Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Is Taking Spoken Questions

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the a-sentence-is-worth-a-thousand-search-results dept.

Google 94

The New York Times is reporting that Google has added a voice interface to their iPhone search software. Expected to make its debut as early as Friday, users will be able to speak into their phone and ask any question they could type into Google's search engine. The audio will be digitized and results will be returned via the normal search interface. "Google is by no means the only company working toward more advanced speech recognition capabilities. So-called voice response technology is now routinely used in telephone answering systems and in other consumer services and products. These systems, however, often have trouble with the complexities of free-form language and usually offer only a limited range of responses to queries."

cancel ×

94 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The response... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765573)

The response to popular Slashdotter question, "where can I get laid?":

404 - Page Not Found

Re:The response... (3, Funny)

vigmeister (1112659) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766335)

Tell it you are feeling lucky and it just might send you here [goatse.cx] .

You must be new around here.

Cheers!

Re:The response... (1)

zaivala (887815) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767497)

Send $4M to http://getlaidtonight.com/ [getlaidtonight.com] and within months we will send you 1 or 2 matches who will ask for even MORE money and still not sleep with you.

Re:The response... (1)

jackroberts (1407537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769533)

I have good comunication. ------------ anna Social Bookmarking [widecircles.com]

Re:The response... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769643)

"why the fuck is this so hard?"
Thats not what I wanted....

So i guess (0, Flamebait)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765591)

this means ebonics is out of the question?

Re:So i guess (3, Funny)

JayAitch (1277640) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765987)

Where you at dog?! Google Phone: Mountain View, California... dog.

Re:So i guess (1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766881)

I feel like google is going to take at least some flak on that issue no matter which direction they go. If they don't, someone on slashdot points it out. If they do, I think other people might be offended, likely on slashdot.

Come to think of it, if every google employee simultaneously decided not to even get out of bed today, someone on slashdot would accuse them of a nefarious bed-related attempt to strip us of our privacy. Maybe they should just accept their bad karma here, and merge with microsoft, al Qaeda, and the RIAA.

Good voice transcription? (4, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765593)

If I could get good voice transcription on my computer by installing Google Desktop, THAT would make it worthwhile.

Something for iPhone users? I could care less.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765721)

You "couldn't" care less. If you "could" care less then you would actually care.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767041)

YHBT, HAND. :)

Re:Good voice transcription? (5, Informative)

YourExperiment (1081089) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765753)

Something for iPhone users? I could care less.

Really? I honestly couldn't care less, but it's nice to know someone out there is taking an interest.

Re:Good voice transcription? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25770229)

-1 Whoosh, moderators.

Re:Good voice transcription? (5, Insightful)

spydabyte (1032538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765799)

I think you should care. Just because google decided to start with a single platform doesn't mean it'll remain that way.

So they got rid of dealing with different platforms and stuck to a single one to focus on the algorithms behind voice recognition. Sounds like a good plan to me.
Hopefully they'll extend it to other platforms if it works well with the iPhone.

The iPhone seems like a more practical platform as well. It's designed for on the go and use of voice. Your desktop? Not so much.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

HellYeahAutomaton (815542) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766903)

My desktop doesn't have nearly as much vendor lock-in as an Apple iPhone and the carrier(s) they currently see fit to mandate approved use on.

In case you didn't realize it...Google *is* the platform. The hardware will transmogrify around Google.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767861)

yea, i think phone-based applications are much more suited to voice recognition than most desktop apps. unless you're physically disabled and thus cannot use a keyboard/mouse, it would be much easier to use conventional input devices on a desktop computer. whereas on a phone it's more convenient to speak your commands rather than having to remove the phone from you ear, type on it, and then replace the phone every time input is required.

another interesting application for a robust voice recognition system would be real-time translation. for instance, if you need to communicate with someone who speaks a language you aren't familiar with, you could just call a translation service that acts as a proxy between you and the other person. the other person speaks in their language and hears your words translated to their language, and you speak in your own language and hear their words translated to your native language.

it might not be feasible yet with the massive shortcomings in current computer-automated translation applications, but it might be feasible in a few years--at least for basic communication within a limited problem-domain, like booking a hotel or calling a taxi in a foreign country.

