Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Dismisses Rumors of Ever Putting Touch ID on Back, Side, or Under Display of iPhone X
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I don't think we'll ever really know if they were trying under the display TouchID or not. These quotes are both what you'd say if you really didn't attempt it and at the same time it's exactly what you'd say if you wanted to make it clear that FaceID is a better way to authenticate in the future.
It's very possible he's telling the truth, but admitting it didn't work out would undercut the iPhone X and there's no way Apple is going to do that just days before it launches.
It's very possible he's telling the truth, but admitting it didn't work out would undercut the iPhone X and there's no way Apple is going to do that just days before it launches.
As much as most of us griped about the cost of the X, imagine if we were offered the the under screen TouchID. The tech cost alone would drive up the price. Now imagine the issues tech has caused Apple, no matter who was at the helm. They even stated that they had to chop back some of the tech for FaceID.
I don't think Apple will be able to make everyone happy (much to their chagrin), but we all come back for more...with each and every change they do. There is a lot of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" going on right now. I look forward to the X I get. Depending on issues, I may downgrade to the 8+, till then, I will want to experience it myself.
I don't think Apple will be able to make everyone happy (much to their chagrin), but we all come back for more...with each and every change they do. There is a lot of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" going on right now. I look forward to the X I get. Depending on issues, I may downgrade to the 8+, till then, I will want to experience it myself.
That's not how it works. You don't just have to be looking at the screen - you literally need to make eye contact with the array and sustain for enough time to verify attentiveness. If someone has snatched your phone and held it up to your face while you've sat staring in awe at the screen, then shame on you. You could simply look away.
Except Apple never said, never hinted this is something they were working on. And people who have contacts inside Apple like Gruber and Rene Ritchie never said Apple was working on this. So basically people are suggesting Apple is fudging, spinning or worse, lying because of unverified rumors from people or media outlets that as far as we know aren’t on the inside with Apple.
But but but..... but rumor sites said it was true. Aren't rumors always true?!
Go back to the LG Prada (a complete garbage phone that came out just before the iPhone).
Remember how people claimed the iPhone copied LG? Or that Apple stole ideas from the Prada and quickly added them to the iPhone (a ridiculous assumption considering how bad the Prada was)?
Fast forward to the Apple/Samsung trial. Apple showed numerous prototypes and we see they knew what direction they were going years before the iPhone was released (and long before anyone saw an LG Prada).
FaceID is exactly the same. A piece of technology that took some time to get ready, and was planned long ago (not added in last minute).
Remember how people claimed the iPhone copied LG? Or that Apple stole ideas from the Prada and quickly added them to the iPhone (a ridiculous assumption considering how bad the Prada was)?
Fast forward to the Apple/Samsung trial. Apple showed numerous prototypes and we see they knew what direction they were going years before the iPhone was released (and long before anyone saw an LG Prada).
FaceID is exactly the same. A piece of technology that took some time to get ready, and was planned long ago (not added in last minute).
If the rumor about Apple is negative it’s the gospel truth. If it’s positive it’s suspect.
FaceID is a nonsense. Being forced to LOOK at your phone to use it. Utterly impractical in so many scenarios. Apple will be aware pre-order demand (sales volumes) are down for X as many (like me) want to retain TouchID functionality...so hope to push people towards X as the inevitable direction of travel.
PS of course they tried to implement TouchID in X, to deny is folly.
Even when they aren't true, they still usually are true.
I sense a disturbance in the Force.
Speed improvement with Face ID??? You are joking, right?? Look at the phone, give it time to unlock, then swipe up versus touch the home button. Every video I’ve seen shows Face ID being considerably slower.
I agree.
The iPhone X with FaceID is too expensive already. How much more if you add TouchID?
I love when people throw the Prada out as a debate point of them being first. Sure, they were fist to market with the Prada, however, Apple didn’t design and test the iphone in 4-5 months. In fact, they also had some terrible prototype concepts leading up to their iPhone OS Multitouch system.
IIRC, Those prototypes were in 2005, a year before the Prada hit the marketplace.
As a Pixel 2 owner, I am glad they didn’t. Personal preference, but I simply dislike the sensor being on the back. At least they didn’t put it next to, and make it feel like the Camera lens, as in the case of Samsung.
How is that common sense? Apple has proven throughout it's history that it's not one to hold onto legacy once it's clear that there's a better path that enables them to do the things they want to do. TrueDepth not only gives them a much improved authentication method and UX, it also enables them to do some fantastic things with photography and 3D interactivity. If you've taken a moment to study the technology that went into their implementation, common sense will tell you that perfecting that took an immense amount of energy and focus. Apple had no reason or motivation to distract themselves with finding a way to implement Touch ID without a home button. They went forward with a much improved solution that opens up their feature roadmap and they were confident that their customers would be very happy with Face ID.
[doublepost=1509464378][/doublepost]
They won't need to. If your app used Touch ID, you'll automatically inherit Face ID functionality in it's place.
You are still "forced" to look at the phone after using TouchID, so what's the difference?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
After Apple rolls out some future iPhone which they decide should be made out of used razor blades...
"We decided early on that regularly turning over human blood supplies is much healthier than reusing the same old blood. So we never considered any option other than using razor blades. Not only does every use of the iPhone help each user produce a brand new volume of blood, but it is also a perfect way to recycle old, used razor blades instead of them ending up in landfills. Fresher blood supplies and saving the earth is always in our thinking."
