Nope, that's pure speculation on your part. Crafted to support a closely held a reflexive and closely held anti-Apple narrative.
Pure speculation = fake news.
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
Nope, that's pure speculation on your part. Crafted to support a closely held a reflexive and closely held anti-Apple narrative.
Pure speculation = fake news.
Sorry if this has been answered already. But before I pre-order I have to know:
IF it’s true that the sensor was downgraded, does it mean there is just a higher chance of a lookalike getting access to my phone, or/and does it mean the phone denies access to me?
I don’t care about false positives, but false negatives would get annoying very quickly.
IF it’s true that the sensor was downgraded, does it mean there is just a higher chance of a lookalike getting access to my phone, or/and does it mean the phone denies access to me?
I don’t care about false positives, but false negatives would get annoying very quickly.
Apple is a public company. Cook & Co. are accountable to a board and shareholders. The company is not going to lie about something like this. If the report was true they wouldn’t have commented or would have given a generic statement that didn’t confirm or deny.
We're not going to find out until after launch and 3rd parties test it out, but even then, with no reference of a higher calibrated FaceID to compare to, we will never know anyway.
What matters is how it performs, not how it performed compared to other test units that will never see the light of day.
Apple has confirmed the rumour is false. That should be good enough to put this to bed. If you don't believe Apple then don't buy their products, simples.
I for one can't wait to get my hands on the iPhone X and try FaceID for myself.
I for one can't wait to get my hands on the iPhone X and try FaceID for myself.
Yes I’ve already received my tempered glass front and back for the X, going on the day I pick one up.
It's not an assumption. It's an opinion based on the company's history and character. To assume they're lying is far more naive.
Of course feel free to prove me wrong by pointing out a time when Apple told a total lie.
Right on, bro...
If a person believes Apple is lying about this, why would that person continue to support Apple with their $$$$ and purchase Apple products? That makes zero sense. And it shouldn't even take a wee bit of courage to walk away and purchase tech products from another company.
Apple have lied several times in the past with the latest claiming that Face ID didn't fail on stage when it did.
Well, I was only talking about me. I know there are people who have no issues even with mini tablets having them in their pockets. I think there is just so much bezels on the plus for the screen size you get.
[doublepost=1509027288][/doublepost]
Well, of course. I tend to believe a guy on macrumors or YouTube more the I would believe Apple..............NOT.
The people who assume Apple would do such a thing and/or lie about it are the same people who are willing to do it themselves. They're also usually the ones who'd probably put an "R" next to their name.
Jeez, people these days believe basically anything and at the same time cry "lie" on everything, just as they seem fit. This whole Fake News Thing is dangerously getting out of hand. Common sense also doesn't seem to be very widespread, anymore. And apparently people are really willing to do (report) anything these days for just a few minutes in the glorious spotlight.
Jeez, people these days believe basically anything and at the same time cry "lie" on everything, just as they seem fit. This whole Fake News Thing is dangerously getting out of hand. Common sense also doesn't seem to be very widespread, anymore. And apparently people are really willing to do (report) anything these days for just a few minutes in the glorious spotlight.
Yes, I wrote my post on the assumption it was legit -- had no idea if it was or not. Of course it wasn't so Apple responded.
This thread is amazing. I've never seen so many people take a little bit of information and twist it to support the narrative they already believe--not to mention extrapolate that little bit of information to some broader point. It's an utter failure of both deductive and inductive reasoning.
Here are just a few of the silly and absolutist claims made by both sides:
On top of all that, a careful reading of the article and Apple's response means that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. "Relaxed some of the specifications," which is the language used in the article, is NOT THE SAME as Apple's response, which says, "reduced the accuracy spec." There's gray area in the middle, (i.e., Apple saying "Bloomberg’s claim...is completely false"), but there's still potential for truth on both sides.
Here are just a few of the silly and absolutist claims made by both sides:
- Companies never lie
- News pieces are full of false rumors and "fake news," and are just click bait to generate ad revenue
- If a company refutes the gist of a story, the story MUST NOT be true
- If a company refutes the gist of a story, the story IS true
- Apple's (pretty generic) statement means they technologically did X or Y
- Bloomberg's (almost as generic) story means that Apple technologically did X or Y
- This story and/or the refutation prove some larger point X about Apple, Bloomberg, or both
On top of all that, a careful reading of the article and Apple's response means that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. "Relaxed some of the specifications," which is the language used in the article, is NOT THE SAME as Apple's response, which says, "reduced the accuracy spec." There's gray area in the middle, (i.e., Apple saying "Bloomberg’s claim...is completely false"), but there's still potential for truth on both sides.
