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.
U.S. ITC Judge Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patent, Import Ban Recommended [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I believe so. When the manufacturing costs come down I think all future devices will move to FaceID only.
Apple also sold iPads without TouchID after the iPhone 5S launched, but they eventually all adopted TouchID.
I know Tesla's star has been rising in recent years, and Edison's reputation has taken a bit of a beating as culture has moved against aggrandizing the powerful few. I admire Tesla's brash genius, don't have much interest in defending Edison, and all of this is getting pretty far off topic, but a few points:
Tesla didn't discover AC electricity. As with everything, AC came from a long series of small discoveries but if I wanted to pick a key player in AC power I'd pick Faraday in the early-mid 1800's. You can be darn sure he also got a few ideas from something he saw elsewhere (Orsted, for example).
Tesla obviously did a lot with AC power (and in the related field of radio), but Westinghouse was already working with it by the time they bought Tesla's patents. Tesla's main contributions to Westinghouse were in support of a key application for AC: a motor. Electricity was driving two key uses at the time: light and work. Arc lamps were providing most of the electric light and motors at the time were DC. Tesla invented an AC motor and a way of more efficiently delivering AC power (polyphase AC). Again, along with contemporaries and built on earlier ideas.
Edison was a hard nosed industrialist but I don't see much evidence he was a sociopath or psychopath. By all accounts, one of Edison's key arguments for encouraging DC distribution was that it was lower voltage and safer. People at the time were dying due to accidental electrocution in part because AC transmission lines were much higher voltage, but mostly because electricity was under-regulated, poorly understood by laymen, and badly installed. He was arguing that the loss of life was an unreasonable cost for the improved efficiency of high voltage AC. Yes, he had patents that gave him an economic advantage if DC was chosen, but he also had key patents in AC power distribution.
Edison opposed the death penalty and refused to consult on the development of the electric chair. He refused contracts for offensive weapons, and claims to have never invented a weapon that kills. "Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
Tesla was actively developing guided torpedoes and a "death ray" that he pitched to all of the US, the UK, and the USSR.
Edison wasn't killing puppies. That was part of a campaign by a different guy (Brown) who also seemed, in part, motivated by the dangers of high voltage wires strung throughout cities. There is some evidence that Brown was getting some support behind the scenes from Edison's company, but also from Westinghouse's other major competitor at the time. I don't see any evidence of Edison the man (separate from the actions of the company) endorsing the killing of animals in this way.
The animals being used in the demonstrations were strays or would have been euthanized for other reasons. Before the adoption of the electric chair, electricity was already being used as a "more humane" way of euthanizing stray animals. Many places still euthanize strays today. Electrocution was also adopted as a "more humane" alternative to hanging for humans.
The elephant had nothing to do with Edison or Westinghouse or Brown for that matter. It was the euthanization of a problem circus elephant who was simultaneously poisoned, strangled and electrocuted like a
I find it distasteful that these demonstrations were public and used for corporate propaganda, and there were protests against them at the time. This was also 130 years ago. Just 100 years before that, we were taking people's heads off in the public square. Many animals are still killed for corporate research, scientific experimentation and human safety testing and we still use electrocution as a form of execution in places today-- all of which I also find distasteful to think about.
Edison apparently stiffed Tesla on a promised bonus-- not cool. He probably also took credit for the work of his underlings-- also not cool. That said, professors today still put their names on papers published by their grad students.
Was Edison a great guy? Probably not. Was he a monster? Probably not.
Last edited:
Gee, a quick search turned up quite a few.
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...53".PGNR.&OS=DN/20190080153&RS=DN/20190080153
http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...23".PGNR.&OS=DN/20190044723&RS=DN/20190044723
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...94".PGNR.&OS=DN/20190045094&RS=DN/20190045094
There are several more, but I think you get the idea.
Tesla teleported Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale though.
Not the same thing. At all.
All the ultrasonic sensor does is provide data of your fingerprint. It's just another method to achieve the same thing as previous sensors. The software to interpret your fingerprint data to determine if it's a match is well understood and has been in use for years. Nothing new here - just a new sensor to capture the same old data.
