He said that on February 29, 2018 at a fake news conference in Boston, New Jersey.
iPhone 7+ to iPhone X (not impressed)
- Thread starter michko
- Start date
He said that on February 29, 2018 at a fake news conference in Boston, New Jersey.
anony_mouse
Well-known member
Sorry I'm confused. Is there a public statement from Apple saying they will never again introduce a product with touch ID?
robertk328
Moderator
No, and they just released one today with Touch ID. In fact, with the older, slower Touch ID.
anony_mouse
Well-known member
I'm not aware of any comment to that effect -- and as pointed out the 6th Gen iPad was just announced/released with the an FPS. I do hesitate to call the 6th Gen iPad a new product though, instead they appear merely to have added Pencil support and updated the processor a generation (from the A9 to the A10), but otherwise it seems to be exactly the same (chassis, display, cameras, speakers, etc).
There have been interviews with Apple executives where they basically say FaceID (and the iPhone X generally) are what Apple plans for the future, but they never say it outright. Additionally, Apple bought RealFace, an Israeli company specializing in facial recognition, and made a $390 million investment in Finisar in December, the company which makes the scanner chips for FaceID.
Apple wouldn't be making these types of investments, even after the iPhone X launch, if they didn't plan on FaceID being the future. Also, Apple tends to just "cut off" technologies they feel are becoming obsolete, such as the headphone jack, and not bring them back on future models despite customer complaints.
Because of this, I doubt you'll see an FPS on a future Apple flagship device. You might see it again on a phone, if Apple announces a low cost iPhone SE2, and the low cost iPads will likely keep an FPS until the cost of FaceID comes down to a similar price as the TouchID sensor. At the same time, even the "low cost" (but still rumored to be $699) iPhone rumored for this Fall, the 6.1" LCD model, is rumored to only have FaceID.
anony_mouse
Well-known member
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
I thought there wasn't any official announcement, but I suspect you are right about the future direction. I wonder if Apple will think twice, though, after the lower than expected sales of the iPhone 10. All the competition will have fingerprint sensors (down to Android phones costing EUR 120), and whether it's fair or not, face ID has not had the best reception in the market. If it's not possible to put the sensor on the front of the phone, the back or one of the sides are also possible and just as good.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
I thought there wasn't any official announcement, but I suspect you are right about the future direction. I wonder if Apple will think twice, though, after the lower than expected sales of the iPhone 10. All the competition will have fingerprint sensors (down to Android phones costing EUR 120), and whether it's fair or not, face ID has not had the best reception in the market. If it's not possible to put the sensor on the front of the phone, the back or one of the sides are also possible and just as good.
I’m really torn when it comes to Face ID. I think it’s cool, especially little things like how it hides details on the lock screen until it knows I’m looking at it. As far as convenience, I just can’t see where Face ID wins. I used Touch ID since inception and nothing was more convenient than the 2nd gen Touch ID sensor.
I would venture to think price and the iPhone 8/8+ being released slightly ahead of the iPhone X hurt sales more than anything else. Sure, there are those that didn’t buy due to Face ID but I’ve heard from way more that didn’t buy because it’s too expensive or they bought an 8/8+ instead.
Will Apple reverse course? Very doubtful unless they can figure out how to put Touch ID under the display. Even then I don’t see Face ID going away as an option. When Apple commits to something they really, really commit. coughheadphonejackcough
msm0511
Trusted Member
I think this is where most folks are getting that Apple has abandoned Touch ID for flagship devices.
From SVP of Hardware Engineering Dan Riccio to techcrunch:
“Arguably the toughest challenge that we had is to replace Touch ID,” Apple’s Dan Riccio says. “It was very, very hard. If we were going to replace it we wanted to replace it with something that was at the end of the day both better and more natural.”
Riccio also flatly counters the narrative that Apple was still trying to use Touch ID in the iPhone X this year.
