A5 Mystery Solved (Why Siri Won't Run On iPhone 4)

Hugh Pickens writes "Anna Leach reports that Siri support has been a contentious issue for owners of earlier iPhones, but a recent filing from Audience shows that Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because the phone's chip can't handle it. Linley Gwennap of the Linley Group cracked one of the secrets of the new iPhone's A5 chip after working out that it packs some serious audio cleaning power not available on the iPhone 4's A4 chip. Audience has developed technology that removes most or all of the background noise when someone places a cell-phone call from a restaurant, airport, or other noisy location. The iPhone 4S integrates Audience's 'EarSmart' technology directly into the A5 processor, improving its technology to handle 'far-field speech,' which means holding the device at arm's length rather than directly in front of the mouth. Apple has also licensed the Audience technology for a 'new generation of processor IP,' which may mean that the forthcoming A6 processor will appear in the iPad 3 and iPhone 5. 'Why Apple has not simply purchased Audience is unclear. An acquisition would prevent Audience's other major customer, Samsung, from using the technology to compete with Apple,' says Gwennap. 'The company may be hedging its bets, as it could switch to Qualcomm's Fluence noise-reduction technology in the future.'"

Comments

Interesting but wrong

[zonker]

Or at least not the whole story. It has been shown already that a jailbroken iPhone 4 can run Siri just fine.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BLKMGK]

Prior to Siri being released it was an APP in the App store, folks I knew used the silly thing and no it wasn't called Siri. Apple had purchased the technology\application and about a week before Siri was released on the 4s the app stopped working as the back end servers were shutdown. I never loaded the app but wish I had because while Siri is interesting it certainly wasn't so interesting as to be a compelling upgrade from an iPhone 4. Siri, like the app before it, is a work in progress for sure! If I can recall the app name or get hold of the friend that was using it I'll post the app name - obviously it's no longer available in the app store and hasn't been for some time now.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[poetmatt]

Yep.

It's pretty funny to say "it's hardware" when there's nothing preventing apple from running it in software except choice (the restriction of the customer's, that is).

This is what you get when you run apple. Literally - you let them dictate the software that you can run, this is the result. Don't like it? Don't use apple.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[larry bagina]

Yesterday (after reading the article), I did some Siri tests with a 4S and my girlfriend's jailbroken 4. For all the tests, the phones were next to each other and I only spoke once for both of them. With no/minimal background noise, they had the same results. With the tele on in the background, the 4S was much more reliable.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[DavidinAla]

Actually, it WAS called Siri before Apple bought it. I still have a copy of the app on my iPhone, although it's useless now since it won't communicate with the server. The original version wasn't exactly what shipping with the iPhone 4S. Yes, it's the same basic technology, but that's it. For whatever reason, it seems as though Apple didn't think the technology was good enough without the add-ons that come with the 4S.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[zonker]

[Citation Required]

Took all of a 5 seconds to find the article on C|net's own site to find this which shows Siri on a 3GS and 4:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-57320077-233/developer-ports-siri-to-iphone-3gs/

But I'm sure you've heard of Google too. Derp.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[roc97007]

But then there'd be no reason to stand in the rain waiting to swap your 4 for a 4s.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

[7]

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, reading TFS, it says they "licensed a new generation of processor IP" -- but if you ask me, that sounds suspiciously like "licensed some DSP code that runs on any sufficiently-powerful DSP, but only paid for a license for their new chip (and pay royalties on the DSP code for every A5, whether it runs Siri or not)" -- cheaper than paying licensing for all manufactured iPhone 4 units (whether or not they use Siri) and provides an incentive to buy the latest. There's absolutely no reason something like that would be implemented in dedicated silicon, it just doesn't make sense. And yeah, it's possible the A4's DSP isn't powerful enough, but I have a hard time seeing how speech cleanup could be more demanding than x264 de/encoding...

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Aerorae]

uh yes the app was called siri back then, I used it myself for over a year. I still have the .ipa file.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[tripleevenfall]

Well, reading TFS, it says they "licensed a new generation of processor IP" -- but if you ask me, that sounds suspiciously like "licensed some DSP code that runs on any sufficiently-powerful DSP, but only paid for a license for their new chip

That would make the statement "Siri can only run on the A5" true, then. It's just that the "why" is not the most obvious why. The why is a legal/contractual why.

I don't know why anybody cares, Siri isn't very useful at the present time anyway.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[pjbgravely]

[Citation Required]

[Authors name required]

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for this test.

This is why Siri is only allowed on the 4S by Apple. It doesn't matter if Siri can run on the iPhone 4 if it's useless 95% of the time in noisy environments. Not to mention the bad reputation iPhone 4 owners would give to Siri.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[jigamo]

You're incorrect about the app having a different name. Apple bought Siri in 2010. The app, called Siri, continued to be available in Apple's app store even after the company was purchased. It was removed from the store when the iPhone 4S was released.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[timeOday]

Interestingly, the link you posted seems to be consistent with this new explanation: "Petrich tells 9to5Mac that the port really only works when no ambient noise is present." In the cnet article they chalk this up to microphone quality, but you would see something similar if it is indeed due to noise removal instead.

Of course, noise remval is still software algorithms, so should be possible without hardware support. Then again, the same can be said for 3d gaming, and it sucks pretty bad without hardware acceleration.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Strange that other manufacturers seem to be able to integrate the same tech entirely in software. The A4 isn't that much slower than Samsung CPUs and has the same NEON instructions. Talk time is comparable so if there is a special DSP in the iPhone it doesn't seem to offer any advantage. Sound quality is no different.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Lucky75]

Yup. It's mainly because the server power needed to process Siri commands is pretty large and Apple didn't want to overload the servers.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[DavidinAla]

I think you're missing the point that what Siri on the iPhone 4S does IS DIFFERENT from what other manufacturers provide. Yes, others do voice recognition, but it's not nearly as good under as many circumstances as what Siri does. Have you seen the various video comparisons (on YouTube) between Siri and Android phones interpreting the same commands? There's no comparison between the two.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Alanbly]

When you write the software assuming that something is done in hardware, it doesn't matter that it could be done in software. You can render most video games in software, but that doesn't mean that you can get away without a GPU that supports OpenGL or DirectX no matter how fast your computer is.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[fooslacker]

I think the key to the correctness of the story and your post for that matter lies largely in the rather subjective definition of "just fine".

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

'Of course, noise remval is still software algorithms, so should be possible without hardware support."

Realtime software always requires hardware support. In fact all software requires hardware support, even if the hardware is a human being with a pencil, a piece of paper, and a wetware co-processor.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

Actually, you mean: [Authors Slashdot ID Required]

Otherwise, though, kudos to you. I don't know why anyone even bothers to reply to ACs who are clearly trolling.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[timeOday]

I am a software architect, dwelling exclusively in the ethereal realm of abstractions, trouble me not with your "physics."

Re:Interesting but wrong

[pjbgravely]

Your right, why didn't I think of that? I even got a flame bait out of it. I just couldn't resist.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[siddesu]

You say it like standing in line for anything is a good thing.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone knows it's because of Steve Jobs communicating from the great beyond.

He wouldn't want something as perfect as Sirii to be installed in an inferior device such as a normal iPhone4.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Belial6]

Obviously it isn't true. Siri has been widely reported to be working on the A4 chip. This is clearly a 'May' situation instead of a 'Can' situation.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing voice recognition and natural language interpretation logic. As such, your perspective is null and void.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

Well, it is perfectly understandable. People who write [citation required] are the second lowest form of Slashdot Scum, with the first being those that post the same ridiculous drivel as an AC. The best response is to send them to the correct citation, of course ;-)

Let those who would mod intelligent responses to inane posts as flamebait choke on that! Cheers!

Re:Interesting but wrong

[DJRumpy]

I don't think you understood the content of the article. 4 and 4S can indeed run Siri, but Siri does it better in the very environments where it's important. Without the noise reduction hardware, Siri doesn't work nearly well enough on an iPhone 4. Lets face it. If you're at home and you need something you have your computer and a full keyboard in front of you. You would probably use them. Siri is typically used out and about where the background noise is the worst. The two have been compared, and in a quiet environment, they are comparable. put them in a noisy room and the iPhone 4 can't compete with the 4S.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

Your question falsely assumes that I was a dipshit about it.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Chuck Chunder]

With the tele on in the background, the 4S was much more reliable.

It is easy to have a poke at Apple as trying to force people to upgrade but there are other reasons for them to be cautious. If Siri did have dubious performance then it would be dismissed as a half-arsed gimmick, likely damaging it's reputation for a long time. As there are a lot more older iPhones out there being used than there are 4S models the majority of people experiencing Siri would be doing so with inferior sound quality and judging it accordingly.

As it is it looks pretty cool but I will probably keep using my 3GS for at least one more generation if it keeps on ticking.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[ColdWetDog]

The big problem with Siri isn't background noise. Siri just isn't all that smart. If you want to do simple things - send a simple text, it sort of works - just like voice commands have sort of worked since, oh, around 2000. If you want to do complex things it sometimes works, but very often screws up. When it screws up, you end up keyboarding the problem. Might as well go for the keyboard in the first place.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[ColdWetDog]

As opposed to being dismissed as a half-arsed gimmick on the 4S?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[roc97007]

> You say it like standing in line for anything is a good thing.

I can't remember the last time I stood in line for anything not food or theater related. I've learned, however, not to go to my favorite coffee drive-thru on the way to work whenever Apple releases a new product. The coffee shop is right next to where the proselyte congregate waiting to receive their new icon, and it's impossible to drive a car through. (Except maybe really really fast, but then I'd have some 'splanin' to do.) (Oh c'mon, it's a joke!)

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed] is always a valid response to an unsourced claim, and any snotty complaint about that is a transparent attempt to pretend that it is up to skeptics to prove your claim wrong when you know that in reality it is up to you to prove yourself right. A lie, in other words.

The only correct replies to [citation needed] are:
1. A citation. Of an actual source. No, Google links do not count. And no whiny passive-aggressive bullshit like you added in your initial response to the AC.
2. An admission that you cannot produce any citation, and so your claim should be treated as suspect until a citation is produced.

Anything else is whining and it is lying. No exceptions.

Yes, that means you, Zero__Kelvin, are a liar and a whiner.

