How Google Now was built (and a bit on Siri too)
There is a bit of an argument about this whole process, with some claiming that Google Now is better than Siri because it was built "from the ground up" by Google (which isn't wholly true), whereas Apple just bought Siri (which also isn't quite correct). It's all a silly argument based on geek pride, but it did get us looking into the process by which these products came to be what they are.
We can't really get behind the argument that one way is better than the other, because it quickly becomes a slippery slope. The problem is that at some point, an acquired product can't be attributed to the original creators anymore, even when the original creator comes along in the acquisition. The prime example for us is Android itself. Android was created by the Android team headed by Andy Rubin, then acquired as a fully functioning product by Google. Andy and the team still work for Google, but Android has become a wholly Google product (ignoring forks and NGAs, of course). Similarly, Siri was bought by Apple as a fully functioning product, but to say that was the same app that now anthropomorphizes the iPhone just isn't correct.
The bit about Siri
The point is that for better or worse, Siri is nowhere near the same app that it was when Apple purchased it. Sure, the backbone of voice recognition powered by Nuance is still at the center of Siri, but what the app can do has changed dramatically. What we see in iOS is no longer the product of the Siri developers simply purchased by Apple and stuck into iOS, this is an Apple product with features and uses dictated (no pun intended) by Apple.
Now... Google Now
On the other hand, Google didn't buy one singular product and transform it for Google Now. As we said, this product/platform is more of a Frankenstein monster made up of a number of acquisitions, hires, and in-house development that can be traced back at least 5 years. In many ways, Google Now is an initiative similar to Google+, which is intended to be a platform to unify a number of existing Google products and services, including search, places, travel, suggestions, and of course speech recognition.
On the other side of the voice coin, Google also needed a nice voice to respond to users just like Siri does. Luckily, Google had purchased Phonetic Arts back in December of 2010. That purchase was originally made to make robo-voices sound better in Google Translate, as well as the accessibility text-to-speech option found in Android. Phonetic Arts did a lot of work making robo-voices sound better, and that technology has come in very handy with Google Now, because it does sound like the assistant voice is smoother than Siri. As the voice database was growing to a sufficient level, Google also needed to beef up search results.
Flight information is gathered via searchable results from flightstats.com, but eventually, Google could move to its own information repo which it purchased in the form of ITA Software (acquired July 2010). ITA Software now powers Google's Flight Search for tickets, and that could easily become part of Google Now's results. Place results, which are a huge part of any mobile search product (because more and more "mobile" really just means "local") have also gotten a boost from a couple choice acquisitions. Google hired the entire team behind Ruba.com (May 2010), an online travel guide, in an effort to give local results a boost. Then, more recently, moves to purchase Clever Sense (December 2011), makers of local recommendation app Alfred, and restaurant guide Zagat (September 2011). Google notably had a falling out with Yelp, and the purchase of Zagat was the answer to that loss of local data.
Metaweb, which Google purchased in mid-2010. Apple of course has to partner with information services like Wikipedia, Wolfram Alpha, and Yelp, but it's Google's business to provide organized data and knowledge to users, and Metaweb is the future of that endeavor. Metaweb just recently made its debut within Google in the form of Google's Knowledge Graph and Semantic Search. Now, rather than searching for keywords, we're searching semantic objects, which means there should be better differentiation between homographs (so Google now knows whether you're searching the meteorological "thunder" or the NBA Thunder.) These results have shown up in the Knowledge Graph block to the right of standard results.
These blocks of information have all made the pretty easy transitions into being "cards" in the Google Now UI. And, on that topic, we have to mention the hire of Matias Duarte in May 2010, who has been one of the strongest forces behind getting the traditionally engineer-oriented Google to make well-designed products. Matias has always loved the "card" metaphor, and so we feel pretty safe in assuming the cards in Google Now were his idea. For those of you that ever used webOS, you know that cards were a central metaphor of that platform (designed by Matias), then we saw the multitasking menu of Android change to cards when Matias arrived and now we get the cards of information as part of Google Now.
1. hateftotti (Posts: 114; Member since: 03 May 2011)
Just wait to see how apple want to mislead its fans again.
2. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2568; Member since: 26 May 2011)
That's like saying TV is much better than radio. They are two different things that have different purposes, but have a small set of overlapping features. The comparison is silly.
6. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4706; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
I wonder if the evolutionary path doesn't reflect some of the philosophy of the O/S environments in which the products function? Siri is running in an environment that if there is going to be deep integration, requires the development work to be done by the iOS team. Conversely, given the more open environment of Android, more things can be done by 'outsiders'.
8. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2568; Member since: 26 May 2011)
That's probably part of it. Google has more leeway to fold in external products as needed, and has APIs available for the rest. Surprisingly, there's no real Google Now API, although the other APIs like Directions, Places, and Calendar all feed into Google Now.
9. Aeires (unregistered)
Both are personal assistants, to remind you of events and pull information you require. How is that different? The only big difference I see is one is far more intuitive than the other, but at the end of the day, they're both personal assistants.
11. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2568; Member since: 26 May 2011)
There is huge variation in the space of "personal assistant". A to-do notebook can be considered a "personal assistant", so can an actual human helper. The term "personal assistant" is so general as to be useless. To go back to my original analogy, that's like saying TV, radio, MP3 players, etc are the same because they're all "media devices". A bike and a jet are both "transportation devices", but that doesn't make it a good idea to compare them.
17. Aeires (unregistered)
Except both are apps on a cell phone. Comparing a TV to a radio is silly, but comparing one app on a cell phone to another app on a cell phone that essentially does the same thing isn't silly.
18. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2568; Member since: 26 May 2011)
GTAIII and Angry Birds are both cell phone apps that "essentially do the same thing" (entertain). Shall we compare them? How about Hookt and Skype (communication)? How good will those comparisons be?
It all depends on how specific your comparison criteria are. If you want to compare "personal assistants", you won't get very good comparison points because of the huge variation in methods and features across the thousands of apps that fall in that category.
For example, you could compare WriteRoom and Office, because they are both "productivity tools" with an overlap on word processing, but the comparison is going to be pretty useless.
28. Aeires (unregistered)
How about just the two that the article is about.
I'll be blunt with this so there's no misunderstanding the point. I don't think Apple put near as much work into Siri as you make out. Apple purchased a finished product and tweaked it to fit their needs, hardly deserving the credit of making Siri. As for Google, a Frankenstein approach isn't that too far off to imagine. Google is well known for trying crazy things and sometimes they nail it, like with Google Now. If you look at everything that went into Now, it's remarkable, and that shouldn't be downplayed because they purchased some portions and hired the talent needed to pull it off. All the resources still had to be put together, which was no small feet.
But at the end of the day, they're both personal assistants. The graphics in this article says "Hello, I'm Siri, your new personal assistant."
10. itiswhatitis (Posts: 419; Member since: 23 Jan 2012)
If comparison is silly then i guess 99% of the World's population is silly!
13. itiswhatitis (Posts: 419; Member since: 23 Jan 2012)
I guess its like you said from one of you articles you must be throwing 'millions of pebbles' whatever it is good luck with that,its worth the try....
22. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
ok.. how about this for a quick metaphore..
if you think of Google's dozens of services as "cities" unto themselves, they are much like the US on a map.. cities here and there and everywhere. What Google Now does is basically build information highways between all these "cities" so they can now work together. Google Now takes all the information from all these cities (Maps, Search, ect ect ect) and uses it to figure out what you want... and eventually it might know what you want before you do. It watches you while it watches the cities and learns over time. Its pretty much free to grab any information from nearly anywhere from the way its designed.
Apple is the opposite. They have one massive city where everything is done. Siri was build IN to the city to work inside it. It does not go outside the city walls as designed. As Apple's city grows, Siri will grow with it. Siri takes all the information within Apple's city and keeps it ready for you when you need it. It however will never go beyond the scope of Apple's city.
Some of the base features of both may be the same, but they operate completely different and they are built to do different things from each other.
We have joked that Siri was the beginnings of Skynet. In all honesty, Google Now is way closer to Skynet that Siri will be.. maybe ever. Its always watching and learning what you do. Compared to that, Siri is a rockem-sockem robot.
23. good2great (Posts: 946; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
beautiful explanation remixfa!!!
this lets me know that you are a very unbiased person and at least understand how both OS's work...
this definitely doesn't take away from Michael H. article you pretty much explained it to educate the trolls in here...lol
good article Michael H.
there are a few readers in here that actually enjoy the content of this site than coming here to crack jokes and bash/harass each other about which OS is better...
36. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Yea, I never meant to take away from michael. only help reduce his headache from trying to make people understand. If it helps someone, then it was worth typing it up.
