Apple Says Claims Face ID Was Downgraded to Speed Up Production Are 'Completely False'

[MacRumors]

Bloomberg this morning alleged that Apple allowed its suppliers to make Face ID less accurate in order to speed up production on the device, a claim that Apple now says is "completely false" in a statement shared with TechCrunch.

According to Apple, the quality and the accuracy of Face ID have not changed, and Face ID will be the new "gold standard" for facial authentication.

Customer excitement for iPhone X and Face ID has been incredible, and we can't wait for customers to get their hands on it starting Friday, November 3. Face ID is a powerful and secure authentication system that's incredibly easy and intuitive to use. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven't changed. It continues to be 1 in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.

Bloomberg's claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication.

The report from Bloomberg, which went into detail about some of the components used in the TrueDepth camera, suggested Apple had "relaxed some of the specifications for Face ID" to boost the number of usable dot projectors, a component that Apple suppliers were said to be struggling with. From Bloomberg:

It's not clear how much the new specs will reduce the technology's efficacy. At the phone's official unveiling in September, executives boasted that there was a one in a million chance that an interloper could defeat Face ID to unlock a phone. Even downgraded, it will probably still be far more accurate than Touch ID, where the odds of someone other than the owner of a phone being able to unlock it are one in 50,000.

In addition to Apple's statement suggesting no changes have been made to Face ID, Apple has shared specific accuracy numbers and details on the feature, so it would be difficult for the company to make changes in production that would alter the way that Face ID works.

Apple reportedly struggled with production for several of the components for the iPhone X, given that it's a new device using many new technologies. As a result of those issues, supply of the iPhone X is expected to be extremely limited at launch, with Apple likely unable to reach supply-demand balance until 2018.

Article Link: Apple Says Claims Face ID Was Downgraded to Speed Up Production Are 'Completely False'

 

[Dormammu]

I didn't see Apple doing this anyways.

 

[scrapesleon]

better be false fake news at an all time high

 

[filmantopia]

Won't stop the trolls from running with it.

 

[sniffies]

BGR crowd is having a field day, false or not

 

[Jarman74]

Props to Apple for quickly setting the record straight. Still a day one buy for me.

 

[tkukoc]

True or not.. what else would you expect Apple to say in this case?

 

[Brookzy]

Can we all just agree now that 99% of what these so-called "analysts" spout out is complete rubbish?

They're given so much airtime and manage to define the narrative despite being so wrong so often.

For Apple to denounce a story this comprehensively is quite unprecedented.

 

[djcingular]

So 1st they declined comment, then they come with this rebuttal. Was we expecting them to say..."YEA, we downgraded it, so what" lol!

 

[borgqueenx]

damage control initiated. I wouldnt take either company's side on this.

 

[redheeler]

Of course Apple would deny it, we all were expecting that. But FaceID isn't even my biggest concern about the iPhone X...

 

[Brookzy]

True or not.. what else would you expect Apple to say in this case?

If the story was true, Apple would repeat the 1 in 1,000,000 figure and say they "don't recognise the story", or words to that effect. Instead this is a comprehensive, no-holds-barred, takedown of what Gurman published. So we can be sure there wasn't an ounce of truth in it.

 

[miketcool]

I would imagine a change in resolution would create a need to adjust software algorithms that have received months of testing. There is no way Apple would allow this to happen, especially after the Samsung face unlock fiasco.

 

[nviz22]

Of course it's "false." Can't have people questioning Apple's biometrics.

 

[tkukoc]

If the story was true, Apple would repeat the 1 in 1,000,000 figure and say they "don't recognise the story", or words to that effect. This is a comprehensive, no-holds-barred, takedown of what Gurman published. So we can be sure there wasn't an ounce of truth in it.

No one knows that for sure though. This is why I said.. what else can Apple say right now? They have to say it's false.. even if it's true. No way on earth they'll admit an issue. There might not even be one. I've worked hand in hand with many companies who downgrade specifications to make the market. Happens more often than not.. doesn't mean there's a problem with the finished good. Should be interesting once these devices hit the market though.

 

[D.T.]

Technologies like this are implemented with very specific specifications. I can't imagine in the "midnight hour", the response to a manufacturing issue being "OK, we'll use less facial data" (or whatever downgrade could've been inferred). To be clear, this isn't from any business morality spin with regards to Apple, just from a pure engineering perspective.

Just retroactively quoting this as emphasis to my post

I would imagine a change in resolution would create a need to adjust software algorithms that have received months of testing.

 

[chrono1081]

I was highly suspect of this claim too because you don't just "decrease accuracy" of an electronic component like that. Not to mention people would figure it out in no time.

 

[filmantopia]

True or not.. what else would you expect Apple to say in this case?

Well first, they wouldn't lie. You think they just lie whenever it serves to benefit them?

 

[BruceEBonus]

They had problems with getting underscreen fingerprint ID working so FaceID was pushed apparently.

 

[Brookzy]

Of course Apple would deny it, we all were expecting that.

Oh really? You think they'd lie? Of course they wouldn't. If the story was true, someone, somewhere, would have proof. Copies of emails between suppliers and Apple. And they would make a lot of money by proving to a court that Apple lied on record and thus misled customers right before a new product came out.

This flat out denial shows the story was false, and it is not a given that Apple would deny it.

 

[djcerla]

To degrade the specs at the last minute would have cost more time, not less. Wake up people.

Also, that piece of fake news has been carefully timed to go out when everyone in California was sleeping. Just like you do when you launch an atomic first strike

 

[yanki01]

folks - you must believe everything posted on the interwebs.

 

[CmdrLaForge]

So much click bait these days...

 

[tkukoc]

Well first, they wouldn't lie.

No but it's called Marketing tactics.. they do this all the time. People still believe 5.8" iPhone X has more view-able real estate than iPhone Plus 5.5" screen.. just because Apple claims it does. But just working in X-code will tell you that isn't the case at all... again it's not a lie.. it's a marketing tactic. They have shareholders.

 

[applesith]

I believe Apple on this one. People love drama.