AuthenTec Sells Off Embedded Security Systems, Leaving FingerPrint Technology for Apple

I wish apple would use fingerprint readers on their MBP.

Now is the technologies team using them or the hardware team using them?

ajvizzgamer101 said:

Now is the technologies team using them or the hardware team using them?

Click to expand...

Two teams working together.

MacRumors said:

Embedded Security Solutions (ESS) division to a company called Inside Secure for $48 million...

Click to expand...

Read that as "Insecure".

mac fly (film) said:

read that as "insecure".

Click to expand...

rotflol:d

I can't make my mind up as to whether this'd make it into the next iPhone iteration or not. Else it'll be more of an iPhone 6 than a 5S, which I'm all for. Finger crossed.

Entering my passcode is getting tedious (first world problem).

DarkWinter said:

I can't make my mind up as to whether this'd make it into the next iPhone iteration or not. Else it'll be more of an iPhone 6 than a 5S, which I'm all for. Finger crossed.

Entering my passcode is getting tedious (first world problem).

Click to expand...

Feels like more of a 6 thing. So how would such an integration work? Will they be able to do something along the lines of making the home button a scanner? Or will they have to put a scanner completely elsewhere on the phone?

Re:

Ain't that the nVidia logo?

Too much "been".

Patriks7 said:

Feels like more of a 6 thing. So how would such an integration work? Will they be able to do something along the lines of making the home button a scanner? Or will they have to put a scanner completely elsewhere on the phone?

Click to expand...

I think that you are right. My thought is that Apple will roll out an NFC payment system that utilizes fingerprint recognition as part of its authentication process. Since this would be a major step-change in the iPhone's core abilities, it is more likely to be released on the iPhone 6. No matter what the phone is titled, I think that we have 1.5-2 years before we will see fingerprint tech (or NFC) in the iPhone.

If I were the engineer in charge of integrating the fingerprinting tech into the iPhone, I would try very hard to embed the scanner into the glass itself. I would probably put the scanner just to the right of the home button. I would also make the scanner blend in with the black/white background (similar to the front-facing camera, except with tinted glass) so that it would not ruin the aesthetic experience of the phone.

Patriks7 said:

Feels like more of a 6 thing. So how would such an integration work? Will they be able to do something along the lines of making the home button a scanner? Or will they have to put a scanner completely elsewhere on the phone?

Click to expand...

I believe Apple already showed how they're going to use this in one of their patent applications. They would have the sensor underneath the screen where the swipe normally occurs.

I do think this is really cool, though I would prefer it be offscreen ( like on the button ) becuase having a discrete sensor that only works on one part of the screen goes against the philosophy Apple has about the screen being 100% reconfigurable. But I admit it's a cool enough feature that it may not be a big deal.

The industry disrupting technology that AuthenTec brings to the table is fingerprint scanners built into the touchscreen.
Not sure why Apply would want to keep legacy technology to being with.

I have missed the AuthenTec fingerprint reader on my ThinkPad and I hope Apple adds one to their Macs.

alphaod said:

I have missed the AuthenTec fingerprint reader on my ThinkPad and I hope Apple adds one to their Macs.

Click to expand...

If this is anything like the Liquid Metal exclusivity license Apple acquired, it could very much be not about integrating it in its own products, but about locking its competition out of it.

Other manufacturers had cellphones made with Liquid Metal parts before Apple swooped in, got exclusitivity from the people behind it and locked out everyone else. Then Apple made SIM ejection tools with it.

Wow. Am I the only person that does not want my biometrics to be scanned or stored anywhere ever? This seems like it is heading down a road I don't want to travel.

KnightWRX said:

If this is anything like the Liquid Metal exclusivity license Apple acquired, it could very much be not about integrating it in its own products, but about locking its competition out of it.

Click to expand...

Sometimes Apple reminds me of those seagulls in "Finding Nemo". They don't like to share anything.

HMI said:

Wow. Am I the only person that does not want my biometrics to be scanned or stored anywhere ever? This seems like it is heading down a road I don't want to travel.

Click to expand...

If it's just stored locally, it could be quite useful.

Fingerprint scanners have been used on handhelds since before 2000.

The first retina-screen smartphone (the 2007 Toshiba Portégé G900) had a fingerprint scanner which not only could be used to unlock the phone, but you could even set it up so that each finger launched a different application.

Scanners can also be used to confirm the user when making electronic payments, picking up tickets, etc.

kdarling said:

Sometimes Apple reminds me of those seagulls in "Finding Nemo". They don't like to share anything.

Click to expand...

They share quite a bit of the core technologies that they make.

subsonix said:

They share quite a bit of the core technologies that they make.

Click to expand...

