[freudling]

I have a reliable source in the Valley that tells me what I was thinking for the past few years: Apple is most likely working on search.

He thinks, like others, that a perceived "slow down" with Apple is a calm before the search engine rolls out.

I was saying that Apple should have its own search engine. They could index content in a way that would make Siri much more powerful, usable, and valuable. No longer would they have to partner with people like Yelp, OpenTable, etc. By indexing and having all of this data themselves, they could more tightly integrate Siri into it.

I'm using iOS 6 Beta and I can tell you that Siri is really starting to come into her own. I'm using it more and more everyday. It's eliminating the need for so much keyboard input and manual searching. My face time with Google on my mobile has dropped about 30% since I started using iOS 6 Beta. Finally in Canada I can ask about movies and restaurants, get real answers... movie trailers right within Siri, sports scores... it's fantastic.

The other thing is that Google has no design at all. Its user interfaces are terrible and fragmented. And the Web is a mess. Its index is also getting weird: things that are in the top these days don't always fit as much as they used to.

Apple could clean up the web and make it look really nice, and with a smart search. I could see them doing this with search:

1. Make it look really good.
2. Give you real answers in summary format at the top, like Google has been trying to do for years.
3. Filtered results like images would look really nice.
4. Full integration with Siri in terms of the way they index and tag content. The content would be "speakable", meaning mark up language would be computer speech friendly.
5. Full Apple maps online.
6. Tight iCloud integration (e.g., save to iCloud, Web browsing history, reading lists, etc.).
7. A much better ad network, where ads look good (iAds online).

Search would get much smarter... I can see Apple trying to give people summaries of information without them having to go find it. Google has really flailed at this... but they have an interest in making people go find stuff because page flips are what their business is built on. Apple's isn't. Apple doesn't give a hoot about advertising really because they have other ways of making money. This is what's dangerous for Google because Apple could offer a very clean version of the Web and there's nothing Google can do about it.

The results of Apple doing its own search engine would put a lot of people out of business. For instance, I can see dropbox becoming less relevant if adoption of Apple's search engine happens because of tight integration with iCloud. Things like Instapaper... would become less relevant with tight integration of reading lists. Google's power in search and advertising online would finally have a real competitor. And the Web would become much more responsive: people would really push to have their sites in HTML-5 that morph for mobile devices.

With Siri doing the searching, the "Web" and content would basically move directly inside the operating system. It's weird to think about it, but the search engine as we know it could very well become antiquated quite quickly. It would serve more as a research tool... but the day-to-day stuff that a lot of people need like movie, restaurant, and sports info... can happen right within the OS. And Social Media is really making content aggregation a different game.

I really think Apple is working on search and also think that there are going to be some big changes coming up in the next year.

I'm sure Google knows all about Apple's plans. It's impossible to keep this a secret. But I don't think at this point there's anything they can do.

[hyteckit]

Apple Search == Ask Jeeves + wolfram alpha

[freudling]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Apple Search == Ask Jeeves + wolfram alpha

Apple search = Siri

[turtle777]

I'm liking the idea. Search is definitely a field that needs some new innovation. And Apple needs to expand into new fields to keep their innovative profile going.

Considering how Apple built a maps app and data from scratch, all in the silent until recently, I can see how they can pull off the search thing.

-t

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple search = Siri

No, he's right. Siri draws its info from other sources, like Wolfram Alpha.

If Apple was serious about search, buying Wolfram would be a good start.

The problem is free search on the web is powered by ads, and Apple doesn't currently leverage its services by selling info to advertisers. I don't want Apple to enter the search market if it means they must sell my Siri data or iCloud data to advertisers.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple search = Siri

Without the front-end speech technology and voice to text, it wouldn't be Siri.

The search backend would be Ask Jeeves + Wolfram Alpha.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Without the front-end speech technology and voice to text, it wouldn't be Siri.

The search backend would be Ask Jeeves + Wolfram Alpha.

No. Wrong.

What I am saying is that Apple is building its own search engine, which includes its own AI. This latter relates to being able to summarize an answer for the user to a search string. Yes, Apple is currently hitting up Wolfram Alpha along with many other third parties to drive Siri. What I'm saying is that this is going to all but stop when they release their own search.