“I heard some rumor [that] we couldn’t get Touch ID to work through the glass so we had to remove that,” Riccio says, answering a question about whether there were late design changes. “When we hit early line of sight on getting Face ID to be [as] good as it was, we knew that if we could be successful we could enable the product that we wanted to go off and do and if that’s true it could be something that we could burn the bridges and be all in with. This is assuming it was a better solution. And that’s what we did. So we spent no time looking at fingerprints on the back or through the glass or on the side because if we did those things, which would be a last-minute change, they would be a distraction relative to enabling the more important thing that we were trying to achieve, which was Face ID done in a high-quality way.”
It doesn't necessarily say they won't add an additional touch based biometric in the future, but alludes to that.
From SVP of Hardware Engineering Dan Riccio to techcrunch:
“Arguably the toughest challenge that we had is to replace Touch ID,” Apple’s Dan Riccio says. “It was very, very hard. If we were going to replace it we wanted to replace it with something that was at the end of the day both better and more natural.”
Riccio also flatly counters the narrative that Apple was still trying to use Touch ID in the iPhone X this year.
“I heard some rumor [that] we couldn’t get Touch ID to work through the glass so we had to remove that,” Riccio says, answering a question about whether there were late design changes. “When we hit early line of sight on getting Face ID to be [as] good as it was, we knew that if we could be successful we could enable the product that we wanted to go off and do and if that’s true it could be something that we could burn the bridges and be all in with. This is assuming it was a better solution. And that’s what we did. So we spent no time looking at fingerprints on the back or through the glass or on the side because if we did those things, which would be a last-minute change, they would be a distraction relative to enabling the more important thing that we were trying to achieve, which was Face ID done in a high-quality way.”
It doesn't necessarily say they won't add an additional touch based biometric in the future, but alludes to that.
anony_mouse
Well-known member
Thanks @Rob Phillips and @msm0511, very informative posts! We will have to wait and see what Apple chooses to do. In the mean time, I can think of a couple of reasons why touch ID might reappear...
1. I have no evidence to support this, but I suspect that people use Apple Pay less on the iPhone X than on models with touch ID. This is one situation where face ID is clearly less convenient. This removes Apple from a potentially profitable and controlling position in the payment chain, and one where they can see all your purchases (that data is valuable!). It may be that Apple don't care that much about Apple Pay any more, given that we all have contactless bank cards and most people probably mostly use them now, but if they do, that may be a good reason to keep touch ID.
2. As I mentioned before, the fingerprint sensor can be mounted on the back of the phone (or even the side). It doesn't have to be placed below the glass. I have used phones with fingerprint sensors on the front and on the back of the phone. I actually found that the back is easier to use, but it does have a disadvantage - you can't use it when the phone is flat on a desk or mounted in a holder. However, both of these cases are well addressed by face ID.
Together, these two points allow Apple to retain touch ID and save face (pun intended). They can announce "rear touch ID" as an enhancement to Apple Pay, and still have a reason for people to set up and use face ID.
1. I have no evidence to support this, but I suspect that people use Apple Pay less on the iPhone X than on models with touch ID. This is one situation where face ID is clearly less convenient. This removes Apple from a potentially profitable and controlling position in the payment chain, and one where they can see all your purchases (that data is valuable!). It may be that Apple don't care that much about Apple Pay any more, given that we all have contactless bank cards and most people probably mostly use them now, but if they do, that may be a good reason to keep touch ID.
2. As I mentioned before, the fingerprint sensor can be mounted on the back of the phone (or even the side). It doesn't have to be placed below the glass. I have used phones with fingerprint sensors on the front and on the back of the phone. I actually found that the back is easier to use, but it does have a disadvantage - you can't use it when the phone is flat on a desk or mounted in a holder. However, both of these cases are well addressed by face ID.
Together, these two points allow Apple to retain touch ID and save face (pun intended). They can announce "rear touch ID" as an enhancement to Apple Pay, and still have a reason for people to set up and use face ID.
I can't agree about Apple Pay, it seems far easier to use, at least to me, than having to use a fingerprint. I think if Apple had any concerns about FaceID they would have added the fingerprint sensor on the back of the iPhone X. I can't see them going back to it now, particularly as many would see it as an "admission" that Apple agrees FaceID is not as good or ready to compete with TouchID.