I do not follow Apple closely enough, nor do I have the information/evidence to prove that. But neither did my reply suggest I did. It simply suggested that it is in my opinion a naive standpoint. Most large companies spend vast amounts of money to propagate positive histories and characters. Some people lap it up, and some are more reserved in their judgement. I fall into the latter category. However, by and large I suspect more people lap it up, and the "pedigree/character/benevolence/positive ethics/whatever-you-will" is worth the money and attention to the detail some companies invest. As I said, I neither know nor care if Apple is lying here, but I would certainly never dream of assuming their "history and character" would make that impossible.
[doublepost=1509041638][/doublepost]
Oh, right, yes of course. I am sure no public company accountable to a board and shareholder has ever lied, /s. As I say, I do not know if they have lied of not, and I genuinely do not much care. On balance, if I had to bet one way or the other, my gut says it is more likely they have not. However, the reason I am engaging in this thread is because I am fascinated to see some replies from people who simply believe that such a thing would be quite impossible. No such thing is impossible in my view. I was educated to question rather than simply accept. I imagine Steve Jobs might well have agreed with that line of thinking.
Que?
You mean the time they went through pains to explain the difference between clock speed and pipeline architecture? Can you expand on the lie?
You mean "pains to cherry pick some examples where the G4 outperformed while for the vast majority of users the Pentium was the much faster and better chip"?
Expansion not necessary.
I don't know why there is so much speculation on face ID. The technology isn't new like Apple invented it. Its been out for awhile. Microsoft's kinect been around since 2009. Updated with the kinect 2 in 2014. Face ID is a miniature version of the technology fit into a phone.
The kinect works extremely well, even can tell your heart beat. Don't see why it wouldn't' work on a phone. The verdict is still out on how well Apple's version works though. I would think pretty similar. Windows Hello uses a similar technology as well as intel has a similar version.
Either way I am glad I got the iphone 8. I don't like to be a guniea pig. Its either going to crash or work very well, I really don't see anything in the middle. Next year the iphone 9 or whatever it's called will have %90 percent of the technology in a more affordable form factor. I think ill wait.
It isn't new technology so it should work well.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...one-x-notch-kinect-apple-primesense-microsoft
The kinect works extremely well, even can tell your heart beat. Don't see why it wouldn't' work on a phone. The verdict is still out on how well Apple's version works though. I would think pretty similar. Windows Hello uses a similar technology as well as intel has a similar version.
Either way I am glad I got the iphone 8. I don't like to be a guniea pig. Its either going to crash or work very well, I really don't see anything in the middle. Next year the iphone 9 or whatever it's called will have %90 percent of the technology in a more affordable form factor. I think ill wait.
It isn't new technology so it should work well.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...one-x-notch-kinect-apple-primesense-microsoft
Last edited:
The truth, period. The alternative costs more money than you or I would see in our lifetimes.
[doublepost=1509050144][/doublepost]
Actually, the version of Kinect you refer to that can detect the heartbeat is not this one it's the 2.0 which was not developed by the same company.
[doublepost=1509050277][/doublepost]
Well that's the thing, not all big companies are the same. Of course you should question it, to a point, but this is something that lying about could result in destruction of the brand. Telling the truth is a hell of a lot easier to dig out of.
Are you contesting that the Mhz myth is true? That is to say, no matter what a higher clocked cpu is going to be faster regargless of the architecture?
I don't know why I had to dumb this down, because you seem fully aware of what I was getting at.
[doublepost=1509052142][/doublepost]
They're all completely different hardware and software implementations of the same concept. But just because they more or less fulfill the same end goal, does not make them comparable. I read the verge's article, but for some reason most of the tech "journalism" world can't seem to understand that, just because to an end user something seems similar, it doesn't mean it's the same technology.
To call Kinect and FaceID essentially the same thing because they had their roots in PrimeSense is to fundamentally ignore the engineering differences (both hardware and software) between the two. It's intellectually lazy, and at worst extremely misleading.
To suggest FaceID is just a mini kinect is so far off the mark it's cringeworthy. Kinect never had to perform in the timeframe FaceID does, not to mention the integration into the Secure Enclave. In your description Apple simply miniaturized and bolted on a kinect, but that fundamentally ignores the security protocols that were developed hand in hand between software and hardware. Apple went so far as to encrypt the traffic between the individual chips in the FaceID camera array assembly so you couldn't simply sniff out the packets with a probe (provided you have the physical device). This has to work every time, with timing that has to operate under the human threshold for human perceptiveness. The Kinect never had to do anything like that, it could fail and simply restart the game. There is far and away more that went into FaceID than a simple natural progression of what the Kinect was aiming for.
Last edited:
And you know what I was getting at, too. Companies distort the truth for salsa and marketing all the time. They (like politicians) choose their words very carefully. And often a claim that sounds like one thing means, when you carefully review the language or details, something else.
My point, in response to the other poster, is that holding up Apple as some beacon of righteousness and truth is silly. They're a company, and as such they say and do things in the best interests of the bottom line. And as I stated in my previous post, Apple's carefully worded "rebuttal" is not NECESSARILY in conflict with the content of the Bloomberg story. That's all.