Code in iOS 12.1 Update Hints at Landscape Face ID Support for Upcoming iPad Pro Models

[Wando64]

I personally expect to see a $100 entry prices increase to the iPad Pro lineup. We saw the increase of price in the Apple Watch this year, the iPhone last year, I think the iPad Pro is also going to see the price increase.

Every new top of the range iPad release has seen a price increase.
Why change the habit of a lifetime?

 

[Bacillus]

Imagine an iPad that when docked using the smart connector it enables a monitor to be used and the iPad itself transforms into a keyboard and multitouch trackpad kind of like the bottom of a MacBook. the keyboard would allow for haptic feedback similar to what will be found on the iPhone XR to simulate key presses. the trackpad, if apple doesn't want to enable a cursor, could be more like the Apple TV touchpad. the iPad powers the monitor via usb c and charges itself using the monitor. when you are ready to go just lift the iPad from the smart connector dock, no need to plug any cables in.

Great idea, but sadly exactly the convert that Phil said is not in the works
[doublepost=1537373600][/doublepost]

<rant incoming> It makes exactly zero sense that "Landscape FaceID" would require new, different or additional hardware to "Portrait FaceID". I know it's a strong statement to make, but this developer clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.

The hardware of FaceID is a 3d mapping sensor. That's it. Everything else is software. The sensor is not going to be affected by a rotated face. Software is needed to detect the orientation of the face, not hardware, and then software is needed to rotate the 3D face map before it is analysed, regressed and matched.

If Apple decide not to bring landscape unlocking to iPhone, then fine. I don't see that to be a huge inconvenience. But I don't think people should be trying to justify that as anything other than a usage design restraint implemented by Apple for whatever reason.

Apologies for rant.

Oh, and FWIW before someone asks, I am an Engineer, with a background in 3d mapping and pattern matching.

That said, those 30 million measurements for facial unlocking would become 30mio + 1 to determine the relative LS/PT eyes position...

 

[PickUrPoison]

Every new top of the range iPad release has seen a price increase.
Why change the habit of a lifetime?

If Apple’s costs go up, they’ll increase the price. That’s what they do. If they didn’t, margins would take a hit. That’s not something they will typically do.

Sometimes Apple will accept lower margins if there is another benefit. Two examples I can think of off the top of my head are the $499 Mac mini which has rathervlow margins and $349 HomePod.

Mac mini was supposed to encourage PC switchers to crossover to Mac (it apparently did not). HomePod, with costs of $200-250, is meant to encourage $100/yr Apple Music subscriptions, and it likely does.

 

[wrkngclasshero]

Why salty? It's not like your iPad Pro suddenly got slower and you have to toss it. And it's not like you have to buy a new one (assuming one is announced in Oct and available this year). On the other hand, as someone who doesn't own an iPad Pro and thinking about buying one, I'm definitely looking forward to an Oct event. And no, I won't be upset if Apple updates it again next Oct.
[doublepost=1537371689][/doublepost]

Ok, I'll bite. What's the use case for these? Are they similar to the old knobby thing on Thinkpad keyboards? But clickable? If I seem ignorant, it's because if the use case is gaming, I'm not a gamer.

Yea it's gaming. The standard for most consoles (Xbox, PS4, etc) is clickable thumb sticks. Not having to re-code their controls will hopefully bring more AAA to the App store and Fortnite should be proof of concept for developers that you can (and should) be looking to release games across all platforms.

 

[Return Zero]

The dot projector is clearly angled downwards on iPhone X. This makes unlocking easier when the phone is on a table.

Those same dots would only hit half of a face in landscape orientation.

That's what I assumed, but then I did a quick test... I can unlock my X when it is pointed down at my chest at normal viewing distance. It has similar range upward and side-to-side. I have a hard time believing that's not enough to make it work.

 

[enc0re]

Yea it's gaming. The standard for most consoles (Xbox, PS4, etc) is clickable thumb sticks. Not having to re-code their controls will hopefully bring more AAA to the App store and Fortnite should be proof of concept for developers that you can (and should) be looking to release games across all platforms.

Apple TV especially has a surprisingly weak controller gaming line up considering its horsepower. We should really see publishers fall all over themselves releasing classic titles on it for some easy bucks.

 

[camomac]

I am glad I have a 10.5 if this is true about the headphone jack.
Oh Apple, you are so courageous.

