As far as the Siri's implementation is concerned, everything else stops when Siri is expecting input. If they are integrating / implementing it in a car, I would expect the rest of the car's equipment to follow the same rule.
Bandwidth usage is much lower than during a typical phone call, because a voice command only lasts a few seconds and Siri uses exactly the same audio compression algorithms. Once it's on the Internet it is no longer a cell network issue and there's plenty of bandwidth there.
I find Siri to be quite useful, actually. Want to type a note in plain sunlight where your face's reflection is more visible than the contents of the screen? No problem, have Siri do it for you! Wanna set up a date / reminder / alarm? No problem, Siri can do that without even taking the phone out of your pocket. Wanna call someone? Just ask Siri, it's a lot more efficient than searching for their contact in the Contacts or Spotlight. Wanna switch playlists while listening to music? Just tell Siri which to switch to! Call it whatever you wish, but your feelings about voice recognition in general and Siri in particular are irrational.
Your experience is completely opposite to mine. I'm Portuguese, meaning not even a native English speaker, and Siri understands me perfectly. Furthermore, I seldom experience service downtime, so I would attribute that to your carrier.
It's not your university's job to provide you with access to the Internet. Be glad to have at least some access. If you want more, do what others are doing and use your phone / dongle.
I don't know exactly what the source for that chart is, but it places iOS much higher in the mobile OS share than Android, especially before the iPhone 4. I'll leave it up to you to explain this when it's a widely known fact that Android's share is and has been higher for a long time. This is relevant not because it validates my claims but because it potentially invalidates your source.
Different cases. Apple has a store of their own, so it is natural to not want other business to use their platform to provide competitive services without sharing any of the revenue. They are, however, not in the advertisement business, and thus a partnership with Google would make all the sense here. With Apple providing the platform and Google providing the services, the combined result would be unbeatable and extremely beneficial to consumers.
Not the ones I'm arguing about or which have been in the news lately.
That's because you are focusing too much on the details while ignoring the big picture of intent. And I'm supposed to be the one lacking vision...
This is a nice use of the "no true scotsman" falacy. I was using true smartphones over 10 years ago and worked customising the first microsoft smartphone (appeal to authority there).
And how does that invalidate my claim about there not being any similar successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before it? You didn't even name a single example of such a phone! All you did was to boast about something completely irrelevant (not to mention, unverifiable)!
No but that's what you just did.
Can you please explain how the text you quoted is a reduction to absurdity?
There is no debate, only the one in your head
Yeah, forgive me for actually giving you the chance to prove that you are not the same thing you accuse others of being... I will not overestimate your cognitive abilities again.
I was talking about gen1 ipod battery issues
Oh, so you're making sweeping statements about all current Apple customers because of something that happened 11 years ago? And we're the idiots?
Patent is not about design.
Neither was I arguing otherwise. The patents are merely tools. Ridiculous or not, they are what companies employ against each other when fighting a legal battle for something that may or may not be related. Again, you are focusing too much in the details and missing the big picture.
Dude, it was a throw-away comment, summary of my opinion based on over 10 years of experience, 3 spent in the smartphone industry (appeal to authority)
When I make comments based on beliefs, I don't usually let them branch out by replying to every answer, unless someone is grossly missing the point, in which case I reply only to clarify what my stance is. Lastly, I usually refrain from insulting the "audience".
And your judgement is that I've over-simplified, and that "it" is not about Samsung.
Which is correct and you know it. Apple's claims are about a lot more than shapes and colors. There were no successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before its introduction, and now looking like an iPhone is "standard". What you did was to reduce Apple's claims to absurdity, which is also a fallacy that does nothing more than to show your fanboyism and is thus foolish.
I make no such appeal. I merely identify my audience to you. Summarising to those who agree is a form of social currency and self-identification.
You did that in an attempt to refute an argument in a debate, which is what makes it fallacious. As an argument, your audience is pointless, and your denial of this now only serves to show that you were not thinking rationally when you branched this thread and are now foolishly attempting to safe face.
I have no such burden, it is an opinion based on observation. My opinion is that Apple are idiots, who abused their customers from the start of the ipod battery debacle, and who assert the dumbest non-inventive patents ever, and that it gives me great pleasure to watch them wiggle under patents that at least have more technical value than those they asserted.
