In a statement to CNBC, the company said, "Bloomberg's claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication."
Quote from updated article at least on BBG terminal right now:
Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller said “Bloomberg’s claim that it reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven't changed; it continues to be one in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.”
There is a way to read this where both companies are right, depending on which accuracy spec is being referred to.
Apple likely built Face ID to be more accurate than claimed. This is similar to what they did with waterproofing the iPhones, where for one or two years they were built to a higher waterproofing level than they were marketed as.
Imagine Apple's suppliers were building to a 1:2,000,000 accuracy rate, and they were told they could drop the accuracy to 1:1,200,000 accuracy rate. Bloomberg is right that Apple has allowed the suppliers to reduced accuracy, while Apple's statement that there continues to be a one in a million probability of a random person unlocking your phone is also true.
This is an uncharitable reading of the situation though, and I'm mostly inclined to take Apple at their word on this.
Bloomberg has turned into a Apple rumors site ever since the arrival of Mark Gurman. I have no idea why they are doing it and why the need of doing it. After all Bloomberg is straightly not in the news or publishing business.
> If reducing accuracy allows Apple to ship, this (if true) is a logical decision. It’s what businesses do. The key is to compromise without reducing quality to the point where it breaks. I think Apple would eat the delay before they shipped an iPhone X that didn’t meet their security standards.
So I don't think this is as big a deal as it sounds. The article makes it sound like they're allowing a half-assed product to make it to market, but it could just be reducing accuracy by a fraction that would be unnoticeable by the majority of uses.
This is likely a spec relaxation of certain components that has limited to no impact on the accuracy of the assembly. This is really common in optics where early design decisions get made and carried forward due to schedule concerns because making changes impacts a ton of things further down like reliability, assembly, etc... I don't see this as a big deal it's just making decisions that improve manufacturability and yield while not having much impact on the overall device.
The more likely story is, that Apple set some initial specs for the face ID module early in the development. This was probably a very strict spec, which is of course difficult to match. Fast forward, some months later, as the production devices are coming together and real production devices can be evaluated, the specs can be relaxed somewhat, as Apple now has a clear idea about the specs they need to have a functioning face ID device. Also, the software might be a bit more tolerant to variations in the device. Of course, the revised specs will increase yield too. But that is all what engineering is about -finding out how far you can relax specs and still have a robust working device.
Apple claims that Touch ID has a false positive rate of 1 in 50,000, and Face ID has a rate of 1 in 1,000,000. So yes, there’s a lot of room for Face ID to become worse and still be better than Touch ID.
The big question is, did Apple state the 1 in 1 million number knowing that they were having supply issues, meaning that the original component was more accurate? This must have been known in some way before the keynote, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is "old news" as in Apple told supplies to do this around or before the keynote.
Of course we won't know how much things will change from Apple, but I assume it's not a 50% drop (and even if it was, it's still apparently 10x better than TouchID).
This feels like an entirely unnecessary risk. Yes, it would be good to having plenty of iPhone Xs available for the holidays, but they're a year-round seller, and they'll sell a ton whenever they come out.
Feels like a strategic mistake by Apple - the iPhone 8 is pretty underwhelming (should be called 7S) and they were so caught up in the mystique of the ten year anniversary that they had to have something else.
The 8 might well be a 7s, in all but name, but is hardly underwhelming as compared other incremental iPhone releases in my view.
For me, it's a bigger improvement to my everyday use of the device by a mile than:
6: larger screen (maybe an exception for this reason)
6s: 3d touch; 2nd gen touch ID
7: jack-less; splash proof; shiny option
8: Heavier/premium feel, wireless charging, much bigger performance bump than usual
The 8 is the first phone where the phone can pretty much keep up with my thoughts, which makes it an incredibly different experience. The rhythm of using the device is just an order of magnitude different.
The 8 is forgettably underwhelming on its spec sheet (except speed), a marvel and delight in person. Bottom line for me is that the spec sheet is increasingly irrelevant to my satisfaction with a device.
I also have zero desire to be the guinea pig for all the new stuff on trial in the X.
I'm not so sure they will sell a ton. Most of the talk I've heard has been "meh" regarding it. I'm personally holding off until I see more hands on reviews and feel comfortable that I wont be a beta tester for Apple.
I'm really excited for the screen (not the notch). True blacks are where Apple has really suffered. I love reading at night on my iPad but it's a much worse experience than my Samsung tablet with an OLED screen. The move to OLED by Apple is really the biggest thing here that people aren't paying much attention too.
It seems like FaceID is an epic pain compared Touch. Most consumers do not care about the 1/50K vs 1/1000k stats. They care about having to put an internet square to their face for access. To me this seems like a huge mistake for Apple. Lack of a home button also seems like a mistake. Both will likely confuse and annoy long time customers and should've been solved with an ergonomic button on the back.
I don't see how Face ID is inherently an "epic pain" unless you're building in the assumption that it doesn't work well. If you instead assume that it works fairly well and your device is unlocked when you look at it, it seems that it could be much more convenient in many scenarios than Touch ID. Like when you're wearing gloves, when your finger might be dirty/wet, etc..