Commands vs transcription (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25784181)

whereas on a phone it's more convenient to speak your commands

You're missing the point of my message. This is not about voice commands, which I agree are daft: I've got a phone with voice command support and it's a LOT more convenient to hit "5" than to say "delete" and have it respond with "saved". This is about voice transcription. Completely different problem space.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

eihab (823648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768327)

Yea, I'm really looking forward to this, especially if they use the same algorithms GOOG-411 uses, that would be sweet!

User: Hey, where's a burger kind around here?

*Light bulb over head*

User (excited): I know! let's call GOOG-411 and get the address and punch it in the GPS navigator!!

[User calls]

Google: Calls may be recorded.
Google: GOOG-411. What city and State?
    User: San Francisco, California
Google: San Francisco, California
Google: What business name or category?
*Hungry toddler starts crying in the car*
Google: Starting over
Google: What city and state?
    User: $@$!@!
    User: San Francisco, California! Shut up son!
Google: What business name or category?
    User: Burger king
Google: Burner king, top listing..
*Kid crys a bit more*
Google: Starting over
    User: $@!$!@$@!!@
Google: What city and state?
    User: SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA!
Google: San Francisco, California
Google: What business na..
    User: BURGER F#@king KING *kid hungry and still crying*
Google: Kabob King, top listing..
    User: $@$$@%!

[Hang up]
*User calms kid down, and calls back*

Google: Calls may be recorded
Google: GOOG-411. What city and state?
*User a little calmer*
    User: San Fran.. (Kid starts crying again).. cisco, California
Google: San Mateo, California
    User: %#@%@#^@%$##!

[Hang up]

Google: Calls may be recorded
Google: GOOG-411. What city and state?
    User: San Francisco, California
Google: San Francisco, California
Google: What business name or category?
    User: Burger king
Google: Burger king, top listing: Burger king ..
[Bunch of listings far far away from users' location]
User: #%@%@#^!#

*Another light bulb over user's head*

[Hang up]

Google: Calls may be recorded.
Google: GOOG-411. What city and state?
    User: Nine-four-seven-one-two-three
Google: Please only say the name of the city and state
    User: @#$**%%#@$^#&%$^*&^@#!!!!

[Hang up]

    User: Fsck it, we're having Chinese from the first fscking restaurant around the corner!

*Note: City and business name where obfuscated to protect the innocent.

Re:Good voice transcription? (2, Informative)

eihab (823648) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768429)

Please excuse the typos, I was *very* frustrated when I was typing this!

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

Henry Pate (523798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768369)

Google has refined their voice recognition system using Google 411 and Google Maps mobile for a while now.

If you want to try it call 1-800-GOOG-411.

I've noticed it has become far more accurate over the year or so I've used it. For now it's free and there are no advertisements so give it a try.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

hierophanta (1345511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766041)

you dont see value in creating a good service even if you are not gaining anything from it?

thats a little short sighted

Re:Good voice transcription? (3, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766045)

Something for iPhone users? I could care less.

Ok, maybe that's because I am an iPhone user, but I do care. See, on my desk I have this nifty input device called a keyboard. Works pretty well for me, I can type at slow speaking speed.

But the iPhone keyboard isn't suited for that very much. It's a lot better than any other phone keypad I've used so far, but still, typing is slow and more error-prone. So yes, a fairly reliable speech recognition would be much welcome. Also because I sometimes use it away from the desk, you know, and I might not have both hands free.

So let's see if they can do it for Google search. If that works, I'm sure more apps will follow. And I don't need 100% reliability when most of what I'd use it for is notes.

Re:Good voice transcription? (2, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767023)

Works pretty well for me, I can type at slow speaking speed.

Yep, I can talk a lot faster than I can type too. That's why I'd be excited if Google would release this goldarn software for the rest of us.

My point isn't "oh noes, this is for the iPhone", it's "why don't they let more than just iPhone users take advantage of this, dagnabbit?"

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767481)

Seriously, calm down. Did they say that this was an iPhone exclusive anywhere? Why are you assuming that this will be only for the iPhone, instead of merely first for the iPhone? Unless they very carefully synchronize development on all target platforms, something which simply isn't worth the effort, then some platform must be first. Why not the one which is getting all the press and hype at the moment?

Re:Good voice transcription? (0, Troll)

His Shadow (689816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768693)

"why don't they let more than just iPhone users take advantage of this, dagnabbit?"

