iPhone 5

[TheL8Elvis]

It was already in Samsung smartphones before Siri was even released as an app never mind Apple buying it and incorporating it into the OS.

http://www.cnet.com/8301-17918_1-57458122-85/apples-siri-trounces-samsungs-s-voice-hands-on/
S Voice, which launched this summer on the Samsung Galaxy S3, is Samsung's answer to Siri. That also makes S Voice the predominant voice app for the iPhone 5's brawniest Android contender.
S Voice has been getting a bad rap ever since the its debut. CNET Asia and CNET UK both slammed the Siri-wannabe before the Galaxy S3 arrived in the U.S., and Siri easily won here in San Francisco as well.

What was the name of what samsung had before S Voice ?

Who was even taking about S-Voice?

I was. I brought it up in relation to the hilited 'it' so I could find out what the 'it' was that was already in samsung phones before siri was even released. Hence my question:
What was the name of what samsung had before S Voice ?

Was it just android voice control ? Or was it something samsung specific ?

I'm sorry bringing up S-voice confused you, it made sense to me when I posted it.

 

[Hungry81]

I believe he is referring to products like thiese in this article. Whether they are more functional than siri I don't know I've never used them and never felt the urge to, although I can see where they might be handy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/siri-alternatives-for-android-2011-11?op=1

The only real difference I can see though is that Google didn't buy them out and tempoarily restrict them to one phone in order to drive up hype and sales.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

I believe he is referring to products like thiese in this article. Whether they are more functional than siri I don't know I've never used them and never felt the urge to, although I can see where they might be handy.

http://www.businessinsider.com/siri-alternatives-for-android-2011-11?op=1

The only real difference I can see though is that Google didn't buy them out and tempoarily restrict them to one phone in order to drive up hype and sales.

No, Google did the honourable thing and immediately rushed out their own version to capitalise on the success of an Apple product. The other difference you missed is that Google's effort is apparently inferior to Siri, but hey - at least any Android user has access to it!

You really think Google did that because they are White Knights in shining armour fighting the evil tyranny of Apple, or because they smelled money?

 

[Hungry81]

No, Google did the honourable thing and immediately rushed out their own version to capitalise on the success of an Apple product. The other difference you missed is that Google's effort is apparently inferior to Siri, but hey - at least any Android user has access to it!

You really think Google did that because they are White Knights in shining armour fighting the evil tyranny of Apple, or because they smelled money?

No Google did not rush out and make their own version. They had various levels of voice commands already built in BEFORE Apple purchased SIRI.

Other companies were also making voice control for mobiles well before SIRI. Vlingo for example, was originally on blackberry and made availible for Android as a beta in 2009. Tellme was a microsoft effort for windows mobile 6.5.

Apple jumped on the bandwagon, not by in house innovation, but buying out an already established company and MONOPOLISING voice controled features for their smartphone line, and only allowing it on ONE of their newest models as a fake exclusive feature in order to drive up hype and sales. They then graciously allowed neutered versions onto their older smartphones after months of complaints.

Google are definately not white knights, and Apple are definitely not the innovative powerhouse some like to pretend they are.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

No Google did not rush out and make their own version. They had various levels of voice commands already built in BEFORE Apple purchased SIRI.

So did Apple. What's your point?

S Voice wasn't an attempt to cash in on what Apple were touting as a major selling point of a new iPhone? Yeah...

Other companies were also making voice control for mobiles well before SIRI. Vlingo for example, was originally on blackberry and made availible for Android as a beta in 2009. Tellme was a microsoft effort for windows mobile 6.5.

And voice control was also a feature of the iPhone in 2009. What's your point?

Apple jumped on the bandwagon, not by in house innovation, but buying out an already established company and MONOPOLISING voice controled features for their smartphone line, and only allowing it on ONE of their newest models as a fake exclusive feature in order to drive up hype and sales. They then graciously allowed neutered versions onto their older smartphones after months of complaints.