 

[herbapou]

I have the cash in hand for a small bezel ipad... so when?

 

[IG88]

I hope their costs have gone down and if they still get $999 for the Xs, good. It’s called business.

Tim Cook loves you!

 

[SteveW928]

Cue the complaints that it won't be available on the iPhone, despite as noted, it would require new hardware to do so.

I was just shocked to learn Face ID doesn't work in landscape?!?! You mean you actually have to rotate your iPhone or iPad orientation to make it work?

That's crazy. Another reason to stick with my SE and I guess buy an iPad before they go Face ID. Maybe by the time I have to buy new, Apple will have a realistic system in place. Sheesh!

 

[darkarn]

Why salty? It's not like your iPad Pro suddenly got slower and you have to toss it. And it's not like you have to buy a new one (assuming one is announced in Oct and available this year). On the other hand, as someone who doesn't own an iPad Pro and thinking about buying one, I'm definitely looking forward to an Oct event. And no, I won't be upset if Apple updates it again next Oct.

I would be salty cos I wish I would be able to hold off until October (assuming it comes out then); same amount of money spent still but better stuff y'know
[doublepost=1537423189][/doublepost]

USB-C makes much more sense, as a start, for the iPad Pro. The phones are completely well served by Lightning, going to USB-C would anger most Apple customers for Apple doing a "money grab" by "changing the ports again" (though I would welcome it just for universal compatibility). But functionally, USB-C doesn't offer too much of a benefit for phones.

For the iPad Pro though, it makes sense- people buying the "pro" device are probably more likely to view it as an upgrade. And it would allow much better use of peripherals. With lightning, if you use HDMI out, you lose all other functionality of the port except for charging. With USB-C, you could have video out, ethernet, audio, and even usb keyboard support with just one plug. And it seems fitting the iPad Pro would be able to share many dongles and peripherals with Macbooks.

This makes sense! Just that it is technically possible on Lightning, just need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter and an externally powered USB 3 hub.

If this is the case, this means all Apple USB C products would be updated for the iPad Pro too, opening up so many options that I wish would be available for me last year

 

[gnomeisland]

It's a lot easier for Apple to dump Lightning and go full USB-C.

All the USB-C dongles already exist because of MacBook.

As iPad Pro becomes more like a full computer with a larger battery, it will require faster charging like 100W USB-PD. Lightning doesn't support this.

I disagree. While I could be wrong about the port change and it certainly would help the iPad integrate into traditional "computer" environment, "easier" is rarely the reason Apple does anything.

Keeping the physical lightening plug would give Apple more control and that is a reason they do most things. Using USB-C would drop compatibility with all existing lightening peripherals and increase confusion among customers.

Keeping the physical lightening plug would reduce confusion. With the exception of the MacBook and its one USB-C port, *all* Macs use a full USB-C/Thunderbolt on every outlet. That's important because it means any peripheral with that plug will work. There are no mentions of Thunderbolt 3 coming to the iPad.

The beautiful thing about lightening is that just because it doesn't support something now, doesn't mean it won't in the future. Apple controls the standard so it could support 100W USB-PD. Will it? I doubt it. It was designed for ultra-portable devices. The only Apple products that need 100W USB-PD are the 15" MacBook Pros with their 45W processors, dedicated GPUs, and fans. If any Apple ever made an iPad that big the ports won't the issue.

 

[blackcrayon]

I would be salty cos I wish I would be able to hold off until October (assuming it comes out then); same amount of money spent still but better stuff y'know
[doublepost=1537423189][/doublepost]

This makes sense! Just that it is technically possible on Lightning, just need a Lightning to USB 3 adapter and an externally powered USB 3 hub.

If this is the case, this means all Apple USB C products would be updated for the iPad Pro too, opening up so many options that I wish would be available for me last year

I'm not *sure* it is technically possible on Lightning - with Lightning, the video adapters are tiny ARM computers that pass the display data from the iPad to the HDMI output. But with USB-C, I would think video would again be a native part of the iPad hardware- such that say, that Apple USB-C adapter with the HDMI and USB-A port would work. If you connect lightning to a USB hub, I don't think there is any way to then get video output. Not to say they couldn't engineer a Lightning 2.0 or whatever to do that. But then why do that when the work is already done (more or less) with USB-C... Really hoping!