For the same reasons all the nerds despise the iPhone: because of it's uniformity right across the board, powerful graphics and CPU and consistent user experience. If you want to debut a powerful application, the iPhone makes the most sense of any platform. And given the fractured nature of every other vendors offerings, why ruin the experiment on crappy inconsistent platforms? Go with the best, someday release for the rest.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25784167)

For the same reasons all the nerds despise the iPhone: because of it's uniformity right across the board, powerful graphics and CPU and consistent user experience.

Oh you mean like the Macintosh?

Re:Good voice transcription? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766231)

If you're looking for good voice transcription try Jott. Very accurate in my experience.

Re:Good voice transcription? (1)

argent (18001) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767053)

(peeks)

They have a desktop version?

Re:Good voice transcription? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767741)

...

Something for iPhone users? I could care less.

Someone better call the Wah-wah-wambulance!

Speech recognition (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765605)

I've encountered a number of systems that take voice input, mainly banks. Total fail if I'm at work, sitting in a room full of computer fans. Outside, any traffic, river, plane or bird noise and it's no-go either. I hate these systems with a passion and try to avoid them where possible. I always complain to the people who decided to use these stupid input methods.

Re:Speech recognition (2, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767489)

i've used a few voice input systems for paying cellphone bills over the phone, and they've always worked decently in my experience. however, my dad, who has a pretty heavy accent, doesn't get the same results as i do, which is why i have to pay his phone bills for him.

i guess it just depends on the implementation. i find voice inputs to be far more convenient than touch tone systems for over the phone payment systems. they're easier to navigate, feel more natural, and definitely work much better than T-Mobile's online payment system--which is always down or incredibly slow.

i'd be interested in seeing how Google does with this system. perhaps they'll eventually deploy it for Android phones as well.

Let's just hope (4, Funny)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765625)

Let's hope Google doesn't try to publicly demonstrate this like Microsoft did [youtube.com] for Vista Speech Recognition!

"Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all"

Huh?!

Beta Period (1)

encoderer (1060616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766221)

They introduce web-based voice search years ago. I remember trying it on their Labs site as far back as 2002.

You'd call an 800#, speak your query, and a results page on your browser woudl refresh automatically w/ the results.

Google's MO is all due dilligence. Seems like they waited for this tech to mature before they rolled it out.

However... (3, Funny)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765627)

... it seems to translate every question into "My hovercraft is full of eels! [youtube.com] "

Re:However... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767171)

So long as it doesn't translate every question into "Sparkling Wiggles"

"Computer: Get me a coke." (1)

riceboy50 (631755) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765629)

We're one step closer to the replicator.

Re:"Computer: Get me a coke." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25765903)

Required: http://xkcd.com/149/ [xkcd.com]

Re:"Computer: Get me a coke." (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 5 years ago | (#25771813)

I wonder how the computer can differentiate between coke and other similarly sounding words...

Android Voice Recognition (2, Interesting)

sbayless (1310131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765683)

I remember that early on in the Google Android SDK releases there was mention of voice recognition, and I was sorry to see it go in the final release. Perhaps this means we'll soon see voice recognition re-introduced to Android?

Re:Android Voice Recognition (1)

Singularitarian2048 (1068276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765743)

That would be very useful for Android developers if they could use Google's speech recognition in their own apps.

I would like to see a Google phone RPG where one of the characters calls you and has a "conversation" with you, perhaps asking you to perform some task in RL. (GPS and the camera could be used to automatically confirm that the task has been accomplished in RL.)

Re:Android Voice Recognition (1)

amram9999 (829761) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768145)

I get the impression that the iPhone app uses server side voice recognition. The digital audio is sent to the servers, it is processed and the results are sent to the search engine, and then the results are transferred to the user. Doing the VR on the server is great for this use case because you're already querying the server for the search request. Google can process the audio in an efficient server farm rather than on the resource constrained phone. They can also easily upgrade their algorithms after they mine data. It's kind of hard to compare this to phone-side VR, which would probably be faster in response time, but otherwise inferior in my estimation. The response time would be important for highly interactive applications though. I can't stand the lag on ATT's customer service telephone system.