That means Apple's inventing its own information index, and that this index is marked up in such a way as to be "speech" friendly. All this to drive Siri.

If you start using OS 6 Beta you'll see how Siri has really morphed into a mini-search engine. We're going to be leaving the Siri screen less and less moving forward. There's no advertising in Siri and the data its accessing is, in the end, free. Apple just needs to position itself to be the holder of that data... e.g., a search engine with Maps where businesses can list their businesses, etc.

You should look at that Wired article about the difference between the Web and the Internet. The Internet is the data, the Web is what we experience.

What I'm saying is that Siri is going to become more like the Web and replace Google for several key things we search for everyday. It's just too efficient not to use it. I'm getting blown away here by how well it's picking up my voice on crowded streets and how quick it's operating and giving me the shit I need to know on a daily basis.

I smiled last night walking downtown... we all of a sudden felt like going to a movie. My girlfriend is a nerd and started searching Google for movies on her iPhone 4 running iOS 5. I flipped out my iPhone 4S with iOS 6 and said: "What movies are playing nearby". A few seconds later, bang, nice UI with a list of movies. Each movie has a nice description and video trailer right there.

I looked at her screen and there was this ugly screen showing: Google, where's she's trying to enter in a search string via keyboard, and then navigate the results with all these gestures.

Siri eliminating all these steps. No need for Google there. What I'm saying is that Apple is going to eliminate the middle man and own search to drive Siri.

[freudling]

An interesting tidbit about Apple and search. These computer companies have so much history and background.

I'm certain Apple has some very good ideas about how to do a smart search engine. Here's an example of Apple delving into smart search.

Way back in the mid-1980s, something hatched that was trying to make computers smart by indexing the world's information and making it smart. It's mission was to categorize information, not just store it. By categorizing the information, computer scientists could build in algorithms and other things to make it so the computer could "understand" a request. For instance, ask a computer if an eagle is a bird, and it would tell you that it is because it knows that an eagle belongs to the category of bird.

Or say, "A bird is a fridge full of beer", and it'd know that's bullshit. In other words, the attempt was being made to enable computers to think abstractly like us: in general terms where we can abstract things from general stuff (rules, etc.) and understand our world.

This technology is alive today and still continues. It's called Cyc, and Apple was one of several funders of where it further hatched out of in the 90s.

I started developing an algorithm in 2005 that would take advantage of this technology, but that would be geared for speech. My mission was to develop the Star Trek computer.

Yes, grandiose, but I sent Apple all of my ideas, not that I think they were any good... but I learned a lot about search and speech in the process. It's a very interesting topic and I think Apple is poised to make a huge splash in smart search and speech.

The thing my algorithm did was really synonym matching, with heavy lifting from Google and Cyc.

1. Input>request (e.g, Why is the sky blue?)
2. Generate synonyms>[a) The sky is blue, why? b) The sky is colored blue. I want to know why? c) The color of the sky is blue. Why?...]
3. Match>probability factor of question to answer [scale of 1-100. Huge database of answers derived from index/Cyc, mapped to question/synonyms]
4. Output>Answer

Basically it's all set up to learn, and 1 question is supposed to be the benchmark question where every other synonym is treated as a variation of it, but equals the same thing. It'll use probability of a synonym match against the benchmark to first properly interpret the question, and then with a huge map of answers onto these benchmarks, it'll spit out the appropriate information.

It's goal is natural language interpretation that can give answers to many questions.

http://www.cyc.com/company/news/news...1998/get_smart

[besson3c]

How would Apple profit from getting into search?

It might push and promote Siri more, but the sorts of information that Siri seeks out and aggregates is always going to be confined to whatever subject matter it is designed to support so long as Apple continues on with its same basic design. That is, it is probably not going to be of much use with searches for obscure references, strings of text you might find in an error message, product numbers, etc.

A number of companies have tried being answer bot clones to Ask Jeeves, and none of them have replaced Google. If you feel that Siri will step outside of its design and become a direct Google competitor searching and indexing in the manner that Google does, how will Apple profit from this? What is in it for them?

Siri will continue to evolve in ways that help Apple profit, and right now that is by selling iOS devices. Replacing Google in its entirety does not help accomplish this.

