What is wrong with an Apple ‘iWatch’

Handpicked

A few people asked me to comment about the possibility that Apple is working on a new wearable piece of technology such as a smartwatch. According to The New York Times, Apple is experimenting with wristwatch-like devices made of curved glass, according to people familiar with the company’s explorations, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they are not allowed to publicly discuss unreleased products.

Well, of course Apple is experimenting. Innovation comes from experimentation and design investigations, things that bring execution to what would otherwise be just an idea. If you’re lucky enough to own or have read the book AppleDesign: The Work of the Apple Industrial Design Group by Paul Kunkel, you can see there just how many designs, mockups, prototypes Apple produced internally from the early 1980s to 1997. It’s too bad there isn’t a second volume of such completeness to illustrate what Apple has been investigating from 1998 up to now. But it’s easy to imagine that the exploration processes inside the company haven’t changed much. In other words, the fact that Apple is “experimenting with wristwatch-like devices made of curved glass” doesn’t necessarily mean Apple will produce them.

Anyway, these past days I was gathering a few notes to write about this purported ‘Apple smartwatch’ and share my take on it (spoiler: I don’t think it’s a great idea), but Harry C. Marks, of Curious Rat fame, wrote a really interesting and thought-provoking piece for Macgasm called Candidly Speaking, An iWatch Is A Dumb Idea where he raises all the very same objections I had been mulling over recently.

A couple of quotes:

But the main use will be to provide a glimpse at recent notifications: the same notifications present on the iPhone in your pocket, less than one foot away. We’ll be able to see new text messages, emails, tweets, and other alerts without having to go through the arduous task of reaching into our pants and whipping out a cumbersome slab of metal and glass. Could someone explain to me how useful that would be? If I get an alert for a new text message, I’ll want to respond to it immediately. That’s what a “wrist computer” is supposed to allow me to do. It will be nearly impossible to type on a screen so small, so what forms of input will an iWatch take? Dictation? This speaks to the concerns about speaking at one’s wrist in public.

And:

What’s the point of being able to see something flash on your wrist, only to have to pull out a second device in order to act upon it? Many of us would like to have better self-control when it comes to using our phones at the dinner table, but another expensive piece of machinery isn’t going fix the underlying problem. It may exacerbate it even more.

But I don’t want to anticipate too much. Go over at Macgasm and read the whole piece. It’s well worth your time and you can better understand Marks’ (and my) point of view on the matter.

Some thoughts on a future, bigger iPhone

Tech Life

In my recent article, The Next Big Thing, while considering what kind of future revolutionary product Apple might (or might not) build, speaking of portable devices, I touched upon the possibility of a bigger iPhone. The following passage got the attention of some readers who asked me via email to expand on it:

A bigger iPhone? Perhaps. Everyone speculating about such a device seems very much focused on the screen resolution and density math. I wonder if they also considered usability. Perhaps people ‘demand’ bigger phones, considering how well Samsung’s and other big Android smartphones are selling. But Apple also cares about its users in another way: by putting in their hands a device that’s a pleasure to use. A 5‑inch iPhone, in this regard, might be a challenge.

A few days back, I brought up some observations on App.net, soon after taking this picture:

#alttext#

It is a very rough sketch that shows the screen size of a theoretical 5″ iPhone (or more precisely a 4.94″ iPhone) compared with an iPhone 4 (whose screen is 3.5″). My first impression, as I posted on App.net, was How can a big iPhone be usable, I don’t know. Now, what I got wrong in that first sketch is the aspect ratio, which tends more towards 4:3 than 16:9. In creating a cardboard mockup of the bigger iPhone, then, I went back to the article that inspired me in the first place — Marco Arment’s A crazier prediction: iPhone Plus is real, and huge, and this is what I got:

#alttext#

I haven’t cut the mockup precisely because I wanted to consider the added minor thickness of a protective case, like the one I’m using on my iPhone 4, which is an Incipio Feather case. Sure, next to an iPhone 4, this ‘iPhone Plus’ mockup looks even more monstrous than it already is, but then again, it’s still smaller than some Samsung or other Android handsets.

As I wrote in the opening quoted bit, my argument against such a big iPhone is based more on design and usability considerations rather than sheer screen resolution and screen density math. From a mathematical viewpoint, this ‘iPhone Plus’ is quite feasible. And Arment makes a valid point from a market penetration perspective:

Why would Apple release this?