I've used Touch ID since inception, and I can honestly say that I'm excited to explore the different set of tradeoffs that Face ID will bring. What I will grant you is that we don't actually know how well it works yet, but we will soon.
Just a friendly reminder that nobody outside of Apple has actually used FaceID. So maybe we should all shelve the hysterics over hypotheticals until we can base our opinions on actuals.
> Both will likely confuse and annoy long time customers and should've been solved with an ergonomic button on the back.
One more reason why the iPhone X isn't "the iPhone" this year. Apple knows this, it's the most fundamental shift in how you use the device since the original iPhone.
Those that feel confused and annoyed can always return the phone and buy the iPhone 8 for less money. Many already have opted to just buy the iPhone 8 rather than wait.
I don't think it's a mistake at all, it's a carefully calculated move to ensure that the vast majority of their customer base isn't alienated by pricing this phone out of reach and making it very clear that this is a glimpse into the future of the iPhone, not the iPhone you know and love.
FaceID actually works well and the missing home button doesn't bother. Its actually easier to get to the home screen since you don't have to move your finger from screen to button and back.
I think buying the iPhone X as soon as it is released is a huge gamble, no matter the struggles Apple is going through with FaceID.
If past performance is an indicator, and given the amount of new technology coming in iPhone X, I expect a multitude of problem with the first devices.
Despite its high price, this is the only thing that holding me back from upgrading on day-1.
"It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people familiar with the situation."
FaceID really is the feature that is ruining the new iPhone for me. And the fact that its (currently) the sole reason why interested customers can't get one come November is another major dealbreaker (IIRC OLED was a problem too).
Moreover, it brings into question what "Designed by Apple in California" means.
Is Apple the misunderstood savant, yearning for perfection, requiring their latest work of art not being shipped/produced without it 100% matching the dreams of the designer?
Or, is Apple trying to sell as many units of a functional, brilliant, working product as possible? If they see themselves as the former (and by Job's tone, they do) _why undercut FaceID accuracy_?
Is an iPhone X an iPhone X without the FaceID?
My purchase of this device (compared to the iPhone 8) solely lies on the ability to use an iPhone X without the FaceID. I don't want it and I certainly don't need it. There are also far too many situational "what-ifs" Apple doesn't seem interested in addressing. I've asked a few people and haven't gotten a solid answer if its a requirement on setup of a new iPhone X.
> I've asked a few people and haven't gotten a solid answer if its a requirement on setup of a new iPhone X.
I don't know why you would assume this. I think it's very obvious that it isn't. TouchID is also not a requirement for any previous iPhone.
There is nothing about the iPhone X that would require FaceID. If you're happy just using a passcode, then that's your choice. They've given no indicators otherwise.
Well yes, since the FaceID component is small, and yield issues happen at assembly stage i can see this is easily fixable.
But OLED? There is one, and precisely one manufacturer making it, with limited capacity from the start and no quick fix to it. This manufacture also happens to be making OLED for their own phone.
If the demand of iPhone X is anywhere near as close as other new iPhone, we are easily looking at shortage of phones well past Xmas.
[+] [-] whatok|8 years ago|reply
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/25/apple-reduced-iphone-x-facei...
In a statement to CNBC, the company said, "Bloomberg's claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication."
Quote from updated article at least on BBG terminal right now:
Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller said “Bloomberg’s claim that it reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven't changed; it continues to be one in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.”
[+] [-] IBM|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dantiberian|8 years ago|reply
Apple likely built Face ID to be more accurate than claimed. This is similar to what they did with waterproofing the iPhones, where for one or two years they were built to a higher waterproofing level than they were marketed as.
Imagine Apple's suppliers were building to a 1:2,000,000 accuracy rate, and they were told they could drop the accuracy to 1:1,200,000 accuracy rate. Bloomberg is right that Apple has allowed the suppliers to reduced accuracy, while Apple's statement that there continues to be a one in a million probability of a random person unlocking your phone is also true.
This is an uncharitable reading of the situation though, and I'm mostly inclined to take Apple at their word on this.
[+] [-] ksec|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mox1|8 years ago|reply
So like 30 times a day...assuming 1 face unlock per device per day.
[+] [-] oddevan|8 years ago|reply
> If reducing accuracy allows Apple to ship, this (if true) is a logical decision. It’s what businesses do. The key is to compromise without reducing quality to the point where it breaks. I think Apple would eat the delay before they shipped an iPhone X that didn’t meet their security standards.
So I don't think this is as big a deal as it sounds. The article makes it sound like they're allowing a half-assed product to make it to market, but it could just be reducing accuracy by a fraction that would be unnoticeable by the majority of uses.
[+] [-] sschueller|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmmBacon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _ph_|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Xophmeister|8 years ago|reply
Really?
[+] [-] mikeash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1_2__4|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yladiz|8 years ago|reply
Of course we won't know how much things will change from Apple, but I assume it's not a 50% drop (and even if it was, it's still apparently 10x better than TouchID).