I dont know that true trolls can be educated though. Isnt that against the trolling Alma mater? lol
42. thinking (Posts: 130; Member since: 19 Jan 2012)
This is not about which OS is better. Siri/Now are not OSs. They are personal assistants that try to answer your questions. So, I very firmly feel that they intend to do the same thing. They may be doing it differently. They're still trying to do the same thing. So, the comparison is bound to be there.
20. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
I disagree with ALL; the difference is this:
Ifan feels everything Apple market dept says/ puts out is pure-first -time-ever-magic (from Touch screen to Siri).
Whereas, the rest of the world KNOWS that every thing is ( in Mike words) peice together, heck the whole COMPUTER language is peice together so there is really nothing new.
Except when it comes to Ifan and Apple, then it's brand new, SOMEBODY have to call them out on it.
3. tedkord (Posts: 3393; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
But...I thought Google didn't even think of an intelligent talking assistant until Siri, then they just copied.
7. smartphonemad (Posts: 42; Member since: 10 Jul 2012)
That's what Apple fans want people to believe :L I mean, with all the people that create ideas for google do you not think someone would have thought of it?
14. protozeloz (Posts: 5186; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
are sarcasms so hard to get these days?
16. MichaelHeller (Posts: 2568; Member since: 26 May 2011)
This is why we need to standardize punctuation for sarcasm on the web. So many people miss it in the written word. Easiest is just bracketing punctuation to convey sarcasm, since it wouldn't need new keystrokes to be learned.
Fanboys are so rational[!]
19. protozeloz (Posts: 5186; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
sarcasm standard would be kinda hard since there are a few keys used for sarcasm but my favorite is "/s"
phonearena is full of rational fanboys /s
41. ardent1 (Posts: 1862; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
>ie Fanboys are so rational[!]
That would be British sarcasm and would be lost on most Americans.
"In BrE, I think we generally describe remarks as ‘sarcastic’ when we’re saying the opposite of what we mean e.g. ‘Wow, that’s a surprise’ when something was very predictable, or ‘Nice weather, eh?’ when it’s pouring with rain, or ‘Punctual, as always.’ when someone who always comes late finally arrives. So sarcasm can be either nice (a funny joke) or nasty (an unkind remark) but some element of ‘saying the opposite of what you mean’ needs to be involved for something to be labeled sarcastic." (source:http://www.vickihollett.com/?p
29. jroc74 (Posts: 3446; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
tedkord shoulda added 2 more "but"s...lol.
40. ardent1 (Posts: 1862; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Unfortunately American don't employ sarcasm as well as the British. What people think is sarcasm really isn't sarcasm.
46. smartphonemad (Posts: 42; Member since: 10 Jul 2012)
It is when you cant hear a persons tone
15. Sniggly (Posts: 6195; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
my apologies, man. I meant to thumb this comment up. It was a good snarky little comment. :)
27. tedkord (Posts: 3393; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Yeah, it was snarkier than I intended. I've been working 13 days straight, 12 hours per day, 1 day off and start over, for several weeks now. I am exhausted, and maybe a little cranky.
21. appleDOESNT.com (Posts: 350; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
Siri isn't even the first virtual assistant. your point is pointless. Anyways, Apple bought Siri in 2010 as a response to Google voice dictation and voice actions that debuted in 2009, no apple voice competitor until late 2011, years later.. it took Apple two years to launch Siri... Google Now is an extension on every thing search and they didn't just whip that pure awesomness in 6 months... If they did? that is a company I like to back!!!
Apple let Google run voice wild for years without a competing product and even longer without Navigation. I like my companies to react and innovate quickly not take years to offer MMS and copy n paste!
30. jroc74 (Posts: 3446; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
lol! +1 to ya...
I REALLY, REALLY like this article. Apple and Google took different paths for each product. Whoever says Google is copying Apple/Siri....needs to just play in traffic....sorry. Ok...I only 1/2 mean it...kinda.
Articles like this ....Apple, iPhone fanboys need to really pay attention to. Apple isnt the only company that innovates. How hard is that to understand?
4. sid07desai (Posts: 233; Member since: 03 May 2012)
Google is more credible for Android than Apple for Siri. When Google bought Android, it was just in the beginning stages. And then they came up with improvements like Ice Cream Sandwich on their own. And then they created Google Now. Their own creation. Apple did little to make certain changes to Siri but overall it cannot be credited to Apple. As far as efforts are concerned, I think Google has done a better job. But as Michael mentioned in the above comment, the comparison is silly. We users can only wait and see how these evolve on their own.