The same applies to pjbgravely, who lied by insinuating that there is any connection between the validity of a post and whether it was made anonymously or pseudonymously. Modding his post as Flamebait was objectively correct, and you are the one who is "choking on that", because you know that you have no choice to agree completely with it.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that there's absolutely no reason that the DSP couldn't be done entirely on the back end for devices that didn't have it; you can't tell me that DSP operations are expensive in relation to, you know, speech recognition.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[DJRumpy]

I'm guessing you've never used it given your response. Texting works very well, assuming you don't have some odd accent it's not programmed to handle. General queries also work well. I find the word recognition to be good enough for day to day. Comparing any voice recognition app to something from 2000 is a stretch in the extreme, and a flat out lie at best. If this was easy, it would be on every platform out there. Take a look at the recent Android attempts to duplicate it.

As to functionality, I find it works relative well for day to day tasks, general texting, and simple management. Then again, I'm not expecting Star Trek in a phone, but rather a phone that does a few things well.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[norpy]

It is also noticeably worse at understanding you when using an external headset rather than the internal microphone.

Even though voice calls on that headset are clear in quite noisy environments, I have had some decent conversations while riding my bike that had a lot less "can you hear me now" than using the built in speakerphone while driving.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds scary. I'm glad I don't live close to an Apple shop.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[wisty]

Voice commands aren't realtime. Initiation has to be realtime ("Listen for 'Siri'"), but cleaning up the whole command can be take a couple of seconds. Realtime software is stuff like synthesizing notes from an electronic keyboard - you don't want the note to play a second after you hit the key. Or cruise control on an airplane - lag is bad when you are trying to land.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it WAS called Siri before Apple bought it. I still have a copy of the app on my iPhone, although it's useless now since it won't communicate with the server.

So, does itunes give you your money back for the purchase? If not, sounds like a good class action lawsuit.

For whatever reason, it seems as though Apple didn't think the technology was good enough without the add-ons that come with the 4S.

My ass. Apple just wants you to buy a new phone.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

Why guess when details of Audience's earSmart technology is easily available in the web. It's a custom DSP (which of course will contain software). It's not software that "any sufficiently-powerful DSP".

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

There's a difference between running and running as well as on the 4S. The demo of noise reduction is impressive.
http://www.audience.com/demos/transmit-noise-en.php
It's easy to see why with that noise reduction, Siri would be much more accurate than without it, in real scenarios.

Apple obviously wants Siri to be judged on it's best performance. They have a reputation for quality to maintain.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[DigiShaman]

Wait a minute. I thought Siri just captured and forwarded the audio to the servers. Surely the mic hardware didn't change much between each iPhone generation. So that leaves the audio cleanup processing to take place at the data center. Based off examples and adaptive software algorithms, an upgrade is just a software update away server-side.

So again, what does the CPU have anything to do with the iPhone aside from faster compression time?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

You've obviously not seen Apple's financial results.
Here's a quick visualisation. The last point for the iPhone line is the 4S.
http://frncs.co/apple/

You might think it's a half-arsed gimmick. But something sold those iPhone 4Ss at an unprecedented rate, way beyond all analyst predictions. And Siri was the number 1 new feature promoted.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[bolthole]

To support the parent post, please note this:
http://www.vlingo.com/apps/iphone

It's free. It does voice recognition. It does web searches, map searches, texts, emails, and facebook/twitter updates.

And it somehow manages to run okay on the iphone 4...

AND EVEN THE 3GS.

The only thing it lacks is the fancy-schmancy siri AI back-end. Which is no no way dependant on the cpu front end you hold in your hand.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[timeOday]

I can't claim to know what Apple does where, but there is a pretty strong incentive to do noise removal on the client - otherwise most of the bits in your compressed stream will be used up encoding high-frequency noise. For example if you try using lame to compress an mp3 from a source with lots of high-frequency noise (such as fan noise in a computer lab) the results are absolutely atrocious. (To be fair, it might have built-in noise filtering option I haven't found, or might have got better since I last tried it).

Re:Interesting but wrong

[milkmage]

agreed. it WILL work on other chipsets, but w/o the background noise scrubbing, it will/could be a lot less accurate... so Apple doesn't enable it because of perceived quality issues .. i did a totally unscientific experiment with Siri. Tuned the radio to the news, cranked the volume up, put the phone right in front of the speaker and asked it to set the timer. it "listened" for longer than it would have w/o the radio on, but only "heard" my question and set the timer.

next i did the same thing but didn't ask a question.
it heard the radio, but didn't get a damn thing right in the "question" - random words.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't say "Siri" when using Siri.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[AK Marc]

[citation needed] is always a valid response to an unsourced claim,

No, it is not. It's an attack done with no thought by the prat who demands such. An actual request for information would be done with politeness and tact. [citation needed] is just an attack by some AC too lazy to refute something. "The sky is blue" "[citation needed]" No, it's not needed.

The only correct replies to [citation needed] are: 1. A citation. Of an actual source. No, Google links do not count. And no whiny passive-aggressive bullshit like you added in your initial response to the AC.

In most cases, putting the sentence preceding [citation needed] into LMGTF comes up with a valid citation supporting the OP. "google links do not count" Why not? They are valid citations. But the "no google" rule is obviously there because the [citation needed] trolls want to justify their lazy idiocy and incompetence.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[im_thatoneguy]

That argument doesn't really hold water though. For iphone 4 they could just only enable Siri when the proximity sensor was active.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[DigiShaman]

True. I haven't thought of that. It would also cut down on the amount of bandwidth and CPU cycles back to the servers too. With all of those iPhones out there, it surely adds up in cost and reliability.

I remember a few years back using a similar app as Siri on my BlackBerry Curve 8330. The accuracy wasn't perfect, but it was the closest thing in comparison with the built voice recognition software. If you've used a BB before, it always started out with "Say a command ...**beep**". Anyways, I used it to Google where I would have my next lunch break. Other than that, it wasn't all that useful.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

>For whatever reason, it seems as though Apple didn't think the technology was good enough without the add-ons that come with the 4S.

By "add-ons", I think you mean profit..

AC

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is not. It's an attack done with no thought by the prat who demands such

You are projecting. Which is another way of saying you are lying.

An actual request for information would be done with politeness and tact. [citation needed] is just an attack by some AC too lazy to refute something.

Setting aside your willfully dishonest assignment of intent, the level of "politeness and tact" is irrelevant to whether or not it is a request for information. You know that too, therefore you are lying again.

Additionally, any charge of "laziness" can only apply to the claimant who neglected to back up his claim. There is not and never can be any onus on the replier to refute the claim, there can only ever be the burden of proof on the claimant. This, too, is something you know to be true and are choosing to lie about.

"The sky is blue" "[citation needed]" No, it's not needed.

That analogy can only be honest if one assumes that absolutely every claim ever made by anyone is verifiable from common knowledge. Since that is not true, your use of this parallel makes you a liar. Again.

In most cases, putting the sentence preceding [citation needed] into LMGTF comes up with a valid citation supporting the OP.

That proves beyond any possibility of doubt that mine is the objectively correct position. If it's easy for the replier to find a valid citation, then it is equally easy for the claimant to find it. And as the claimant is the one who is obligated to cite the source, it is the claimant, not the replier, who is being "lazy" by not looking for it. Of course, you already knew this, and are lying by trying to push the onus onto the replier, in order to justify your own opposition to the idea of being responsible for supporting your own claims.

"google links do not count" Why not? They are valid citations.

No, a Google link is not a valid citation, and never, ever can be. A valid citation is a source. Google is not a source, and does not claim to be. It is merely an index whose use may LEAD you to a source. The same goes for Wikipedia and the like. And the burden of using those tools to find the sources falls entirely upon the claimant. No exceptions can ever exist, and any claim to the contrary is always a lie. That includes such excuses as "this isn't debate class".

But the "no google" rule is obviously there because the [citation needed] trolls want to justify their lazy idiocy and incompetence.

Repeating your projected accusation of laziness does not make it more credible. It is NEVER lazy to point out a claimant's failure to source a claim. It is ALWAYS lazy for the claimant to complain about not having his word accepted at face value. And yes, that IS what the claimant is doing when he responds with anything to the effect of "go look it up yourself".

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Y-Crate]

That argument doesn't really hold water though. For iphone 4 they could just only enable Siri when the proximity sensor was active.

That's not an elegant solution and a shoddy level of product consistency. It would never be implemented.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Y-Crate]

I remember a few years back using a similar app as Siri on my BlackBerry Curve 8330. The accuracy wasn't perfect, but it was the closest thing in comparison with the built voice recognition software. If you've used a BB before, it always started out with "Say a command ...**beep**". Anyways, I used it to Google where I would have my next lunch break. Other than that, it wasn't all that useful.

Earlier versions of the iPhone have simple voice commands too. I never knew of anyone who used them. I'd imagine they were invaluable for the disabled though.

That being said, Siri's real strength is the ability to parse a sentence of natural-language speech and proceed with a multi-stage response. The kicker is that it's really just manipulating a few pieces of info that other apps use all of the time. The people you've texted recently, your address book, your current location, etc.

As annoying as Apple can be sometimes, I have to give them credit for taking a piece of advanced technology, and using it to bind together a bunch of things that already existed, and make them work better together as a unified whole.

- "Hey Siri, wake me up at 8:30 tomorrow"

Siri sets an alarm for 8:30am using the alarm tone you last used. You can specify AM or PM, but otherwise she'll assume you want to get up in the morning.

- "Let Lisa know I'll be late."

Siri figures you're probably trying to text the Lisa you message the most. She writes the text "I'll be late." and offers to send it.

If you've never texted any Lisa before, she'll ask which one you're talking about. She might ask the next few more times you try to text Lisa, and eventually stop asking.

- "Remind me to thaw the chicken when I get home."

Siri is aware of everything in your address book, along with your current location. An alert will pop-up when you get home telling you to "Thaw the chicken."

Again, nothing crazy advanced at work, except some really nice noise-cancelation features and better language parsing than we've seen on a phone before. The other ingredients have been in place for years. It's how they've made them function together that matters. Apple is less about selling you a long list of features, rather than a package that does a shorter list of things very smoothly. You're not talking to a phone, you're just talking. Not "Make new calendar entry. Doctor appointment. 10 am January 20th." but "Remind me to go to the doctor at 10 am on the 20th." It's a subtle difference, but an important one.