In short, whatever ANY company is selling now always has some great spin to try to make it seem as perfect for it's prospective buyers as it can be. Remember this...
Coca-cola believed in that change for it's customers so much they promoted it as "so much better" in a massive campaign to sell the change to a best-selling formula that had sold very well from the beginning. The corporate marketing always thoroughly believes (and thus spins) whatever the corporation has decided to sell. If customers refuse to buy in sufficient numbers, the corporation learns it's lesson, maybe switches back and then the corporation marketing switches back too.
Do a search for retro cigarette advertising to find pitches like XX,XXX physicians endorse smoking...
...or even babies pitching cigs...
Watch lawyer commercials now for pharmaceuticals lawsuits. Then hop back in time 5-10-15 years and watch commercials selling those very same pharmaceuticals. Or watch new pharma ads now, knowing that in 5-10-15 years, some of them will have lawyer ads suing the pharma company for those very same drugs.
Stuff like Asbestos was once aggressively marketed as a magical, miracle product. At the extremes, consider this example...
Note that I'm certainly not equating Face ID to New Coke or cigarettes or Asbestos... just that the role of marketing is to put a positive spin on ANYTHING a company decides to push now.
Recall how Apple marketing would ridicule bigger-screen phones BEFORE Apple rolled out bigger-screen iPhones. What changed there?
Touch ID was THE main reason to upgrade to a prior generation iPhone... but no longer important since this model opted to leave it out.
Just normal corporate marketing messaging. Don't you "feel over-smoked" by refusing to buy what is for sale now. Just buy it. Us corporate strangers that have never met you know what is best for you. Resistance is futile.
"We decided early on that regularly turning over human blood supplies is much healthier than reusing the same old blood. So we never considered any option other than using razor blades. Not only does every use of the iPhone help each user produce a brand new volume of blood, but it is also a perfect way to recycle old, used razor blades instead of them ending up in landfills. Fresher blood supplies and saving the earth is always in our thinking."
In short, whatever ANY company is selling now always has some great spin to try to make it seem as perfect for it's prospective buyers as it can be. Remember this...
Coca-cola believed in that change for it's customers so much they promoted it as "so much better" in a massive campaign to sell the change to a best-selling formula that had sold very well from the beginning. The corporate marketing always thoroughly believes (and thus spins) whatever the corporation has decided to sell. If customers refuse to buy in sufficient numbers, the corporation learns it's lesson, maybe switches back and then the corporation marketing switches back too.
Do a search for retro cigarette advertising to find pitches like XX,XXX physicians endorse smoking...
...or even babies pitching cigs...
Stuff like Asbestos was once aggressively marketed as a magical, miracle product. At the extremes, consider this example...
Note that I'm certainly not equating Face ID to New Coke or cigarettes or Asbestos... just that the role of marketing is to put a positive spin on ANYTHING a company decides to push now.
Recall how Apple marketing would ridicule bigger-screen phones BEFORE Apple rolled out bigger-screen iPhones. What changed there?
Touch ID was THE main reason to upgrade to a prior generation iPhone... but no longer important since this model opted to leave it out.
Just normal corporate marketing messaging. Don't you "feel over-smoked" by refusing to buy what is for sale now. Just buy it. Us corporate strangers that have never met you know what is best for you. Resistance is futile.
Last edited:
While it's true that it's personal preference I think they probably should have put a sensor on the back for as long as iPhone 8 production survives. While I don't see all that much need for weaning on computers since they're bought so infrequently and there's always a dongle I do think that weaning on a phone is important.
Sensor on the back 4lyfe
I remember you talking a lot about a ‘function bar’ on the bottom of the iPhone X.
Excellent points...After Apple rolls out some future iPhone which they decide should be made out of used razor blades...
"We decided early on that regularly turning over human blood supplies is much healthier than reusing the same old blood. So we never considered any option other than using razor blades. Not only does every use of the iPhone help each user produce a brand new volume of blood, but it is also a perfect way to recycle old, used razor blades instead of them ending up in landfills. Fresher blood supplies and saving the earth is always in our thinking."
In short, whatever ANY company is selling now always has some great spin to try to make it seem as perfect for it's prospective buyers as it can be. Remember this...
Coca-cola believed in that change for it's customers so much they promoted it as "so much better" in a massive campaign to sell the change to a best-selling formula that had sold very well from the beginning. The corporate marketing always thoroughly believes (and thus spins) whatever the corporation has decided to sell. If customers refuse to buy in sufficient numbers, the corporation learns it's lesson, maybe switches back and then the corporation marketing switches back too.
Do a search for retro cigarette advertising to find pitches like XX,XXX physicians endorse smoking...
...or even babies pitching cigs...
Note that I'm certainly not equating Face ID to New Coke or cigarettes... just that the role of marketing is to put a positive spin on ANYTHING a company decides to push now. Recall how Apple marketing would ridicule bigger-screen phones BEFORE Apple rolled out bigger-screen iPhones. What changed there?
Touch ID was THE main reason to upgrade to a prior generation iPhone... but no longer important since this model opted to leave it out.
Just normal corporate marketing messaging. Don't you "feel over-smoked" by refusing to buy what is for sale now. Just buy it. Us corporate strangers that have never met you know what is best for you. Resistance is futile.