Fake exclusive? Siri was a virtual assistant; a large step above 'voice control' - if any other phone manufacturer was offering anything at the same level at the same time, I'd be interested to hear about it.

By the FSM, Apple are evil aren't they? Paying shedloads of money to a relatively small company to use and further develop their product, and only offering it to people who buy an iPhone... Wonder how they tricked the makers of Siri into that?

Google are definately not white knights, and Apple are definitely not the innovative powerhouse some like to pretend they are.

Not quite as innovative as they used to be, yet they continue to sell.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No Google did not rush out and make their own version. They had various levels of voice commands already built in BEFORE Apple purchased SIRI.

Other companies were also making voice control for mobiles well before SIRI. Vlingo for example, was originally on blackberry and made availible for Android as a beta in 2009. Tellme was a microsoft effort for windows mobile 6.5.

Apple jumped on the bandwagon, not by in house innovation, but buying out an already established company and MONOPOLISING voice controled features for their smartphone line, and only allowing it on ONE of their newest models as a fake exclusive feature in order to drive up hype and sales. They then graciously allowed neutered versions onto their older smartphones after months of complaints.

Google are definately not white knights, and Apple are definitely not the innovative powerhouse some like to pretend they are.

I think your argument is unintentionally hilarious.

Here is a list of apples acquisitions.

Here is googles.

Compare how many companies google has purchased for their technology over the last few years compared to apple. It's not even close. But somehow apple is the bad guy for adding siri ?

 

[Hungry81]

S voice is Samsung's offering. Google's voice control (I believe it is called google voice actions) predates siri.

Siri was a fake exclusive feature because it was made for iPhone 4, Apple then bought it and then allegedly lied, saying it would only work on their new iPhone 4s. (presumably because it was light on other "innovative" features)

Apple's not evil, they are just trying (successfully) to make money. could be more accurately described as braggarts, but then so are a lot of companies that make unsubstantiated and over the top claims about their own superiority.

I compare them to a know it all 3rd grader, who says he has been everywhere, done everything and is the best at everything, but the moment he is asked to prove it there is some convenient excuse as to why he can't.

 

[Hungry81]

I think your argument is unintentionally hilarious.

Here is a list of apples acquisitions.

Here is googles.

Compare how many companies google has purchased for their technology over the last few years compared to apple. It's not even close. But somehow apple is the bad guy for adding siri ?

I'm not arguing against acquisitions. I acknowledge that both companies buy out other companies to enhance their own products or stop others from being able to enhance their own. The difference is Apple and its fans use how "innovative" Apple is as a selling point. When in reality their innovative side is far outweighed by their acumen in business acquisition and marketing.

Apple is not evil its just they are no where near as good as they claim.

 

[Hungry81]

Double post, apologies

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'm not arguing against acquisitions. I acknowledge that both companies buy out other companies to enhance their own products or stop others from being able to enhance their own. The difference is Apple and its fans use how "innovative" Apple is as a selling point. When in reality their innovative side is far outweighed by their acumen in business acquisition and marketing.

I don't understand what the issues is, then. You've created some 'apple is so innovative' strawman. ( Unless you can point to where in this thread people were making that claim ) Siri is not voice control. Apple already had voice control on the iPhone and iPods.

Apple is not evil its just they are no where near as good as they claim.

How good exactly do they claim they are ?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

S voice is Samsung's offering. Google's voice control (I believe it is called google voice actions) predates siri.

And iPhone had voice control in 2009 as a fully-working feature, which predates Siri. What's your point?

Siri was a fake exclusive feature because it was made for iPhone 4, Apple then bought it and then allegedly lied, saying it would only work on their new iPhone 4s. (presumably because it was light on other "innovative" features)

It wasn't fake at all - it was exclusive to iPhone 4S. You couldn't get it on any other iPhone. How is that not, by definition, exclusive?

It only worked in it's updated and redesigned form on iPhone 4S. Siri was not the same as the app you could get for the iPhone 4.