How people interact with their computers is just as important as what those computers are capable of.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And the engineers may be afraid that His Jobness would smite them from iHades...

Re:Interesting but wrong

[bitingduck]

I installed Siri on my 3G (not even a 3GS) before Apple adopted it. I never found it particularly useful.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

And it lacks the noise reduction of Siri on the 4S, so it won't be nearly so good at recognising what you say in everyday environments. Like in the car for example.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Any algorithm that can be implemented in a DSP can be implemented in software in CPU, in fact it is extremely unlikely that Audience does not already have a software-based version of their DSP (because software allows rapid prototyping which would cut R&D cost compared to direct-to-hardware R&D); alternatively, they could even choose to run the algorithm on the server-side. The only valid technical reason that the technology cannot be implemented is if the algorithm relies on a specific mic placement or a mic with special technology. From the brief product detail on Audience's page, I can only see that the the technology requires two mics.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

So, does itunes give you your money back for the purchase? If not, sounds like a good class action lawsuit.

Money back on a free app? That's a novel concept. I think they'd need the best lawyer on the world for that one.

My ass. Apple just wants you to buy a new phone.

Argument: "My ass."
Source: Someone with no grasp of the facts.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[EdZ]

But something sold those iPhone 4Ss at an unprecedented rate

The Apple logo on the back, and the work 'new' in the advertisements.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

Neither of those was unprecedented.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Therad]

I also think it has to do with Jobs dying around that time. When celebrities die, they always draws a crowd to their products. There is something in the human nature that makes us vultures.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, now that this deeply scientific test has been conducted, that obviously makes everything different.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, but there is no evidence that this difference is due to some hardware variation. Samsung uses the same tech without special hardware, suggesting it runs entirely in software. So there is apparently no technical reason for it not being on the iPhone 4. As others have speculated it might be a licensing issue, or it might just be a case of not wanted to update older phones with certain new features (which other manufacturers are guilty of too).

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and the Android Market that prohibits using a certain app on your type of device + locked bootloaders don't dictate the software that you can run?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[thegarbz]

You're assuming that some sort of noise reduction isn't already present. May not be the same algorithm, but this isn't an all or nothing game. This is software, and in software things are damn easy to do, replicate, and change between different systems.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[thegarbz]

Let me guess. You're one of those people who bought a PhysX card for your computer thinking the same thing couldn't just run on the GPU?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

That argument doesn't really hold water though. For iphone 4 they could just only enable Siri when the proximity sensor was active.

Sure they could. Others would. This is Apple. They say "you can't do it" and just don't keep you from doing it on your own - just don't come complaining to them.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Truedat]

I don't know why anybody cares, Siri isn't very useful at the present time anyway.

It's right that you qualified this, but all the same I find it incredibly useful right now for a limited number of scenarios. For example to set an alarm I just hold down the home button and say "wake me at six" - that's it, alarm set.

Another example, I'm walking down the street after work and want to send a text to the wife that maybe I'll be late. Well I just hold the phone to my ear, say "send a text" and take it from there. Could never do this obviously using the touch interface.

One more, locating a particular song: "play me Always crashing in the Same Car". That would normally take me ages to do.

All those thing may seem trivial to you, but not having all the options buried deep down to me, seems obviously the way to go. The nerd in me thinks of it as all commands being the same short distance away from me, the discrete metric space.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

That reduces echo, but not other forms of external noise.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

Or it might be a QA issue, which is the case if you listen to the demos...

Re:Interesting but wrong

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Sure, but there is no evidence that this difference is due to some hardware variation. Samsung uses the same tech without special hardware, suggesting it runs entirely in software.

So they put in the Audience chips into their phones and don't use them? Is that your claim? http://www.audience.com/press/press-11-16-2011.php

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

Or they could just not implement it in devices that do not have the hardware acceleration in order to avoid unnecessary power consumption due to audio processing on a general purpose CPU, which is what they did. It's called quality assurance, and is the reason why many other iOS 5 features are not available on the 3GS either.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

I use Siri to set up reminders all the time, anywhere I go, it is a lot simpler than using the visual interface, plus I can interact with the phone in my pocket while listening to music.

Me: "Remind me about umbrella when I leave."
Siri: "OK, here's your a reminder for when you leave your current location, it reads: Umbrella. Shall I create it?"
Me: "Yes."
Siri: "OK, I will remind you."

It's also very useful for taking notes, switching playlists, and calling people. I wish it would also read reminders, notes, and text messages that are not new out loud, but hey, it's beta!

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

I know this will be pretty shocking for you to learn: but copyright laws give authors the right to revoke previously granted licenses at their own discretion, plus software is not subject to any kind of warranties, not even warranties of fitness for particular purposes anywhere I know. The remaining factual errors in your post have already been addressed, so I won't get into them myself.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

How do you know sound quality is no different? Are you comparing the audio that Siri receives to the audio that the other voice recognition software receives? Are you comparing their performance in noisy environments? Are you trolling? Or are you simply clueless?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

Quote a reference, please. Also explain why Macs aren't selling that much better despite having an Apple logo in the back too, some of them even illuminated, with new versions coming out all the time.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Deorus]

The difference there is the wind. It fucks up voice recognition on the iPhone's built-in microphone, too.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[semi-extrinsic]

This proves nothing about noise filtering. It only proves Siri is heavily primed towards recognizing statements such as "Set timer for xx" or "what is closest starbucks". This we have known for a long time. If you set the radio to the news, there is no difference between the "noise" and your voice as far as a computer is concerned. It would be beyond magic if any computer could identify one voice as "noise" and another as "relevant". We're more on the level of filtering out "highway rumble" or "wind noise", which is done based on spectral signatures.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[shilly]

What I'd find fantastically helpful is if it can remind me of the umbrella when I get out of the taxi. That would be ubercool

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Skater]

FWIW, there are other apps that do this. I have two of them on my 3GS - Google's and another one. Both were free. I haven't played with them much, though, so I can't say how well they work.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[drinkypoo]

I know this will be pretty shocking for you to learn: but copyright laws give authors the right to revoke previously granted licenses at their own discretion

[citation needed] ... this is precisely the kind of thing that contract law and first sale were created to prevent.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[coinreturn]

So, does itunes give you your money back for the purchase? If not, sounds like a good class action lawsuit.

Money back on a free app? That's a novel concept. I think they'd need the best lawyer on the world for that one.

FYI: Apple pays triple your money back on free apps.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[coinreturn]

People who write [citation required] are the second lowest form of Slashdot Scum...

[citation required]

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

Voice commands are realtime. They are not hard realtime, but they are soft realtime. Furthermore, capturing the audio itself, regardless of if you do any post-processing, is a realtime (hard) activity.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

Imagine my surprise to discover that you are an advocate of [citation needed], and a troll!

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

You suck at guessing.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Zero__Kelvin]

In this case, I'm glad to oblige !

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

No, it suggests Samsung also has the hardware on some of their phones. And that is in fact the case.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

This is all explained perfectly clearly in TFA.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/06/why_iphone_4_wont_get_siri/

Yes, iPhone has some noise reduction, but it's not nearly as good in speakerphone mode - which is the mode most likely to be used with Siri.

And it IS hardware as well as software, so no, the iPhone 4 can't be upgraded with a software update.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[milkmage]

yes, it does suggest Siri is predispositioned to hear (understand better) simple queries (in this sense query means string of words spoken with inquisitive inflection).. it doesn't do such a good job of "hearing" when it listens to a random radio snippet. the inflection is totally different. Siri's like a dog.. if I say "wanna cookie" with playful inflection, the dog comes. if I say the SAME WORDS with "bad dog!" inflection.. the dog hides. Siri probably doesn't even TRY to parse "unfamiliar" inflection.. which explains why you can use it to take dictation in addition to checking the weather.

still, that doesn't mean noise filtering isn't in play.

listen to the demo from the guy above: http://www.audience.com/demos/transmit-noise-en.php
it's doing EXACTLY what you said it can't.

random radio chatter in the background has a "spectral signature" much the same as the din in a crowded bar.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[bolthole]

Oh-so-clever non-technical solution, to the terrible-sounding technical problem you claim exists: Just put the phone near your mouth. Works great. Even in "noisy" areas.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[bolthole]

Yes, iPhone has some noise reduction, but it's not nearly as good in speakerphone mode - which is the mode most likely to be used with Siri.

So what? In the grand apple spirit of denying users what works poorly... simply disable speakerphone mode for siri on older phones.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[wzinc]

I believe the actual reason is that the iPhone 4 is missing a key sensor that allows you to just hold the phone to your mouth and speak to Siri.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/09/iphone-4s-incorporates-revamped-ir-sensor-for-siris-raise-to-speak-feature/

Re:Interesting but wrong

[MikeBabcock]

If you idiots would read the article, you'd find out the hardware in question is noise-reduction hardware that makes Siri and other voice-recognition work at a longer range properly. Siri would work just fine without the hardware, but not at arm's length on a busy sidewalk.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[ColdWetDog]

Actually I would compare it to, say Dragon Dictate, somewhere around 2000. You could tell the computer to start, stop, save, move the cursor, move blocks of text - all sorts of things. Took some training, but it worked. And worked well. Siri confuses words, really confuses tense and generally acts foolish. Starting what amounts to a straight dictation - yep - 2000 ish.

Maybe it's just me (and thousands of others, apparently), but Siri doesn't impress. If you want your phone to tell you when it's raining - well and good. That sort of fluff doesn't resonate with me.....

Re:Interesting but wrong

[semi-extrinsic]

If your radio news sound like the difference between those two audio clips, I would suggest switching stations. (Also, I didn't know Fox makes radio noise^H^H^H^H^Hnews.)

The background noise is just that - noise. It mostly sound like white noise, although I can also hear something that sounds like a forklift. I can definitely not single out any voices, and I'm using the most advanced neural network on the planet with tens of years of training. The demo is in no way the same as filtering out one voice as compared to another.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding? Voice recognition in 2000 was painful. You - Had - To - Pause - After - Each - And - Every - Word. There is no comparison. I think you just forget how poor it was a decade ago.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

Yes, Apple denies users what works poorly. No handsfree mode would still work poorly - people would be wondering why Siri doesn't work on their phone like it does for other people, or on the adverts. Hence no SIri support for iPhone 4.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

Most of the output of Siri is visual. So it's be a case of bringing phone to moth and back again each time. And it wouldn't work at all in the most common use case - whilst driving a car.