That being said, I don't mean to shoot down your idea in its entirety, I do agree that Siri will compete with Google more and more as time progresses, I just don't think Apple will go so far as competing directly with Google with aims to replace it entirely.

Also, just so you know, saying "I know somebody in the Valley" never really bolsters your argument. Anybody can (and does) say stuff like that.

[turtle777]

Who says Apple wouldn't get into the ad game when having a search platform ?

They already sell ads (albeit not very successful), but this could be the next step in the ad evolution.

-t

[subego]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I have a reliable source in the Valley that tells me what I was thinking for the past few years: Apple is most likely working on search.

My source in the Valley mentioned this a few years ago:

[freudling]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Who says Apple wouldn't get into the ad game when having a search platform ?

They already sell ads (albeit not very successful), but this could be the next step in the ad evolution.

-t

Yes. I already mentioned this. By owning search Apple could have it's own ad network... iAd evolves.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would Apple profit from getting into search?

It might push and promote Siri more, but the sorts of information that Siri seeks out and aggregates is always going to be confined to whatever subject matter it is designed to support so long as Apple continues on with its same basic design. That is, it is probably not going to be of much use with searches for obscure references, strings of text you might find in an error message, product numbers, etc.

A number of companies have tried being answer bot clones to Ask Jeeves, and none of them have replaced Google. If you feel that Siri will step outside of its design and become a direct Google competitor searching and indexing in the manner that Google does, how will Apple profit from this? What is in it for them?

Siri will continue to evolve in ways that help Apple profit, and right now that is by selling iOS devices. Replacing Google in its entirety does not help accomplish this.

That being said, I don't mean to shoot down your idea in its entirety, I do agree that Siri will compete with Google more and more as time progresses, I just don't think Apple will go so far as competing directly with Google with aims to replace it entirely.

Also, just so you know, saying "I know somebody in the Valley" never really bolsters your argument. Anybody can (and does) say stuff like that.

Apple's the system's integrator so the user doesn't have to be. Steve Jobs.

In other words, don't oversimplify it. Many things Apple does doesn't equal actual $ directly from that as a revenue stream. It's about integrating a host of technologies to make their products and services more valuable and lustworthy to consumers.

[FireWire]

Why not? Apple did a good job a few years ago with their V-Twin technology, Sherlock and ACGI. I remember I could quickly create a sherlock plugin for my personal website in a few seconds, over 10 years ago, and have the results displayed in Sherlock, with relevance and everything!

[Salty]

Don't forget, by pulling users away from Google, Apple prevents current users from engaging with Google in a meaningful way. They prevent Google from cashing in on those users, and they make Google less useful because fewer people are using it.

Now why would Apple want to harm Google? Google is the #1 competitor of Apple in the sense that Google has their eye on being in every emerging market that Apple could be, and it's intent on constantly undercutting them. Google makes it's money in search.

It's the same reason Apple makes Pages. Pages isn't geared toward making money, though I'm sure it does. It's designed to ensure that Microsoft has less power over Mac users. Back in the day my mother would have said that she couldn't have a Mac because it didn't have Microsoft Office, what she meant was it didn't have Word. Her computer currently has Word, but she regularly talks about how much she likes Pages. Today if Microsoft pulled Word for the Mac my mom would shrug it off and continue on with her Mini and Pages.

Google currently has more geek cred than anyone, including Apple. They make cheap things that nerds think are cool because if you hook up 15 different wires you can do the same thing as an Apple TV almost as good. (I'm not being literal though Samsung recently released a net top Chrome box that I'm sure somebody's gonna make into a set top box and they'll be very happy they have a web browser on their TV.)

By taking eyes of Apple users off Google, Google is less relevant. When Google says try Android, iOS users say, "Oh Google, I used to use that!" the same way they currently do MySpace.

Google is behind the software platform that competes with two legs of the Apple Stool, and they make barely any money from it. If you don't think Apple is willing to take down Google, think again. They won't kill them, that's not their style, but they'll hurt them as badly as Microsoft is currently hurting.

