This is false. In the average large, North American city there are many people who's fingerprints are so similar as to come up as false positives on those scans you see on shows like CSI. Also, when they do that stuff in reallife, it's rarely a "100% positive or not" match like they show on TV. Sometimes multiple matches come up for different individuals, and it's a matter of interpretation as to what a "match" actually is or which is the closest match.
In practice, this is irrelevant in court, because if there are only three people in the city that match, most of the time the other two won't be on the database (because they aren't criminals), and therefore there will only be one match. Statistically however, in any given city there are others that *would* have matched, if every single citizen was fingerprinted and on the fingerprint database. Also, in the very rare case of multiple positive matches amongst the criminal population during an active investigation, they are most likely separated spatially, temporally, or by some other factor like age, gender etc.
If there is ever a day when 100% of the population is on a fingerprint database, as opposed to whatever it is now (20%?), it will be interesting to see how fingerprint scanners perform.
There is also the factor that the analysis is generally done on a set number of points that match up, perhaps if the number of points needed for a match are increased, then accuracy also increases and multiple hits would go down, but then a great deal of criminals would be let off the hook on the low end because this would turn a lot of the fingerprint evidence that's now accepted as a "match" into only a partial match.
I'm sorry to say, but Samsung can copy anything Apple can do and sell it for far less. I doubt Apple will even be able to protect whatever touch-sensor patents it has in the court system because Samsung will find a way around it. Samsung is a far superior hardware company than Apple is. Samsung can try 100 permutations of any component or product in a short time while Apple plods along at a snail's pace. Samsung has the brightest teams of employees whose specific tasks are to reverse-engineer rival's products. I wouldn't be surprised if Samsung has project teams that number in the hundreds whereas Apple probably has only a dozen employees working on any particular project at one time. Samsung has only one goal. To steal rival's product market share and then totally dominate that particular industry. Apple as a company is too passive to protect itself from that type of thinking.
Nearly every hedge fund manager on the planet sees Apple's iPhone as no better than any cheap, plastic Android smartphone. They all say that the Android smartphone competition has gotten too strong for Apple to handle and Apple has already fallen behind. They say this without any doubts in their minds. What gets me angry is that Apple is sitting on a mountain of reserve cash and should be able to prevent smaller companies from having any advantage at all. If Apple comes out with a touch-sensor smartphone that becomes successful, I'm willing to bet Samsung will have a new touch-sensor smartphone on the market within months if not sooner and thereafter, every Android smartphone in the world will have a touch-sensor.
So by your logic why should Apple (or any company for that matter) even try to compete against the behemoth that is Samsung? Samsung is just too superior, right? I'm glad you're consulting with hedge fund managers over Apple's product styling and tech. I'm sure they lend some real insights.
If you knew the first thing about designing and developing products you would know that large teams are generally a hinderance and most problems are solved best with smaller, focused ones. Hence, the reason you get so much garbage (hardware and software) included with a Samsung phone. You're right about one thing: The only successes Samsung has had has been when they've copied Apple. Otherwise, they're just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks.
I agree about small team size.
I worked for IBM in the 1960-1980 era. AIR, they had 400,000 employees, world-wide.
I worked on lots of software and hardware projects with team sizes ranging from 1 to hundreds of members.
The most successful teams, in my experience, had 5-7 members.
The main reason, IMO, was inter-member communication.
With smaller teams, each member can:
understand the entire project and his role
mentally keep track of what others are doing
know where they should have progressed
assume (fairly accurately) how far they actually have progressed
quickly update each other on status
This limits or eliminates unproductive formal communication, status reports, meetings, etc.
This could be a typical communication between 2 members of a small project team -- the totality of the exchange:
A: "How's it going on the" [interrupted by B]
B: "I am a little behind because I am waiting for" [interrupted by A]
A: "Yeah, I just checked with him and he'll be back on sched tomorrow AM"
B: "Great! Then I'll be caught up by tomorrow evening!"