31. jroc74 (Posts: 3446; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
At its core...Siri was already developed before Apple bought it. Google Now wasnt.
Thats one of the big things about Apple that Apple, iPhone fanboys dont wanna admit. If Apple is innovative for buying companies, technology, apps and adding their twist to it....how can anyone say Google isnt?
It boggles the mind.
5. maxican16 (Posts: 361; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
The important thing is what works best for each user. For me there is no question, it's Google Now. I don't want to have a conversation with my phone, nor do I want to ask the same question time and time again (just have it ready for me already!), or be given incorrect answers (which happens a third of the time on siri). Google Now is already incredibly functional and it will only improve. And when voice search doesn't have an answer, it gives me a list of Google results that only improve the more I use my phone. Take note Apple... THIS is true innovation.
24. good2great (Posts: 946; Member since: 22 Feb 2012)
what would be funny is if Google released an iOS version of Google Now...lol
you guys would be pissed huh? lol
looking at how its broken down its not impossible to happen... lol
25. Sackboy117 (Posts: 178; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
it would probably become #1 on the App Store and would most likely reach out to previous iPhone models.
33. SBrown (Posts: 9; Member since: 02 Jul 2010)
I usually don't participate on these comment threads, but I must admit, that was an excellent civil comeback. +1
26. protozeloz (Posts: 5186; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
is quite posible at least from goggles side of things
34. MartyK (Posts: 651; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
It wouldn't surprise anyone if Google did place this on IOS or Window phones, in fact most Android Users wouldn't be upset at all.
Until, IOS Market dept and some crazy Ifan, start screaming out, "Google copy" and then Apple trieds to patent Google now.
37. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
there are not enough hooks in the "google" apps on iOS to make it work the same. With Android, it comes with all the apps built in to the system. On iOS, not only would it take major app upgrades (like Maps for example.. huge difference between goog maps on android and iOS), it would also require that all those different Google apps be downloaded or preinstalled in iOS with additional hooks built into the OS itself (like Apple would allow that).
And you think the jokes about iOS becoming more "android" with each update is bad now? Just imagine what kind of jokes would be slinging if iOS had a mandatory "google apps" suite on it. lol. those jokes would never end. :)
32. satydesh (Posts: 71; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)
android fans are really aggressive thats Power given by Open source to demand more!!!
38. dreign91 (Posts: 15; Member since: 17 May 2012)
Michael H I must say I feel a tad bit smarter every time I read your articles. I'm very excited for Google Now as well. Yes in the beginning there will be a learning curve, but with all the sources of info your phone can pull from (Gmail, currents, play store, search, places, etc) this has the potential to be legend....(wait for it).... dary! What will be truly awesome is when Google now is put together with the Google Glass project
45. alekhos (Posts: 2; Member since: 17 May 2012)
Yeah...that would definitively shape a sheepish world, given the nature of Google Now, as explained by Michael. Think, already, with the proper training (this is kind of a A. I. software), Google Now can predict what info you need, but, as it was pointed out here, it would soon be telling you what to do and you would be like "Oh, ok I´ve forgotten that, thanks". Think that comes from your phone, which may be in your pocket, but maybe at some place not instantly reachable or even left over around (you may want to shower or have s** or something) and you might not get the notification instantly. Now think you´re wearing your glasses. How could you avoid being told most of the time what you should do or were you should be and how to get there fast? Of course you could choose NOT to pay attention...but the question is...when the time comes...will we "look to another side"?...wait, you can´t even do that! The thing is right before your eyes! And probably more sooner than later it will be sounding in your ears also...natural voice and all (perhaps a voice of your choice). Now get the whole picture...
43. ispeakevo (Posts: 2; Member since: 08 Jun 2012)
What's also interesting is how the author refers to Google road as being "messy" while saying Apple's is "cleaner"... Its this type of media baiting that helps perpetuate the Idea the idea and belief, apple is better, ahead, smoother, and more inventive.
It doesn't matter what the voice sounded like, but, in the 80's IBM computers was talking back to us. And regardless of the amount of mistakes, in the late 90's my Motorola phone was recognizing my voice. And before an actual device labeled as an Iphone came to market, Google understood what I was saying.
I'm just so tired of the blatant crap of bias misleading information that continues to flow from this venue of tech news.