[Salty]

Also, I don't think that Apple's going to stop integrating with Yelp, Open Table etc. Those are markets where good products exist that pose no threat to Apple. OS X still runs off of Unix, up until these asymmetrical fans Macs used the same fans as everyone else. I remember Jobs once talking about Open Doc and explaining that it wasn't necessary to redo the wheel every time. They won't buy Wolfram unless they really don't want anyone else to have that data source. They didn't buy Nuance.

Also they didn't make a maps platform out of thin air, they used data crowd sourced data, they used data from Microsoft, they basically whored it up with anyone who would let them finish their product quicker.

They may not be interested in keeping Open Table alive if they ran into financial problems, same with Yelp, but they're not going to go out of their way to kill them. Apple is focused on doing a few things incredibly well. And unless they figure out a way to do restaurant reviews better than Yelp, they'll be happy to partner.

[Salty]

Oh, also Amazon is clearly working on a search engine, hence why all the Kindle Fires talk back to Amazon where their pages are pre-rendered. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple either partnered with Amazon (less likely?) or pulled the same trick with Safari on all platforms. Who needs web crawlers when you have us?

[osiris24x]

I think it's inevitable that Apple will overtake and attempt to improve every market that it perceives as standing in its way. I think Apple search and database growth are inevitable, especially as Apple crowd sources data via iOS devices and runs into limitations with third party services and content. All of this precious data needs a place to gestate and be tailored toward iOS integration (such as Siri). I, for one, will welcome our new information overlords!

[freudling]

Originally Posted by osiris24x 

I think it's inevitable that Apple will overtake and attempt to improve every market that it perceives as standing in its way. I think Apple search and database growth are inevitable, especially as Apple crowd sources data via iOS devices and runs into limitations with third party services and content. All of this precious data needs a place to gestate and be tailored toward iOS integration (such as Siri). I, for one, will welcome our new information overlords!

This.

It's what I've said.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Salty 

Oh, also Amazon is clearly working on a search engine, hence why all the Kindle Fires talk back to Amazon where their pages are pre-rendered. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple either partnered with Amazon (less likely?) or pulled the same trick with Safari on all platforms. Who needs web crawlers when you have us?

Salty... basically, it's a little bit of what you've said. It's not about taking Google "down", although the thermonuclear thing may still be present.

All that talk about enemies and Google is Evil from Jobs is... a lot of it is BS and misguided thinking. Jobs created drama... he created an enemy... to create a story so his crew (the protagonists) will stay more motivated. Managing people can make you lie a lot. But they're not so much lies, just tricks to get people to do what you need them to and it revolves around motivating people.

I wouldn't read much of anything into rumours and the media. I think Apple wants to do search simply because they're trying to create the best customer experience possible, and much of this particular road leads to Siri. A lot of the other stuff is just fluff.

Apple search is the ultimate for Siri. Let's watch and see

[Waragainstsleep]

The Siri back end is made up of various other search services but as it caches more and more results, it has to go back to those services less and less often. Apple is already building its own search this way and yes, the whole point of Siri was to bypass Google.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple's the system's integrator so the user doesn't have to be. Steve Jobs.

In other words, don't oversimplify it. Many things Apple does doesn't equal actual $ directly from that as a revenue stream. It's about integrating a host of technologies to make their products and services more valuable and lustworthy to consumers.

I can't think of an Apple product that doesn't function as a direct or one-step removed indirect sort of revenue source.

If Apple can figure out how to monetize this stuff, great, but the whole ads thing may require delving into cloud services a little more than they have. I think cloud services are a reasonable next frontier for Apple though, particularly ones that are made open for third party integration ala Google's. Perhaps Siri and iCloud (to a lesser extent) already indicate a commitment to perfecting cloud services (which I'm sure will involve a learning curve for the company). It's hard to imagine an evolving Apple while completely avoiding getting into cloud services, which as of now is Google's, Yahoo's, and Amazon's territory.

I guess my point is that your predictions depend on some directional changes of Apple's which are not an absolute given: one being to redesign/reset the scope of Siri, and the other to do what is necessary to make this profitable for Apple.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The Siri back end is made up of various other search services but as it caches more and more results, it has to go back to those services less and less often. Apple is already building its own search this way and yes, the whole point of Siri was to bypass Google.