In that case I question the logic by which you call others idiots, since you demonstrate exactly the same kind of fanaticism that you accuse others of showing. As an Apple customer, I haven't had any battery issues to complain about since the iPhone 4S' launch, and it is now unofficially known that those issues are caused by faulty GPS hardware on some phones, so anyone can take their phone to an Apple Store and complain about that now, or simply disable Location Services if they don't wish to wait for the phone to get fixed. As to non-inventive, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to suffer from hindsight bias, because I don't recall any successful phone in the market similar to an iPhone before 2007, and now all smart phones look like that. Inventive or not, Apple deserves credibility, because they came up with a profitable design.
My stance is not to obtain the approval of Apple, I've expressed my view to the understanding of my audience I don't need to re-think anything. I'm not sure that the depth of their pockets is relevant unless you expect them to buy a judge or buy Samsung - either of which would count as severe wriggling.
I really do have to wonder whether you are karma whoring, because you seem a lot more concerned about the way your "audience" perceives you than about thinking rationally and having a logical enlightening debate online. Again, talk about being an idiot...
Being 95.2% disabled with a congenital open angle glaucoma, lack of vision is indeed my problem, but it doesn't affect my judgement in this case.;)
I think you find that many people agree with the rational conclusion I posted here.
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
What I have not done is demonstrate the rational reasoning behind it, I suppose that most readers are able to draw similar conclusions from their own observations. You admit that you cannot see to do this, and I accept your admission.
But you still have burden of proof.
I am hoping that Apple do refuse to accept to be extorted; I'm looking for a long painful fight to dissuade anyone from taking the same path that they have taken.
They have deep pockets. $100 billion deep to be more precise, and their strategies have only brought them profit. You need to rethink your stance.
This is not an isolated story, it is one in a series, and it jolly well is about Samsung as they are the ones who have been long term abused by apple with "not real invention" patents and it's nice to seem then able to wield muscle against apple.
I fail to see what that has to do with anything, or why Apple would accept to be extorted for a software patent in the EU.
Due to your inability to think rationally, I strongly advise you to at least exert some caution when insulting others.
Well, there are a few facts that are being ignored here. First the iOS and Android shares don't overlap entirely: iOS is strong in the tablet world whereas Android is not; iOS is strong in the music player world where Android is not even present, but Android is strong in the former Symbian low-end market where iOS is not present, so in the end you have an Android share that is mostly comprised of people who don't actually care about what runs their devices, whereas all iOS users go for iOS precisely because of it. That's a really big difference, and I think it must be mentioned every time Android shares are mentioned. Where Android and iOS clash (the high-end phone and tablet markets), people show a very strong preference for iOS.
The problem, and what really doesn't make any sense to me, is that Android as a project is not justified if it performs worse when it comes to benefiting Google's core business than iOS does without Google's support. Imagine, for example, if it was Google powering Siri. Just think of the possibilities of every local business paying Google a little fee just to be mentioned by Siri when someone asks for an Italian restaurant in the neighborhood. What reasons do Google have to invent and insist in having its own platforms (Android, Google+, Chrome) even at a loss when they could collaborate with Apple for instant profit? In this case, the question as to whether iOS would more profitable for Google if Android did not exist doesn't even apply, because even with Android in the market, iOS is still more profitable for Google as a platform! So, again, what is the rationale for insisting on Android?
Apple is indeed controlling, a trait inherited from its former CEO, but at least they have a vision and are not blinded by unfounded beliefs. They have absolutely no problem partnering with others when it's best for both the company and its customers, they don't insist on unprofitable strategies to save face, they are perfectly happy to admit when they make mistakes, and they can tell when it's advantageous to share their patents with other companies such as Microsoft and Cisco (which Google, for some irrational reason, refused to do). That's what's best for both consumers and investors! That's what generates money! That's why Apple is currently worth more than Google and Microsoft combined!
I like Google and use some of their products, such as Search, Maps, and Google Apps. Those are great products, but Jesus, to hell with their unwillingness to play with others! What's their problem with Facebook? Couldn't they partner with Facebook to provide advertisement? That's their fucking business model! What's their problem with Twitter? If they're so eager to invest on businesses that don't make sense for their technology or patents or whatever (such as Motorola), why not Twitter? It's an excellent and actually tested worldwide notification gateway implementation! There are plenty of amazing things they could do with it beyond the realm of microblogging!
In which other case has it backfired for Apple. Motorola managed to get the iPhone banned based on standards patents, Apple managed to get the ban lifted and filed an antitrust complaint along with Microsoft against Motorola which could, if accepted, hold Motorola liable for all damages resulting from the iPhone ban in Germany. Now they're suing Apple using a software patent in the European Union, which Apple is very likely to invalidate in an appeal and may make Motorola liable for even more damage. With suicidal moves like these, Motorola is making sure there's nothing of value left for Google to collect once their acquisition is finished.