Your solution isn't as clever as you think. Amazingly you didn't manage to outthink Apple. Does this surprise you?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, you're comparing a product that's been developed at LEAST a year by a multibillion dollar company to (not all) 90% functional products out, what? 4-5 months? By startup companies?

A good amount of Android (again, not all) and presumably some apps (unless they were pulled, wouldn't surprise me) of apps are roughly equal (if not surpass).

Re:Interesting but wrong

[AK Marc]

You are projecting. Which is another way of saying you are lying.

Just like that comment, it is an insult that adds nothing to the conversation.

Repeating your projected accusation of laziness does not make it more credible. It is NEVER lazy to point out a claimant's failure to source a claim.

When verification of the claim takes less effort than pointing out the lack of a source, then it is lazy and filled with malice. I'm not projecting. I'm stating fact. [citation needed] demonstrates a complete lack of worth of the person who states it. "Projection" would mean that when I use it, I find myself worthless, so I'm projecting that feeling onto others who do that. That is not the case. As such, your "projection" claims are lies used to cover up your complete lack of worth as a person. You are so evil and cowardly that you can't even be bothered to login to the site you comment on, and responding to a thread like this as an AC takes more effort than making a login and tracking it as a logged in user, so you take great effort in order to remain AC, proving your intentional malice.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[poetmatt]

except that every phone released in the last 5-10 years already has noise reduction software of increasingly better quality built in to every phone. Hell, even the iphone 4 had substantially improved noise cancelling - in fact, one might even say it's identical to the 4s, cept that it's not on a chip.

So it will be just as good at recognizing what you say in everyday environments when it comes to audio microphone capability.

Whether it's as polished or not, will be up to vlingo.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

except that every phone released in the last 5-10 years already has noise reduction software of increasingly better quality built in to every phone. Hell, even the iphone 4 had substantially improved noise cancelling

Uh huh.

- in fact, one might even say it's identical to the 4s, cept that it's not on a chip.
So it will be just as good at recognizing what you say in everyday environments when it comes to audio microphone capability.

Your conclusion isn't supported by your argument.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Unsurprisingly, your comment consists entirely of lies.

Just like that comment, it is an insult that adds nothing to the conversation.

Lie. I am demonstrating your dishonesty and the ease with which it is exposed. That alone is a greater contribution than anything you have said in this thread.

When verification of the claim takes less effort than pointing out the lack of a source, then it is lazy and filled with malice

Here you lie three times in one sentence. It's actually a bit impressive, in a way.

The first lie is that typing two words "takes less effort than pointing out the lack of a source". This is so obviously untrue that there can be no possibility whatsoever that you actually believe it, as you know perfectly well it would take greater effort to look up the subject in a search engine, even if one generously assumes that the very first result would substantiate the claim perfectly. Therefore, you are lying.

The second lie, precluded on the false premise you introduce in the first, is that the replier is being "lazy" by taking the option you claim as being the greater effort. Again, this is too obviously false for the possibility to exist that you actually believe it yourself, and as such it can only be a lie.

The third lie is the false claim of a link between the effort involved in a reply and the emotional state of the replier. You know that these things are independent of one another; the reply can be any combination of short/long and respectful/disrespectful. To name two examples, "Source, please?" takes even less effort than "[citation needed]" but is slightly more respectful, whereas a profanity-ridden paragraph is long and disrespectful. [citation needed] itself is short, and occupies neither extreme of the respect/disrespect axis. Therefore, any attempt to assign it any level of "malice" is entirely projected, and that remains true in spite of your feeble protests.

I'm not projecting. I'm stating fact.

You yourself prove this to be a lie in the very next sentence you write...

[citation needed] demonstrates a complete lack of worth of the person who states it.

[citation needed] demonstrates, self-evidently, the need for a citation. That is the only thing it demonstrates. If you attempt to assign any emotional content such as "lack of worth" to it, that content is entirely invented by you, and therefore originates from you. So a projection is the only thing it can ever be. You yourself believe that you are worthless, and are trying to escape that (correct) feeling by passing it off onto others. It isn't working.

"Projection" would mean that when I use it, I find myself worthless, so I'm projecting that feeling onto others who do that. That is not the case

You have already shown that it is.

As such, your "projection" claims are lies used to cover up your complete lack of worth as a person.

Here you ineptly attempt to turn my own technique against me. In so doing, you are admitting that my use of it has devastated you completely because everything I have said to you is completely correct - after all, that is the only possible reason you would seek to ape it in turn.

You are so evil and cowardly that you can't even be bothered to login to the site you comment on

Yet again you lie, by saying that is is "evil and cowardly" to post anonymously instead of pseudonymously. It is not, and no honest case can be made that it is, no matter what some whimsical convention of Slashdot's design says. The simple fact is that some people, myself included, do not want or need an account. And you know that. This descent into unfounded personal attacks is not only a lie in and of itself, but also a pathetic attempt at distraction; you hope to direct a

Re:Interesting but wrong

[AK Marc]

as you know perfectly well it would take greater effort to look up the subject in a search engine, even if one generously assumes that the very first result would substantiate the claim perfectly. Therefore, you are lying

Not for me. Perhaps you are incompetent, but opening a new window for me takes a single click. It opens on a search page line, so I type in what I'm curious about. Even if it's not the first hit, it's a mouse wheel scroll to read the rest of the first page. You have malicious laziness to not make one click and type one sentence. That's easier than replying, and much much easier than following a thread as an AC.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[exomondo]

And it lacks the noise reduction of Siri on the 4S, so it won't be nearly so good at recognising what you say in everyday environments. Like in the car for example.

I wonder why they didn't implement the noise-reduction server-side given that they send the audio data anyway. I've been using both Siri and TellMe in the car and neither stands out as any more accurate than the other when doing things like getting them to call or text people and dictating messages. I believe TellMe does its noise-reduction on the server, i could be wrong there though.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Argument: "My ass."
Source: Someone with no grasp of the facts.

Then why isnt Siri better than other solutions wrt voice recognition?

ACs don't bother. You're filtered. I don't even know you're there.

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA obvious bullshit is obvious! You just replied to an AC! Nice one pompous fuckwit!
by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 06, @08:45PM (#38948675)

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Your question correctly assumes that I was a dipshit about it. For that I apologize.

FTFY

Re:Interesting but wrong

[exomondo]

I know this will be pretty shocking for you to learn: but copyright laws give authors the right to revoke previously granted licenses at their own discretion

What copyright laws give that right?

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

- "Hey Siri, wake me up at 8:30 tomorrow"

Sorry, I can only look for businesses in the United States, and when you're using US. English.

- "Let Lisa know I'll be late."

Sorry, i don't understand 'Let the snow fall at 8'

- "Remind me to thaw the chicken when I get home."

I would take one, as it's going to be 4c today.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Also explain why Macs aren't selling that much better despite having an Apple logo in the back too, some of them even illuminated, with new versions coming out all the time.

Macs aren't carrier-subsidized.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[BasilBrush]

I wonder why they didn't implement the noise-reduction server-side given that they send the audio data anyway.

They also want the noise reduction for ordinary phone calls, so it has to be built in to the phone regardless.

Also, one of the tricks of noise reduction is to use multiple microphones. Doing the noise reduction on the server would mean sending multiple audio streams and not just one. And clean audio is probably more compressible than noisy audio too, which adds the the difference in data size.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[exomondo]

They also want the noise reduction for ordinary phone calls, so it has to be built in to the phone regardless.

I suppose.

Also, one of the tricks of noise reduction is to use multiple microphones. Doing the noise reduction on the server would mean sending multiple audio streams and not just one. And clean audio is probably more compressible than noisy audio too, which adds the the difference in data size.

Really the issue then is that you need specialized hardware on the client end as well as connectivity to the server. Rather than just any audio source connecting to the service.

Re:Interesting but wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Prior to Siri being released it was an APP in the App store, folks I knew used the silly thing and no it wasn't called Siri. Apple had purchased the technology\application and about a week before Siri was released on the 4s the app stopped working as the back end servers were shutdown. I never loaded the app but wish I had because while Siri is interesting it certainly wasn't so interesting as to be a compelling upgrade from an iPhone 4. Siri, like the app before it, is a work in progress for sure! If I can recall the app name or get hold of the friend that was using it I'll post the app name - obviously it's no longer available in the app store and hasn't been for some time now.

Prior to Siri being released it was an APP in the App store, folks I knew used the silly thing and no it wasn't called Siri. Apple had purchased the technology\application and about a week before Siri was released on the 4s the app stopped working as the back end servers were shutdown. I never loaded the app but wish I had because while Siri is interesting it certainly wasn't so interesting as to be a compelling upgrade from an iPhone 4. Siri, like the app before it, is a work in progress for sure! If I can recall the app name or get hold of the friend that was using it I'll post the app name - obviously it's no longer available in the app store and hasn't been for some time now.

. I never loaded the app but wish I had because while Siri is interesting it certainly wasn't so interesting as to be a compelling upgrade from an iPhone 4. Siri, like the app before it, is a work in progress for sure! If I can recall the app name or get hold of the friend that was using it I'll post the app name .
bad credit loans

Oh, great...

[ibsteve2u]

improving its technology to handle 'far-field speech,' which means holding the device at arm's length rather than directly in front of the mouth

I thought cell phone users were annoying enough when they constantly raised their voice as if the other end were deaf; now people are going to be yelling at their phones from across the room.

Re:Oh, great...

[nman64]

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Re:Oh, great...

[Gilmoure]

Wait until they set up the iPhone to hang on the wall, with an earpiece you hold up to your head when making a call.

Re:Oh, great...

[ibsteve2u]

lollll...ya mean one of these as an iPhone dock?

Re:Oh, great...

[phoenix_rizzen]

My biggest pet peeve with cell phone users are those who *always* use the speakerphone. It's bad enough I have to listen to your side of the conversation. I don't need to hear the other side of it.

And even worse are those who have it on speakerphone *and* hold it within 6 inches of their face. Being on the other end of such calls sounds like someone crinkling aluminum foil ... it's barely decipherable as words.

