engine. Come on, people, pitting Apple against Google, Google against Microsoft, Microsoft against Apple ... it's all just a game of 'Rock, Paper, Scissors' depending on whose market you're playing in.
Just because Google is making real inroads into the mobile phone market doesn't mean that Apple is going to counter by trying to start a search engine. What's next, a rumor of Google's new Android based gPad?
I bet Yahoo would be more than happy to provide search technology to Apple (not the powered by Bing stuff, their own capable search). Yahoo's not going to make a competing phone anytime soon, and the cost of a Yahoo deal might well be worth it against the cost of Apple developing their own (the latter obviously being more expensive, but meaning Apple gets full control).
I'm an Apple user and long-time developer for their platforms, and this seems highly unlikely. No, no for fanboi-ish reasons, but because Apple aren't adept at multitasking. Most companies would be able to bring out a new product, such as the iPad, without having half their product line fall into obsolesence -- their PowerMacs are now over a year old, and MacBook Pros are 10 months old. And as for search engines, have you tried the iTunes/App Store? It pales in comparison to what Amazon had 10 years ago; it is the main reason why apps see sales drop-offs that are at the very extreme end of a common phenomena. (It's also why, even as an App developer, I shop at Amazon and only go to iTunes occasionally for a price check. I actually don't buy apps because the store is so painfully useless.)
Apple's scope is very limited, their expertise is definitely not in search engines, and they have so far shown little interest in data-mining their customers -- it would seem beneath them in its most common usage. In short, there's very little reason to believe Jobs has any interest in pursuing it, much less that they'd be able to spare their focus on other things to work on it. They might slap together something as an off-hand type of thing, sure.
Seems someone was smart enough to register isearch.com...
BUT there may be some others available...
yikes, even based on this short list I drew up from memory the isearch domain name is hot!
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
The problem Apple has with the iphone is they just farmed out too much. There's not enough Apple controlled stuff in the iphone for Apple to maintain control. Apple controls email, but that's not hard. Apple doesn't control the voice or data circuits, but those are commodities, so not a problem. Apple farmed out maps. That's more of a problem; only MS and Google do maps reasonably well. Apple farmed out search. That's a problem.
Apple controls the browser, but that's more of a bug than a feature because the browser is so feature-limited that most functions that could be done by websites on a full-featured browser (for example, IMDB or shopping at Lands End) need a dedicated app on the iphone. Apple is rightly afraid of an infection vector thru the browser, but the result is thousands of 'apps' that simply substitute for websites on a fully functional browser.
The upshot is the features of the iphone are too easy to duplicate on other machines. Websites do the job of most apps, and maps and search are already controlled by google. What's left?
Actually there is one thing left, but it's also the kind of hard job that Apple doesn't handle well. Right now we pick phones based on how easy it is to enter data without a keyboard. That's pretty ludicrous when you think about it. If we could input data to a phone by speaking into it how amazing would that be? Yeah, I know, voice rec is hard, but when it comes along it's going to be the only kind of smartphone worth owning. And Apple isn't even working on it.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Microsoft's internet division is currently losing about $2 billion a year. Sure looks like failure to me.
Makes me think of that line from Citizen Kane.
Kane's bookkeeper: But we're losing a million dollars a year!
Kane: Then in 60 years, when I am out of money, we will close our doors!!
The CB App. What's your 20?
Jobs is a vegetarian, so it's unlikely. It's also the reason that Apple doesn't make any leather cases or bags for their products.
Well how Apple does that, often enough, is that they aim at existing technology that's poorly executed or has a poorly thought out user interaction and smoothing out some of the ugly edges. I'm not sure how they would do that here. Google search doesn't really have ugly edges in need of smoothing.
I could see Apple trying to take on Google Docs, Gmail, Google Voice, or almost any of Google's other projects, but I'm not sure how you take "type stuff in, hit enter, and get a list of sites in response" and make it easier or more intuitive.
Search is also incompatible with Apple's closed-box approach. I can't see Steve Jobs avoiding the temptation to cook the results in some petty way, even if not directly against those who have crossed him. Look at how closed his app markets are. His ego is too big to let a search engine escape his control.
People who think Google might drive a company out of business by biasing the search results against them should consider who would be more likely to do that -- Apple or Microsoft or Google?
Infuriate left and right
Actually Android, at least on the Nexus One, has integrated speech recognition. It's done server side and the quality seems to have improved a lot lately. If you use it for phrase-at-a-time speech it can be remarkably accurate. It doesn't work so well in very noisy environments or if you string together several phrases with pauses to imply commas, etc. At least not yet.
No kidding. The kind of market penetration that Microsoft has gained over Bing is, at best, moderate. Beyond that, Google is still best positioned to keep driving towards web app delivery, so the threat to Microsoft's core business is still there. Bing was supposed to be the DAvid that toppled Google's Goliath, not just the neighbor in the tiny house at the end of the block.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
as a disabled user living with speech recognition full-time are high-powered PC, I can tell you, nobody does it right. All (nuance, Microsoft) suppliers fail big time. Replicating their work is a 5 to 10 year process and since corporate management rarely thinks on that long a time frame, speech recognition is not easy and all of the Sphinx systems are just toys to keep grads students busy.
One could purchase, or more accurately, rent, recognition engines from nuance and Microsoft but the problem is, there are so many annoying little bugs inhibiting usability that you will still spend a year plus making it ready for real people and then, need to reapply all your bug fixes in the next release comes out.
Speech recognition is a dream for some and a nightmare for those who live with it (especially for those of us who try to use it with open source applications). On the other hand, I would be living off of Social Security disability if I didn't have speech recognition even in its current crappy state.