Re:Android Voice Recognition (1)

xant (99438) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766453)

Android does have voice recognition, and it's marginally useful. I was able to call my wife and a few of my favorite contacts on day 1 without training it. However, it cheats a little by strongly favoring your most-used contacts, which it knows because I've been a gmail user for a long time.

It doesn't seem to apply to any other part of the OS, not that I'd particularly want it to.

Re:Android Voice Recognition (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767785)

well, i guess that isn't pure "voice recognition," but it seems like a smart cheat. this isn't a sports competition where abiding by the rules is paramount or even means anything. technologies should be judged by their usefulness, which means measuring them by the results they give, not by how those results were achieved.

and if you think about it, people often use the same trick when interpreting speech. gestalt theory states that human perception is a cognitive process as much as it is a sensory process. i'd be very surprised if this was only limited to visual perception. so when you are interpreting speech you aren't just identifying phonemes in the auditory stimuli, you're also referencing your past experiences in high level cognitive processes.

for example, if you're in a noisy setting, and someone is trying to speak to you, you may not be able to hear or accurately identify all of the words they are saying. but by drawing on non-auditory information--like contextual cues, body language, and personal habits & speech patterns--it is still possible to infer what they are trying to communicate. these subconscious processes allow you to "hear" what your ears can't detect.

My very first question... (2, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765717)

Is there any possible way I could be more lazy?

Re:My very first question... (1)

adrianhensler (454654) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766593)

Ah, but if you try that you'll find this very post is the very first hit for "Is there any possible way I could be more lazy?" Infinite loop.

Over Logging? (1)

ThisIsAnonymous (1146121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765731)

"Uh, Japanese girls exchanging bodily fluids? Click."

Come on...It's not that obscure of a pop reference...I'm sure someone gets it...

Dr. Google? (1)

viSage (36933) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765737)

"We will ask Dr. Know. There is nothing he doesn't." --A.I.

Android. (0, Troll)

Trespass (225077) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765745)

So, did you roll it out because you lost a bet or what?

be careful telling your work phone off (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765755)

Be kind of awkward sitting in your manager's office explaining that you weren't surfing pr0n, just telling your phone to fuck off.

Re:be careful telling your work phone off (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765921)

Even at home. In earshot of polite company. Saying "Big Boobs" could be kinda awkward.

Look Yell ??? Profit!!! (1)

supernova_hq (1014429) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773663)

1 - Look for iPhone user on the street
2 - Yell "Big Boobs" into their phone while passing
3 - ???
4 - Profit!!!

Google already has one in India (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765793)

Google has something called a "Phone Search" [google.co.in] here. They provide a toll-free number, which you can call and feed it with queries and make it read out the results.

They even have an option to send a particular result via sms to your phone.

Its still in Google Labs though

Good, they need this to make it smaller (2, Insightful)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765807)

Electronics are on a 50+ year run of continuously shrinking, but you can't do much more shrinking with our current user interface schemes. You could make an iPhone as thin as a credit card, but that's only a few "doublings" away from its current state, and then what? Making it smaller in either of the other two dimensions is just going to decrease its functionality.

But eyeglasses can have a heads up display. And in the magical world of tomorrow, maybe contact lenses can have a wireless interface and a high-resolution superimposed display. And of course there's wireless headphones. So those are potential conduits of information from machines to us, but how do we talk to the machines? If we're walking around, how do we dial the phone or ask for directions or tell the computer what YouTube clip we want to watch, if the heart of the thing can be the size of a penny?

I think it's going to be verbal. Short of the development of neural interface implants or that sort of thing, I think verbal's going to become a primary interface for mobile electronics. I think the chip that stores everything and wirelessly talks to the outside world and "makes it go" can be anywhere- wristwatch, glasses, tie clip, belt buckle. Whatever. But the thing's going to have to listen to you, so it can understand when you say "Show me the closest three book stores. Do any of them have a physical copy of Into The Nano Era, Moore's Law Beyond Planar Silicon?" Or "play my running playlist on random," or that sort of thing. Not strong AI, but good voice recognition coupled with really dramatically improved ability to parse and interpret commands from speech. I'm sure we'd need a couple of buttons or a knob or slider or such somewhere for things like volume that you just don't want to do with voice. But it strikes me that most of what people do on their iPhones, except for playing games, could be done quite well via voice, and then you don't need to lug around and pull out some physical gadget and stare at its screen and peck at it with your fingers.

