Google Working On Siri Competitor Majel

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Working On Siri Competitor Majel

Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 20, 2011 @05:45AM from the what-are-you-doing-gene dept.

judgecorp writes "Google is working on a competitor to Apple's Siri voice input system. It's an extension to its existing Voice Actions offering with a name that should ring bells. Majel is named after Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, who was the voice of most of the Star Trek on-board computers, as well as playing Nurse Christine Chapel in the first series and being Gene Roddenberry's wife."

46 of 360 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Google versus Apple by bonch · 2011-12-20 05:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

This signifies so many of the core differences between Google and Apple. Apple intentionally implemented "attitude" in the character of Siri to make it more endearing and friendly, while Google dismisses that idea and tries to make theirs into an emotion-less Star Trek computer, even naming it after the actress who voiced it. Many of the insider remarks on this project are talking about how it's intended to be like the Star Trek computer, even addressing it as "computer." Often times, I think Google is way too engineering-driven and quite simply doesn't get humans.
Voice recognition is driven by feedback, and Apple has a huge headstart with Siri because it's already out now in beta form, and so Apple has access to real-world usage data. By the time Majel comes out, Siri will be even more advanced and will have been shaped by its users. It will be interesting to see how Google competes.
1. Re:Google versus Apple by pj2541 · 2011-12-20 05:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'd prefer "Prikazyvat" to "Computer.
2. Re:Google versus Apple by WPIDalamar · 2011-12-20 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Google has less real world usage?
  Matching a search with useful information is kind of what google does best. For voice recognition, they've been doing voice-search on Android for a long time, plus their now defunct goog-411 and that's a lot of voice recognition experience.
  Siri/Majel is really just a UI layer on top of those two things.
  Google may be behind in the integration, but they're probably way ahead in those two things.
3. Re:Google versus Apple by TehDuffman · 2011-12-20 05:53 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I like this approach personally. I think it is weird to treat the phone as a person. I would rather talk to my phone like it is a phone than a woman. (especially if i have to repeat myself :) )
4. Re:Google versus Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 05:57 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Clippy had attitude too, and was endearing and friendly...
5. Re:Google versus Apple by Jeng · 2011-12-20 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Many of the insider remarks on this project are talking about how it's intended to be like the Star Trek computer, even addressing it as "computer." Often times, I think Google is way too engineering-driven and quite simply doesn't get humans.
  
  I don't need a hammer that gets me. I need one I can accurately use. Natural language is very imprecise, a set list of commands makes things more precise.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
6. Re:Google versus Apple by mark_elf · 2011-12-20 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Indeed, FTFA -
  "Google, it is widely held, is Siri’s best challenger. The company has offered Google Voice Search on the iPhone and its Android devices since 2008, and that application has been expanded to cover 29 languages, supporting accents in 37 countries, including the Middle East."
  Ouch.
7. Re:Google versus Apple by TheRaven64 · 2011-12-20 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Have you actually done a survey on this, or is it just an assumption? In my experience, computer voice falls into the uncanny valley very quickly - people find computers that try to sound like humans to be creepy.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
8. Re:Google versus Apple by hedwards · 2011-12-20 06:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Google has tons of data from which to trawl for edge cases. What precisely did you think that the Google Voice transcription service was all about? People let Google transcribe their voicemails by algorithm and Google gets more data. I doubt very much they even bother looking at messages which aren't reported to them as inaccurate.
  So, I'd venture to guess that they're actually a lot more used than Siri is. I have a hard time believing that Siri is so used that it's been used more in 4 months than Google Voice in a couple years.
  As for sophistication, Google's implementation might be significantly less sophisticated, but it does work reliably, Siri from what I've heard, not so much.
9. Re:Google versus Apple by hedwards · 2011-12-20 06:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Google's voice recognition works, if it doesn't get it right it tends to recognize it and pop down a list of possibilities.
  From what I've heard about Siri, it trades accuracy for sophistication of ability and it isn't a good trade off. We'll see how things progress as it's only a 4 month old release, but still. There's some wisdom in limiting the features to what you can actually do than to overreach and come up with crap.
  At the end of the day, voice recognition isn't really that useful except for people driving and possibly the blind. Most people view it as a gimmick. Personally, I'm not about to spend much time using it as when I'm out in public I'd rather not have people know what I'm searching for or whom I'm calling.
10. Re:Google versus Apple by hedwards · 2011-12-20 06:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's probably a much more mainstream feeling than you realize. People tend to get freaked out by the uncanny valley. Not to mention that if it sounds like a person then it is a person complete with all the downsides that entails. Most people just want the device to figure out what to do and get it done, adding emotions and jokes just muddies it up and increases the likelihood that the interaction will go wrong.
  As a side note, what Google's doing is working, so I'm not really sure on what basis you're suggesting that they don't know what people want, they're wiping the floor with both MS and Apple as of late in that market.
11. Re:Google versus Apple by slim · 2011-12-20 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Have you actually done a survey on this, or is it just an assumption? In my experience, computer voice falls into the uncanny valley very quickly - people find computers that try to sound like humans to be creepy.
  "Look Dave, I can see you're really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over. "
12. Re:Google versus Apple by JustinOpinion · 2011-12-20 06:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Agreed.
  