[+] [-] untog|8 years ago|reply
Feels like a strategic mistake by Apple - the iPhone 8 is pretty underwhelming (should be called 7S) and they were so caught up in the mystique of the ten year anniversary that they had to have something else.
[+] [-] ballenf|8 years ago|reply
The 8 might well be a 7s, in all but name, but is hardly underwhelming as compared other incremental iPhone releases in my view.
For me, it's a bigger improvement to my everyday use of the device by a mile than:
6: larger screen (maybe an exception for this reason)
6s: 3d touch; 2nd gen touch ID
7: jack-less; splash proof; shiny option
8: Heavier/premium feel, wireless charging, much bigger performance bump than usual
The 8 is the first phone where the phone can pretty much keep up with my thoughts, which makes it an incredibly different experience. The rhythm of using the device is just an order of magnitude different.
The 8 is forgettably underwhelming on its spec sheet (except speed), a marvel and delight in person. Bottom line for me is that the spec sheet is increasingly irrelevant to my satisfaction with a device.
I also have zero desire to be the guinea pig for all the new stuff on trial in the X.
edited: fixed touch id introduction -- thanks
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] datawarrior|8 years ago|reply
I'm really excited for the screen (not the notch). True blacks are where Apple has really suffered. I love reading at night on my iPad but it's a much worse experience than my Samsung tablet with an OLED screen. The move to OLED by Apple is really the biggest thing here that people aren't paying much attention too.
[+] [-] throw7|8 years ago|reply
Really? How so? I already know I do not want to have to look at my phone to unlock it.
[+] [-] zimpenfish|8 years ago|reply
But then surely you're 100% not the target market for any devices which contain Face ID and the accuracy is wholly irrelevant to your life?
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hodder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] huebnerob|8 years ago|reply
I've used Touch ID since inception, and I can honestly say that I'm excited to explore the different set of tradeoffs that Face ID will bring. What I will grant you is that we don't actually know how well it works yet, but we will soon.
[+] [-] toasterlovin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mandeepj|8 years ago|reply
That touchid on back is a huge fail from UX perspective. Samsung did it only because they could not do it from front side
[+] [-] shinratdr|8 years ago|reply
One more reason why the iPhone X isn't "the iPhone" this year. Apple knows this, it's the most fundamental shift in how you use the device since the original iPhone.
Those that feel confused and annoyed can always return the phone and buy the iPhone 8 for less money. Many already have opted to just buy the iPhone 8 rather than wait.
I don't think it's a mistake at all, it's a carefully calculated move to ensure that the vast majority of their customer base isn't alienated by pricing this phone out of reach and making it very clear that this is a glimpse into the future of the iPhone, not the iPhone you know and love.
[+] [-] tinus_hn|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enra|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluthru|8 years ago|reply
It's a huge improvement if you're wearing gloves or have wet fingers.
>an ergonomic button on the back
This requires you to hold your phone a certain way (at least initially).
[+] [-] noncoml|8 years ago|reply
If past performance is an indicator, and given the amount of new technology coming in iPhone X, I expect a multitude of problem with the first devices.
Despite its high price, this is the only thing that holding me back from upgrading on day-1.
[+] [-] raldi|8 years ago|reply
Why? If you don't like it, you have 14 days to return it.
[+] [-] runesoerensen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smn1234|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattbarrie|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tatrajim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jordache|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FilterSweep|8 years ago|reply
Moreover, it brings into question what "Designed by Apple in California" means. Is Apple the misunderstood savant, yearning for perfection, requiring their latest work of art not being shipped/produced without it 100% matching the dreams of the designer? Or, is Apple trying to sell as many units of a functional, brilliant, working product as possible? If they see themselves as the former (and by Job's tone, they do) _why undercut FaceID accuracy_?
Is an iPhone X an iPhone X without the FaceID?
My purchase of this device (compared to the iPhone 8) solely lies on the ability to use an iPhone X without the FaceID. I don't want it and I certainly don't need it. There are also far too many situational "what-ifs" Apple doesn't seem interested in addressing. I've asked a few people and haven't gotten a solid answer if its a requirement on setup of a new iPhone X.
:ed: grammar
[+] [-] shinratdr|8 years ago|reply
I don't know why you would assume this. I think it's very obvious that it isn't. TouchID is also not a requirement for any previous iPhone.
There is nothing about the iPhone X that would require FaceID. If you're happy just using a passcode, then that's your choice. They've given no indicators otherwise.
[+] [-] ksec|8 years ago|reply
Well yes, since the FaceID component is small, and yield issues happen at assembly stage i can see this is easily fixable.
But OLED? There is one, and precisely one manufacturer making it, with limited capacity from the start and no quick fix to it. This manufacture also happens to be making OLED for their own phone.
If the demand of iPhone X is anywhere near as close as other new iPhone, we are easily looking at shortage of phones well past Xmas.
[+] [-] __abc|8 years ago|reply
Like what? Genuinely curios.