I don't see it that way. Google is a different type of searching service than what Siri needs to do its thing. Siri needs a more Ask Jeeves style search backend. So, I wouldn't say they are "bypassing" Google, because it may have never made sense for Siri to use Google based on technical reasons alone.

[besson3c]

Good thread freudling, I like this topic!

[Dork.]

OK, I'll be the curmudgeon in the room. No matter how successful this ends up being, I'm not going to like it.

- All these new Apple products are getting tied to Apple hardware, specifically iPhones. (And in a few years, Apple computers will just be iPhones with keyboards.) Walled gardens, and all that crap. Google wants your data, but at least they're agnostic about who builds their hardware, and I'm not just stuck with one vendor's choices.

- Why oh why do people think that talking to get information is such a good idea? I think Steve Jobs just liked Star Trek a bit too much, he recreated the PADDs and then he wanted to build the Star Trek computer. Now maybe this is more of a reflection on my choice of friends than anything else, but everyone I know with an iPhone that can run Siri just tries to get her to say vulgar things. It's a novelty. I can't stand talking to get information: it's too slow. I can type requests into Google, and if I need clarification, I can put quotes or + and - signs in my search to get better results. I don't care how intelligent your search algorithm is, it's going to be hard to get that level of control in a natural language request.
Every time I call one into one of those automated services that ask me to speak my choice, I have to resist the urge to hurl my phone across the room. I can't stand it. Half the time they don't understand me, anyway. I just pound "0" until I get a human.
But I'm still not used to all these people walking around with their bluetooth headsets or white wired headphones on, talking into thin air. Get off my lawn!

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I have a reliable source ...

Is your reliable source Forbes?
iSearch: When Does Apple Release Its Own Search Engine? - Forbes

Or maybe The Register from 2009?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08...search_engine/

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Is your reliable source Forbes?
iSearch: When Does Apple Release Its Own Search Engine? - Forbes

Or maybe The Register from 2009?
Is Apple plotting a search of its own? • The Register

No, never seen these articles. It's someone well known in the Valley who knows people inside Apple.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can't think of an Apple product that doesn't function as a direct or one-step removed indirect sort of revenue source.

If Apple can figure out how to monetize this stuff, great, but the whole ads thing may require delving into cloud services a little more than they have. I think cloud services are a reasonable next frontier for Apple though, particularly ones that are made open for third party integration ala Google's. Perhaps Siri and iCloud (to a lesser extent) already indicate a commitment to perfecting cloud services (which I'm sure will involve a learning curve for the company). It's hard to imagine an evolving Apple while completely avoiding getting into cloud services, which as of now is Google's, Yahoo's, and Amazon's territory.

I guess my point is that your predictions depend on some directional changes of Apple's which are not an absolute given: one being to redesign/reset the scope of Siri, and the other to do what is necessary to make this profitable for Apple.

There's a ton of stuff Apple offers that doesn't directly generate revenues for Apple. In fact, a host of these things are disruptive and destroy economies.

Like podcasts and the whole podcast platform.
Tons of Apps, like Find my Friends.
FaceTime.
iMessage.
iBooks Author.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

OK, I'll be the curmudgeon in the room. No matter how successful this ends up being, I'm not going to like it.

- All these new Apple products are getting tied to Apple hardware, specifically iPhones. (And in a few years, Apple computers will just be iPhones with keyboards.) Walled gardens, and all that crap. Google wants your data, but at least they're agnostic about who builds their hardware, and I'm not just stuck with one vendor's choices.

- Why oh why do people think that talking to get information is such a good idea? I think Steve Jobs just liked Star Trek a bit too much, he recreated the PADDs and then he wanted to build the Star Trek computer. Now maybe this is more of a reflection on my choice of friends than anything else, but everyone I know with an iPhone that can run Siri just tries to get her to say vulgar things. It's a novelty. I can't stand talking to get information: it's too slow. I can type requests into Google, and if I need clarification, I can put quotes or + and - signs in my search to get better results. I don't care how intelligent your search algorithm is, it's going to be hard to get that level of control in a natural language request.
Every time I call one into one of those automated services that ask me to speak my choice, I have to resist the urge to hurl my phone across the room. I can't stand it. Half the time they don't understand me, anyway. I just pound "0" until I get a human.
But I'm still not used to all these people walking around with their bluetooth headsets or white wired headphones on, talking into thin air. Get off my lawn!