Re:Good, they need this to make it smaller (3, Insightful)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765945)

The interface of the home computer in the recent movie "Ironman" is a great example of this.

A computer with an intelligent personality and some basic visual displays as well.... That's a neat hybrid with infinite potential uses.

Re:Good, they need this to make it smaller (1)

Ifandbut (1328775) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766027)

YES! I want Ironman's computer. Also, his HUD would be nice in my car.

Re:Good, they need this to make it smaller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766087)

agreed, verbal interface seem the way of the future. there are 2 distinct problems in play here:
1) speech recognition - turning the sound into a textual command
2) command interpretation - turning the textual, language based command into a meaningful result

mozilla's ubiquity plugin for firefox (http://labs.mozilla.com/projects/ubiquity/)
and wundrbar (http://www.wundrbar.com) are examples of language-based interfaces to do stuff online - basically both addressing point 2. in theory, either could have a speech recognition layer thrown on top as a next step.

of course, google could in theory actually be compressing the two problems into 1, and using some machine learning approaches to go straight from sound -> query. but, presumably, given they already have a framework for answering textual queries, they are probably still approaching the problem in 2 steps.

Re:Good, they need this to make it smaller (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766211)

You could make an iPhone as thin as a credit card, but that's only a few "doublings" away from its current state, and then what?

Doubling its capacity/processing power/battery life in the same space?

Re:Good, they need this to make it smaller (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766545)

Hold your finger close to your eye. Try to focus on it. It is very hard.

The focus problem can probably be overcome, but it will likely be at the cost of resolution.

So what would the response be to: (1)

ptbarnett (159784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765871)

Can you hear me now? [google.com]

I like the idea... (2, Informative)

StrategicIrony (1183007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765925)

I actually like this.

As long as the speech-to-text is reasonably accurate, it will do what I want.

I hate driving and having to type something into google to figure out and address or phone number.

If i could say it, even if it was only close to accurate, it would be safer and save me some headache.

Now I just need an iPhone. LOL.

Voice systems are lousy ... Help, Operator... (4, Insightful)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765927)

Representative, Representative, Representative ... Operator, Operator, Operator ... Help, Help, Help ... (hangup in disgust)

Hope google has better luck with this than others have.

Ron

Re:Voice systems are lousy ... Help, Operator... (1)

Singularitarian2048 (1068276) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766059)

Have you used GOOG411? I've found that it works very well.

Why only iPhone? (2, Insightful)

Tyr_7BE (461429) | more than 5 years ago | (#25765953)

Just curious, but why only support iPhone? Why not Nokia/WinMo/Blackberry - ie, the other 99% of cell phones out there with voice recognition capabilities? Why single out one phone?

Re:Why only iPhone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766263)

This has been working for Blackberry Pearl and Curve for a couple months now. Suddenly it is set up for IPhone and it is big news.

"iPhone Alpha test for Android Beta Software" (1)

molotovjester (1273662) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766051)

I think they are letting the iPhone users alpha test for their beta which will be on the Android platform.

I would say that iPhone is the beta, but this is Google. Nothing makes it out of beta.

Hive Mind (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766071)

Skip the speech part and interface to the frontal lobes. Google can then spider the mind of the human race, and with the query interface we will have achieved the final fate of mankind - a hive mind.

Cool, now I can speak my porn requests (2, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766155)

so I will be able to keep my hands free...for other....things....

Re:Cool, now I can speak my porn requests (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767113)

Wow, you mean, you need two hands for that? *humbly bows* I bet those e-mails about "self-improvement over elongation" give you a good chuckle, don't they?

Why is this not tagged Apple? (1)

burtosis (1124179) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766321)

Since it's only application is on the iPhone...

Sad actually... (1)

LunarEffect (1309467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766343)

Remember the days when you sat in your cellar, hacking away at your code by the melancholy light of your 15-inch monitor? Your fingers tapping each key in a... rough, but wonderfully familar way.
What speech recognition creates is a world where you can go jogging while hacking away verbally! Oo"
Yes, its only google now, but just wait until we have voice-controlled emacs!
Sentimental programmers unite to preserve your traditional tools!