First and foremost, there’s significant demand for larger-screened phones. As much as we make fun of the Galaxy Note, it sells surprisingly well, especially outside of the United States. Other large Android phones sell very well almost everywhere.

The iPhone has lost a significant number of sales by buyers either wanting a larger screen or being drawn to how much better the large screens look in stores. Here’s how this theoretical iPhone Plus looks next to the large-screened competition:

#alttext#

Now, imagine that lineup without the iPhone Plus mockup. That’s how the shelf looks today when a buyer goes into a phone store. See the problem? 

Maybe my opinion is deeply influenced by Steve Jobs’s way of thinking, but unless Apple does subtle but significant changes to the design of an iPhone that big (as Arment suggests) to accommodate a 4.94″ screen, I’m not so sure Apple’s willing to put into people’s hands a device that’s uncomfortable to operate with one hand. (Unless you have big hands, of course.) As I said on App.net, I think that such an iPhone would be considered ‘awkward’ by Apple’s standards. Certain customers who are already sold on ginormous smartphones like the Galaxy Note line, probably won’t care much about design and related matters, but maybe Apple will (following its logic of “We know what’s best for our customers”). 

I’m not saying that Apple will never ever make a 5″ iPhone, but I believe usability matters more to Apple than, say, to Samsung. It’s also possible that Apple changes something in iOS before introducing a bigger iPhone, to better scale iOS’s interface and user experience on such a device.

To show that a theoretical ‘iPhone Plus’ may be problematic to handle, I’ve played a bit with my mockup. Here’s what I noticed:

#alttext#

My hands are on the small side, but I have long thin fingers. This is, for me, the most comfortable grip to hold the iPhone. In this position, my thumb cannot reach the top of the iPhone screen (both the top row of app icons and the status bar are out of reach), but it can’t reach the Home button either (not comfortably, at least):

#alttext#

To be able to press the Home button with a certain degree of comfort, I have to lower the grip (note the position of my fingers behind the mockup). This way, however, the mockup already feels off-balance — imagine a heavier, bulkier, finished device:

#alttext#

Not to mention taking photos in portrait orientation. Not to mention performing the ‘Slide to unlock’ gesture, which gets so awkward for me that I basically risk dropping the device.

To comfortably reach the top of the screen, again I have to readjust the grip and let the device slide down my hand a bit, and then the problem I was having in the first picture is reversed — I can’t easily reach the app icons in the Dock, or even the rightmost apps in the lower right quadrant of the screen:

#alttext#

The general feeling when handling the bigger iPhone mockup was of awkwardness and impracticality. I felt I was handling something whose size and scale were somewhat ‘off’. I love the proportions of my iPhone 4, and I’ve had the chance of holding an iPhone 5 more than once, finding it slightly less comfortable to operate one-handed, but feeling great in my hand nonetheless. The only way to get some real usability out of the bigger iPhone mockup was to use both hands. The only pockets where I could safely store the mockup were my overcoat’s. It barely fit in my cargo pants’ side pockets (again, the mockup is a relatively thin sheet of cardboard; a finished device — thicker and bulkier — would probably be more uncomfortable to carry around in your pants’ pockets.)

A certain gain in usability, in my opinion, would result after two major changes in the physical design of such bigger iPhone: 1) a significant reduction of the area surrounding the screen; 2) the removal of the Home button, replaced by a software button or a sensitive area under the docked app icons (à la Palm Pre) or maybe even by a thinner but wider hardware button. Number 2 seems unlikely, though, and it may actually introduce further usability issues. But Number 1 can be attained, in order to have a bigger iPhone which is basically ‘all screen’ on the front. This could reduce the device’s size enough to make it tolerable to use.

On a final, strictly personal note, I’ll add that all these considerations are, of course, completely speculative. I’m not rejecting the possibility of Apple producing a bigger iPhone. I’m certainly not saying that, since I find such a device to be hard to handle, Apple won’t make it. What I’d love to see from Apple in this regard, however, is a bolder move than simply fill a spot in the market of big smartphones and ‘phablets’. Granted, introducing the iPad mini was a similar move in the tablet arena, and a smart one at that. Sometimes, following in the competition’s steps makes sense, especially if the result is an overall better product. I’m just not entirely convinced that a bigger iPhone is going to be a similarly compelling product in the smartphone arena. I believe that, at the moment, iOS is more in need of innovative features and redesigns than the iPhone hardware. But this is going to be the subject of a different article…