And then obviously, if you have your iPad connected to a 29 watt USB-C adapter through a dongle/hub... You should be able to charge your iPhone from an attached USB-A or C port from that 😉 (one fewer outlet to hog up at the airport).
[doublepost=1537451406][/doublepost]

I disagree. While I could be wrong about the port change and it certainly would help the iPad integrate into traditional "computer" environment, "easier" is rarely the reason Apple does anything.

Keeping the physical lightening plug would give Apple more control and that is a reason they do most things. Using USB-C would drop compatibility with all existing lightening peripherals and increase confusion among customers.

Keeping the physical lightening plug would reduce confusion. With the exception of the MacBook and its one USB-C port, *all* Macs use a full USB-C/Thunderbolt on every outlet. That's important because it means any peripheral with that plug will work. There are no mentions of Thunderbolt 3 coming to the iPad.

The beautiful thing about lightening is that just because it doesn't support something now, doesn't mean it won't in the future. Apple controls the standard so it could support 100W USB-PD. Will it? I doubt it. It was designed for ultra-portable devices. The only Apple products that need 100W USB-PD are the 15" MacBook Pros with their 45W processors, dedicated GPUs, and fans. If any Apple ever made an iPad that big the ports won't the issue.

If this iOS 12 video out is any indication though, it's simply a requirement to go to USB-C. They would have to probably engineer Lightning 2.0 in order to get 4K passed to and from it, and if they use the current method of having a tiny "video computer" inside of the adapter, I can only imagine it would be 3 times as expensive, and still have low quality and high latency like the current adapter. So it may simply be smarter for them to use USB-C since most of the engineering is already done- they already ship devices with USB-C video output. They can still control what works when connected to the USB-C port, just like they already control what works if you use a lightning to USB adapter and plug something in.

 

[CentralOffice]

It doesn't actually support two faces, just two "appearances." It's supposed to be used for a single person who changes their appearance significantly, i.e. makeup, hats/masks, wigs, etc. Nobody can be sure what 2 completely different faces would do to the algorithm.

I can confirm that it supports two faces -- I can log in to my nephew's iPhone X and we do not look anything alike. I went through setup process to add my "appearance" and it was no issue. Apple may not promote it this way but it works for me.

 

[JPack]

I disagree. While I could be wrong about the port change and it certainly would help the iPad integrate into traditional "computer" environment, "easier" is rarely the reason Apple does anything.

Keeping the physical lightening plug would give Apple more control and that is a reason they do most things. Using USB-C would drop compatibility with all existing lightening peripherals and increase confusion among customers.

Keeping the physical lightening plug would reduce confusion. With the exception of the MacBook and its one USB-C port, *all* Macs use a full USB-C/Thunderbolt on every outlet. That's important because it means any peripheral with that plug will work. There are no mentions of Thunderbolt 3 coming to the iPad.

The beautiful thing about lightening is that just because it doesn't support something now, doesn't mean it won't in the future. Apple controls the standard so it could support 100W USB-PD. Will it? I doubt it. It was designed for ultra-portable devices. The only Apple products that need 100W USB-PD are the 15" MacBook Pros with their 45W processors, dedicated GPUs, and fans. If any Apple ever made an iPad that big the ports won't the issue.

I think it's a given that iPad Pro with USB-C would have a Thunderbolt controller.

Lightning is a lagging standard. We already saw Apple update the Lightning connector to C94 in order to support 18W charging.

The 12.9" iPad Pro already has a battery capacity equal to the 12" MacBook. Yet, iPad is limited to 18W charging while MacBook starts at 30W.

Right now, Lightning is holding back iPad Pro as a computer replacement. It's a strategic weakness that Apple had identified and giving up Lightning on iPad Pro is small price to pay.

 

[jarman92]

I can confirm that it supports two faces -- I can log in to my nephew's iPhone X and we do not look anything alike. I went through setup process to add my "appearance" and it was no issue. Apple may not promote it this way but it works for me.

So again, I’m not sure if you aren’t reading or I’m not being clear: I’m aware it works with 2 faces. What I’m saying is that we DO NOT KNOW what effect enrolling 2 separate faces has on the SECURITY or the ACCURACY or the SPEED of Face ID.