It's a phone. Use it like a phone. Stick it to the side of your head. You know, where the ear and cheek are. It's okay that the phone only reaches halfway down your cheek. The microphone will pick up your voice when you talk normally. It's designed to work that way.

The worst part is that it's not even old people doing it. It's young people, who were "raised with technology" that do it the most.

Re:Oh, great...

[tombeard]

No, now that our government approved tracking/monitoring device can hear side conversations as well its utility in enhanced.

Re:Oh, great...

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why would they yell across the room? Are they going to hold the home button down until it chirps, walk away to the opposite end of the room, and shout "CALL MOM"?

Re:Oh, great...

[ibsteve2u]

There is that...every iPhone user a walking, talking surveillance machine. I wouldn't even go so far as to say Apple planned it that way - but if the capability exists, someone in the ever more empowered "A" agencies will see utilizing it as...part of their job.

Re:Oh, great...

[Gilmoure]

Hey, that'd work, except get rid of that spinner thing and mount the phone there.

Re:Oh, great...

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, that might be handy, for oh, 'dialing' a number, to coin a phrase... Not to mention, it's roughly as sophisticated and ergonomic as the clickwheel, the pinnacle of Apple 'innovation'...

Re:Oh, great...

[tftp]

The worst part is that it's not even old people doing it. It's young people, who were "raised with technology" that do it the most.

1. That's how Captain Kirk used to hold his communicator.
2. This is also typical for using handheld microphones.
3. You do not want to hold the phone against your ear when your body is in motion - the phone would be moving too much.
4. Your arm will be less tired if you hold the phone in front of you (try it right now.)

Re:Oh, great...

[Deorus]

Apple TV?

Re:Oh, great...

[Deorus]

The capability exists on any modern cell phone, they're all full of sensors. Two cameras facing different ways, one or two microphones, location data from GPS and AGPS, touch-screens, accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, light-sensors, and proximity-sensors all permanently connected to a network, and most likely to the Internet as well. If a government agency wanted to have every phone in the world bugged, they could. There's no way for most people, even the teardown crowd, to tell what's in a SOC, and there's plenty of software for which you don't have the source due to regulatory reasons, even on the most open of devices, such as the Nokia N9, like the baseband...

If you are that suspicious and have reasons to hide anything from a government, refrain from appearing in public places (at least without a face mask, which serves two purposes: prevents others from seeing you and bits of your skin from falling off), remove all your body hair in order to reduce the chances of leaving DNA samples behind, wear gloves all the time to avoid leaving fingerprints behind, carry a bag with disposable plastic utensils for your own use, and find a way to safely dispose of them after use, possibly as far away from your base as you possibly can, so that nobody can track you down from traces of saliva in your utensils.

Even then, there are still personal traits that can't be avoided, such as the way you move, your voice, and your smell.

Re:Oh, great...

[ibsteve2u]

Be easier to take advantage of the infinite trust in "the database" and change who (and where) you are supposed to be - or have been - at need, don't you think?

Re:Oh, great...

[phoenix_rizzen]

If you're talking so much that your arm is constantly getting tired, such that find yourself using the speakerphone all the time, then plug in that handsfree headphones, or buy a Bluetooth headset.

There's no rhyme or reason to be walking around blasting your conversation at 100% volume for everyone to hear.

No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

The iPhone 4 doesn't come with Siri.

I'm sorry Apple chose not to go out of their way to retroactively add a server-side feature to your year-old phone. If you think that's a dick move, give the Android update model a try.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Kenja]

But the iPhone 4 use to run Siri. Apple removed it from the App Store, broke everyones existing copy by blocking it from the servers and then made it a 4S exclusive.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[toadlife]

The Android update model's been working great for me. My Samsung Epic shipped with Eclair and has since been updated to Froyo, and Gingerbread. Samsung is working on another update to the phone right now, 17 months after the phone's initial release.

Fully functional and stable CM7 and CM9 builds for the Epic are also available from the community.

Come to think of it, you don't even need an Android phone for the Android update model to work for you. I was running Android on my Touch Pro 2 before I got the Epic!

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Darkness404]

The Android update model:

1) Flash the latest CyanogenMod

2) Update it when the update comes out

Not too hard (at least on the newer phones, some older ones need exploits)

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

So to get updates on Android, you firstly have to remove the software which the manufacturer intended for that device? Is that because the manufacturer generally no longer gives a shit once they've taken your money? And on older phones, you need to use exploits in order to get updates? Wow, I really want an Android phone now.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[gparent]

Or if you have a reference phone:

1) Wait for the updates to come to your phone automatically
2) Start flashing Cyanogenmod the day the phone comes out of support, with a single command needed for the bootloader unlock.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://epiccm.blogspot.com/p/cm9-status.html

Perfectly... stable?

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Vegemeister]

No different than buying a computer that comes with Windows.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Darkness404]

Android isn't perfect, but its the best there is. Your choices in the smartphone world are:

1) iOS, you know the one with draconian app approval process only 1 form factor, and planned obsolescence.

2) Android, not that great of a UI, but lots of apps, a multitude of form factors, but semi-official community updates give you a long life. Consider the G1 (HTC Dream) the first Android phone, it can run (unofficially) the latest release (Ice Cream Sandwich) although it is a bit slow. But the phone is usable with Gingerbread, the main release.

3) Windows Phone 7, too new to really say much about it, I think that 2012 will be the year of make it or break it when it comes to Windows Phone 7, its certainly interesting and might be promising.

4) All other smaller OSes (WebOS, Meego, Maemo, Symbian, etc.) have some good ideas but ultimately crippled by either lackluster support, lackluster hardware, lack of apps or lack of actually getting your phone out to customers (I'm looking at you Nokia).

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[AK Marc]

I did, and Siri doesn't run on my Android either.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[smash]

Where "semi-official" = not official at all and unsupported by the hardware manufacturer.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a fairly exposed labatterie break that has inconsistent surf.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

You overlooked:

0) Try every rooting program you can find on XDA Developers, without success

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

So much disingenuity and misinformation in your post it's hard to know where to start.

iOS, you know the one with draconian app approval process

You mean the one that isn't full of Chinese, key-logging malware and 100 anti-virus/anti-malware packages to counter said malware?

planned obsolescence

You're either joking, trolling or plain ignorant of the facts. Android manufacturers are notoriously poor at updates. What percentage of the phones released in the last year will ever see an official ICS update? 1%? 2%? Let's be overly generous and say 5%. How many of the iPhones released in the last 3 years have iOS5? That's right, 100%/

semi-official community updates

"Community" updates are not official in any way, shape or form.

Gingerbread, the main release.

Gingerbread is the "main" release? Really? How do you figure? Oh and, by the way, the last official update for the G1 was 1.6, with cyanogenmod 6 taking it to, 2.1 Froyo, not Gingerbread.

tl;dr you're full of shit but feel free to continue wasting your life fucking around with phones

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[L4t3r4lu5]

2) Android, not that great of a UI

Which one? I'll agree that stock is a little bare, but Sense? Go Launcher? ADW? Regina 3D? SPB Mobile? The new ICS UI? The point of Android is you have the choice. You can choose to have it look like an iPhone, or Windows 7, or your favourite Anime, or a plate of spaghetti. It's up to you.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[MikeBabcock]

From the "official version of Android" perspective, considering it is open source, CyanogenMod is technically no less official than Samsung's spin on Android, except that one is from Samsung and the other isn't. From the "official Samsung product" perspective, all they did was hack a third party piece of code (Android) to work on their phone; that's about as official as the version of Windows that shipped with my old Dell. Is the Dell hardware any less supported on Linux? No. You just need to run Windows on it to prove its a hardware error if they don't have Linux tests developed for it.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[Anonymous Coward]

5) Blackberry.

And 2) with a well chosen phone, you WILL have official updates for the lifetime of the phone: see Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus. It's up to you to decide. (Main reason most phones can't be updated is internal app storage; most are quite limited due to partitioning choices. The S and GN have a unified storage model *BUT* lose USB mass storage as a result.

---
And the best part of it all is? They can all leverage the Android Market (or at least Android app devs) *IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO*. Blackberry is with their Android Player.

This is one of the reasons why Android rocks / is gamechanging IMHO. It's all open-source and royalty free, so ANY company can get a massive jump start by simply including a Dalvik player.

i.e. You're starting your own OS? HERE, HAVE 500,000 APPS.

Re:No, Siri won't run on the iPhone 4 because...

[toadlife]

Whoops. Guess they have a bit of work to do on that build.

It's only been public for a couple of weeks though.

CM7 is solid.

That must be why it works just as well on A4

[Superken7]

I have tried Siri on a jailbroken iPhone 4 and it works just as well, I did not notice any difference.
I doubt this is a major reason for not enabling this on the iPhone 4, especially when taking into account how little difference "just" the improved camera and a dual core processor is to most users.

I would think the improved hardware sensor played a major role, but again, Siri worked just as well for me on an iPhone 4.

Also, I'm surprised that they advertise as "removing most or all of the background noise", while Siri did a fairly good job of knowing who was talking to her, it gets confused too often, which means that it won't work very well if other people in the room are talking.

Re:That must be why it works just as well on A4

[Anonymous Coward]

So Siri worked well for you, or it didn't work well? I can't tell. Maybe the noise reduction in the A5 would have given better results for when other people were talking.

Re:That must be why it works just as well on A4

[Lucky75]

Server load is the main reason for limiting Siri's use to 4S owners.

Mystery?

[Evro]

I always assumed the answer was something to the effect of:

boolean siriEnabled() {
    return (system.cpu.version >= 5.0);
}

Is anything else really needed? They don't want to support it on older models so you have to buy the new one. Conversely, if you really want the feature, buy the latest phone. Personally I find Siri an overhyped piece of junk. I have a 4S and I disabled it because it kept getting activated randomly and rarely understood my commands. Plus for the basic stuff like weather, I can just open the app. The anecdotal crap like "Will I need an umbrella today?" is just a dumb gimmick to me. But anyway, the fact is that the 4S is really an incremental improvement over the 4, and Siri is the one feature Apple can point to on the 4S as a differentiator, so they enforce that differentiation.

Re:Mystery?