What just happened is almost magical -- in that brief disjointed exchange a lot of information was communicated, and the project status was updated for Members A, B and C by implication. And, very subtly, B and C set progress goals for themselves -- to meet or exceed.
Compare that to each member spending time documenting his progress, emailing and reading the emails of others... going to meetings.
I was on one large project team at IBM where a status meeting was scheduled for the next day. The project leader for our sub-group suggested that we have a pre-meeting meeting to discuss what we were going to say at the meeting... No Lie!
After a few months the project was canceled.
Anyway, the inter-member communication advantage of a small team allows it to be efficient and responsive.
Jurgen Appelo suggested that the optimal team size might just be 5. Five is the common number based on various studies around communication and team structures.
Scrum recommends the team size to be 7 plus/minus 2. Hence the team can vary between 5 and 9
According to Congnitive Edge, the human brain has co-evolved with social conditions and there is a natural limit on the number of social relationships a person can maintain. The study could easily be labeled as the rule of 5,15 and 150. 5 is linked to the natural limits of short term memory, 15 is the natural level of deep trust and 150 is the number of identities that a person can maintain in his head.
Another study related to the Parkinson’s Law, suggested that any team size below 20 can work except 8. Above 20 there is a natural digression into subgroups and no consensus can be formed. With 8, people usually find themselves in deadlock situations over decisions.
Further adding suppoprt for a team of 5 with a comment on the Parkinson’s Law, PMHut suggested that
The more team members you have, the more communication channels you will have, and this thing goes exponentially. If you have 3 team members, then you will have 4 communication channels, if you have 4 then you have 9. I think the formula is m-1^2.
Not sure how you figure. Apple still has to have a third party manufacturer the device. Presumably it will be done in China where technology espionage is rampant. In terms of security, Google probably has it right building the new Nexus Phone in the US. According to the reviews, the phone isn't that great, but building it here in the US is good from a lot of perspectives including the ability to keep the phone under tighter wraps.
The Motorola Moto X is not a Nexus device.
The components are all made in Asia, but the device is assembled in the US.
Apple won't use NFC. It already has Passbook. Passbook already is used more often then the NFC chips on Android. The failure of NFC has caused Google to leave out NFC chips on its own smartphones. Why use NFC when you can simply use your existing merchant scanner or WiFi or Cell Phone signal to transmit your payment?
Googles only in-house smartphone to date is the MotoX which has NFC. Not sure what you are talking about.
Seems gimmicky but if it gives Apple fans something to cheer about, may be worth pursuing for Apple.
Since it is the 'least secure' of authentication methods- less secure than the existing ones- it means that it will actually add a vulnerability to phones. No big deal, it is about the equivalent of facial recognition vulnerability.
Unless the 'tape trick' works. Your fingerprint is all over your phone screen. If someone can just lift it with scotch tape and that works to unlock the phone, this is a pre-disaster waiting to happen for Apple as they'd likely have to issue a security bulletin telling users its best to disable their nifty new feature.
If it does prove useful, I would expect to see it on other phones shortly. Its not like Apple invented fingerprint scanning technology. My laptops have had it for at least a decade. They invented one method for doing it. Competitors will find an alternate method to do it if they even think it is worthwhile.
The 'tape trick' is a non-starter. The tech in question reads beneath the surface of dead skin.
It is a new technology which Apple owns exclusively. Likely Apple will manufacture the chips themselves or used trusted suppliers under controlled conditions. Apple could have a 2-year lead.
Forget desktops/laptops -- fp readers are used to provide access to the computer.
With mobile devices like iPhones and iPads -- fp readers are used to provide access to the device and... And through the device -- to pay for things, unlock things, provide secure access to things...
And Apple will have the 2-year lead to flesh out the infrastructure to support those activities.
What do you need to have with you? Wallet, Keys, iPhone... pick one!