Samsung? What did Samsung get from Apple?
Google have purposely placed themselves in a position which may get them in trouble with Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco by refusing to share patents. How's this an intelligent business choice? Actually, how's standing FOR Android (which is LESS profitable for Google than iOS and is losing share to it) an intelligent business decision? The only explanation that I can find to the whole Android fiasco is fanaticism, and Google will drag everyone down with them, except maybe Samsung, because they're strong in other areas.
It's karma whoring. Post anti-Apple crap and you're bound to be modded +5 regardless of facts. To make sure your karma is really maxed out after Excellent, disable the Karma Bonus Modifier before posting, so that people will mod you +4 instead of +3.
What I find amusing about the whole Android fiasco is that it ended up being LESS profitable to Google's core business than iOS, which they don't even have to develop. Before Android came out I never thought Google could be that fanatic and go as far as to refuse sharing patents with the likes of Microsoft, Cisco, and Apple for nothing more than pride. It is perfectly clear to me now that Google does not play well with others, especially after trying to establish Chrome and Google+ as platforms. While it does indeed provide great services that as an iOS user I take full advantage of, such as Maps and Google Apps, it has been showing an extremely irrational aversion to collaborating with other companies without establishing itself as the dominant party, and I don't think that aversion has their customers' or core business' best interests in mind.
Apple are just new-boy idiots. Apple is claiming against Samsung for round corners, similar size, and a slide lock - that's the degree of apple innovation!
Oversimplification is, itself, a pretty idiotic thing to do.
I can at least respect Samsung's patent somewhat as it actually does something and they might have actually been the first ones to do whatever they patented.
However they don't seem to have a "what's next" and unlike the MP3 player situation, people are moving in on phones and tablets quicker than they are ready for. Android went from more or less an experiment to an extremely competent competitor in just a few years and has been selling really well. They see their market slipping, and have nowhere else to go.
This is incorrect. Android ate from Symbian's market, not iOS' (with RIM losing share to both). Not only that but Google has admitted in a hearing regarding its search monopoly that 2/3 of its mobile web hits come from iOS devices, and now InMobi is claiming that iOS has more mobile advertisement impressions than Android. For the first time iOS is actually in a tug-of-war with Android for market share, and it seems like iOS is winning, asn Android has actually been losing share whereas iOS continues to gain it.
Why is it valid in a place that does not recognize software patents when it's all about software?
How's this an insightful comment at all? Is it because it's anti-Apple? Because I don't see anything insightful here at all, just a completely unfounded claim.
This should be modded troll, not insightful. The above poster has not validated their claims thus retaining burden of proof and on top of that has not resisted the urge to insult the grandparent poster simply because their opinions don't match.
Following this, I'm re-enabling my willingness to moderate.
Slashdot Mirror
As far as the Siri's implementation is concerned, everything else stops when Siri is expecting input. If they are integrating / implementing it in a car, I would expect the rest of the car's equipment to follow the same rule.
Apple was late to the cell phone and music player markets too...
Bandwidth usage is much lower than during a typical phone call, because a voice command only lasts a few seconds and Siri uses exactly the same audio compression algorithms. Once it's on the Internet it is no longer a cell network issue and there's plenty of bandwidth there.
It's a usability aid. Doesn't hinder you in any way if it's not there, but can help you a lot when it is.
I find Siri to be quite useful, actually. Want to type a note in plain sunlight where your face's reflection is more visible than the contents of the screen? No problem, have Siri do it for you! Wanna set up a date / reminder / alarm? No problem, Siri can do that without even taking the phone out of your pocket. Wanna call someone? Just ask Siri, it's a lot more efficient than searching for their contact in the Contacts or Spotlight. Wanna switch playlists while listening to music? Just tell Siri which to switch to! Call it whatever you wish, but your feelings about voice recognition in general and Siri in particular are irrational.
Your experience is completely opposite to mine. I'm Portuguese, meaning not even a native English speaker, and Siri understands me perfectly. Furthermore, I seldom experience service downtime, so I would attribute that to your carrier.
Also, how the hell is this insightful?
It's not your university's job to provide you with access to the Internet. Be glad to have at least some access. If you want more, do what others are doing and use your phone / dongle.
When did not playing well with others suddenly become suing others? Your entire post relies on this premise, so please explain it.