Word count limits. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766353)

If I'm not mistaken, Google limits your queries to 10 words. What limit will it impose to your deciphered speech? Or will we be on the street speaking some alien language to get our query under the word limit?

Dear Google, (1)

Zarquil (187770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766393)

Has it been long enough to forget Ask Jeeves yet?

Yahoo!'s been doing this for months... (1)

Gordo_1 (256312) | more than 5 years ago | (#25766711)

http://mobile.yahoo.com/onesearch/voice [yahoo.com]

Anyone care?

Yeah, didn't think so.

Re:Yahoo!'s been doing this for months... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766893)

The only difference being that Yahoo's quickly slipping into bankruptcy and irrelevancy.

Re:Yahoo!'s been doing this for months... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767413)

Of course no one cares. As far as pseudo-nerds are concerned, if Google hasn't done it, then it has never been done (or at least not "properly").

Google really have set themselves up nicely. They are truly the newer, stealthier Microsoft. Certainly there is nothing to fear in the *lack* of fear that others have for their growing ability to control mindshare in this way. No, not at all. Let Yahoo burn, and may they take any competition that might distract from Google's glory with them. (See sister AC post for an example of someone who doesn't care anything about innovation or other relevant user-facing concerns, merely about the financial well-being and perception of the company providing those offerings.) It's like a bunch of cheerleaders who shout about ticket sales to the game vs. ticket sales for their competitors's games instead of focusing on the team or reacting to what's actually going on in the game itself. Ridiculous.

And no, I don't work for Yahoo or own any of their stock. Thank goodness for that, seeing as how the world is so eager to see them dead and buried. Nor do I work for or own stock in any of their competitors. I am just a long-time user of many of their services who considers the depth and breadth of their offerings very valuable and who is puzzled at the unchecked adoration that is constantly being thrown Google's way. /rant

Re:Yahoo!'s been doing this for months... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25767421)

The yahoo oneSearch product is very sweet. Yahoo are definitely ahead of google in the mobile arena.

The fact that all textual input on Android gets passed untreated to a root shell is risible. The google apps are lackluster and limited at best. I have explored Yahoo! Go! and love it. Their blueprint framework is also very well thought out - it makes obvious sense to allow developers to build aps for any mobile platform including Android. Additionally, the B2C approach taken by Y! is much easier than the B2B approach taken by G!

Not new (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25766767)

chacha.com [chacha.com]

Yes, the old troll-bait live chat-based search engine has shut off the chat and is now doing exactly what Google is now trying to do.

Wrong goal (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767089)

This whole thing falls in the "it's challenging, but we think we can get to it, with difficulty, even if once we get there no-one will actually want to use that when the novelty effect will have (quickly) worn off" category.

Who wants to use voice recognition, and for what? Who wants to see the person they're talking to on the phone on a screen? Who wants to turn the lights on by clapping their hands? And so on..

Re:Wrong goal (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25770245)

>>> Who wants to use voice recognition, and for what?

Those that can't type, or can't type quickly.

>>> Who wants to see the person they're talking to on the phone on a screen?

Makes sign language a heap easier.

>>> Who wants to turn the lights on by clapping their hands?

Anyone who can't, or can't be bothered to, get out of bed.

Just because you don't need or want something doesn't mean someone else doesn't.

Re:Wrong goal (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25774447)

Interesting, you bring up good points, but you also show something else, these things are needed by only a very tiny percentage of people, people with special requirements.

Re:Wrong goal (1)

pbhj (607776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25787949)

There are a lot of people who can't type quickly.

Globally there are a lot of sign language users.

The number of lazy-ass people seems to be quite high too ...

However, I'm in general agreement that we don't tend to need many new advances but they nonetheless prove useful.

Re:Wrong goal (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 5 years ago | (#25793203)

On that same topic I noticed something interesting. We predict for the future to use these things we're discussing that, when they come, are actually quite marginal (or they actually don't happen), and we fail to predict the true revolutions, what will really change our lives in the future. I think Back to the Future II is a good example of this, it predicts the spread of very advanced domotics, which we can't really say we are really into nowadays, and fails to predict the ubiquity of the Internet and the fanciness of cell phones. The point being, you could have thought 20 years ago that an "intelligent" home and "intelligent" clothes would be all the rage in the future, yet more surprisingly the few things that have actually changed during that time were a couple of devices that changed things dramatically. Which makes me think that nobody knows what we will want in the future.

