Siri isn't about voice search. It's about voice-initiated tasks. Sometimes that's search, but sometimes it's a reminder, or a calendar appointment, etc. The innovation is in that distinction and in the context awareness. [1] And that truly is innovation. Regardless of where it came from. If/As Siri is expanded, it's going to become a Big Deal.
And Google's going to deliver something similar. Something beyond literal transcription and voice search, because what Siri presents really is an innovative improvement.
And as to the question of Apple buying Siri vs developing it -- where does that argument end? How could we possibly apply it fairly and objectively? Shall we wave off all of Android as Google's innovation, simply because Google bought it? How many improvements and integrations would it take to (dis)qualify an innovation as being fairly creditable to the current owner? How could we even know what the new owner 'created' vs what these acquired firms had in development at the time of purchase? Does Apple's SoC line count or not count, given they bought PA Semi, but we have no idea what they did pre- or post-acquisition? How in the world is anyone outside capable of knowing? It's essentially impossible for an outside party to fairly apply in a comparison between two companies.
The selective application of that qualifying logic winds up looking like nothing more than making excuses for whatever doesn't fit our preconceived positions.
[1] Being able to refine/adjust a command without restating the entire thing: e.g. the whole example of "make an appointment for 1 tomorrow" "here's your appointment, shall I create it" "wait, make that 2". To say nothing of the detection of things like scheduling conflicts in the first place, where the conversational context-awareness truly shines. i.e. It's not just simple input, it's an 'intelligent' exchange in the pursuit of the task.
Google search is also about voice-initiated tasks. Back in late 2010 /early 2011, when voice search was launched, I pulled out my phone and said "Navigate to <friend's name>." It automatically pulled my friend's address out of my contact book and started turn-by-turn navigation.
Obviously there are things about Siri that are different and better suited to certain tasks. I'm not saying Google search is better, I'm not even saying Google search is a great innovation to come out of Google. I'm just saying Siri is a bad example of something ground-breaking that Apple created.
That's like claiming Wolfram Alpha isn't distinct from Google, because Google will occasionally hazard a guess at a canonical answer (if you formulate your search query precisely correctly).
Sure, Google does attempt such things some times. And it's genuinely useful if you know the syntax to make it happen more-often-than-not. But that remains qualitatively different from what Siri (and Wolfram Alpha) are doing.
> "Siri is a bad example of something ground-breaking that Apple created."
Only when you beg the question of whether it makes objective sense to try to parse out the parentage of technology as some qualifying factor.
And Google's going to deliver something similar. Something beyond literal transcription and voice search, because what Siri presents really is an innovative improvement.
And as to the question of Apple buying Siri vs developing it -- where does that argument end? How could we possibly apply it fairly and objectively? Shall we wave off all of Android as Google's innovation, simply because Google bought it? How many improvements and integrations would it take to (dis)qualify an innovation as being fairly creditable to the current owner? How could we even know what the new owner 'created' vs what these acquired firms had in development at the time of purchase? Does Apple's SoC line count or not count, given they bought PA Semi, but we have no idea what they did pre- or post-acquisition? How in the world is anyone outside capable of knowing? It's essentially impossible for an outside party to fairly apply in a comparison between two companies.
The selective application of that qualifying logic winds up looking like nothing more than making excuses for whatever doesn't fit our preconceived positions.
[1] Being able to refine/adjust a command without restating the entire thing: e.g. the whole example of "make an appointment for 1 tomorrow" "here's your appointment, shall I create it" "wait, make that 2". To say nothing of the detection of things like scheduling conflicts in the first place, where the conversational context-awareness truly shines. i.e. It's not just simple input, it's an 'intelligent' exchange in the pursuit of the task.