I don't know exactly what the source for that chart is, but it places iOS much higher in the mobile OS share than Android, especially before the iPhone 4. I'll leave it up to you to explain this when it's a widely known fact that Android's share is and has been higher for a long time. This is relevant not because it validates my claims but because it potentially invalidates your source.
What purpose? Flame baiting by calling people idiots? Karma whoring by posting anti-Apple crap to Slashdot completely devoid of rational thinking?
Different cases. Apple has a store of their own, so it is natural to not want other business to use their platform to provide competitive services without sharing any of the revenue. They are, however, not in the advertisement business, and thus a partnership with Google would make all the sense here. With Apple providing the platform and Google providing the services, the combined result would be unbeatable and extremely beneficial to consumers.
That's because you are focusing too much on the details while ignoring the big picture of intent. And I'm supposed to be the one lacking vision...
And how does that invalidate my claim about there not being any similar successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before it? You didn't even name a single example of such a phone! All you did was to boast about something completely irrelevant (not to mention, unverifiable)!
Can you please explain how the text you quoted is a reduction to absurdity?
Yeah, forgive me for actually giving you the chance to prove that you are not the same thing you accuse others of being... I will not overestimate your cognitive abilities again.
Oh, so you're making sweeping statements about all current Apple customers because of something that happened 11 years ago? And we're the idiots?
Neither was I arguing otherwise. The patents are merely tools. Ridiculous or not, they are what companies employ against each other when fighting a legal battle for something that may or may not be related. Again, you are focusing too much in the details and missing the big picture.
When I make comments based on beliefs, I don't usually let them branch out by replying to every answer, unless someone is grossly missing the point, in which case I reply only to clarify what my stance is. Lastly, I usually refrain from insulting the "audience".
Which is correct and you know it. Apple's claims are about a lot more than shapes and colors. There were no successful smartphones in the market like the iPhone before its introduction, and now looking like an iPhone is "standard". What you did was to reduce Apple's claims to absurdity, which is also a fallacy that does nothing more than to show your fanboyism and is thus foolish.
You did that in an attempt to refute an argument in a debate, which is what makes it fallacious. As an argument, your audience is pointless, and your denial of this now only serves to show that you were not thinking rationally when you branched this thread and are now foolishly attempting to safe face.
In that case I question the logic by which you call others idiots, since you demonstrate exactly the same kind of fanaticism that you accuse others of showing. As an Apple customer, I haven't had any battery issues to complain about since the iPhone 4S' launch, and it is now unofficially known that those issues are caused by faulty GPS hardware on some phones, so anyone can take their phone to an Apple Store and complain about that now, or simply disable Location Services if they don't wish to wait for the phone to get fixed. As to non-inventive, as I mentioned earlier, you seem to suffer from hindsight bias, because I don't recall any successful phone in the market similar to an iPhone before 2007, and now all smart phones look like that. Inventive or not, Apple deserves credibility, because they came up with a profitable design.
I really do have to wonder whether you are karma whoring, because you seem a lot more concerned about the way your "audience" perceives you than about thinking rationally and having a logical enlightening debate online. Again, talk about being an idiot...
Being 95.2% disabled with a congenital open angle glaucoma, lack of vision is indeed my problem, but it doesn't affect my judgement in this case. ;)
Appeal to popularity is a fallacy.
But you still have burden of proof.
They have deep pockets. $100 billion deep to be more precise, and their strategies have only brought them profit. You need to rethink your stance.
Iit is a summary judgement based on extended observation, not an oversimplification.
This post (not mine) says it better: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2691519&cid=39157081
This is not an isolated story, it is one in a series, and it jolly well is about Samsung as they are the ones who have been long term abused by apple with "not real invention" patents and it's nice to seem then able to wield muscle against apple.
I fail to see what that has to do with anything, or why Apple would accept to be extorted for a software patent in the EU.
Due to your inability to think rationally, I strongly advise you to at least exert some caution when insulting others.
Well, there are a few facts that are being ignored here. First the iOS and Android shares don't overlap entirely: iOS is strong in the tablet world whereas Android is not; iOS is strong in the music player world where Android is not even present, but Android is strong in the former Symbian low-end market where iOS is not present, so in the end you have an Android share that is mostly comprised of people who don't actually care about what runs their devices, whereas all iOS users go for iOS precisely because of it. That's a really big difference, and I think it must be mentioned every time Android shares are mentioned. Where Android and iOS clash (the high-end phone and tablet markets), people show a very strong preference for iOS.