That is more often when they want to push adoption of something. An example would be Apple wanted mini displayport to be implemented as much as possible, so it doesn't carry a licensing fee. It's a matter of whether adoption by others also benefits Apple. This isn't totally uncommon. Buying up exclusive licenses is silly though. There isn't any point beyond denying others the technology.

thekev said:

That is more often when they want to push adoption of something. An example would be Apple wanted mini displayport to be implemented as much as possible, so it doesn't carry a licensing fee. It's a matter of whether adoption by others also benefits Apple. This isn't totally uncommon. Buying up exclusive licenses is silly though. There isn't any point beyond denying others the technology.

Click to expand...

And sometimes, they just claim they will and never do. Like Facetime. And other times, it's because licensing of the copyrighted codebase they are using forces them to. Like Webkit.

But the fact remains, Liquid Metal's license seems to be a move to lock out the competition from using it. Same as when they use their massive supply chains to simply lock out the competition from getting parts like NAND or Displays.

Apple always does what benefits Apple. That shouldn't be a surprise, Apple isn't exactly out to make the world a better place, it's goal like any publicly traded company is simply profits.

thekev said:

That is more often when they want to push adoption of something. An example would be Apple wanted mini displayport to be implemented as much as possible, so it doesn't carry a licensing fee. It's a matter of whether adoption by others also benefits Apple. This isn't totally uncommon. Buying up exclusive licenses is silly though. There isn't any point beyond denying others the technology.

Click to expand...

I was more thinking of software, but ok. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you paint it, presumably they buy companies to use the technology, that is true for most acquisitions I'm aware of. Some people always assume malice as the primary motivator, never any other reason, which I find ridiculous.

KnightWRX said:

Apple always does what benefits Apple. That shouldn't be a surprise, Apple isn't exactly out to make the world a better place, it's goal like any publicly traded company is simply profits.

Click to expand...

And that doesn't make them different than other publicly traded company.

KnightWRX said:

And other times, it's because licensing of the copyrighted codebase they are using forces them to. Like Webkit.

Click to expand...

And other times it isn't. Like libdispatch and launchd. And adding to open source project regardless of license should count as sharing no? Like financing developement, or working or participating in new standards. Let's go back to the original quote, although a joke, there are others who that description fits better.

subsonix said:

I was more thinking of software, but ok. I don't think it's quite as black and white as you paint it, presumably they buy companies to use the technology, that is true for most acquisitions I'm aware of. Some people always assume malice as the primary motivator, never any other reason, which I find ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I was thinking of the liquid metal one here. They negotiated exclusive rights as opposed to a perpetual license. I do find it annoying when any company buys something seemingly with the sole intention to limit its access.

KnightWRX said:

And sometimes, they just claim they will and never do. Like Facetime. And other times, it's because licensing of the copyrighted codebase they are using forces them to. Like Webkit.

But the fact remains, Liquid Metal's license seems to be a move to lock out the competition from using it. Same as when they use their massive supply chains to simply lock out the competition from getting parts like NAND or Displays.

Click to expand...

I figured they didn't want others eventually producing larger parts out of LM or they wanted exclusive rights to do so without starting such a trend. I don't know much about the history behind Webkit. I'll read about it later.

thekev said:

I was thinking of the liquid metal one here. They negotiated exclusive rights as opposed to a perpetual license. I do find it annoying when any company buys something seemingly with the sole intention to limit its access.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but if they end up use it and what plans they have for it remains to be seen. It's not something you or I know anything about.

KnightWRX said:

And sometimes, they just claim they will and never do. Like Facetime. And other times, it's because licensing of the copyrighted codebase they are using forces them to. Like Webkit.

But the fact remains, Liquid Metal's license seems to be a move to lock out the competition from using it. Same as when they use their massive supply chains to simply lock out the competition from getting parts like NAND or Displays.

Apple always does what benefits Apple. That shouldn't be a surprise, Apple isn't exactly out to make the world a better place, it's goal like any publicly traded company is simply profits.

Click to expand...

Actually, Apple was not forced to leave Webkit open if you read up on the limited license it was protected under. Facetime is open because it's basically SIP, and it's already open right now.

Did you ever consider that Liquid Metal may not be up to Apple's level of quality yet? Or is it always instantly Apple being predatory? I'm sure Apple was simply locking out the competition rather than getting **** a lot cheaper too.

Iconoclysm said:

Actually, Apple was not forced to leave Webkit open if you read up on the limited license it was protected under. Facetime is open because it's basically SIP, and it's already open right now.

Did you ever consider that Liquid Metal may not be up to Apple's level of quality yet? Or is it always instantly Apple being predatory? I'm sure Apple was simply locking out the competition rather than getting **** a lot cheaper too.

Click to expand...

Sorry - Liquid Metal isn't up to Apple's quality?

I can go with they haven't found a use for it. Or that they are not sure what they want to do with it. But to imply that the material isn't up to Apple's level of quality yet is, in my opinion, reaching VERY far.