Pushpin for Pinboard

Mele e appunti

Ho sempre avuto una gestione tutta particolare dei molti bookmark salvati nel corso degli anni, e fino a poco tempo fa ero piuttosto scettico nei confronti di servizi online per la gestione dei bookmark, come Delicious. Sarà anche perché fui uno dei primi utilizzatori di quel disastro che si rivelò essere Ma.gnolia (niente mi ripagherà del tempo perduto a importare e sistemare la mia vasta collezione di bookmark su quel sito, che agli inizi del 2009 perse tutti i dati presenti nel suo database). Insomma, pur non negando l’utilità di servizi del genere, il processo di importare e sistemare migliaia di bookmark mi era sempre sembrato qualcosa di troppo lungo e tedioso, e temevo di investire (nuovamente) una quantità di tempo assurda prima di percepire davvero l’utilità di tutta l’operazione.

Quando è arrivato Pinboard, però, qualcosa è scattato. Non so se a causa dell’estrema praticità dell’interfaccia, non so se è stato lo slogan servizio di gestione bookmark antisociale per introversi (come si definiva tempo addietro, ora si definisce sito Web di gestione bookmark per introversi che hanno fretta), ma mi sono iscritto d’impulso. E mi sono presto reso conto che è stata un’ottima idea. Pinboard mi è sembrato fin da subito un prodotto creato da qualcuno con il mio stesso punto di vista su come vadano gestiti i bookmark, e la completa assenza di fronzoli in questo caso non si tratta di minimalismo fine a se stesso: Pinboard privilegia la funzionalità e la velocità. Tutto il tempo ‘perso’ a importare e classificare il nucleo più importante dei miei bookmark lo considero infatti tempo guadagnato, dato che tutte le ricerche che mi sono trovato a effettuare in Pinboard sono state sempre o quasi sempre più veloci che non quelle all’interno di Safari.

A seguito del suo successo, hanno iniziato a comparire diversi client per iOS. Io sono beta-tester di Pushpin e mi occupo della localizzazione in italiano. Non ho provato nessun altro client (in tutta onestà li trovo un tantino costosi), e quindi mi sembra ingiusto presentare Pushpin come il migliore. Però posso dire che, come Pinboard, Pushpin è all’insegna della semplicità, della velocità e dell’efficienza. E per chi non conosce bene l’inglese e vuole un’applicazione che parli italiano, posso dire di star facendo il possibile perché Pushpin sia un’applicazione di qualità anche sotto questo punto di vista. Se non altro avete la certezza che non si tratta di una versione italiana ottenuta mediante traduttori automatici.

Detto questo, voglio sottolineare il fatto che localizzare è un’operazione un po’ diversa rispetto al tradurre un testo qualsiasi. Il problema principale è lo spazio limitato dell’interfaccia di iPhone. Se l’avviso contenuto in una finestra di dialogo a comparsa può essere liberamente tradotto in buon italiano, elementi quali menu, etichette e opzioni obbligano alla sintesi. Durante il lavoro di localizzazione ho dovuto riscrivere alcune traduzioni perché durante il beta testing mi sono accorto che risultavano troncate o finivano letteralmente sotto un interruttore On/Off. Pertanto, se da un lato sarebbe ideale tradurre Read by default? [On/Off] in Contrassegnare i preferiti come letti per default?, non è purtroppo possibile per mere ragioni di spazio, quindi tocca optare per una soluzione magari meno elegante ma necessariamente sintetica, come Letti per default?. Decisioni come queste sono state prese in svariate parti dell’interfaccia. 

Per chi già ha acquistato Pushpin e lo utilizza in italiano: è probabile che di tanto in tanto spuntino parti in inglese, non tradotte. Non è questione di trascuratezza: l’applicazione è in continua evoluzione e lo sviluppatore la aggiorna molto frequentemente. Può accadere che venga aggiunta una nuova opzione tra una beta e l’altra, e che l’aggiornamento venga approvato prima che i vari localizzatori abbiano tempo di tradurre le nuove parti. Ultimamente poi non sono stato al massimo per quanto riguarda la salute, e non ho avuto la possibilità di aggiornare tempestivamente la localizzazione; problema che dovrebbe essere risolto con il prossimo aggiornamento.

(Se in tempi futuri vi accorgete della presenza di menu, messaggi, opzioni che rimangono non tradotte e che magari mi sono sfuggite, segnalatelo mandandomi un’email o un messaggio via Twitter.)

The Next Big Thing

Tech Life

Apple seems to be under a lot of pressure lately, probably more than ever. The feeling is that, with Apple, it’s never enough. No matter how healthy the company is. No matter how extraordinary sales are. No matter how great its products are. Wall Street on one side, analysts and the tech press on the other, nobody’s ever satisfied.

Since Steve Jobs’s passing, Apple has done an excellent job at refining existing products, not to mention the introduction of a new one — the iPad mini. Innovation is a term that is always associated with Apple, and with good reason, considering how many things have changed in the tech world in the last 12 years thanks to products like the iPod (2001), the iPhone (2007) and the iPad (2010). From what I’ve been reading on the Web over the last few months, many people seem to argue that the time has come for Apple to show it can ‘survive’ on its own, without the genius and the vision of Steve Jobs to lead the way. The perfect way to show that is with the introduction of the ‘Next Big Thing’, because apparently iterative improvements of existing products are not enough, no matter how successful they are.

Paradoxical suggestions: “Innovate!”, “Do what others are doing!”

So, on one hand, Apple ‘must’ release something innovative and disruptive, another breakthrough in modern technology and design. On the other, Apple ‘must’ follow in the competition’s steps, for example by producing a cheap iPhone for the emerging markets. According to some, Apple should produce its own ‘phablet’ (my hatred for this term is incommensurable), to better compete against Samsung’s offerings. Others think that the Next Big Thing will have something to do with wearable technology, in the form of a smartwatch.

If Apple is really in the process of manufacturing a cheaper iPhone, I guess it’s because of its interest in expanding its presence in China, above all. But leaving this example aside for a moment, I hope that some people realise that “Do what others are doing” is not part of how Apple behaves. Another thing Apple has repeatedly shown in the past is that it’s not particularly interested in entering all markets. Remember when Apple should have produced a netbook because netbooks were the future of portability? (Or, more accurately, because a lot of people said so, thinking it was the best course of action, completely misunderstanding how Apple thinks and acts).

No, Apple either creates a market, or enters an existing one only if it can significantly contribute to (or utterly revolutionise) that particular market. Innovation and following in others’ steps are two opposing directions in Apple’s book, in my opinion.

So, what now?

Apart from a very selected few inside Apple, no one really knows if Apple’s working on its Next Big Thing and what it’s going to be. Here’s where I start thinking out loud.

A new Mac? — A few months ago, Tim Cook said that the Mac Pro line was not over yet, that we should expect something new this year. But even taking an all-new Mac Pro into account, that can’t exactly be considered a revolutionary product. What could Apple do in the traditional computer department to create an entirely new — and in some ways revolutionary — Mac model? It must have been more than a year ago when I saw a patent application from Apple depicting some kind of hybrid Mac that could be operated traditionally, with a keyboard and a mouse/trackpad, but also supported a Multi-touch interface. In the patent images, it looked like an iMac whose screen could be made to slide towards the user and angled in such a way that the user could interact with the screen as if it were a giant iPad. While this looks doable (and certainly Apple could produce an elegant-enough solution), I can’t see an immediate practicality in such an idea. It could make for a cool-looking gimmick, but I don’t think we can call it a powerful, breakthrough innovation. (Unless, of course, Apple comes up with a compelling, unique application for such a machine.)

Form-factor-wise, Apple seems to have all bases covered. Great laptops, a cheap desktop solution (Mac mini), a less-cheap but still-affordable desktop solution (iMac) and the old-fashioned, expandable tower format (Mac Pro), so it’s hard to imagine a completely new product that is not some kind of derivative idea from one of the current Macs.

A new portable device? — Here things get interesting. I don’t think it’ll be a new phablet, it doesn’t ring as Apple’s style to me. A bigger iPhone? Perhaps. Everyone speculating about such a device seems very much focused on the screen resolution and density math. I wonder if they also considered usability. Perhaps people ‘demand’ bigger phones, considering how well Samsung’s and other big Android smartphones are selling. But Apple also cares about its users in another way: by putting in their hands a device that’s a pleasure to use. A 5‑inch iPhone, in this regard, might be a challenge.