FaceID isn't just the camera, dot projector and flood illuminator. The heavy lifting is done through software and machine learning to take that data and construct a representation of the user. This is all on Apple, not the supplier of the raw components used.
Your comparison is as ridiculous as saying Google Pixel Night Sight was purchased because Google purchased the camera sensor from another company.
You're confusing Nikola Tesla, the inventor, with David Bowie, the truly unquestionable genius...
Last edited:
Those patents have nothing to do with thinner bezels. They are for faceid. You said Samsung couldnt make smaller bezels without violating apples patents.
Was wondering why they look so similar. Am searching for who has the patent on AC/DC. Wikipedia says it is an Australian rock band.
If I understand the original claim correctly, it was about Apple owning some patents that prevent Samsung to design phones with very small chins. The patents that you identified are about biometric authentications. Even in this field, Apple patents did not prevent Huawei from releasing the phones with FaceID type authentication.
No your memory is correct. It’s just Face ID is more secure all the time, and more convenient most of the time. Nothing wrong with Touch ID. But again, it is a less secure and mostly less convenient method of biometric security. So the less expensive iPads, while still offering Touch ID, naturally will not get the much more expensive Face ID hardware.
Attachments
When has the additional security actually mattered? Under what circumstances would it ever?
I keep my phone in my pocket and using a fingerprint I unlock it as I take it out. It's physically impossible for FaceID to ever compete with that speed.
I also like having the option to register my partner's fingerprint on my phone too.
It isn’t a matter of when the additional security is necessary, it’s simply a matter of having a more secure option; Face ID. Why should I not want the most secure option when it comes to a device that houses a lot of personal info, including bank info? I think this has come down to preference and how we see things. I see Apple’s Face ID as still industry leading in security and innovation and choose to use the most secure option on my phone. You disagree. It is what it is. Unfortunately, you only seem to make Apple bashing posts. Never anything complimentary and you admittedly don’t own any current Apple devices, so what’s the point in the negativity? You’re entitled to your opinion, but maybe try and use the new products. I can promise 95% of the real world, aka people who don’t frequent this site, are more than happy with their Apple products.
Sorry that my Apple products and services aren't "current" enough for me to count as a proper Apple user. Do you only qualify so long as your AppleCare period?
And I'm not unhappy with my existing products, it's that for a while now Apple has offered nothing interesting enough for me to buy over alternative products.
You don’t have to be a current product user to count as a “proper Apple user.” Your words, not mine. You just have a propensity to fill up every single post with overtly negative comments, and admittedly don’t even use the current products therefore I question, why? You’ve never used Face ID daily. You don’t use iPad Pro, Apple Watch, Apple TV, or Apple Music I’m assuming. Any article that comes out here, you bash Apple. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but what’s the point?
This debate on FaceID not innovative or just purchased technology is truly sad.
This is just one example of patents published filings back in 2012 on such technologies by Apple.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20140112552
Apple's been working on face detection technologies to incorporate into the iOS platform since around 2010. Just stop with the hyperbole already. They bought the companies they did to shore up their portfolio, legally indemnify themselves from lawsuits and to add talent to their deep benches.
This is just one example of patents published filings back in 2012 on such technologies by Apple.
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20140112552
Apple's been working on face detection technologies to incorporate into the iOS platform since around 2010. Just stop with the hyperbole already. They bought the companies they did to shore up their portfolio, legally indemnify themselves from lawsuits and to add talent to their deep benches.
If you haven’t used any recent Apple devices (like an iPhone with FaceID) then your opinion as to how good/useful they are amounts to a big fat zero.
I'm sure FaceID, multi touch GUIs and all that jazz were in Minority Report though. We need a law that says anything that appears in SciFi automatically counts as prior art and can't be patented by corporations 20 years later.
Apart from your logic being completely flawed, I have tried them, and either not purchased or returned for refund within the window.
That’s dumb. Sci-fi envisioned time travel. You’re going to deny a patent to the person who figures out how to actually make it work? Or faster-than-light travel? Infinite energy production? Predicting the future?
There’s a big difference between an idea and an invention. The latter requires actual or constructive reduction to practice - you have to show that you know how to make it work.