Noah Harbinger Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 See, and that's the whole craziness with Siri. Apple doesn't like relying on outside suppliers, and yet, have they the ability to furnish useful content at the other end of generic Siri queries? It's like, okay we bought Siri fairly cheap. Now how do we take advantage of the results Siri furnishes. Okay. How many people will we have to hire to do that. Okay, and how do we make money from that. Okay, how do we make sure we aren't ticking off our customers. Etc... A larger software company like Microsoft could plug Bing into Siri, a smaller or less hidebound company would be content to outsource the search results to Google (or Bing). So where does Apple go? Do they really want to go down the rabbit-hole with Siri--and invest a significant amount of resources into a replicable technology (widely understood machine learning algorithms + voice recognition software) that in large part depends on the breadth of its established user base? I really doubt they'll build their own search engine - it's too boring. They'll stick with Google, but solicit offers from Bing or (huh is there anyone else?) for leverage. There have been rumors of switching the default search in Safari for years. Of course, at this point they have the money to do it themselves, if Google really does go nuts with their search revenue like they did with their maps pricing. And that's the important point: Google has to stay reasonable, because they're not indispensable. From another perspective this looks like the PowerPC vs. Intel thing. PowerPC chips were better---and then they weren't. And once they weren't they weren't going to catch up. I don't think anyone technical seriously believed PowerPC processors were faster for real-world use, except for brief moments on certain benchmarks. They always had the potential, but Motorola was too interested in the mobile market, and IBM too interested in the server/supercomputer market for either to really apply their potential to the desktop processor. But there wasn't a lot a of choice until OS X came along, so they just had to make the best of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Of course, at this point they have the money to do it themselves, They have the money, it's true. But the existence of this huge pile of money, IMO, suggests that they are incapable of spending it wisely and smart enough not to spend it foolishly. Google has to stay reasonable, because they're not indispensable. A point Apple would do well to learn, given their ongoing insistence on, among other things, cooking up proprietary connectors for standard interface buses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 I don't think anyone technical seriously believed PowerPC processors were faster for real-world use, except for brief moments on certain benchmarks. One thing that hastened its demise, IMHO, was Apple's reluctance to get into parallel processing with multi-CPU motherboards, which appeared in the Intel world as NT matured and server loads demanded a multi-CPU motherboard. Thus animation became a largely non-Apple environment for the brute-force pixel rendering from programs like 3-D Studio. (IIRC, the licensing fine print also allowed up to 4 virtual rendering-only copies per legal installation, so you could distribute the rendering job to other machines on your LAN). Of course, with OSX, this has changed somewhat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 AFAIK, Apple pushed parallel processing long before dual core chips became available on similarly priced PCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 AFAIK, Apple pushed parallel processing long before dual core chips became available on similarly priced PCs. Yes indeed, but I seem to remember back in the single-core days, a half-dozen suppliers of multi-CPU PC's when AFAIK, the only multi-CPU Apple OS machine authorized to be built by Apple, was by 68000 Corp, or somesuch hi-tech name. AFAIK, Apple never allowed Mac clones in North America, but I could be mistaken. IIRC, it took the Australian Supreme Court to force Apple to allow Australian clones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Apple licensed Mac compatibles early on in the PPC era, during the Jobs exile. He put a quick end to it on his return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Apple licensed Mac compatibles early on in the PPC era, during the Jobs exile. He put a quick end to it on his return. Yeah, the Power Computing machines were pretty nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) The computer lab in the art department had two when I started my sophomore year, and the extremely neurotic instructor guarded them as though they were guided missile launchers. You may not have needed two keys to access them, but I'm sure he looked into it. Edited June 25, 2012 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Meh...I was doing symmetric multi-processing on Unix back in the late 80s when pcs were still using 386 and 486 single chips. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusioneh Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 And just to stir the pot a bit more... I was using a Unix multi user multitasking O/S on a Motorola 6809 processor starting around 1985. The real hoot of it was that they called it OS-9 way back then. I believe the company that wrote this is still in business. Google Microware <G>. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 And just to stir the pot a bit more... I was using a Unix multi user multitasking O/S on a Motorola 6809 processor starting around 1985. The real hoot of it was that they called it OS-9 way back then. I believe the company that wrote this is still in business. Google Microware <G>. The predecessor to the application I first worked on out of college was running a multi-user multi-tasking operating system on a PDP-11 back in the early to mid 70s. It was the first business application written on the new operating system. The OS was so new that whenever they had a problem they would call tech support in New Jersey and the tech support guy would drive overnight from NJ to North Carolina to work on the problem in person. His name was Ken Thompson. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm glad they aren't adding a stupid Siri button. I like Apple and own a Core i5 iMac, an iPad, and a couple of iPods, but I don't want an iPhone so I don't want a button that says Siri (an Apple trademark) in my car. Even though I use and enjoy Sirius in my vehicle I still wish the button was simple labeled Sat instead of Sirius. I'm not sure when Ford changed this, but in my 2008 Fusion it just said Sat, but in my Escape it actually says Sirius and is a different font like the old Sirius logo. Since it is now called SiriusXM even that button isn't really right anymore. Contrary to popular belief the iPhone isn't really the Jesus Phone. There are better phones on the market. I know I wouldn't trade my 4G LTE RAZR MAXX with a 3300 mAh battery and 4.3" screen for a dinky little iPhone. I say get whatever phone you want, but I shouldn't have to look at a button for an Apple product if I don't use it. I suppose if they came up with a generic "function" button that could be programmed for different things and that would run Siri I wouldn't mind, but I don't think it should be dedicated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted June 25, 2012 Author Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I'm glad they aren't adding a stupid Siri button. I like Apple and own a Core i5 iMac, an iPad, and a couple of iPods, but I don't want an iPhone so I don't want a button that says Siri (an Apple trademark) in my car. Even though I use and enjoy Sirius in my vehicle I still wish the button was simple labeled Sat instead of Sirius. I'm not sure when Ford changed this, but in my 2008 Fusion it just said Sat, but in my Escape it actually says Sirius and is a different font like the old Sirius logo. Since it is now called SiriusXM even that button isn't really right anymore. Microsoft and Sony brands seem to find their way in Ford cars too. The more labels Ford can stick on its cars, the happier they tend to be. Edited June 25, 2012 by BORG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Yeah, but the MS & Sony logos aren't tied to an outside device Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 How timely. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Yep Siri is pretty useless http://gizmodo.com/5922332/google-search-beats-the-crap-out-of-siri-in-1600-question-test Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 And that's pretty much the problem: Make money off it with marketing driven answers or provide useful information that isn't in itself profitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Yep Siri is pretty useless http://gizmodo.com/5...0-question-test But Apple's the best! This CAN'T be so! Siri told me herself! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Yep Siri is pretty useless http://gizmodo.com/5...0-question-test I don't understand the hate regarding Siri. It's not perfect. But, it works pretty well overall. If I need to set a reminder, call someone, have a text message read to me, check the weather, or find out if someone has sent me an email, I can do these things with Siri. Do I use Siri all the time? No, but I do use it quite a bit. For these types of features, it works well. There are many times that I need to do things like this and Siri allows me to do them with less inconvenience. I've been pleased with it so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LauraLou Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Let's face it, they all have quirks. Technology these days it is moving so fast. I have apple products as well as those powered by Microsoft. I am by no means an expert and have found pros and cons with both. In my experiences they both have ways to go in voice recognition and compatibility. I love my I-pad but with Apple and their sole use of only "apple" search engines, software, etc., I have found myself going back to my Microsoft based computer to do some things. It is a toss up! You will all laugh but I would just love to find a Sprint/ nextel phone that has talk to text technology! will have to check the Ford Lists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 I'll take a Google Voice button as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 More very good reasoning for not having this button: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/07/26/new-iphone-5-may-come-with-incompatible-connector-for-cars Nearly the entire auto industry has finally caught up with the world of consumer electronics, offering a way to connect the iPod/iPhone – be it via USB, Bluetooth or official Apple connector – in most new cars. The 30-pin Apple connector was first incorporated in a car by BMW in 2004 and was significant because it meant inclusion of a connector that only works for a single brand's products. Automakers like Audi and Volkswagen also offer an iPhone-spec cable, allowing access to your music through the car's own audio system and changing tracks on the steering wheel controls. Now, prepare to be frustrated. Now that everyone finally offers the same cable for the iPhone, Apple may reportedly move to a 19-pin connector that is smaller than the current 30-pin cable. If the reports are true, then the new iPhone 5 will be instantly incompatible with the built-in 30-pin connectors that come equipped in Kia, Hyundai and Nissan vehicles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Word is they're planning to come out with an adapter. I'd bet that, in typical Apple fashion, that adapter will be upwards of $20 because of who sells it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Word is they're planning to come out with an adapter. I'd bet that, in typical Apple fashion, that adapter will be upwards of $20 because of who sells it. That's a pretty safe bet on your part! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 I want to know why that thing had 30 pins in the first place. I mean, typically, it's converted to a standard 9 or 11 connector USB cable. So what's the point of the extra 19-23 pins? -- Also, typical Apple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.