Well, if you read my movie night example earlier in the thread... I agree speech and computers hasn't taken off. Dragon Dictation has been around a while, but nobody I know uses it. The thing about Siri is it's getting to the point of being very useful. It eliminates so many keystrokes and gestures to get X done, people are foolish not to use it for what it's good at. And what it's good at has expanded greatly with iOS 6.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I don't see it that way. Google is a different type of searching service than what Siri needs to do its thing. Siri needs a more Ask Jeeves style search backend. So, I wouldn't say they are "bypassing" Google, because it may have never made sense for Siri to use Google based on technical reasons alone.

Certainly Siri relies heavily on the ability to search using human questions rather than keywords like Google does so there is a technical component to it. I maintain that a big part of Siri's existence is to allow Apple to route search queries and traffic away from Google.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by freudling 

There's a ton of stuff Apple offers that doesn't directly generate revenues for Apple. In fact, a host of these things are disruptive and destroy economies.

Like podcasts and the whole podcast platform.

Which furthers iTunes and the whole iTunes infrastructure including ios devices.

Tons of Apps, like Find my Friends.

More iOS sales

FaceTime.

Ditto

iMessage.

Ditto

iBooks Author.

Ditto

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

No, never seen these articles. It's someone well known in the Valley who knows people inside Apple.

Sure, but you're making this out to be some major revelation that you have limited inside knowledge of. People have been speculating about Apple getting into search for years. Rumours from someone who knows "someone in the Valley who knows people inside Apple" are a dime-a-dozen. We all know "someone in the Valley who knows people inside Apple"; a lot of us even have direct connections to people inside Apple (people inside Apple are the *least* likely to share inside knowledge about Apple's future strategies).

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Sure, but you're making this out to be some major revelation that you have limited inside knowledge of. People have been speculating about Apple getting into search for years. Rumours from someone who knows "someone in the Valley who knows people inside Apple" are a dime-a-dozen. We all know "someone in the Valley who knows people inside Apple"; a lot of us even have direct connections to people inside Apple (people inside Apple are the *least* likely to share inside knowledge about Apple's future strategies).

This is an Internet forum. If you don't like speculation and discussion about it, leave.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Which furthers iTunes and the whole iTunes infrastructure including ios devices.

What I said:

In other words, don't oversimplify it. Many things Apple does doesn't equal actual $ directly from that as a revenue stream. It's about integrating a host of technologies to make their products and services more valuable and lustworthy to consumers.

You're saying the same thing.

[Wiskedjak]

iOS6 Siri is definitely better than iOS5 Siri, but I'm finding that I still prefer typing in my queries rather speaking them (Siri sucks if you're somewhere that you need to be quite or somewhere that has too much background noise ). I also prefer to go straight to the apps relevant to my search: in the "What movies are playing nearby" scenario, I much prefer firing up Flixster and immediately browsing nearby theatres.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

This is an Internet forum. If you don't like speculation and discussion about it, leave.

I'm all for speculation. I also think that speculation about Apple getting into search is quite valid. It's made sense ever since 2009.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

iOS6 Siri is definitely better than iOS5 Siri, but I'm finding that I still prefer typing in my queries rather speaking them (Siri sucks if you're somewhere that you need to be quite or somewhere that has too much background noise ). I also prefer to go straight to the apps relevant to my search: in the "What movies are playing nearby" scenario, I much prefer firing up Flixster and immediately browsing nearby theatres.

Interesting.

So first, are you using iOS 6? Second, my experience and habits are totally opposite.

I couldn't be bothered having a bunch of Apps. I just like to keep things as simple as possible. Siri is abstracting a lot of the computer away... and in this case, abstracting the computer away means the physical device itself (much less keystrokes and gestures) and the software itself (much less reliance on things called "Apps"). It's just becoming a more singular thing... a "computer" if you will. Aka Star Trek.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Certainly Siri relies heavily on the ability to search using human questions rather than keywords like Google does so there is a technical component to it. I maintain that a big part of Siri's existence is to allow Apple to route search queries and traffic away from Google.

I would say that this is a side effect of Apple's main motivation behind Siri, although probably one they don't mind existing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by freudling 

What I said:

In other words, don't oversimplify it. Many things Apple does doesn't equal actual $ directly from that as a revenue stream. It's about integrating a host of technologies to make their products and services more valuable and lustworthy to consumers.

You're saying the same thing.

So then how does this counter my point that Apple does not make stuff it cannot profit from, either directly or indirect but with there being a fair non-abstract connection?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would say that this is a side effect of Apple's main motivation behind Siri, although probably one they don't mind existing.

Its more important than that. How else could anyone hope to gain inroads against Google in search? They are too ingrained in the public conscious. The only way to do it is in a way that people don't realise its been done.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Interesting.

So first, are you using iOS 6?

Yes. Anyone who knows an iOS dev can get iOS 6 on their phone. 

Originally Posted by freudling 

Second, my experience and habits are totally opposite.

That's not surprising. What you always fail to realize is that not everyone is exactly like you. 

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Aka Star Trek.

The computer in Star Trek is fantastic for exposition, because it reveals to the audience exactly what the characters are using the computer for (and the outcome). In real life, exposing my exact computer usage and outcome to everyone around me (my "audience") is waaay less appealing than it would be if I was a character on TV. Just sayin'.

The same goes for the 3d immersive swipe interface featured in minority report. They look cool, but when you get down to it, it's a way to make the interface bigger, more engaging (read: "intrusive") to viewers, and more understandable (read: "slower"). These aspects help viewers follow along, but they make the interface harder to use for the actual user/actor/character, than the status quo equivalent. Remember when Scotty used that keyboard in Voyage Home? It may have been more boring for the audience than him talking back and forth with the computer, but he sure got a lot more done in a shorter time using that interface.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its more important than that. How else could anyone hope to gain inroads against Google in search? They are too ingrained in the public conscious. The only way to do it is in a way that people don't realise its been done.

Why do you think Apple wants to? They aren't trying to become the the dominant desktop OS either, Microsoft has already won that battle, just as Google has won search (few people probably know what Bing is, either).

With Apple no longer dependent on Google for maps, I think they are just content to focus on their stuff and let Google focus on their's, rather than to set out to destroy Google as their prime objective.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The computer in Star Trek is fantastic for exposition, because it reveals to the audience exactly what the characters are using the computer for (and the outcome). In real life, exposing my exact computer usage and outcome to everyone around me (my "audience") is waaay less appealing than it would be if I was a character on TV. Just sayin'.

The same goes for the 3d immersive swipe interface featured in minority report. They look cool, but when you get down to it, it's a way to make the interface bigger, more engaging (read: "intrusive") to viewers, and more understandable (read: "slower"). These aspects help viewers follow along, but they make the interface harder to use for the actual user/actor/character, than the status quo equivalent. Remember when Scotty used that keyboard in Voyage Home? It may have been more boring for the audience than him talking back and forth with the computer, but he sure got a lot more done in a shorter time using that interface.

Even in a best case sort of scenario, speaking into your device is best done in an environment without a lot of background noise, and an environment that offers some privacy in many cases.

[freudling]

Voice:

I've criticized voice for years. But Apple's doing it right.

People who say voice doesn't work with people around are wrong.

You use your voice around people constantly. You talk to them and you talk on the phone in public.

It's about getting used to speaking to your computer.

And Apple has figured out beautifully the stuff people don't care about being private about, nailing things like sports scores, weather, movies, etc. And in the end it's about efficiency. Siri is more efficient for many things I'm finding than the old fashioned keystrokes and gestures. That's iOS 6 Siri...

[freudling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So then how does this counter my point that Apple does not make stuff it cannot profit from, either directly or indirect but with there being a fair non-abstract connection?

You're sort of playing with words. The point is that Apple doesn't look at every piece of technology as a direct revenue stream. They're a systems integrator and are better than anyone at it. This makes their products more attractive for consumers to buy.

This system just keeps getting bigger. Now they've built in dictation into Mountain Lion. Dragon Dictation no more. These things don't directly generate revenue for Apple: they cost Apple money interms of development and service. But in the end they're products become more and more integrated and useful to people.