Not sure how you figure. Apple still has to have a third party manufacturer the device. Presumably it will be done in China where technology espionage is rampant. In terms of security, Google probably has it right building the new Nexus Phone in the US. According to the reviews, the phone isn't that great, but building it here in the US is good from a lot of perspectives including the ability to keep the phone under tighter wraps.
The Moto X is being built in Texas as a stunt. The reason why stuff is built in China is because it has tool and die expertise capable of setting up and reconfiguring a high production factory in days. The US couldn't do that in a year. US labor would add some cost, but not as much as you might think. The problem is the factories and manufacturing skills that America hasn't cultivated since the 60s.
Google doen't have to worry about that because it isn't building hardware in quantity for a global audience. It's batch building a small number of devices as a distraction. If you want tight security in a US factory, it will just drive up the costs even more. Google isn't serious about building hardware or it would do what the market leaders are doing in order to catch up.
Can't we all just agree that Passbook and NFC have not lived up to their promises?
False equivalency. NFC was a major deployment effort paired with cost-associated mobile hardware built into a generation of Android devices.
Passbook is a 1.0 app. One that had gotten tons of support.
You can dismiss both as not impressing you, but one was a boondoggle that has nowhere left to go because it's now obsolete via BLE, while the other is just beginning to take off as part of a low barrier strategy.
That's like equating the Microsoft Zune, Motorola Xoom, and iTunes Ping.
A Capacitative touchscreen senses the electrons emitted by your living tissue. When you touch the screen, you are charging up tiny capacitors with your finger's electrons; as you move your finger away they discharge, providing an electronic trail of where you've touched.
That's totally backwards.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">It does not "sense the electrons emitted by your living tissue", nor do you charge a tiny capacitor on the screen with your electrons, nor is a discharge trail followed.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Instead, YOU are the capacitor. The charge is emitted from the touchscreen, and it senses how much is stolen at each touch grid intersection by something capacitive that's nearby. That's why a conductive stylus or even a sausage will work as well.</span>
Ahh... Mystery solved! I always wondered why Apple supported 11 multitouch points... Now, if I only had something like a large sausage handy...
<span style="line-height:1.231;">With iOS (and other) devices, there's also a requirement to have a fairly large conductive target, because the touch processor throws away small touch patches as unwanted noise. That's why a sharply pointed stylus is not recognized, or is augmented by a larger transparent piece so it can be.</span>
False equivalency. NFC was a major deployment effort paired with cost-associated mobile hardware built into a generation of Android devices.
Passbook is a 1.0 app. One that had gotten tons of support.
You can dismiss both as not impressing you, but one was a boondoggle that has nowhere left to go because it's now obsolete via BLE, while the other is just beginning to take off as part of a low barrier strategy.
That's like equating the Microsoft Zune, Motorola Xoom, and iTunes Ping.
Googles only in-house smartphone to date is the MotoX which has NFC. Not sure what you are talking about.
The reference is likely Google's latest Nexus 7, which "has NFC" but lacks an "embedded secure element" required for Google Wallet, making it hardware incompatible with all of the secure purchasing infrastructure Google rolled out related to NFC. That only leaves you the ability to "Android Beam," necessary because Android doesn't yet support Bluetooth LE.
So saying something "has NFC" does not mean it does anything useful, specifically does not mean it can do secure transactions (although, in truth, Google Wallet can't do secure transactions either) and is nothing more than marketing bullshit designed to tick off a feature box that a few Android Enthusiasts are looking for.
Just like the "8 core" X8 chips Google misrepresented as being some remarkable new technology with more cores than an A6X, when it really has the same, and is actually just a Qualcomm Snapdragon.
Just like the "16 core" chip Google claimed to have last year for the Nexus 7, which was really a run of the mill Tegra 3, but Google counted every shader as a "core" just to blow smoke.
Google is the king of bullshit, which is why people who can't get enough bullshit love the company so much. There's people on these forums who are completely full of bullshit, but keep gobbling it up every time Google puts out another BSPR.