If you have no evidence, then you are just guessing. FWIW, I prefer Touch ID with Apple Pay - just lay your finger on the home button and lift the phone to the terminal, rather than having to look at the phone first - but I use Apple Pay just as much (basically as often as I can) with the iPhone X as I did with iPhone 6s. It's no different; if I can use Apple Pay, I'll use it, whether it's with the X or would have been the 6s or the 8, if that was the phone I bought instead.
I sincerely doubt that Apple will ever use both. I think it's going to be Face ID for their high end, premium models and Touch ID for their more affordable, down-market products, and not both together. Remember that Touch ID got loads better with the iPhone 6s. There will be a future version of Face ID that is faster, too. It's only going to get better.
robertk328
Moderator
Touch ID will do this but you also need to disable the “rest finger to open” option. Touch ID will show the details. Definitely more convenience with FaceID tho.
We are still on 1st gen of FaceID so let’s compare it to 1st gen TouchID. I bet it gets faster with the next model and goes ahead. But it’s not fair to compare 1st gen tech to 2nd gen.
I've adjusted well to FaceID and, for me, it works 99.9% of the time. Using it with Pay and various 3rd-party apps is a breeze. In my opinion, Apple did well with it.
Sure it’s fair. I spent $1,150 on this phone. I would expect any new features to be an improvement even if it’s a “1st gen” change to how we get into our phones.
robertk328
Moderator
anony_mouse
Well-known member
Yes I am just guessing (as are you). But Apple and Android Pay are already less convenient than using a contactless bank card, and with face ID it gets even less convenient. Remember that a major use for contactless payments is public transport - don't stop in the crowd at a London tube station to wave your phone at your face!
Genuine question - are contactless bank cards widely available in the US? Where I am, they are fairly universal. I have several. This is the real competition to Apple and Android Pay, and in my experience the bank cards are winning by a wide margin. It's very common here for people to keep a bank card in their iPhone case. To pay they still wave their phone at a terminal but they don't give a cut to the middle man (Apple or Google).
The issue is not how fast face ID is. It's whether it is convenient to use in a contactless payment situation.
Contactless cards aren’t unheard of in the US but they’re definitely less widely used than in other parts of the world. Some years back they started getting popular but then several of the largest credit card companies pulled out of contactless citing security issues with the chips inside of the cards.
I will say this...Apple Pay on Apple Watch is super convenient. A double tap of the large button and it’s ready. It’s alright sitting on my wrist and authenticated the moment I put my watch on and unlock it in the morning. I’d say it’s more convenient than getting my wallet, removing the card, inserting the card, going through all of the steps, removing the card, returning it to my wallet...you get where I’m going. Apple Pay using my iPhone X inevitably takes longer but it makes me feel like MacGyver so I do it anyway.
anony_mouse
Well-known member
Just to confirm we are talking about the same thing - when I use a contactless bank card, there is no inserting the card anywhere and there are no other steps. I just touch the card on the reader. That's it. It's easier than using a phone with all this tapping and authenticating and so on. Are you talking about "chip and PIN"?
I will never understand how the US banks consider a magnetic strip that can be copied with a $2 reader to be more secure than even a poorly implemented chip and PIN system. The losses from fraud must be staggering. I've always assumed there is something more behind this. But that's a discussion for another day.
Last edited:
Just to confirm we are talking about the same thing - when I use a contactless bank card, there is no inserting the card anywhere and there are no other steps. I just touch the card on the reader. That's it. It's easier than using a phone with all this tapping and authenticating and so on. Are you talking about "chip and PIN"?
I will never understand how the US banks consider a magnetic strip that can be copied with a $2 reader to be more secure than even a poorly implemented chip and PIN system. The losses from fraud must be staggering. I've always assumed there is something more behind this. But that's a discussion for another day.
Yes, I was talking about contactless. Chip and PIN is not accepted in the US but chip and signature is.
The US has been very reactive when it comes to combating fraud. They’ve taken the “wait til something terrible happens, blame someone else, then push out legislation so they look like heroes” approach. It was only recently that banks have been able to hold merchants who only accept magnetic strip payments liable for fraudulent transactions done on their behalf.
Similar threads
Trending Posts
-
-
The iMore 20K / 50K Post Challenge - Are you up for it?- Started by Jaguarr40
- Replies: 31K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram