>'My point is that the analysis of this data is not particularly cost prohibitive. If you want to take all the emails you have recorded and figure out if people are talking about unions you really really do not need something like Watson to do it.'Clearly, but for whatever reason you've decided that 'email' alone is relevant here, not the bits 'speech and context recognition' and 'parse conversations recorded by their desktops and phones' which are the obvious applications of something like Watson.
>'I'm saying they don't have an interest in really digging through it.'
My direct experience says you are simply uninformed about this.
>'if they did they would without something like Watson.'
Only in the context of the 'emails' strawman you've constructed above.
TLDR: You are missing or deliberately avoiding the point. Voice recording and analysis is already big business, but speech and speaker recognition are still lacking and context awareness is obviously dependent on both. That is the exactly the sort of thing that this article specifically demonstrates Watson as being excellent at.