It's amazing to me that Google offers this (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767235)

Yet the iphone still lacks a decent voice dialer. The free solutions offered are hardly accurate, yet Google turns around and offers a open speech engine that doesn't even have to scour a pre-built list of contacts to figure out what your saying. Maybe Google can teach Apple how to create a good voice dialer?

Google wins voice recognition war (2, Insightful)

OBeardedOne (700849) | more than 5 years ago | (#25767711)

I've been waiting for Google to come out with this.

This is the first step to true and accurate voice recognition and translation:

1) Google user speaks search string into phone.

2) Google gets it wrong, user corrects Google

3) Multiply by millions of searches daily with constant correction and feedback from users

4) Perfect voice rec, major profit

There will be a few issues with voice recognition to begin with but as it gets better and more people use the service and add to the database with their corrections and add to the pool of variable accents etc the accuracy will be perfected at an exponential rate.

A similar concept could apply to translations. Once voice recognition is perfected and becomes the primary search input of choice then more people will be able to use their phones as direct voice to voice translators. Obvious translation mistakes will become apparent through mass use. At every turn users could flag apparent mistranslations and through the help of the Google Borg accurate translations would evolve. Much the same way that Wikipedia pages tend to accuracy over time even with the input of a subset of "disruptive" users.

My 2 cents.

iPhone first instead of gPhone? (1)

awpoopy (1054584) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768329)

Am I the only one wondering why this was done for the iPhone instead of the gPhone? I guess it was the same brilliant mind who decided to make chrome for windows first instead of linux and mac.

"Hello, Google..." (1)

dsmall (933970) | more than 5 years ago | (#25768583)

I know what I'm gonna try:

"Hello, Google. My name is Doctor Chandra. I'd like to teach you to sing a song. It goes like this: 'Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer, do. I'm half crazy, all for the love of you. It won't be a stylish marriage. I can't afford a carriage. But you'll look sweet, upon the seat, of a bicycle built for two.' "

If it replies that it is an "H A L Niner-Triple-Zero", I am going to run screaming, renounce all computers and the Internet, and live a quiet life as a monk somewhere very very hard to reach.

  (grin)

David Small

I already have this! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25769121)

I already have this on my Samsung Instinct. It uses Live Search though. Whats new with this? Just because Google did it? You people are such google suck-ups..

Interestingly enough... (1)

uhlume (597871) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769449)

Interestingly enough, I've been able to do this in Live Search on my Windows Mobile 6.1 phone for months, now, and it works surprisingly well for Microsoft software. Glad Google and iPhone are finally joining the party.

AT&T has also been working on this (1)

Ferante125 (971811) | more than 5 years ago | (#25769509)

But it works by having the phone do speech recognition while being held at arms length. That way you can have multi-modal communication and it not simply speech replacing pointing, but having them work together, using each modality for what it's good for. Here's a link to an article: http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/07/att-developing.html [wired.com] The idea of using the phones accelerometer is a great idea. In AT&T's demo you need to "click to talk", which makes sense for their design, but the accelerometer idea is pretty nifty if you just have speech responses. Using the display is good for many things though, e.g. for maps, long lists. I'm thinking it could be a pain to have to hold the phone up to your ear over and over: hold it up to your ear, speak, look at the display, (speak again if something was misrecognized), (possibly click something), hold it up to hor ear, speak, look at the display, etc. -- Why procrastinate now when you could procrastinate tomorrow.

More Speech Recogntion Coolness (1)

Adam.Computes (1314601) | more than 5 years ago | (#25773683)

People don't do research on an iphone. They do it on their desktop or notebook or UMPC. I found some voice recognition software named Tazti speech recognition that actually is a free download and performs voice searches of Google, Yahoo, MSN, Wikipedia, Amazon, eBay and many other websites. It also lets me log into and navigate Facebook and Myspace by talking to my PC. It really works well.

Here's their youtube demo video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1tt_aeIAM8 [youtube.com]

tazti is a free download from http://www.tazti.com/ [tazti.com]

Beta testing this app... (1)

No-Cool-Nickname (1287972) | more than 5 years ago | (#25780085)

...and so far it keeps returning women willing to 'stock my clock' or 'sink my duck'.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>