  To amplify this 'uncanny-valley' notion. The problem with the anthropomorphizing ('attitude') approach is that it lulls the user into thinking they are dealing with a very sophisticated (sentient) system. This fiction quickly disappears once the user runs requests that the AI quite obviously doesn't understand. At that point, the quirky personality becomes annoying (think Clippy), and the fact that it pretends to be as smart as a human, without actually being as smart as a human, makes the interface seem broken and comically insufficient.
  
  The opposite approach, also seen in robotics and many other areas of AI (e.g. search), is to not pretend that the system is like a person. Instead, make it obvious that it is a machine, with a set input/output behavior. Users can then quickly learn how to best use this machine to accomplish tasks. If the shortcomings of the system are evident, users will not be surprised by them and will instead build these into their mental model of how the system works.
  
  As a case study, consider the similar criticisms that have been made about Wolfram-Alpha (e.g. here): essentially, W|A is a highly sophisticated set of computation and relation engines. However it's all wrapped up inside an overly simplistic UI (a single text-entry box, without any obvious way to refine what you mean). This leads to people getting all kinds of unintended results, despite the fact that the system actually can perform the computation/analysis/lookup the user wants. It's just that there is no obvious way to tell it what lookup you meant. The overly-simplified UI implies to the user that the system will just 'figure out what you mean', but the fact is it fails to do that very frequently; the user becomes frustrated because they then have to mentally reverse-engineer W|A's parsing logic, trying to build a query that returns the kind of results they want.
  