The feature was not made for enrolling 2 different faces, or it would be called something like “Second Face” instead of “Alternate Appearance.” Why do you think Apple called it that: Just to see if we would figure it out? Or because they know adding 2 faces screws with the system?

 

[Wando64]

So again, I’m not sure if you aren’t reading or I’m not being clear: I’m aware it works with 2 faces. What I’m saying is that we DO NOT KNOW what effect enrolling 2 separate faces has on the SECURITY or the ACCURACY or the SPEED of Face ID.

The feature was not made for enrolling 2 different faces, or it would be called something like “Second Face” instead of “Alternate Appearance.” Why do you think Apple called it that: Just to see if we would figure it out? Or because they know adding 2 faces screws with the system?

I don’t think Apple would ever suggest that users could record the face if of two people, in the same way I think the multiple fingerprint recognition is also not designed to serve a number of people. Only a number of fingers of the same person.
When you have a system of identifying a person for the purpose of making bank payments, i would safely guess that offering access to multiple individuals invalidates all the T&Cs.
I don’t have time to go read the T&C of Apple Pay, so let me know if I am incorrect.

So that probably explains why Apple uses the definition “Alternate Appearance”.
On the Apple support page, it states “If you have an appearance that can look vastly different” you should Ise the Alternate Appearance function.
I can tell you that my wife and I have “appearances that look vastly different” therefore the function should work just fine in recording our two faces.

In other words, I am fairly confident that recording two faces will not “screw with the system”, as you suggest. However I am also fairly certain that doing so will screw with Apple Pay Terms and Conditions of use.

EDIT: I have just checked the Barclays Bank terms of use for Apple Pay and it states: “Don’t tell anyone your passcode or any other security details”. So that obviously includes them having access to your device via Touch ID or Face ID.

 

[darkarn]

I'm not *sure* it is technically possible on Lightning - with Lightning, the video adapters are tiny ARM computers that pass the display data from the iPad to the HDMI output. But with USB-C, I would think video would again be a native part of the iPad hardware- such that say, that Apple USB-C adapter with the HDMI and USB-A port would work. If you connect lightning to a USB hub, I don't think there is any way to then get video output. Not to say they couldn't engineer a Lightning 2.0 or whatever to do that. But then why do that when the work is already done (more or less) with USB-C... Really hoping!

And then obviously, if you have your iPad connected to a 29 watt USB-C adapter through a dongle/hub... You should be able to charge your iPhone from an attached USB-A or C port from that 😉 (one fewer outlet to hog up at the airport).
[doublepost=1537451406][/doublepost]

If this iOS 12 video out is any indication though, it's simply a requirement to go to USB-C. They would have to probably engineer Lightning 2.0 in order to get 4K passed to and from it, and if they use the current method of having a tiny "video computer" inside of the adapter, I can only imagine it would be 3 times as expensive, and still have low quality and high latency like the current adapter. So it may simply be smarter for them to use USB-C since most of the engineering is already done- they already ship devices with USB-C video output. They can still control what works when connected to the USB-C port, just like they already control what works if you use a lightning to USB adapter and plug something in.

You are right, it is not possible to use those USB to video adapters (if they ever exist) with a USB hub attached to the iPad Pro via Lightning to USB 3 adapter.

Now I am really interested in an USB C iPad Pro since I do video out a lot too!

 

[gnomeisland]

I think it's a given that iPad Pro with USB-C would have a Thunderbolt controller.

Lightning is a lagging standard. We already saw Apple update the Lightning connector to C94 in order to support 18W charging.

The 12.9" iPad Pro already has a battery capacity equal to the 12" MacBook. Yet, iPad is limited to 18W charging while MacBook starts at 30W.

Right now, Lightning is holding back iPad Pro as a computer replacement. It's a strategic weakness that Apple had identified and giving up Lightning on iPad Pro is small price to pay.

I think Thinderbolt is FAR from a given. Intel has opened up the licensing but I’m not familiar with any non-Intel platform that actually supports Thunderbolt. Lightening isn’t lagging. It’s an evolving standard that was the inspiration for USB-C. While currently it is more limited (in terms of speed and alternate modes) than USB-C it has some inherent flexibility that USB-C lacks.

Apple transitioning to USB-C is possible but aside from EU compliance and fewer dongles (for some users) it isn’t a clear upgrade. More of a side step.

