Siri is Awesome, But Not for Apple | Hacker News Reader

Siri is Awesome, But Not for Apple

blog.teitelbaum.us

20 pointsbteitelb25 comments

I don't think this could be more wrong. Apple is not a company that makes jewellery; it's a company that makes the world's most intuitive technology.

Whether their phones are considered "bling" or not is immaterial. Apple's marketing strategy is a bit different to that: producing products that people want to buy not just because they're fashionable, but because they're the best in the world, and they help their users do more than improve their street-cred.

Siri is a massive step in the right direction (if it works as well as they say it does). The author is correct in that natural language interfaces have sucked bigtime, but I can't think of a company better positioned to restore confidence in it.

Agreed. This is the very reason my next phone will be an iPhone. I have been loving my Windows Phone for the past year -- it has the most amazing and well thought out user interface I've ever seen, but the advantages and convenience of Siri are undeniable. The convenience of its tiles is great, and the UI is impressive, but nothing beats a Siri that is deeply engrained into the OS itself.

Apple is certainly not a jewelry company. I am a huge fan of Apple's design chops and their ability to make the "world's most intuitive technology".

And yet, their products have been so good lately, so sexy, so "magical", that they inspire feelings of religious ecstasy in their users and fans. I don't see how this can be immaterial--it's a huge part of the brand value.

Now I can understand how people might feel this kind of fetishistic ecstasy for something they can fondle in their palms, but I cannot believe people will ever feel this way about an IVR--no matter how smart it is.

"..have been done so poorly for so long and have for so long been associated with poor service, that the technology itself has bad karma."

Like, say, smartphones?

Exactly, my first touch screen device was a Windows CE mini laptop (before they were called web tops) and the accuracy of the screen input was poor.

Apple did it right with the first iPhone and now every smartphone has to sport a touch screen.

The fact that Siri is only available in a few languages is a good indication that each of these has been given a thorough effort to get it right.

And tablets… and portable music players… and small and light laptops… and…

The sentence you quote does look outright ridiculous when said about Apple.

Lots of people liked tablets, and portable music players, and small and light laptops, and smartphones before Apple. Mostly geeks and not "lots" in the same sense as "lots of people bought iPods/iPads" but there was still a kernel of utility that people could clearly see the value in. IVR is a big step beyond any of those.

Or tablets? When Apple announced the iPad, the punditocracy swore it would fail since tablets have never sold well and basically nobody cared.

Of worse the iPad was wildly successful. These guys don't get it.

If Siri is as great as that video demonstrates and I don't have to type everything in then the iPhone 4S will sell in droves!

Being able to say "wake me up at 6am" take 1-2 seconds. Thumbing through the GUI to do this takes 10x longer.

Technology should be invisible, and I think Apple understands this.

Think about it this way: what's more important for Apple in the long term?

To have the iPhone seen more often by people that already know about the iPhone and have their own feelings about it?

Or, to usher in a potentially revolutionary way that changes how we use phones, from tapping to dictating? That's something that was, in practice, sci-fi not to too long ago, then it was first implemented well by Google, and now expanded upon with Siri.

So basically, Apple should stick with making pretty pictures and stop all this needless user interface innovation?

I guess we'll see whether Siri is successful or not, but I think you should at least appluad Aplle for (again) raising the bar.

It's always disappointing when people miss the distinction between a company that makes well-designed products and a fashion company.

It's always disappointing when people think that a fashion company is mutually exclusive with a company that makes well-designed products.

I'm sure some fashion companies do make well-designed products. But a defining aspect of fashion is that it's fleeting--certain things go in and out of fashion. When a company has been making products that all basically resemble rounded rectangles for almost a decade, with each year's release almost indistinguishable from the last, it's pretty obviously a matter of design and not fashion.

Having received some stiff but fair criticism here for this post, I’ve updated it to clarify and summarize a few points:

1. Apple is not a fashion company. Yet the value of their brand is clearly not just about utility. Apple’s products have been so good, so sexy, so “magical” (thank you Apple marketing), that they inspire feelings of religious ecstasy and fetishistic adoration in their users. This has real value for Apple and they should be highly protective of this phenomenal good will. But, now we are supposed to believe that the tactile titillation we get from fondling EVE in our palms, is to be replaced by the experience of shouting at an IVR? Forgive my skepticism.

2. By “Siri is awesome”, I meant that what we saw yesterday from Apple was awesome. But, it feels like Apple is over-promising. I have used the old Siri off and on for the last year on my iPhone. It’s cute, but is far from “magical”. To match the speed, reliability, and ease-of-use of the other features on the iPhone (and to avoid tarnishing the brand), Apple would have had to improve dramatically upon the previous Siri.

3. There are certain visionary product ideas that have been around for decades and have been repeatedly tried, and yet somehow are never quite good enough for mass adoption. Videoconferencing is one (despite several attempts by Apple). A voice-controlled AI-backed personal assistant is another.

4. If Siri fails (which I think is likely), Apple retreats and moves on. If it is wildly successful, it is disruptive. Mobile devices start to disappear and fade into an invisible ubiquitous computing environment that we talk to. Very cool. But can Apple sustain an advantage in this world? AI, IVRs, natural language processing, search--these are not areas where Apple has a lot of experience, talent, or any kind of lead.

I guess they should ship handsets without bluetooth or headphone sockets as well in order to make the iPhone more "visible". Or maybe the rumours are true that the people at Apple are actually at work building the phone they'd like to use themselves?

Apple's goal has never been to make jewelry. Apple's goal is to make products that they themselves want to use.

I love the Apple shows their commitment to the blind at the end of the Siri Video[1], with some Ray Charles playing in the background. [1]http://www.apple.com/iphone/features/siri.html#video-siri

Things that make me feel like I'm taking crazy pills: how surprised people are that there's a future beyond screen interfaces.

Aren't things posted to Hacker News supposed to be by people who understand the utility of disruption? And the value of leading/controlling it?

Voice UI lets you keep your phone in your pocket? Buy some jeans, yours must have so many holes in it. The only fashion thing that will come out of this is a 'cool' way to talk to the phone without the speaker to your ear.

For those who have no quicktime on their machine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEqpfaRaWxU

Bad title. It should be renamed: Siri is awesome, but not for iPhone.

I tend to agree more with the Forbes article. It opens new opportunities for Apple.

You're right. That would have been a better title.

Stopped reading at the first use of the term "fan boy".

His third point is expressed so well that it doesn't get downvoted here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com