The empire continues to grow.

Meanwhile the other guys are two dimensional. Look at Google Voice search. It's dumb search. Siri makes voice make way more sense .

Just wait guys, it's going to get better.

"Tell me the tech news for the day..." And then progress to being even smarter:

"Shall I tell you the tech news for the day?"

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by freudling 

You're sort of playing with words. The point is that Apple doesn't look at every piece of technology as a direct revenue stream. They're a systems integrator and are better than anyone at it. This makes their products more attractive for consumers to buy.

This system just keeps getting bigger. Now they've built in dictation into Mountain Lion. Dragon Dictation no more. These things don't directly generate revenue for Apple: they cost Apple money interms of development and service. But in the end they're products become more and more integrated and useful to people.

The empire continues to grow.

Meanwhile the other guys are two dimensional. Look at Google Voice search. It's dumb search. Siri makes voice make way more sense .

I agree with all of this, but again, Apple making Siri a keywords based search needs to help Apple build their empire. Making Google weaker in and of itself is not as attractive to Apple unless their actions that make Google weaker also help feed the Apple ecosystem to make it stronger. If Apple was out to crush competitors like grapes they'd buy out more companies. Instead, history has shown that they are only interested in technologies that help feed the Apple ecosystem and make it better.

If your argument is that Apple will eventually get into ways in which keyword based searches will improve Apple products or help drive other Apple products, okay, but this would represent a new set of directions for Apple involving getting into cloud services, one that I've already said may make sense. However, it isn't a complete given to me that Apple is interested in committing to this new wing of the company though. If they were, wouldn't iCloud be a central part of this and doing a lot more than it is today?

I think Apple is flirting with this stuff and will probably ultimately make the plunge, but I think that we need to see more to make these sort of projections with absolute certainty. Apple getting into keywords based search is probably not going to be the first piece of evidence we are going to see that demonstrates Apple's interests in cloud services.

Apple needs to be a cloud services company before it can make Google Search its bitch.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I agree with all of this, but again, Apple making Siri a keywords based search needs to help Apple build their empire. Making Google weaker in and of itself is not as attractive to Apple unless their actions that make Google weaker also help feed the Apple ecosystem to make it stronger. If Apple was out to crush competitors like grapes they'd buy out more companies. Instead, history has shown that they are only interested in technologies that help feed the Apple ecosystem and make it better.

If your argument is that Apple will eventually get into ways in which keyword based searches will improve Apple products or help drive other Apple products, okay, but this would represent a new set of directions for Apple involving getting into cloud services, one that I've already said may make sense. However, it isn't a complete given to me that Apple is interested in committing to this new wing of the company though. If they were, wouldn't iCloud be a central part of this and doing a lot more than it is today?

I think Apple is flirting with this stuff and will probably ultimately make the plunge, but I think that we need to see more to make these sort of projections with absolute certainty. Apple getting into keywords based search is probably not going to be the first piece of evidence we are going to see that demonstrates Apple's interests in cloud services.

Apple needs to be a cloud services company before it can make Google Search its bitch.

Wow you're rambling.

Anybody can label things whatever they want. Apple is simply trying to create the best customer experience by integrating technologies so the actual technology gets out of the way of the user.

Eliminating or competing with other competitors is just collateral damage in the wake of Apple's innovation, not something they use as a sole criteria for creating products.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Eliminating or competing with other competitors is just collateral damage in the wake of Apple's innovation, not something they use as a sole criteria for creating products.

So then we agree.

In which case, all of your ramblings in this thread can't really be discussed fully without looking at Apple's cloud services strategy, or lack thereof.

Google's international search infrastructure is a technical marvel. Even if Apple were to match the quality of Google's software in coming up with good search results, they would still need a strategy to create the same sort of infrastructure needed to accomplish what Google has accomplished on the same scale.

It is really hard to see Apple succeeding in this area if they were to venture there tomorrow, if iCloud and its predecessors is any sort of indication as to what to expect from an Apple cloud service.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Apple has figured out beautifully the stuff people don't care about being private about, nailing things like sports scores, weather, movies, etc.

In that case, Apple is building a niche search engine, rather than a general replacement for google.