[evil_aaronm]

@"randomly activated": reminds me of a client I had that called me in because gibberish kept appearing on his screen when using MS Word. I looked at this and that, and then realized he'd left the voice recognition on and it was inserting the interpreted speech. I called him over to the desk and said, "Watch this," turned to his mic and said, "Microsoft sucks." It inserted "Microsoft socks". Close enough.

Re:Mystery?

[PintoPiman]

Hold it up and say "remind me to do the laundry when I get home." Maybe you don't care about that, but I find it awesome.

Good article, bad summary

[MobyDisk]

Possibly true: Siri uses a unique feature of the iPhone 4S.
False: Siri won't run on the iPhone 4

Siri runs just fine on jailbroken a iPhone 4, and it ran just fine on an iPhone 4 Before apple removed it. Kudos to the authors for enhancing Siri to use new features of the A5 chip. Good job to the researcher who figured this out. But shame on anyone who uses this as FUD to make Apple look like they didn't cripple their own product to force people to upgrade.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I see this differently. Siri uses a feature of the 4S to work more reliably (by doing a better job of filtering background noise). Yes it runs on the 4, but not as well, so it makes sense that Apple would disable it entirely. The only thing worse than not having access to a new feature is having it not work, which reflects badly on the company that created it.

Apple is not in the habit of releasing half-finished features. They either don't have a feature, or they do it right. Apparently they didn't think Siri on the iPhone 4 was good enough to enable. I'm sure there are other reasons, one of them surely being driving upgrades, but this seems like a perfectly legitimate reason to not enable a feature.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe they wanted Siri to work really well, - even if there's background noise.

Apple's now defunct Newton was laughed at over the original version's poor handwriting recognition. Even though it improved immensely over time, lots of folks never got over that initial bad impression.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

You're very entitled to think that Apple (or any other company) should give you a product for free. What is wrong with a for-profit company restricting a selling point to a profitable item and not giving it away for free?

Is it unethical that Nvidia turns off parts of a GPU to sell you a "lower" version if the GPU at a lower price? Should they be forced to implement all possible features and remove product lines?

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Kenja]

The issue is that Siri was free, and then Apple took it away and made it an exclusive feature of a new phone so people would buy it. Personally, I dont care. But the claim that there is any technical reason for it other then to get people to buy new hardware doesn't stack up. Sure, it may run better on the 4S, but it was running fine on the 3GS at one point.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Miseph]

"Yes it runs on the 4, but not as well, so it makes sense that Apple would disable it entirely"

Given the nature of the feature, the same could be said for simply using it as a phone, and by your logic it would make sense for Apple to disable the use of all iPhones older than the 4S as telephones...

It would be a pretty aggressive business model, though.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[MobyDisk]

I understand with that philosophy, and I would agree if it had not already been available on the iPhone 4 for over a year then pulled it from the market after Apple bought the company.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I liken it to the new voice recognition systems in the average car these days.

While the tech works pretty well if the car isn't moving and / or the interior is dead silent, it is utterly useless when the car is actually at speed. The interior road noise just kills the damn thing completely. To the point where I won't even try to use it if moving at all.

. . . while on the freeway . . .

Me: Call Home
Car: You said Mall . . . .
Me: WTF ? Mall . . how the hell did . . .
Car: The nearest Mall is 4.2 miles away . . .
Me: No, no no. . . CALL HOME
Car: Ok. Calling Brian . . on cell at home or on other ?
Me: OH FOR F*CKS SAKE . . . HOME. . CALL HOME . . H-O-M-E
Car: I didn't understand that . . . . . .
Me: BECAUSE YOU'RE A F*CKING RETARD BUILT BY RETARDS
Car: Can you repeat that ?
Me: SPAAAAAAAAAAAARTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHH

Re:Good article, bad summary

[SomePgmr]

"Wrong" is subjective here.

Apple is certainly allowed to create artificial barriers and encourage people to upgrade devices. Yes, even if those barriers are motivated entirely by profit.

Meanwhile, potential and existing customers could and should evaluate Apple's business tendencies and attitude towards existing customers. That's part of what a rational consumer does before making any future purchases.

Both sides can and do exhibit varied expectations measured against reality. You called it "entitlement". The rest of us just call it "business".

Re:Good article, bad summary

[gamanimatron]

That depends on what you mean by "running fine." There's a major difference between "this works well enough we could charge a couple bucks for the app" and "this works well enough we're going to hype up the next version of our flagship hardware with it."

Re:Good article, bad summary

[narcc]

There's a major difference between "this works well enough we could charge a couple bucks for the app" and "this works well enough we're going to hype up the next version of our flagship hardware with it."

Too true! To charge a couple bucks means the app must work well consistently.

To hype the next version of a flagship product, it just needs to work most of the time.

To be a flagship product, it only needs to be minimally functional.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[ColdWetDog]

Apple is not in the habit of releasing half-finished features. They either don't have a feature, or they do it right.

I don't understand that philosophy, at least as it relates to Apple. They have a history of pushing out iOS upgrades that tend to degrade performance on older machines, requiring a point release to improve it enough to be viable.

Apple is just as bad as everyone else in terms of dumping half baked concepts out there. In fact, I think Apple does less testing than some other vendors. I never upgrade any Apple device until the .3 rev shows up. I never buy the first generation of Apple hardware.

And I like Apple, in general. But this idea that somehow they're perfectionists is really pixie dust.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[cbhacking]

Given the antenna troubles, by that argument they should have removed the ability to place phone calls in the first update to the iPhone 4!

Yes, voice recognition with background noise is a problem... but claiming that the new processor is *the* reason for its exclusivity is quite ridiculous.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Jeremi]

To be a flagship product, it only needs to be minimally functional.

If Apple wants to use it to differentiate their phones from the competition, then at a minimum it has to not suck -- which (given the sordid history of computer voice recognition) is a higher bar than you might think.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[phantomfive]

But shame on anyone who uses this as FUD to make Apple look like they didn't cripple their own product to force people to upgrade.

Wow, FUD has lost all it's original meaning and has taken on a completely different meaning.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Ihmhi]

by your logic it would make sense for Apple to disable the use of all iPhones older than the 4S as telephones...

It would be a pretty aggressive business model, though.

Somewhere in Cuptertino, a marketing executive just creamed his pants.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Deorus]

1 - The app was free;
2 - Siri was supposed to be a distinctive feature of the iPhone 4S and iOS 5, so it would be pretty bad if it was half-assed;
3 - Given how much negative press they got from the antenna problems on the iPhone 4 (problems shared by other brands as well, including Nokia who joked about it, and that unknowingly to many people are caused by the FCC making requirements regarding antennas being positioned at the bottom, something that the iPhone 4S partly worked around by extending a smaller secondary antenna to the top this time, which the FCC miraculously approved), it is natural that they are now extra careful about quality assurance when releasing anything to the market.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[Deorus]

I don't see how existing customers would have anything to worry about, considering that their phones work the same. As far as older customers are concerned, an app from the app store was discontinued because its authors were offered money for the technology. I buy a product for what it currently does, not for what it's gonna do in 12 months. If the same brand releases a better product with better functionality in 12 months, I will buy that too. I see no reason to feel entitled to that functionality just because it was technically possible to implemented it on the product that I currently have, because it didn't have that functionality when I bought it, and I considered it fair deal at the time.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[shilly]

I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. They never release a major new feature, which they are marketing as being a step-change improvement in usability compared to any existing competitor solutions, without being sure that it can broadly deliver on its promises. Two examples: Safari on iPhone really was the first decent implementation of a browser on a phone; no mainstream phone had a decent touchscreen with multitouch before the iPhone. Of course, both features have been dramatically improved since then.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[MobyDisk]

Granted. Inappropriate use of the term.

Re:Good article, bad summary

[narcc]

2 - Siri was supposed to be a distinctive feature of the iPhone 4S and iOS 5, so it would be pretty bad if it was half-assed;

I think you missed the point of my post. Still I couldn't resist replying to point 2. As you probably already know Siri is still in beta and can't do many of the things similar programs could do long before the iP5 hit the scene. I don't know what you call "half-assed", but they did release an incomplete product that's still in beta and promoted it as a key feature of their new product.

Mine works fine

[anethema]

I am using Spire to enable Siri on my i4 and it seems to work fine. I can use it fine while it is sitting in the dock in my truck about 4 feet from my mouth with tire, engine, and heater noise going. Not sure if it works better on a 4S but there are quite a few people using Siri on jailbroken i4's without problems.

Re:Mine works fine

[Pausanias]

Do you also have a 4S with a proxy server installed? Where are all these people getting access to a Siri proxy? Are you trying to tell me I can install Spire and it will "just work?"

Re:Mine works fine

[ThatsMyNick]

Tire, engine and heater noise are easier to filter out. Try it with the radio on, or while someone else is speaking at the same time.

Re:Mine works fine

[evil_aaronm]

Have to agree with this. My cochlear implant, circa 1997, has a "filter" mode that works great to attenuate road noise, air-conditioner hum, vacuum cleaners, and lots of other repetitious sounds. It's not so good in a crowded room with lots of people talking.

Re:Mine works fine

[anethema]

No I use a proxy online. Modmyi recently posted an article about working online servers.

Re:Mine works fine

[anethema]

True. It seems to work okay but I don't have a 4S to compare against so not sure how much worse it is if any.

Needs work

[It doesn't come easy]

Siri is interesting, and probably a good start, but the noise filtering routines need work. When I try to use Siri in my noisy, diesel powered Jeep, well let me just say that the results can be quite amusing. I wonder, to improve the routines does the chip have to be redone?

Re:Needs work

[iluvcapra]

In my rather normal Mazda hatchback, my phone can be in its cradle in the dashboard, about three feet away, and the transcription is generally faultless; definitely different results when I try to use it with the radio on :)

Does "Ear Smart" enhance other functions?

[wisebabo]

Is this audio cleanup technology on for "normal" use I.e. making phone calls? Can it be switched on or off in Apps so that, for example, a program like Skype could use it? Maybe Apple should provide an API for it (I assume they haven't already).

Is it (the algorithms) very processor intensive? Would that preclude a software only version of it running as a background process on a jail broken phone? Will the (rumored) upcoming quad core chips be able to run it without dedicated silicon?

By the way, I recently had the pleasure of going up in a small private plane and, in the cockpit, wore some headsets which remarkably cut out the background noise but recognized whenever we spoke. Is that what this technology does?

