Thank the gods this was false. Could you imagine dropping your phone once and losing FaceID because the components were too fragile.
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
It is the premiere tech in their premiere phone, they had to come out strong against the story.
If apple did dumb down face ID, which I very much doubt. We'll know how good it is soon enough and this seems like fake news to try and down play face IDs abilities when it looks totally amazing and has potential to further it's usefulness within apps that use the camera. How you even be down on a product without hands on? it's all baseless speculation.
We manufacture medical items.
It's possible we may have issues holding a tolerance on a particular aspect of a customers drawing.
Whilst it's not something we often do, it's not totally unheard of to contact a customer and discuss the issue.
Perhaps the area affected is not THAT critical.
One had to remember, not all tolerances and dimension are there because they have to be that exact.
Someone at a CAD design package can just apply a typical tolerance to an aspect of the design.
The important thing is the areas that HAVE to be exact for the device to function are exact.
Silly example. A broom handle has a diameter so it fits in the hole in the broom head.
Perhaps there is a issue with keeping the handle dead size all the way along it's shaft and someone put a +/- 0.5mm on the shaft so it fits in the hole.
So you are having issues with this tolerance all the way along the entire shaft. It's +0.75mm in the middle and -0.75mm at the opposite end.
It's out of tolerance.
However, the customer may say, it's fine, as long as it is no worse that that, and is within original tolerance where it needs to be.
It's possible we may have issues holding a tolerance on a particular aspect of a customers drawing.
Whilst it's not something we often do, it's not totally unheard of to contact a customer and discuss the issue.
Perhaps the area affected is not THAT critical.
One had to remember, not all tolerances and dimension are there because they have to be that exact.
Someone at a CAD design package can just apply a typical tolerance to an aspect of the design.
The important thing is the areas that HAVE to be exact for the device to function are exact.
Silly example. A broom handle has a diameter so it fits in the hole in the broom head.
Perhaps there is a issue with keeping the handle dead size all the way along it's shaft and someone put a +/- 0.5mm on the shaft so it fits in the hole.
So you are having issues with this tolerance all the way along the entire shaft. It's +0.75mm in the middle and -0.75mm at the opposite end.
It's out of tolerance.
However, the customer may say, it's fine, as long as it is no worse that that, and is within original tolerance where it needs to be.
Of course its false..............specially with Pre-order going live tomorrow......
will faceid work if i set it up without facial hair but grow my facial hair out due to being off for several days straight?
It‘s very simple: Gurman used to have sources inside Apple while he was with 9to5mac, which landed him the job at Bloomberg. Now his sources have run dry, which is very obvious because he didn‘t have a „scoop“ in ages, and so in his desperation he pulled this s**t from thin air.
I expect Apple to say nothing. Why is Apple responding to trolls.
C'mon Apple isn't Samsung - they're not going to blatantly lie about the specific item detailed here - besides it being wrong, it'd open them up to liability with the courts and their execs are too smart for that.
If they had "no comment" then you'd have some serious traction with the issue being possibly true - but that wasn't the case.
No we can't. The discrepancies most often come between the information from Apple suppliers and Apple itself. You are free to believe what Apple says but keep in mind they have much more incentive to lie in such cases than the suppliers (which hardly have any incentive to do it). In this case, if Sharp says that they are mounting the modules with relaxed margins and Apple says that they did not change anything what exactly makes Apple more believable?
[doublepost=1508958293][/doublepost]
And Apple is not? Interesting.
What liability? Did they put any assembly details in the iPhone documentation? I am not saying they are lying. I am just saying there is plenty of wiggle room for them to say whatever they want to say. Did not they claim once that there were no issues with the antenna? Or the case rigidity? Only to go and fix the problems later.
It's not unusual to decline to comment. PR probably wanted to get with higher ups before they said anything.
Care to quote where Apple said the iPhone X has “more viewable real estate than iPhone 8 Plus”
Because I’ve never seen Apple make such a claim. In fact quite the opposite. The developer videos posted by Apple in WWDC app reiterate multiple times in a single video that the display has the exact same pt dimensions as a 4.7” iPhone, with additional height. They then compare it to the Plus display, which has more horizontal points.
They can’t lie to developers when it’s KIND OF important for them to get layouts adjusted properly.
You can’t just make things up in your mind to argue something you’ve convinced yourself to be true.
Well, if it were true, they'd likely remain silent. Instead, they said something, and they won't be caught lying in public.
[doublepost=1508959981][/doublepost]
I think it's a far reach to think they would lower the quality. I think they'd remove numbers like "30k dots" from their website first.
They very well may have relaxed some of the tests without lower the quality, so there may still be some truth to this story, rather than it being 100% false. We'll never know, but we do know (as per Apple's response) that the accuracy of the Face ID feature has not been reduced.