What's wrong with a company wanting a major selling point for an updated model of a product? Remember, Apple weren't pushing the iPhone 4S as the second coming of Christ - that was purely media and fan speculation and hype. Typically Apple said nothing about the iPhone 4S until they announced it.

Apple's not evil, they are just trying (successfully) to make money. could be more accurately described as braggarts, but then so are a lot of companies that make unsubstantiated and over the top claims about their own superiority.

Can you show me examples of where Apple have made unsubstantiated and over the top claims about their products?

Do you mean something along the lines of the pitiful 'Samsung Vs iPhone 4S' magazine advert that Samsung crapped out? The one where the laundry list of "spectacular" features included 'place your phone face down to put it in silent mode' instead of Apple's archaic and complex 'flick a switch on the phone to enter silent mode and put your phone down however you like' feature?

I compare them to a know it all 3rd grader, who says he has been everywhere, done everything and is the best at everything, but the moment he is asked to prove it there is some convenient excuse as to why he can't.

Can you give me a recent example of a claim Apple have made that they have been unable to substantiate?

 

[Hungry81]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4IRsCjMqdI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You're welcome. Also see almost every single one of their adds since Mac vs pc.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4IRsCjMqdI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You're welcome. Also see almost every single one of their adds since Mac vs pc.

I'm sorry, what's that an example of exactly?

If that's supposed to illustrate that Apple incorrectly claimed the iPhone 5 is bigger, yet thinner than previous models then you're quite demonstrably wrong.

If that was supposed to prove that Apple claimed to have actually broken the laws of physics when they haven't then you're either trolling or just don't understand advertising. Are you going to criticise Coca-Cola because they've incorrectly claimed polar bears drink coke?

 

[Hungry81]

Polar bears may or may not drink coke. It is a side issue.
You asked me to present one claim that apple made that they couldn't substantiate. I did so. Apple has engaged in deceptive advertising practices at least since their Mac vs pc campaign. If Apple are going to sell their products on such claims they should be prepared to be called out on the stupidity of these claims. Isn't that one reason why this forum exists in the first place?

Even if nobody really believes these claims it speaks volumes that bereft of any real recent new features or innovation, Apple has to pad their adds out with this fluff.

 

[carlitos]

Saying that their new phone is thinner and longer is a deceptive advertising practice? Dude.

 

[Hungry81]

No its the part about it defying physics that I was pointing out.
Again I was asked to produce one example of apple making unsubstantiated claims. That's one I pulled out off the top of my head

Even if no one takes it seriously its still an example of a unsubstantiated claim, just like every time they call their devices "magic" or "revolutionary", but I can find others examples once I get time. (I'm at work now)

 

[carlitos]

You're being silly.

 

[Hungry81]

Look I'm not using it as the conclusion of some killer argument. I was asked to provide evidence of apple making an unsupported claim and I did.
I'm not saying that its the be all and end all, and I have offered to provide other examples once I get to a computer.

I freely acknowledge ads sometimes exaggerate or outright lie, just like the s2 add that implies the phone can survive and continue working after being submerged in a fishbowl. Yes it may be a silly example, but its from a silly ad, if you want to move the goalposts that's fine, I can find unsubstantiated claims that do not come from their ads

 

[carlitos]

Ok. In America at least, the shorthand for "advertisement" is "ad."

Apologies if your smartphone is adding the extra d.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Look I'm not using it as the conclusion of some killer argument. I was asked to provide evidence of apple making an unsupported claim and I did.
I'm not saying that its the be all and end all, and I have offered to provide other examples once I get to a computer.

I freely acknowledge ads sometimes exaggerate or outright lie, just like the s2 add that implies the phone can survive and continue working after being submerged in a fishbowl. Yes it may be a silly example, but its from a silly ad, if you want to move the goalposts that's fine, I can find unsubstantiated claims that do not come from their ads

No, let's leave the goalposts where you set them:

Apple's not evil, they are just trying (successfully) to make money. could be more accurately described as braggarts, but then so are a lot of companies that make unsubstantiated and over the top claims about their own superiority.

The hilited claim is what you should substantiate.