The problem, and what really doesn't make any sense to me, is that Android as a project is not justified if it performs worse when it comes to benefiting Google's core business than iOS does without Google's support. Imagine, for example, if it was Google powering Siri. Just think of the possibilities of every local business paying Google a little fee just to be mentioned by Siri when someone asks for an Italian restaurant in the neighborhood. What reasons do Google have to invent and insist in having its own platforms (Android, Google+, Chrome) even at a loss when they could collaborate with Apple for instant profit? In this case, the question as to whether iOS would more profitable for Google if Android did not exist doesn't even apply, because even with Android in the market, iOS is still more profitable for Google as a platform! So, again, what is the rationale for insisting on Android?
Apple is indeed controlling, a trait inherited from its former CEO, but at least they have a vision and are not blinded by unfounded beliefs. They have absolutely no problem partnering with others when it's best for both the company and its customers, they don't insist on unprofitable strategies to save face, they are perfectly happy to admit when they make mistakes, and they can tell when it's advantageous to share their patents with other companies such as Microsoft and Cisco (which Google, for some irrational reason, refused to do). That's what's best for both consumers and investors! That's what generates money! That's why Apple is currently worth more than Google and Microsoft combined!
I like Google and use some of their products, such as Search, Maps, and Google Apps. Those are great products, but Jesus, to hell with their unwillingness to play with others! What's their problem with Facebook? Couldn't they partner with Facebook to provide advertisement? That's their fucking business model! What's their problem with Twitter? If they're so eager to invest on businesses that don't make sense for their technology or patents or whatever (such as Motorola), why not Twitter? It's an excellent and actually tested worldwide notification gateway implementation! There are plenty of amazing things they could do with it beyond the realm of microblogging!
In which other case has it backfired for Apple. Motorola managed to get the iPhone banned based on standards patents, Apple managed to get the ban lifted and filed an antitrust complaint along with Microsoft against Motorola which could, if accepted, hold Motorola liable for all damages resulting from the iPhone ban in Germany. Now they're suing Apple using a software patent in the European Union, which Apple is very likely to invalidate in an appeal and may make Motorola liable for even more damage. With suicidal moves like these, Motorola is making sure there's nothing of value left for Google to collect once their acquisition is finished.
Samsung? What did Samsung get from Apple?
Google have purposely placed themselves in a position which may get them in trouble with Apple, Microsoft, and Cisco by refusing to share patents. How's this an intelligent business choice? Actually, how's standing FOR Android (which is LESS profitable for Google than iOS and is losing share to it) an intelligent business decision? The only explanation that I can find to the whole Android fiasco is fanaticism, and Google will drag everyone down with them, except maybe Samsung, because they're strong in other areas.
It's karma whoring. Post anti-Apple crap and you're bound to be modded +5 regardless of facts. To make sure your karma is really maxed out after Excellent, disable the Karma Bonus Modifier before posting, so that people will mod you +4 instead of +3.
Screwed by a software patent in the European Union? Dude, please!
What I find amusing about the whole Android fiasco is that it ended up being LESS profitable to Google's core business than iOS, which they don't even have to develop. Before Android came out I never thought Google could be that fanatic and go as far as to refuse sharing patents with the likes of Microsoft, Cisco, and Apple for nothing more than pride. It is perfectly clear to me now that Google does not play well with others, especially after trying to establish Chrome and Google+ as platforms. While it does indeed provide great services that as an iOS user I take full advantage of, such as Maps and Google Apps, it has been showing an extremely irrational aversion to collaborating with other companies without establishing itself as the dominant party, and I don't think that aversion has their customers' or core business' best interests in mind.
Oversimplification is, itself, a pretty idiotic thing to do.
This is not about Samsung...
Talk about being an idiot...
This is incorrect. Android ate from Symbian's market, not iOS' (with RIM losing share to both). Not only that but Google has admitted in a hearing regarding its search monopoly that 2/3 of its mobile web hits come from iOS devices, and now InMobi is claiming that iOS has more mobile advertisement impressions than Android. For the first time iOS is actually in a tug-of-war with Android for market share, and it seems like iOS is winning, asn Android has actually been losing share whereas iOS continues to gain it.
Why is it valid in a place that does not recognize software patents when it's all about software?
How's this an insightful comment at all? Is it because it's anti-Apple? Because I don't see anything insightful here at all, just a completely unfounded claim.
Why are you linking to a Slashdot story while making claims about the German Wikipedia?
This should be modded troll, not insightful. The above poster has not validated their claims thus retaining burden of proof and on top of that has not resisted the urge to insult the grandparent poster simply because their opinions don't match.
Following this, I'm re-enabling my willingness to moderate.