This reminds me so much of the megapixel camera war. More pixels does not always mean a better picture.
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.
Vivo Unveils 3D Sensing Technology With 10 Times as Many Data Points as Apple's Face ID
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think faceid or touchid is a failure but I think the term It just works, is an inaccurate over used meme that no longer describes apple products.
This hasn’t even made it to market yet and we don’t know the price... So yes, the prediction is still possible.
I do, however I think it has a caveat nowadays.
(When it works,) It just works. Having the full ecosystem is both a glorious thing, and an amazing when it comes to troubleshooting it when something isn't working as it should.
Came to say the same thing, I don’t even use Apple Pay now they removed Touch ID because of how unreliable and less convenient it is
This is so familiar. Spec oneupmanship is an age-old tradition typically waged by manufacturers who either offered an inferior overall user experience they couldn’t match or by manufacturers whose products weren’t fundamentally different from competitors so they resorted to an irrelevant numbers game. Remember the hertz wars (“our gigahertz is bigger than your gigahertz, so our computer must be better”), and also the megapixel wars (“our digicam has more megapixels so ours must be a better digicam than theirs”)? We also have the K wars (“our TV has more
K so it must be a better TV than theirs”) and now the points wars (“our facial detection system has more points so it must be better than theirs”). There are many others. The common denominator is they all capitalize on consumer ignorance, certainly a reliable parameter.
Lol! I must’ve been typing my post below as you were clicking post reply!
As someone who helped build the Kinect v1 and v2 sensors, you can’t be more wrong in your understanding of physics SLS or ToF sensors. First, measurements are not based on CPU clock. In fact, most devices do not use CPU clock for sync and have not in two decades. ToF sensors are pulsed and scanned across a scene from two separate apparatus, and a sensor like used in the Kinect v2 has sub-millimeter accuracy. Last time I checked, sub-millimeter is smaller than 10 centimeters. If you wanted to get into an intellectual discussion on the Kinect or other ToF or SLS sensors like those used by Apple or Vivo, I’d be happy to oblige. However, frankly, you are wrong in your assumptions on these devices to the point I question if you’ve even seen one of these devices in person.
They're using a totally different method to capture facial data, so no, they didn't "steal" anything.
The concept has been around long before the iPhone X.
Apple's method is not entirely unique either. They use the same point scanning array tech used in the MS Kinect sensor.
Apple was the first time miniaturize the emmiter and camera array for use in a cell phone. The software behind it is pretty slick as well.
It's all going to come down to implementation.
Apple's FaceID is far from perfect, but it's fast, when it works.
It never was an accurate meme. But as a philosophy it did have and does have a truth to it.
Setting up a new Apple product today is even easier than it was when Apple actually used “it just works” as a slogan.
Yesterday I had to replace my iPhone X because I took mine on an multiple trips around a theme park lazy river. The camera was fogged and the Faceid was disabled. Otherwise the phone still worked. For setting up the new one all I had to do was place it near the old one for a few seconds. After an hour the new phone had re-downloaded all of my apps. I had to enter my AppleId password for security and the CVV numbers from my credit cards for Apple Pay. An hour after bringing the new phone home it was virtually indistinguishable from the one it replaced. And I spent that hour preparing dinner for my family.
It just worked.
Last edited:
He lacks a profound understanding of how sample rates work, and instead took the speed of light and divided it by 3 billion, assuming that it’s as good as things get because CPUs are obviously the clock rate of the entire system we are talking and FFTs don’t exist.
The Apple logo does not always mean a better product.
I’ve got almost zero knowledge on any of that stuff.
The only thing I recognised was FFT being, Fourier Fast Transform?????
Even being very simplistic here on my iPhone calc I thought the maths was off slightly?
You should probably take that up with the MR author. Vivo doesn't claim 10x the accuracy. Check the source article. Tim Hardwick simply made an unjustified leap in logic: "10x more data points must mean 10x the accuracy".
Pro tip: If you ever want to see anything in action, try youtube... everything is on youtube.
Wow. You live in a Apple vacuum if you think they did facial unlock first.
Quick, Apple, lie & say you had this first, years ago, and were waiting to "perfect" it before releasing it. Then sue for patent theft.
It just works for me... as long as I am facing the camera correctly and not outside in direct sunlight with my mirrored sunglasses on. (It does work with my sunglasses in the shade or in my car just fine.) I’m kind of amazed how well it does work.
I know it works for many people flawlessly, but that doesn't mean it works for everyone.
And, moreover, if you have 10 times as many data points, you'll need a lot more processing power, even if those data points are completely inaccurate!
Seems pretty silly to claim your tech is 10x better. They're simply assuming that the current 30k is all that Apple is capable of. The reality is that they may have the ability to go much further but chose to stick to the lower 30k for a reason. It's like claiming a 256GB iPhone is better than a 128GB iPhone, when the user has no reason to need the additional space so they didn't buy the bigger version.
They didn't claim it and they aren't assuming anything. MR made the claim of 10x more accurate.
[doublepost=1530109216][/doublepost]
Going by the responses you've been getting, it doesn't work flawlessly for many at all. Most of them have included caveats to cover the occasions when it doesn't work. In terms of your response to the original poster, you were right. It doesn't "just work". It works most of the time. 'Cept when it doesn't. Hence all the caveats.