Anyway, my speculation here is about the ‘Next Big Thing’, an all-new revolutionary product. A bigger iPhone is probably nice to have in the product line, but again, it hardly qualifies as revolutionary. Some seem to believe that Apple will produce a smartwatch. Maybe I’m not imaginative enough, but a smartwatch doesn’t really strike me as a product (or market) Apple is after. Unless it features something really unprecedented, some kind of unexpected integration with Apple’s ecosystem, some kind of application nobody thought of before that suddenly creates an obvious need for such a device, I deem a smartwatch an unlikely candidate for the next big thing made by Apple.

Conquering the living-room — A lot of people have been speculating about a new Apple TV completely rethought — as in, a new revolutionary TV set. Personally, I don’t think Apple has to manufacture some sort of giant iMac-looking device to revolutionise television, if that’s really Apple’s intent and next move. Maybe when Jobs revealed to Isaacson that he “nailed” TV, he was thinking about some kind of software product or service offering, rather than a particular piece of hardware.

Another way to enter the living-room could be through a whole new, dedicated game console. That would be an interesting take. Imagine a mutated Apple TV on steroids, a device you not only use to watch shows and stream multimedia content, but also to play games. And I’m not talking iOS titles on the big screen, something that’s already attainable by connecting an iPad to a TV set. I’m thinking ‘new Apple gaming platform’. Apple is slowly but surely becoming a threat to consoles, as Valve’s Gabe Newell recently observed, so why not give them the proverbial coup de grâce with its very own console? Yes, maybe it’s a crazy thought, but not crazier than a smartwatch.

The realm of the unexpected

Then, of course, Apple could be working on introducing something no one has thought of yet, some product or idea whose innovation and usefulness will seem so obvious that many will slap their foreheads and say Why didn’t I think of that!? Apple’s mission has always been to make people’s lives easier, and in this department there’s still a lot of room for novelty and progress. Apple’s Next Big Thing doesn’t necessarily have to be big since day one, like the iPhone was. It might be something that subtly makes its way into people’s lives and becomes a long-standing hit, like the iPod has been for a decade. It’s hard to figure out at the moment, exactly because it seems as if Apple has already a product in place for the most varied of today’s needs. But in devising the Next Big Thing, Apple will probably target tomorrow’s needs — that is, by creating new ones.

Siri, wake up

Software

Let me begin by clearing something up: I’m not saying Siri is a useless interface. It isn’t, and has great potential. But after many attempts at finding Siri a proper place in my day-to-day, and after much frustration, I just sort of forgot about it.

I’m not a user interaction guru, though I did my share of studying and analysing the subject. But from mere observation, I can say that in choosing the best interface, people have the tendency to follow the principle of ‘maximum output with minimum effort’, or the path of least resistance if you want. In my attempts at using Siri in a meaningful way, I rarely found it quicker than doing the same operation through the Multi-touch interface.

Interpolation on speech recognition

The way I see it, speech recognition has still some way to go. The first thing to improve is the reliability and accuracy in translating dictated speech into a written text. In my experience, the software available today for an English speaker seems to offer better results than other languages.

But the problems related to speech recognition aren’t limited to this. We should also take into account its practical use in the field. Speech recognition is not something really usable in public, for the obvious noise pollution and the acoustic chaos that would ensue, not to mention the rudeness: we already have to endure those with the habit of talking loudly on their mobile phones, inflicting their business and nonsense to the unfortunates nearby; imagine if anyone who carries around a computer or portable device in public places and public spaces started dictating stuff aloud. Then there’s the issue of data privacy. There are professions that require strict confidentiality when dealing with customer information. Not to mention trade secrets and, in general, a whole range of sensitive information that must not be seen or, in this case, overheard.

This aspect alone severely limits the use of speech recognition (at least for business). But even under the best conditions of use, while I’m not denying that there’s a certain beauty in being able to dictate text to the computer and seeing it recognised on the screen, I can’t stress enough one other aspect that sometimes speech recognition advocates forget: that a dictated and recognised block of text is still far from being a complete, finished document.

I doubt very strongly that, once dictated, a text is free of typographical errors and does not require any further correction or change, unless the author doesn’t care about the final quality of their writing. When people say that this kind of dictation is a timesaver, I think that’s more an impression than the reality. It is not enough that the computer recognises the dictation (and the dictated punctuation) and inserts capital letters where needed. The text must subsequently be adapted and corrected to ensure that it is in effect a written text and not the transcription of a soliloquy.

It isn’t a difficult test to do, even without voice recognition software: think of an email or a short-to-medium-length text you would like to write, and dictate it to a tape recorder, then transcribe what you said as you hear it. First, you will need to delete redundant conjunctions and pauses; then, since we are not robots, you’ll have to adjust the syntax and the connections between sentences. When speaking, it’s easy to produce syntactically suspended passages, anacolutha, expressions that are accepted in spoken language but improper in a written text. As you can see, a mere transcription is not enough: we have to produce an appropriately written document. With such a ‘post-production’ operation, I can’t really see all this productivity gain, nor any time saved over typing the document. (At least considering the current state of speech recognition technology). 

Unless of course you want to end up writing like you talk, which I don’t think is a nice prospect. My plumber uses a transcription service to send text messages with his phone, so he can dictate and send a text without using his hands. His text messages are intelligible, but syntactically rough, and with the odd mis-transcripted word. Here the use of speech recognition makes sense, because the scope is limited and what matters is the result, not the means to achieve it. An email or any longer text delivered with the same technique would be unacceptable.

Perhaps I’ll soon be proven wrong by some breakthrough in the industry that’s just around the corner, but in the meantime I’m really under the impression that speech recognition will continue to work only in specific, limited situations. This technology is certainly useful (just think of the valuable aid it represents for disabled people), but in my opinion there’s still a long way to go before it can make a significant impact in our everyday life as an efficient input alternative to the keyboard, let alone a replacement.

Back to Siri

On paper, Siri is an interesting tool. The ads Apple created sell this feature rather well. When I updated my iPad to iOS 6, I couldn’t wait to try it, and I started playing with it as soon as the updating process was finished. ‘Playing’ being the key word here. I tried all kinds of stuff with it. The silly questions. The weather for the weekend. Setting up timers and reminders. Asking for directions. Finding information. The result was a mix of fun, unexpected results, and frustration. Being multilingual myself, I tried Siri in Italian, English, and Spanish, but even with my mother tongue, Italian, Siri’s understanding of what was said or dictated was too erratic to be considered a reliable interface. The most useful way to use Siri would be in situations where your hands aren’t free or you can’t otherwise use the Multi-touch interface comfortably. 

In an ideal word you should trust Siri to understand the basic commands you’re speaking, without you having to constantly check the device to see whether such commands have been interpreted correctly or not. In an ideal world, how quickly or slowly you talk, and your distance from the iPhone or iPad’s microphone shouldn’t matter much, as far as speed and distance are within reasonable parameters. As it is, however, a successful interaction with Siri, no matter how simple the request, still depends on too many variables. 

When OS X Lion was introduced, I tried to familiarise with certain new trackpad gestures, but failed to find them quicker or more efficient than the good old keyboard shortcut. Take the ‘Show Desktop’ gesture: spread with thumb and three fingers. I have the F11 key assigned to do exactly that, and when I’m typing it’s just quicker to press one key rather than move the hand away from the keyboard and perform the trackpad gesture. Similarly, I tried to find a way to use Siri as it was meant to be used, but the only instance where it’s actually the fastest solution, interaction-wise, for me has been setting up timers while I cook. 

(I also tried iOS’s dictation feature, only available in English, and while it has been less disappointing than expected — something even more remarkable if you consider that I’m not a native English speaker — I can’t really picture myself using it for anything longer than a tweet or a very brief email message.)

At the moment, Siri also looks a bit left to its own devices (excuse the pun). It’s been introduced more than a year ago and at this point one should expect improvements in reliability and scope of application at the very least. Instead in the freshly-released iOS 6.1 we get this new ‘feature’ that lets you order movie tickets through Fandango, which in reality (from what I’ve heard) isn’t quite the seamless futuristic process one imagines. You have to download the Fandango app, and what Siri does is basically linking you to the requested movie in Fandango (provided Siri parses your spoken information correctly, that is).

I really hope Apple takes a decided step towards what to do with it. There’s really great potential here, and Siri could bring speech recognition to a whole new level in human-machine interaction. I’m not expecting a perfect interface as it’s often been portrayed in science fiction movies and series, where sophisticated mainframes were queried and instructed simply through speech commands. What I expect is to see Siri finally leaving this seemingly eternal beta status; what I expect at this point is to see some vision behind it, something more than let’s add this gimmicky feature and see what happens.