Many here missed the point

[UnknowingFool]

There is already a dozen comments or so about how the article is wrong because Siri works on a jailbroken iPhone 4. That was never the point of the article. We know that it will work because of the jailbreaks. The question is why Apple didn't allow it to work on the 4. The article suggests a hardware limitation in that while the A4 chip can run Siri it lacks the much better audio processing the A5 has to remove background noise. Design wise this means that the Siri was meant to be used at a distance instead of always next to user's mouth. Also this means the 4S should be able to handle noise better. This is speculation but a reasonable one as I can see Apple not releasing a feature for quality reasons even if people disagree it is really a valid reason for them.

Re:Many here missed the point

[tomhath]

Design wise, Siri was one of the "you're not cool unless you have this" features that Apple used to dupe their customers into buying a new phone.

Re:Many here missed the point

[QuasiSteve]

Except that there's a difference between "not releasing" for older iPhone models and "removing from" older iPhone models. Yes, I know Siri-as-on-4S is not the same as what was available from the App Store before.

Think of it, if you will, as follows:
Apple buys Rovio Mobile. Then they take Angry Birds, and make a better version - one that uses the reality distortion field sensor in the iPhone 5, perhaps. Then they disable Angry Birds on the 4S and every model prior, citing quality issues on earlier models that make for an inferior experience.

Far-fetched? Sure. Now instead replace it with a sat nav app - iPhone 5 has a better GPS, so they disable support on earlier models citing quality issues. Or a stargazing app - iPhone 5 has a better set of accelerometer/compass sensors, so they disable support on earlier models citing quality issues.

Yes, it might save them from user complaints that the sky view is sometimes twitchy, that the nav app puts them on the wrong road in downtown NY, or that the angry birds are at times not particularly angry just as Siri might misunderstand a few commands once in a while (and there's no shortage of that even on the 4S). But is that a valid reason for pulling the feature from the devices?

Compare this to the Asus Transformer Prime. Its GPS apparently has issues. Rather than disabling it, they informed their users about it, offered updates that address it (but don't fix it entirely) and told users they can take it back for a refund, and removed the GPS feature from advertising materials so that those looking to buy one should know that the unadvertised GPS feature is, well, unadvertised.. use at own peril.

Apple's case would be even simpler, as iPhones didn't ship with Siri until the 4S - so existing users wouldn't have any expectation as to the reliability of the feature beyond that which they were used to, and they could still simply not offer it to new users.

Re:Many here missed the point

[UnknowingFool]

I'm pretty sure every manufacturer tries to get new features in their phones so that you will buy them. The only people that seemed overly concerned whether a feature is cool are the fanboys and the haters. Most people see a new feature and merely add it to the plus category when deciding on a model.

Apple/Audience buyout. . .

[JSBiff]

"'Why Apple has not simply purchased Audience is unclear."

Perhaps it's because Audience doesn't want to be bought? Even without Siri, it sounds like that tech would be useful in EVERY SINGLE PHONE - would make conversations a bit easier in noisy locations.

Audience probably figures that by broadly licensing the tech to every phone company in the world, they'll make MORE MONEY that Apple would be willing to offer them. At least, they might be betting on it.

Applications outside of phones. . .

[JSBiff]

A moment's more reflection, and not only does the tech sound useful for every phone - sounds useful for any device with a microphone - video cameras, sound boards, computers, public address systems, teleconferencing systems, voice control systems in cars, voice control systems for customer support call-center use, etc.

It sounds like one of those rare instances of a technology which has almost universal applications.

Re:Applications outside of phones. . .

[idontgno]

Yeah. And Apple owning the implementation of the technology would be a substantial roadblock those who want the ubiquity of public closed-circuit TV with the power of Echelon. Every microphone being monitored, decoded, and analyzed by AI, producing a constant flow of actionable intelligence.

No, you're right, I'm probably just being paranoid.

Re:Applications outside of phones. . .

[Baloroth]

And Apple owning the tech would be a roadblock how, exactly? It's not like someone doing that would have any qualms about using the tech illegaly.

Re:Applications outside of phones. . .

[Tim C]

Why would they have to be doing it illegally? I'm sure if they waved enough money at Apple they'd get a licence - Apple would have no reason not to licence it to them, even if they withheld it from competitors.

Apple hates the dreaded F-word

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on, so there's a cell phone of a particular OS which appears to have different capabilities and thus can't run the same software as its immediate predecessor. And both of them are on the market at the same time, you say?

Wait, wait... there's... somewhere in my mind... I'm remembering something... there's a word there I remember from long ago... it... it starts with an 'F'... F... F... Fra... Frag... FragmentatiALL GLORY AND HONOR TO THE ALMIGHTY SAINT JOBS AS IT WAS WRITTEN AT JANUARY 1, 1904 AND SHALL BE UNTIL HIS GLORIOUS SECOND COMING! ALL GLORY TO HIS AVATAR, DOGCOW! ALL GLORY! SOSUMI! SOSUMI!

Woah, sorry, guys. Don't know what just hit me. Anyway, as I was about to say, the... um... word... it... oh, forget it. I've got to get in line for the iPad 3! I heard that before his ascension into... before his death, Jobs himself sweated over the first batch of plastic cases! Oh boy!

Re:Apple hates the dreaded F-word

[Lucky75]

I wish I didn't use my modpoints up. That post was actually pretty funny. Shame on whoever modded it -1.

Re:Apple hates the dreaded F-word

[stevenfuzz]

I'm surprised it's gotten to 4. Usually any post that criticizes apple, not matter how true or funny, gets modded down as troll. The irony being that it seams like the real trolls mod these down.

Re:Apple hates the dreaded F-word

[Anonymous Coward]

Yah, I know you were trying to be funny, but one new product, replacing the previous one, with additional features is hardly what anyone means by fragmentation.

Fragmentation in a negative context would be selling too many similar new things at the same time, where the differences hinder the group as a whole.

Can iOS 5 apps even integrate with Siri if it is present? This just isn't fragmentation at all, it's a singular new product to replace the old in a reasonable timeframe.

...then Samsung purchases Audience

[airfoobar]

And lulz are had by all! :D

iPhone 4 has an Audience chip too

[WarpedCore]

http://www.ifixit.com/blog/2011/05/17/unveiled-audience-powers-iphone-4s-impressive-noise-cancellation/

There's been an Audience chip included in the iPhone 4 since June 2010. When iFixit tore down the iPhone 4S and noticed the chip wasn't there, it was assumed that the chip was either integrated into the A5 design or that Apple opted to do noise-cancellation without the need of an Audience chip.

It's true that the A4 chip doesn't have an Audience subprocessor in it but it doesn't mean that the iPhone 4 doesn't have the chip included somewhere else on its motherboard. The conclusion that the iPhone 4 can't do Siri is absolute garbage. The conclusion that the iPhone 4 can't do Siri technically because of this kind audio subprocessor is not being included in the iPhone 4's design needs to have their head examined and start doing some research. This entire thing is hogwash.

Re:iPhone 4 has an Audience chip too

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, that chip might be on some kind of cellphone audio only pipeline which makes it unavailable for apps to processs. Older smartphones tended to completely seperate cellphone audio from device audio. No firmware can move wires around on the motherboard. (I don't know if this is a real reason, of course -- it could just as easily be untrue; and Apple just never let apps turn on the echo-cancellation processor for their audio.)

Re:iPhone 4 has an Audience chip too

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be in the SOC now. That's how Qualcomm has been doing it.

Re:iPhone 4 has an Audience chip too

[Smurf]

There's been an Audience chip included in the iPhone 4 since June 2010. (...)
It's true that the A4 chip doesn't have an Audience subprocessor in it but it doesn't mean that the iPhone 4 doesn't have the chip included somewhere else on its motherboard. The conclusion that the iPhone 4 can't do Siri is absolute garbage. The conclusion that the iPhone 4 can't do Siri technically because of this kind audio subprocessor is not being included in the iPhone 4's design needs to have their head examined and start doing some research. This entire thing is hogwash.

From TFA:

Audience has worked with Apple since 2008, and there is some Audience technology in the A4 chip, but it is a less advanced version than that available with the A5 packs. In particular, Audience on the A4 needs users to hold the phone up to their mouths when speaking to it. The iPhone 4S version allows for "more consistent voice and audio quality wherever the device is held and used".

Thus the theory is that, in spite of the fact that Siri will work on the iPhone 4 as demonstrated in jailborken phones, the success of the voice recognition is lower in certain situations, like not having the microphone next to your mouth, or higher ambient noise. That would mean that the iPhone 4 users would have a crappier experience with Siri, giving the whole technology a bad name (especially since there were already tens of millions of iPhone 4 units in the market at the time the 4s was introduced).

Apple doesn't want the bad publicity (remember the handwriting recognition of the Newton?), so they decided to introduce the technology exclusively on the 4s, with the added bonus of getting some of the iPhone 4 users to upgrade just for it. Well, at least that is the theory as explained by TFAs.

Re:Mystery? (FTFY)

[Alanbly]

boolean siriEnabled() { return (system.cpu.version >= 6.0); }

Don't forget the 3S

Going to be?

[YesIAmAScript]

Don't you remember the Nextel craze?

People's phones would chirp and scream at them and they would press a button, it would chirp at them again and they would scream right back.

Some people would have extended conversations this way. In the middle of a room of annoyed people.

Maddening.

Facinating...so why won't SIRI work on my IPAD 2?

[Anonymous Coward]

Still does not explain why siri will not work on my ipad 2.

Because in capitalism we want no competition?

[Anonymous Coward]

"'Why Apple has not simply purchased Audience is unclear. An acquisition would prevent Audience's other major customer, Samsung, from using the technology to compete with Apple,' says Gwennap."

The latter is prevalent thought, but that prevalence belies one of capitalism's stated goals: competition to drive quality up and price down, and to provide consumer choice.

Then again, another stated goal of capitalism is in fact to eliminate competition. I guess that means capitalism is not internally consistent, but rather it is paradoxical.

Re:Because in capitalism we want no competition?

[Doc Ruby]

Who stated that goal? Some capitalist's PR flack?

The stated goal of capitalism is to gain more valuable property. Any other goal is either a means to that end, or an end for which capitalism is merely the means, or just not capitalism - or some combination.

