We're not disagreeing on Siri. The problem is there's a difference between it driving some business away and it removing the need for Google entirely, as your article first claimed. And then, once it's established that it will remove some business, comes the question of how much business, in numbers.

As I said before, "Siri-like features" already exist, and they're out there--used by a lot of people.

Besides, you claim the article is about cultural-relevance but you spend half the time talking about sales and possible lost advertising-revenue in the future.

Last thing, I didn't know what also-ran so I looked it up:

American Heritage Dictionary: al·so-ran A horse that does not win, place, or show in a race. A loser in a competition, as in an election: "had enough support to place him in the middle of the also-rans" (George F. Will). One that has little talent or success: just an also-ran in the art world.

The first and last don't really apply. As for the second, only time will tell I presume, but right now, my money is with Google. And although you claim the tech community has written Google off, I don't see that happening. The brightest software engineers who are not doing startups tend to view Google in a positive light or as a place they'd like to work. In fact, it's become so positive that the default in college campuses has become everyone wanting to work for Google (or at least saying so). Not to mention Google has their hand on a number of future-facing projects like the self-driving cars.

I would focus such articles more if I were you. If you're talking about cultural-relevance, do so. If it's bad business forecasts, then do that. If your prediction is for 10 years from now make that clear, and don't use a title phrased in the present tense.