  In short, it's better to design a UI that is an honest reflection of the sophistication/power of the underlying technology. To do otherwise creates a bad user experience, because user expectations are not meant by available functionality.
13. Re:Google versus Apple by P-niiice · 2011-12-20 06:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Google Voice integration is pretty widespread - most of Sprint android users pretty much use it so, yeah, it's widely used.
14. Re:Google versus Apple by ColdWetDog · 2011-12-20 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't need a hammer that gets me. I need one I can accurately use. Natural language is very imprecise, a set list of commands makes things more precise.
  I find this comment fascinating, and probably helps differentiate geek tools from mass-market tools. Most people prefer accuracy, but I think a lot of geeks really would prefer precision.
  But it accurately represents at least a significant part of the Slashdot demographic. I find Siri to be almost completely useless because it isn't designed for precision - it seems to default to a socially acceptable / funny / warm answer. It's often like talking to an Alzheimer's patient - you get a human response, it's just not associated logically with your question. I would much prefer it if Siri could be placed in a 'computer' mode that gave you a more structured syntax.
  Other folks, not so much....
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
15. Re:Google versus Apple by LordNicholas · 2011-12-20 06:50 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Wrong Troi; Lwaxana is her flirty mother...
  You: Where is the nearest pizza place?
  Lwaxana Troi phone: Pizza? Dreadful! I know a lovely little bistro just ahead- the cook has the most FILTHY thoughts about me but he makes the most delicious chocolate cake. Chocolate is an aphrodisiac, you know...
16. Re:Google versus Apple by jeffmeden · 2011-12-20 06:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There's a big difference between standard search engine queries and the things people ask voice recognition software. Simply owning a search engine doesn't mean you're going to be awesome at understanding human language and delivering results accordingly. That comes through trial-and-error, which is why Apple has a headstart here.
  If you don't realize that a significant number of Google searches are entered in plain English (in the form of a question) then boy are you behind... Fire up any Google portal that supports suggested searching and start a question, like "how do i" and watch as it recants popular natural language searches. I like "how do i update my iphone", how apropos. You will see similar things for "how will" "how should" "how does" etc. People have been using Google like they would use a "human" for many years. They also know that for any given natural question, what results are the most popular (based on a number of choices only possible to present on a full computer screen). Don't worry one bit about how well Google understands language, accurate results, etc.
17. Re:Google versus Apple by dan828 · 2011-12-20 06:56 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually, I've been seeing Apple as the new MS. That is, blatantly using their big bucks and near monopolistic positioning to crush competition and force major players in various industries to do things their way at the expense of the consumer (eg, the whole e-books thing). I can't even look at the old 1984 commercial without thinking that Apple has become what they despised back then.
18. Re:Google versus Apple by coldfarnorth · 2011-12-20 07:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Have you been paying attention to what google has been doing with voice data? First, they've been collecting voice data for years. Before Google Voice actions, they were using Google Voice, before that, it was Google 411. They have a tremendous amount of natural language data back in the warehouse, and It's going to be quite a while before Apple has any hope of catching up (Remember - Google is still gathering data at an amazing rate via Voice actions and Google Voice, plus Android market share is now larger than iPhone market share - that's one more handicap for Apple).
  As to the magic that Apple can supposedly work with incoming data: Would you be shocked if Google engineers can do the exact same thing with their voice data that Apple can? That's not valuable feedback, it's necessary, otherwise your algorithms will not improve.
  And the "Siri isn't released yet" argument: I call shenanigans. If I can get it on my phone without signing an NDA, It's been released. I'm sure it WILL get better in future versions, but that's not an advantage - it's a requirement if Apple wants to stay in the field.
  Apple HAS done good work in natural language processing, but I am unconvinced that this is a permanent advantage. They are playing catch-up in too many respects for anyone to say that they own the field.
  I can't speak for anyone else, but I use Google's voice actions all the time. Care to convince me that they aren't much used?
  