In fact the goal of most capitalists is to ignore quality while driving profits up for purchasing more property. Stated or otherwise. Capitalists don't want competition; they want monopoly. It's only when other capitalists must compete with them that there is competition.

Re:Because in capitalism we want no competition?

[sydneyfong]

Who stated that goal? Some capitalist's PR flack?

Go read Adam Smith (you can think of him as the father of modern economics). He explains how the capitalist system can be morally justified. He explains how rational, personal greed can lead to the accumulation wealth of the society. As for monopoly, Adam Smith was strongly opposed to monopolies, as they caused his ideal capitalist system to break down (in a sort of singularity).

Of course, as a disclaimer for the cynical you, his views have been misinterpreted by many, and among them are the so called "capitalists" today that exploit "bugs" in the capitalist system for their own gain and nobody else's.

Re:Because in capitalism we want no competition?

[Doc Ruby]

I have read (many parts of) Smith's _Wealth of Nations_. Smith's capitalist arguments are apologias: arguments for capitalism, "moral justifications" as you say. Capitalism was already rolling by the time Smith systematically explained it. He stated some goals for it. But like practically all economists, Smith was in no position to state a goal for any macroeconomics. All he could do is portray an economic system, and state goals he might hope others would achieve.

Smith was a philosopher, and in a day when economics and philosophy weren't compartmentalized as they generally are today. So he made statements about human nature, and society behavior, that weren't governed by the economics itself. So it's really a gloss of capitalism.

In actual practice, after centuries of having Smith's writings on the shelf, capitalism is dedicated to collecting property, and to the means of collecting more (including political power that sometimes conflicts with direct economics). Monopoly is the holy grail of every capitalist. Smith's descriptions stated somewhat different goals. But reality has proved him wrong in many ways.

So while capitalism's godfather stated goals like those invoked in the comment to which I replied, they've been empty words for centuries. The benefits to people other than the richest capitalists are minor features compared to the abuses capitalism features. Smith's stated goals are far more effective when invoked by capitalists' PR flacks than practiced by actual capitalists. Yet the economics of the property collection are very much as Smith said they should be.

Re:Mystery? (FTFY)

[BasilBrush]

iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S = 5th iPhone

Why Not Buy Up AUdience

[Doc Ruby]

'Why Apple has not simply purchased Audience is unclear. An acquisition would prevent Audience's other major customer, Samsung, from using the technology to compete with Apple,' says Gwennap

Maybe Samsung has contracts with Audience that prevent dropping Samsung while Samsung phones depend on Audience. Or maybe Samsung has some other methods of protecting itself from being screwed that way. They seem obviously necessary to mitigate the risk of depending on a small company like Audience. One might as well wonder why Samsung hasn't screwed Apple this same way, with the same speculative answers.

The whole approach is completely anticompetitive, and neither Samsung nor Apple are likely to be vulnerable to such an obvious risk. Gwennap is superficial for asking without looking into the likely answers. And pretty scummy for looking to such anticompetitive practices for advantages.

Re:Facinating...so why won't SIRI work on my IPAD

[Anonymous Coward]

you need the a6 proc to work at that distance

Let's see if I can prove my own point...

[stevenfuzz]

SHOCKING! Apple releases new software (Siri) for their new iPhone as it's centerpiece of marketing, but it magically doesn't work on older IPhones. Seams like good business to me: 1.99 to buy an App, 199 and a contract to upgrade (or whatever the price is). The devil is in the details, and the details tell the tail of a money hungry juggernaut disinterested in all but the bottom line. This kind of reminds me of Microsoft leaving the remote desktop server out of versions of WIndows 7.

Another explanation

[PapayaSF]

Given how server- and bandwidth-intensive Siri is, Apple may also have wanted to restrict it to the 4S simply to limit the number of people using it.

Re:Another explanation

[BasilBrush]

Decisions are rarely made on only one criteria.

Re:Another explanation

[PapayaSF]

Absolutely true. I just didn't see anyone mention server/bandwidth issues as one possible factor.

iPhone 4S speakerphone quality...

[Hamster Lover]

The fact that the A5 processor incorporates some fancy noise cancellation technology goes beyond enhancing Siri voice recognition, and explains the startling difference in speakerphone and handset call quality I have noticed after upgrading from the iPhone 4. The 4S is easily one of the best sounding smartphones I have used in recent memory.

Not that iPhone 4 call quality is terrible, it's just that the 4S is that much better.

Siri network demands

[bonch]

This is what you get when you run apple. Literally - you let them dictate the software that you can run, this is the result. Don't like it? Don't use apple.

Not to cut into the OMG-MY-FREEDOM rant, but Siri is in beta and can barely keep up with current network demands of iPhone 4S users. If it saw general release across multiple devices, it would be a clusterfuck on the level of MobileMe.

Besides, the premise is a bit silly, as the alternatives to Apple cut off support for your phone mere months after it's released, like the Galaxy S that won't get Android 4.0, because the business model is based on making you buy new hardware after half a year. I'll take Apple's software dictation over most of the Android carriers, all things considered. I'm just a guy using a phone, not a freedom fighter.

Re:Siri network demands

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I don't understand. What is using up so much bandwidth? Google doesn't seem to have an issue with their voice actions, and a good number of people are using it. Also, a number of apps use the voice recognizer from the Voice Actions, adding to the aggregate bandwidth / server capacity.

If it's encoding the voice stream like Google's Voice Action does for voice recognition, then what does it matter if there's super-good noise cancellation on the client side when it can be done server side? If not, is it transmitting the voice file back for whatever it responds? All other actions are client side (viewing maps, modifying calendar).

I always thought that's what the dual noise cancelling microphone was all about (and no, they weren't the first)?

Additionally, are you suggesting a company with $16 billion dollar market cap (profit per year?) that probably has a 40% hardware markup / 30% profit on everything (apps, books, music, movies, videos) *WITH* people that are loose with their purse strings can't make / rent data center(s) that won't get crushed? You're delusional.

P.S. Your argument for the Galaxy S / Android 4.0 is the same situation you're in, if you can look over your own clear bias. You are NOT getting all the features from the new OS. You're really just getting v4.9999 and not v5. Samsung didn't say it wouldn't continue updating the Galaxy S with 2.x; just that with the addiition of: completely new UI, facial recognition, on-device voice recognition, network data manager, improved camera subsystem, full device encryption, ..., etc. All of that won't fit on the internal app memory without compromising user experience (i.e. they may have to uninstall a lot of apps). So, what's the difference between v4 and 5 for your OS of choice, minus the major feature you didn't get? The bookstore where they still take 30% of everything? Swipedown notifications a la Android?

This is the major difference between Android. It actually adds a ton of stuff, new features, and isn't afraid to change for the better. You get the same thing, even if it's no longer as good as it use to be.

Re:Siri network demands

[exomondo]

The Galaxy S is a top-selling phone that's only months old and yet not getting Android 4.0, while the 2 1/2 year old iPhone 3GS can run the latest version of iOS.

Just to be 100% clear here, the characterization of the Galaxy S as 'only months old' is a bit disingenuous, it's well over a year old, in fact it's over 1 1/2 years old. And the iPhone 3GS can run the latest version of iOS but does lack some features like AirPlay mirroring.

That clarified, the Galaxy S doesn't get ICS because the at the time the requirements for ICS obviously couldn't be factored into the hardware design because they weren't known, that's a major advantage of Apple's vertical integration. It would be nice if Google worked closer with official (certified?) Android handset manufacturers to establish the compatibility of devices going forward.

Why no server-side noise cancellation?

[Anonymous Coward]

As I haven't seen this asked, couldn't Apple do "higher-level" noise cancellation processing on their servers as a part of their regular processing, eliminating any need to do so on end devices? As the server dependence is there in any case, that'd have been much more logical (potential bandwidth issues aside as the cleaned-up audio data will of course be smaller). The fact that they haven't done so hints at a clear intention to make this a hardware issue stimulating an upgrade on the part of pre-4S owners.

Re:Nostalgia

[thegarbz]

You just reminded me of this skit from Trigger Happy TV.

True Scotsman Fallacy

[srussia]

Apple obviously wants Siri to be judged on it's best performance. They have a reputation for quality to maintain.

So you're saying Apple doesn't consider Siri to be "true Siri" unless it's running on a 4S?

No true Scotsman would believe that!

Re:True Scotsman Fallacy

[BasilBrush]

That's not an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

If one were to say "All iPhones have Siri."
And someone else were to say "My iPhone 4 doesn't have SIri"
And you were to reply "The iPhone 4 isn;t a real iPhone"
Then that would be an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Simply choosing not to run software on an older device isn't a logical fallacy of any sort.

Re:True Scotsman Fallacy

[srussia]

I guess you didn't click on the link!

Re:True Scotsman Fallacy

[BasilBrush]

Ha ha! That'll teach me.

iPhone app was also called Siri

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have it installed on my iPhone 3G... and yeah, they took the server offline so that they could claim the 4S version is all "new" and stuff. Here's a link to a Gizmodo article from February 5, 2010 announcing the downloadable app: http://gizmodo.com/5464877/siri-iphone-app-uses-speech+recognition-technology-to-organize-your-social-life

Siri was an iphone app earlier

[Sprogga]

I remember trying it out. It didn't work that great but to say it won't/can't run etc is not the case.

Siri'ously !

[spd_rcr]

Why is there no option to downgrade/flag horrible stories. I'd love to see the Seattle Times run something this stupid, like "Why our mayor won't stop digging pot-holes" ...
I'm pretty sure everyone on slashdot is already well aware that there's hardly an ounce of truth in this article/troll. It's too bad the author couldn't be bothered to do any research, even a cursory peak at wikipedia would have made a substantial improvement in the quality of the article.
Next up, the internet will no longer be available to non-iPhone-5's because they lack quad core processors and thus the ability to render pages in a sufficiently timely manner. Apple's a company that has shown time and time again that they do not believe in supporting legacy equipment.

Siri'ously, if you don't like getting screwed by Apple on a regular basis, stop buying their over-priced, over-hyped, crap.

Load of crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Before Siri was acquired by Apple, I was running it on my 3GS.

Audience in my hearing aids?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please? I'd tape 2 iPhones to my head if that's required...