 

[jarman92]

I don’t think Apple would ever suggest that users could record the face if of two people, in the same way I think the multiple fingerprint recognition is also not designed to serve a number of people. Only a number of fingers of the same person.
When you have a system of identifying a person for the purpose of making bank payments, i would safely guess that offering access to multiple individuals invalidates all the T&Cs.
I don’t have time to go read the T&C of Apple Pay, so let me know if I am incorrect.

So that probably explains why Apple uses the definition “Alternate Appearance”.
On the Apple support page, it states “If you have an appearance that can look vastly different” you should Ise the Alternate Appearance function.
I can tell you that my wife and I have “appearances that look vastly different” therefore the function should work just fine in recording our two faces.

In other words, I am fairly confident that recording two faces will not “screw with the system”, as you suggest. However I am also fairly certain that doing so will screw with Apple Pay Terms and Conditions of use.

EDIT: I have just checked the Barclays Bank terms of use for Apple Pay and it states: “Don’t tell anyone your passcode or any other security details”. So that obviously includes them having access to your device via Touch ID or Face ID.

Apple specifically states that enrolling multiple fingers in Touch ID may slow down recognition; the same is very likely true for Face ID.

The two also aren't comparable, because Touch ID gives you 5 distinct slots to be filled with 5 distinct fingers; the system doesn't care if the fingers are from different people because each finger on your hand is different. With Face ID, you're telling the system, "these faces are both me, so figure out a representation that incorporates both."

There is simply no way that doesn't affect the speed/reliability/security of the system.

 

[JPack]

I think Thinderbolt is FAR from a given. Intel has opened up the licensing but I’m not familiar with any non-Intel platform that actually supports Thunderbolt. Lightening isn’t lagging. It’s an evolving standard that was the inspiration for USB-C. While currently it is more limited (in terms of speed and alternate modes) than USB-C it has some inherent flexibility that USB-C lacks.

Apple transitioning to USB-C is possible but aside from EU compliance and fewer dongles (for some users) it isn’t a clear upgrade. More of a side step.

There are dozens if not hundreds of devices using Intel Thunderbolt 3 controllers. It's in everything from Lenovo monitors to Samsung external SSDs.

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/news/articles

If iPad Pro has USB-C, Thunderbolt 3 is a given - unless you think Apple wants to save a few bucks by not paying Intel for a TB3 controller.

 

[gnomeisland]

I'm not *sure* it is technically possible on Lightning - with Lightning, the video adapters are tiny ARM computers that pass the display data from the iPad to the HDMI output. But with USB-C, I would think video would again be a native part of the iPad hardware- such that say, that Apple USB-C adapter with the HDMI and USB-A port would work. If you connect lightning to a USB hub, I don't think there is any way to then get video output. Not to say they couldn't engineer a Lightning 2.0 or whatever to do that. But then why do that when the work is already done (more or less) with USB-C... Really hoping!

And then obviously, if you have your iPad connected to a 29 watt USB-C adapter through a dongle/hub... You should be able to charge your iPhone from an attached USB-A or C port from that 😉 (one fewer outlet to hog up at the airport).
[doublepost=1537451406][/doublepost]

If this iOS 12 video out is any indication though, it's simply a requirement to go to USB-C. They would have to probably engineer Lightning 2.0 in order to get 4K passed to and from it, and if they use the current method of having a tiny "video computer" inside of the adapter, I can only imagine it would be 3 times as expensive, and still have low quality and high latency like the current adapter. So it may simply be smarter for them to use USB-C since most of the engineering is already done- they already ship devices with USB-C video output. They can still control what works when connected to the USB-C port, just like they already control what works if you use a lightning to USB adapter and plug something in.

One of the amazing things about Lightening and USB-C is they separate protocol from the physical interface. So USB-C supports a variety of alternative modes and Lightening cables have a logic that tells the iOS device what kind of information it accepts (a type of alternative mode). You can support the same USB-C protocols without implementing the USB-C physical interface (and the reverse, many devices have USB-C ports that are really just USB 2.0 devices).

