Apple Patent Describes a Way To Read Back iMessages In the Sender's Voice (9to5mac.com) 39
A new Apple patent application describes a way to transform an iMessage to a voice note. In this way, the recipient can choose to have your message read to them not in Siri's voice, but in yours. 9to5Mac reports: In other words, when you send an iMessage, your phone would offer you the option to attach a voice file. This file would be automatically created and stored on your phone, based on your use of Siri. If you do this, the recipient would be asked whether they want to receive the voice file as well as the message. If they choose to do this, then both that message and any subsequent messages from you can be read in a simulation of your voice. The patent also allows for the voice file to be sent on its own, so you can do it ahead of time with selected contacts, so there's no delay in downloading it when a message arrives.
Privacy (Score:1)
Hahahahaha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Privacy (Score:2)
My voice is my passport (Score:1)
It only took a little over 30 years, but now that whole social engineering date scene from Sneakers [youtube.com] has become dated.
Re: (Score:2)
Voice recognition systems have long been able to detect use of a recording. Detecting deepfakes is no doubt be a whole new world, though.
so deap fakes voices (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And an iPhone is quite powerful enough to record your voice _on the phone_ and create a voicemail, without anything leaving your phone except the voicemail _which you asked for_.
Re: so deap fakes voices (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not invasive to do the thing you explicitly engage the device to do.
Sound emulation is prior art (Score:3)
There are also devices already made for text to speech that have been built to emulated people's voices. This is also an obvious extension. There is no way this should be given a patent.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no way this should be given a patent.
There should have been no patent for rectangle with rounded corners or slide to unlock, still here we are
Re: (Score:3)
There should have been no patent for rectangle with rounded corners or slide to unlock, still here we are
There are still idiots who don't know the difference between a utility patent and a design patent. And did you know that Samsung has a design patent on a design including a "rectangle with rounded corners"? But copied Apple's design instead of using their own, patented, design?
Re: (Score:2)
There should be no such fucking thing as a design patent if it is even a thing. At best it might be copyright but even that is questionable, but esoteric stuff is not something that should be patentable. That is just retarded. It's like saying you should be able to patent a painting of a sunset. Patents are supposed to be about functionality not business processes or how something looks. And you should have a working example not a fucking concept like patent office is accepting.
actually (Score:2)
they're called "texts".
CarPlay (Score:1)
What could possibly go go wrong? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: What could possibly go go wrong? (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:2, Funny)
A feature that:
-no one asked for
-no one wants
-no one will use regularly
-has no practical applications
Just like every other Apple feature.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what Apple wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You didn't understand the basic premise of the feature.
Re: (Score:2)
Your life, your credit-card and your voice on a phone: I predict criminals will regularly use all three on stolen phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Criminals don't count as consumers and don't matter to my point.
So everyone hears how I talk to Siri? (Score:2)
Patent?! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
yep, another howler from the US Patent and Trademark Office. This is plainly contrary to the Alice [wikipedia.org] Supreme Court case which ruled in 2014 that an abstract idea, such as transcribing a text message into a voice message referencing an attached audio recording, is not patentable. Further, an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer is not patentable.
Yes, the USPTO's motto: No Fucks Given
- much ado about nothing - (Score:3)
I sense 2 trends in this thread:
1 Apple is evil
2 Voice emulation is evil
3 Patents suck
As for 1- Apple is a corporation and thus must increase profits every year to please the investors. All corporations face this fate. It is the reason America sucks.
3- and also copyrights and trademarks. Wait, there is no 3, only 2 trends. This comment has been hijacked! Hacker alert!!!
and 2- Voice emulation is inevitable. What difference does it make that Apple is part of it? Wake up- it will be routine very soon. Everywhere, all the time. Soon Steve Jobs will be telling you about the wonders of voice emulation.
Re: (Score:1)
1. yes, Apple is evil and greedy, but we already new that
2. maybe not evil, but voice emulation is definitely creepy
3. yes, software patents suck and copyright might have been tolerable back then when it lasted 25 years
Re: (Score:2)
As for 1- Apple is a corporation and thus must increase profits every year to please the investors. All corporations face this fate. It is the reason America sucks.
It's the reason the world is going down the toilet. It's not like corporatism is only in America. We just worship it hard.
So... voicemail? Doesn't that exist already? (Score:2)
I don't expect many people to use this.
Has anyone noticed (Score:2)
Good news, everyone! (Score:2)
Professor Farnsworth says your reading this in his voice!
so let's see (Score:2)
So let's see if I have this right... You dictate a message to Siri, who then transforms it into a text message, and now Siri can transform it back to your voice? Other than trading cpu cycles for bandwidth, is this any different than voicemail?