  --
  Lets start refering to The War Against Terror by it's initials. . .
19. Re:Google versus Apple by somersault · 2011-12-20 07:05 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Try typing things like "why", "where", "what", etc into Google and you will see from the autocompletions that normal people's "standard search engine queries" are exactly what people would ask voice recognition software.. what do you think they're asking? Geeks like us may understand search engines and google more frugally, but your average person puts in lots of redundant info and doesn't really realise what's going on. For example I typed in "piza places near" and one of the top results was "pizza places near my location", as if Google understands that..
  Even if Apple do better presentation (remains to be seen..), do you think their AI and search guys are anywhere near Google's in terms of knowledge and experience?
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
20. Re:Google versus Apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 07:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Android user: Majel. Indentify me.
  Majel: Nerd. Go outside or something.
  iPhone user: Siri. Indentify me.
  Siri: You are a truly unique individual. A superior being. You appreciate beauty and popularity more than all others. Now quit looking at the mirror and go Suck the dead dick of your lord and master.
21. Re:Google versus Apple by Darth+Snowshoe · 2011-12-20 07:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yes, but Google didn't think to try to do this until Apple made it the primary feature of a new product. Apple continues to innovate the UI in big ways. I give Google a lot of credit for working towards a driverless car, but in several other instances recently, it seems they've either been following other companys' products, or killing their own development efforts right out from under fairly large groups of appreciative users.
22. Re:Google versus Apple by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-12-20 07:29 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I get about 20% troll, 20% funny and 60% Insightful. With the odd informative chucked in.
  Just 'cos I showed up when Taco added ID's, doesn't give me magic powers.
  I rely on Unicorn Glitter for those!
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
23. Re:Google versus Apple by BasilBrush · 2011-12-20 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So, I'd venture to guess that they're actually a lot more used than Siri is. I have a hard time believing that Siri is so used that it's been used more in 4 months than Google Voice in a couple years.
  Oh, easily. By an order of magnitude or two. Siri is the number one feature on the latest version of the worlds most popular smartphone. There are TV adverts about Siri around the world. Google Voice, personally I hadn't even heard of it till you mentioned it. Looking it up, it seems like one of the many web services Google try out for a couple of years, then drop because few people are interested.
24. Re:Google versus Apple by sexconker · 2011-12-20 07:33 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Actually, I've been seeing Apple as the new MS. That is, blatantly using their big bucks and near monopolistic positioning to crush competition and force major players in various industries to do things their way at the expense of the consumer (eg, the whole e-books thing). I can't even look at the old 1984 commercial without thinking that Apple has become what they were jealous of back then.
  Fixed.
25. Re:Google versus Apple by awyeah · 2011-12-20 07:33 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Ask Siri to open the pod bay doors.
  
  --
  Why, no, I haven't meta-moderated lately. Thanks for asking!
26. Re:Google versus Apple by SharkLaser · 2011-12-20 07:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Since I work in SEO I have a good quite understanding how people use search engines. Almost everyone understands how they work and enter good search keywords, just like geeks. On the other hand, sometimes it's just easier to form the keywords as question rather than trying to extract them yourself, and this has the added benefit of similar forum questions coming up first if other people have asked similar questions. It works better with certain kind of queries, so don't label people as "stupid" if they use why, where or what in search queries. I have sometimes needed to research with those words because I couldn't find the information I wanted with keywords, and because of my job I'm quite good at forming them.
  
  The other problem is the whole personal feel. Google is deliberately taking that away with their star trek computer-like interface. I don't even have iPhone, but Apple's Siri seems much more personal. They've made it a character, your friend. Their advertising, features and everything goes along that line. What Google is doing is basically saying "look, we have the technology too!" and forgetting that technology alone isn't enough.
27. Re:Google versus Apple by nightfell · 2011-12-20 08:04 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  From what I've heard about Siri, it trades accuracy for sophistication of ability and it isn't a good trade off.
  All voice recognition systems get around 90%, Siri and Google included. You're only remembering "what you heard" that fits "what your biases confirm". One thing that is very accurate about Siri is when it comes to things on your phone. It will get words that I wouldn't expect any speech recognition system to get (like Dragon), because it gets context. So, for example, if you are talking about music, it will know you said something otherwise non-sequitur, like "Asteroids Galaxy Tour" or "Rush Fly By Night".
  I don't know how well Android or MS does with this. From what I've seen on the web, not good at all, but I'm not going to put forth hearsay anecdotes as fact without significant corroboration, even if it does fit what I already believe to be true.
28. Re:Google versus Apple by ozgood · 2011-12-20 08:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Can we at least see a demo of Google's version before we compare the two?
29. Re:Google versus Apple by bipbop · 2011-12-20 08:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Yes, though Siri is a product made using the research done by the CALO Project, most of which is available to the public and not locked up and owned by Apple. If Google wants to copy Siri, it doesn't have to start entirely from scratch.
30. Re:Google versus Apple by icebike · 2011-12-20 08:56 · Score: 3
  
  So far Apple isn't doing much to stop Google from doing this. But Apple got the first mover advantage. So Google has some serious catching up. Google is no wimp too.
  