When you plug in one of the 16-pin/USB 3.0 Lightening cables into an iOS device you don’t automatically get the faster speed or USB-PD power, so we know that these functions are not part of the logic on the lightening cable. When these newer cables are plugged into an iOS device with a USB 3.0 controller they know to act just like a USB-C cable (albeit within the supported parameters). Of course it isn’t 100% certain but since Apple has already implemented this system it seems logical they would do it again. The big difference would be that this time Apple is (more) fully supporting USB-C and it’s alternate modes. It shouldn’t require any additional logic in the cables. Once the lightening cable knows to start passing data just like a USB-C cable everything is on the controller inside the iPad.
[doublepost=1537487443][/doublepost]

There are dozens if not hundreds of devices using Intel Thunderbolt 3 controllers. It's in everything from Lenovo monitors to Samsung external SSDs.

https://thunderbolttechnology.net/news/articles

If iPad Pro has USB-C, Thunderbolt 3 is a given - unless you think Apple wants to save a few bucks by not paying Intel for a TB3 controller.

Those are thunderbolt devices not thunderbolt controllers. Very different. I’ve heard (but never seen) it is possible to user a thunderbolt controller with an AMD system. Never heard nor seen a thunderbolt controller in an ARM-based system. Theoretically possible, and really cool, but very unlikely since USB-C provides a lot of the same functionality for much less money and off-the-shelf parts.
[doublepost=1537487786][/doublepost]

The 12.9" iPad Pro already has a battery capacity equal to the 12" MacBook. Yet, iPad is limited to 18W charging while MacBook starts at 30W.

Also the iPad 12” (and 10.5”) will support 30W charging, Apple only includes an 18W charger. It is well documented elsewehre that with a lightening-to-USB-C cable and a compatible USB-PD 30W charger you can get 30W charging with those models. If that’s your issue, than I 100% that Apple should include the necessary cable and charger for 30W USB-PD charging.

 

[JPack]

Those are thunderbolt devices not thunderbolt controllers. Very different. I’ve heard (but never seen) it is possible to user a thunderbolt controller with an AMD system. Never heard nor seen a thunderbolt controller in an ARM-based system. Theoretically possible, and really cool, but very unlikely since USB-C provides a lot of the same functionality for much less money and off-the-shelf parts.

Huh?

What do you think is inside those Thunderbolt devices? They have Intel Thunderbolt controllers.

There are dozens of Thunderbolt enclosures for RAID. Those enclosures have an Intel TB controller. They also have a RAID controller from a company such as HighPoint. Those RAID controllers are all ARM processors.

 

[Wando64]

Apple specifically states that enrolling multiple fingers in Touch ID may slow down recognition; the same is very likely true for Face ID.

The two also aren't comparable, because Touch ID gives you 5 distinct slots to be filled with 5 distinct fingers; the system doesn't care if the fingers are from different people because each finger on your hand is different. With Face ID, you're telling the system, "these faces are both me, so figure out a representation that incorporates both."

There is simply no way that doesn't affect the speed/reliability/security of the system.

I think somewhere in your reply you have forgotten to say: “in my opinion”
Because that is all that you are expressing. An opinion solely based on your interpretation of the definition of “alternate appearance”.

As I said in my post, of course recording someone else’s face will impact security. But it does so in a very obvious way. It is the equivalent of sharing your password.

As for speed and reliability, I am simply going by Apple’s own words, that the system allows for the recording of “appearances that look VASTLY different”. I didn’t make that up. This is their definition of “alternate appearance”.

Anyway, I sense that you are somewhat entrenched in you opinion on this, so that is that. Mine differs from yours.

Take care.

 

[jarman92]

I think somewhere in your reply you have forgotten to say: “in my opinion”
Because that is all that you are expressing. An opinion solely based on your interpretation of the definition of “alternate appearance”.

As I said in my post, of course recording someone else’s face will impact security. But it does so in a very obvious way. It is the equivalent of sharing your password.

As for speed and reliability, I am simply going by Apple’s own words, that the system allows for the recording of “appearances that look VASTLY different”. I didn’t make that up. This is their definition of “alternate appearance”.

Anyway, I sense that you are somewhat entrenched in you opinion on this, so that is that. Mine differs from yours.

Take care.

It isn't a matter of opinion though...Craig Federighi has stated publicly that Face ID is meant for a single face. Also, from the Apple Support page (emphasis mine): "For most users, Face ID will continuously learn as they change. If YOU have an appearance that can look vastly different, YOU can set up an alternate appearance so Face ID still recognizes YOU."

I think that's pretty clear.