i hope its as good as people say tbh. ive not gone 2 weeks without shaving but if im not flying for work or my reserve unit then i dont shave.
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 Says Claims Face ID Was Downgraded to Speed Up Production Are 'Completely False'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
according to what's been said by Apple, a couple of days with no shaving shouldn't be a problem at all.
There is no joke. You and many others thought that the original article was legit and that Apple wouldn’t respond to it.
For those buying the iPhone X thank you guys. Let us know if this is true or not, if it’s true you guys helped a lot of people save their money. If it’s not true then find as much problem as you can, so that next year when Apple decide to implement this to every iPhone it will be less buggy. Once again thank you for your service!
I think by this point, it’s clear that Bloomberg is as anti-Apple as they come. Remind me to never trust any of their Apple-centric news ever again.
Why would they though? They'd be jeopardizing the success of a device that is already under extreme scrutiny.
It wouldn’t be a “decrease accuracy” thing, it would be something more akin to increasing the allowable dead pixel count.
[doublepost=1508982038][/doublepost]
Yep. Think of it this way. Say the red dot generator spec was +any, -100. At 29,900 min the mfg yields sucked, only 20%. So they ask the mfgs what the parts are coming out like, and they say if you would drop the min down to 29,000 the allowable yield jumps to 80% acceptance rate.
Then Apple decides, well even at 25,000 red dots our data showed we were still getting an acceptable rate of false negatives / false positives so we’ll drop the min to 29,000. All they’ve done at that point is eaten into their degradation margin, not accuracy.
[doublepost=1508982377][/doublepost]
Strawman. In your example you assume they have to loosen the tolerance by 33%. Nowhere was it suggested that the tolerance changed that much. They could have loosened it by 5% and dramatically increased the parts acceptance rate.
Last edited:
Exactly. Apple probably tested far lower. Who knows how low? Maybe (say) 25000 dots?
They'd have to test degraded performance - just to accommodate everyday things like dirty/dusty screens and other random stuff that pops up in real-world usage. Life isn't a clean room.
I haven't found Bloomberg reliable (despite the good name) for general news, either, relying on a lot of unsourced reporting and provocative headlines to get clicks.
Last edited:
Right, and note that Apple didn’t deny loosening the mfg tolerances on the dot projector, they denied reducing the quality / accuracy. Components are designed for expected degradation amongst other factors. Say they only need 25,000 dots to hit their stated accuracy. The 5,000 extra are for degradation and tolerance. Looosening the tolerance just eats into the degradation factor, not the accuracy.
Summary of comments:
People who thought the “less accurate FaceID” rumor was false, now say they were right all along.
People who think the rumor was true, claim Apple is lying/doing damage control.
In other words, Apple’s statement basically means nothing and the endless bickering here on MR continues.
Yup, organizing a betting pool would have been a great cash flow injection /s
I think the story was poorly worded. Unlikely that “accuracy” was relaxed. Very possible the mfg tolerance on the dot projector was relaxed, which only affects the degradation margin and not the accuracy of a brand new dot projector.
Well, to everyone who gets their hands on an iPhone X in the coming month, please let us know, especially after the "honeymoon" is over (a few days maybe) if there are any issues with FaceID or anything else, no matter how trivial. For the price Apple wants, even a small issue is significant.
Yes, Apple denied lowering the end accuracy of Face Id. But they did not deny lowering the accuracy of factory tests, which is the info that Bloomberg based their speculation upon.
Can't blame Apple. They are smart enough to know that most people cannot read and understand worth a darn, and tend to remember the most negative or positive thing they read. Getting into details is just too confusing
Oh, it's not just Apple. Same goes for their articles about other companies.
That said, Bloomberg's article even noted they had no idea how much changing the parts tests would affect things. Others in the internet echo chamber added more dramatic clickbait headlines about definitely lowering accuracy, usually without mentioning that it was originally about tests.
Donald? Are you there?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
The strangest part of this is that Bloomberg hired Mark Gurman, who is supposed to have inside information on Apple news. I don’t expect Bloomberg to suddenly start kissing Apple’s ass, but I would like the coverage to be fair at least. Their latest articles are a far cry from the quality I would expect.
Did Gurman somehow lose access to his sources when he jumped ship to Bloomberg, or is he forced to report a certain narrative that his bosses deem fit?
Sorry man, still not how this tech works. You'd have to retrain the network with a different sampling rate (30k dots), rewrite the software that relied on that sampling rate and then get everything working in a few months.
P
The fact you think the words 'misinformed" and 'uneducated' are inextricably linked says more about your own education than mine.
Try to make a little sense. Using those two words in the same sentence does not make them "inextricably linked." What a hoot.
Tell you what, would this make you happier:
Your statement makes you seem misinformed.
Your statement makes you appear uneducated.
Great, now they are not "inextricably" linked. They are in their own entirely different sentences. LOL at people like you who think you are being witty and make no sense at all.
I believe nothing that comes from sources other than Apple’s quarterly reports about their success or failure.
People don’t know how to treat rumors as rumors and facts as facts. They just take everything someone tells them. We know Bloomberg has no idea. We also know that an idea like this would’ve had to happen before it was demoed to the public and the specs and behavior was deliveredT in great detail.
I can expect a lay person becoming a "tech journalist" for a tech blog not knowing the integrity part of journalism.
But this is Bloomberg, a publication with a brand name, yet they fall into the same trap.
How sad.