  I doubt Apple will even try to stop Google, because speaking to your computer is nothing either of these companies invented, and has been around in real life applications as well as in works of fictions for decades.
  My old Razr (not the smartphone) had simple voice dialing. Yes, you can still buy this phone today!
  And Android has has had seemingly forever, as well as accessibility options for voice playback of messages and emails.
  Several other phones have had this as well, so if anything Apple might be the one infringing here.
  Far from what the carefully crafted ads you see on TV show, SIRI has some maddening limitations and usability issues. I've watched people try two or three times to get the phone do do what they want and ultimately give up and just do it manually.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
31. Re:Google versus Apple by Archibald+Buttle · 2011-12-20 08:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The very best voice recognition systems are only about 95% accurate. That recognition system is the grey matter that sits between your ears. We tend to think of our recognition as perfect, but it's really not. We use context to help our recognition. We generally know what subject is being spoken about, we know what words are likely to come next, and we use that information to compensate when we fail to properly recognise words. All this happens so quickly that we don't notice that we have failed to recognise a word properly.
  If human beings worked like computers and demanded 100% accuracy of recognition, we'd be continually stopping each other to repeat things. Conversation would be next to impossible. Even when we're not sure we've heard what somebody has said, we rarely ask people to repeat themselves, and usually just rely on having gotten the gist of what was said to us.
  As Siri is a conversational interface it does not pop down a list of possibilities, since that would interrupt the flow of the conversation, but it instead makes use of context to help improve it's recognition. This isn't as simple as a trade-off of (per-word) accuracy vs sophistication of ability - it's a sophistication of ability that's attempting to improve the accuracy of the interface. It is not a voice recognition system per-se, it's a conversational interface, and they're not the same thing.
32. Re:Google versus Apple by wickerprints · 2011-12-20 09:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I find it amusing that Google fans are quick to point out how they've been harvesting natural language data from your voicemails (never mind the privacy implications for now!), but fail to realize that Siri's voice recognition algorithms are built on technology from Nuance, which is the company that developed Dragon Naturally Speaking. And Dragon has been around for a LOT longer than Google Voice. Apple didn't try to invent Siri's voice recognition from scratch, and that's something that fans of Apple also must realize. Apple purchased Siri, and with the backing of money and resources, grew it into what it is today.
  Furthermore, Google may collect a lot of data, but it's the algorithms that drive the accuracy and flexibility of any voice recognition system.
  As a final point, Siri is much, much more than just a voice recognition system. All that voice recognition does is transcribe audio input into text. A lot of what Siri does that is novel has to do with the use of natural language processing to achieve semantic understanding of the input, which is what Wolfram|Alpha does. The novelty and the innovation lies in the relatively successful synthesis of these two technologies to achieve something akin to that idealized "Star Trek" interface.
33. Re:Google versus Apple by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2011-12-20 09:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I don't even have iPhone, but Apple's Siri seems much more personal. They've made it a character, your friend.
  You mean like Clippy?
  
  --
  I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
34. Re:Google versus Apple by shellbeach · 2011-12-20 11:00 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't mean to say that Google couldn't create human-like voice recognition, but the insider remarks that have been posted on various Android sites have so far stated that Google is not implementing Siri's "funny" remarks, for example. That alone is so Apple-like.
  
  If you're seeking humour and witty conversation from your phone, then I'm not sure you're speaking for the majority of people; most of us have human friends for that. My ideal voice recognition software would do the task required and only that task -- I don't want software to quip back at me, and I especially don't want it to make jokes about referring to me as "an ambulance" if I'm injured and dying. Humour and computers don't generally mix well.
  
  Based on past statements by Google (Marissa Meyer once criticized interfaces that looked like they were made by humans, instead favoring interfaces made by machines...), they just don't seem to get people. They definitely come off like an engineering company without the balance of human interface design. This was also the perception of Microsoft for many years, incidentally.
  That's a good analogy. It was amazing how MS failed to get UI design, and how Apple gained a virtual monopoly in the PC market because everyone cared so much about the usability difference. Why, last I checked, Apple had 93% of the PC market share, with MS sitting on a lowly 7% ...
  I'm getting the impression that Apple fans think that design is everything, and that functionality should be sacrificed for cute animations and humorous backchat. I don't think it works like that for most people.
35. Re:Google versus Apple by msobkow · 2011-12-20 12:25 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't understand what the big deal is. Most of the ideas and algorithms for voice recognition and knowledge processing were already tabled and researched back when I was in 4th year University, in 1986. We just didn't have the compute power to IMPLEMENT anything back then.
  It's good to see such technology coming to the forefront, but it's not new ideas. While specifics of the algorithms may be patentable, the concepts pre-date any attempts to patent the ideas, with loads of published research papers and proposals existing as prior art.
  Here's a tidbit for you: I first had the idea of inverting a LALR compiler to produce code in 1986 while working on my compiler project for a 400 series class. I worked at it for years, with different tools and technologies, failing time and time again. It wasn't until 1997-1998 that I came up with an approach that was workable, with MSIsa 1.0 in the Java 1.1 era. It took until now to bring it from the conceptual "It can work" implementation to something production worthy for 2012.
  But even if I'd patented the idea when I had it, the patent would have expired before I produced a marketable product.
  
  --
  I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Is it wrong.... by forkfail · 2011-12-20 05:57 · Score: 4, Funny

... that the image that comes to mind involves Majel and Siri and a pit filled with mud?

--
Check your premises.
Applaud the respect by AikonMGB · 2011-12-20 05:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

I absolutely love the use of "Majel" here; Star Trek has influenced so much of our lives and of our tech, and now that are finally starting to get into responsive voice-operated systems, it shows a great deal of respect to bring it back to the original visionaries.
Aikon-
Left one out by XanC · 2011-12-20 06:00 · Score: 5, Informative

She was also the first officer of the Enterprise in the first pilot episode.
Here's a hint, Google by zill · 2011-12-20 06:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Pssssst, Google. Use Morgan Freeman's voice. I promise you'll make trillions.
1. Re:Here's a hint, Google by thestudio_bob · 2011-12-20 06:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Samuel L. Jackson!
  Me: Samuel, what's the best way to air transport serpentines?
  Samuel: Enough is enough! I have had it with these monkey-fighting snakes on this Monday-to-Friday plane!
  
  --
  The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
Re:It's a cute jab at apple by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-20 06:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

The three basic opinions on this:
The tech world: "Well, fair is fair. Though this was done on phones and such before, Google really had one of the first major working voice-to-text implementations for limited commands AND search, then Apple improved the interface with Siri, and now Google is improving that to make it more engineering-based. No real problem."
The plebs outside the tech world: "WTF?!?!??!? Apple invented voice controls! They had all their advertisements about Siri on the iPhone and everything!!!!1! GOOGLE IS TEH EVULZ AND TEH COPAYCATZ ZOMG KILL"
Apple themselves: "Yes, we invented the concept of voice. Itself. Now, give us royalties."
Re:So then why is Google working on anything? by Hijacked+Public · 2011-12-20 06:31 · Score: 5, Funny

And of course in Siri stories many Android users just aid to get Vlingo.
Shouting your Slashdot posts into Siri is getting better, but still not all that good.

--
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
What I really want to see... by nickdc · 2011-12-20 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Does anyone else have the urge to place siri and majel side by side in hopes of reproducing a cleverbot conversation?
Re:copycat company by ColdWetDog · 2011-12-20 06:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously, google - do your own thing, don't just copy Apple over and over. It makes you look bad.
They have. Google is developing the first browser to have a three digit version number (to be rapidly followed by Mozilla).
The release candidate should be available next week or so.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Too bad the real Majel isn't around to voice it by msobkow · 2011-12-20 10:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's really a shame that Majel herself isn't still alive to provide the core voice work for the product. People would have swarmed in droves to have the actual Star Trek computer voice at their beck and call.
Then again, who knows how much audio tape and footage there is of her locked away? Maybe there's enough of a phoneme and phrase collection out there that they could resurrect her voice. Couldn't be any more difficult than extracting the phonemes from someone else's voice, provided there's enough data to do the job.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.