> Not sure if you're being facetious or not but if you were right then we would just do it on our existing phones now.

The point is, some of us don't believe that this was an engineering choice.

> In the 90s we had slow voice recognition that took a long time to train, that would only ever work for a single user, in a silent room... If it worked at all... Which wasn't very common.

And in the 2000s we had fast voice recognition that took a little bit of time to train and that would work over a crappy microphone with loud music playing in the room, all of that running along other software on a $500 PC. I know because in 2007 I made my own Star Trek-like (with proper computer sound and voice feedback) voice recognition system I used to control music that was played on Hi-Fi speakers. It took me like 20 minutes to train it and it worked pretty much flawlessly from anywhere in the room. The voice was captured by a crappy mic I soldered myself from parts and placed on a wardrobe.

And the single-user-only mode? That's actually a feature, not a bug.

>Not sure if you're being facetious or not but if you were right then we would just do it on our existing phones now.

If we did it that way, then Marketing couldn't datamine their customers lives to find better ways to extract money out of them.

Android's supported on-device speech recognition in the keyboard since like 4.2 (maybe even 4.1)

It's not the words that need to be processed, it's the context.

Modern cars have offline voice recognition that just works, without training.