And this is exactly why Silicon Valley has attracted more bright minds than NYC over the years. Too much stock in veneer and not enough in substance.
On a side note, I do love NYC, but East Village and Brooklyn are more to my taste (at least, last time I was there). Experiencing creativity and passion in music/art/culinary art/technology is what excites me (no matter what it's dressed up in).
Obviously, you've never attended a Hooker's Ball (or any street parade in San Francisco)
It does sound like they have come up with something new. But I wonder how long it takes to do a reading? Will you have to hold your finger on the home button for a while or just "click" it normal speed?
Well, if it takes about the same amount of time as typing in (correctly, the first time) a password, then I'm in. I don't think it will take a long time to read. But that's just a guess on my part. I mistype passwords all of the time, or worse forget a password. I would also be interested in knowing if I don't have to constantly memorize the kagillions of passwords for all of the various things I log into and that since passwords are placed in one secure repository that all I had to do is stick my finger on a scanner and not have to constantly remember all of the passwords I cycle through for various websites, etc.
Obviously, you've never attended a Hooker's Ball (or any street parade in San Francisco)
I live in New York City. I don't know if I'd make hipster neighborhoods synonymous with innovators and creatives. Those areas are positively conformist in their anti-conformist unity.
Apple won't use NFC. It already has Passbook. Passbook already is used more often then the NFC chips on Android. The failure of NFC has caused Google to leave out NFC chips on its own smartphones. Why use NFC when you can simply use your existing merchant scanner or WiFi or Cell Phone signal to transmit your payment?
I don't know if I would say that Apple won't use NFC. They mentioned they didn't think there was much of a need for it as of yet, but I heard that a company, I can't remember if it was Broadcom or Qualcomm, was going to embed an NFC chip in another chip set that would replace existing chipsets that Apple does use, so it's possible that it might be embedded in a future chip that Apple migrates to, so they might have it whether they use it or not. I just think if/when it's actually deployed that they would have looked into any potential security flaws much like the Android platform had when they first started introducing NFC to the market.
If Apple did have it, and I actually went to a store that used NFC technology to pay a bill, I guess I might be inclined to use it, but I only recollect going to one retail store that has that technology and it's not a place I frequent, so right now, it's not a "MUST HAVE", it's more of a "It would be nice, but not an absolute requirement".
Personally, I think it would be nice to see an IR capability to use a phone or tablet as a remote control to change channels and parameters of various stereo and video equipment. That would be useful, probably the only new feature of the S4 that I thought is cool. But it's not enough to make me switch.
I live in New York City. I don't know if I'd make hipster neighborhoods synonymous with innovators and creatives. Those areas are positively conformist in their anti-conformist unity.
As a whole? No but I have noticed quite a bit of tech upstarts are located in Brooklyn.
You have to look bigger and go beyond the obvious, using a fingerprint to unlock the device. The fingerprint is a very rapid way of identifying who is using the device. As such it can be used to rigger specific things based on a user. Think user profiles on an iphone. Using the phone as a remote, for controlling a future TV and thus using preferences set for each user from any idevice. It becomes a wireless access pad for other devices via low power bluetooth or airplay. Think of some of the other patents that have been shown recently.
iOS in the car. Unlock your car via the reader, on the phone, via the home screen, and the car auto adjust preferences based on the registered user. Add fingerprint authentication to a mac/macbook in the home or work and use the scanner, when in proximity to unlock. Think of the patents for home control, etc. This opens up a huge area that extends well beyond the phone. This technology also could be embedded in any future iWatch (If that is really a watch and not a name for their TV device) or wearable technology Apple develops. This then lets them leap frog others with no access to this technology.
Assuming this works as described and is flawless and is potentially open to Developers to utilize, this could be a windfall for Apple that seriously compounds the Apple ecosystem stickiness factor.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
No two have been found alike ever. ....
This is false. In the average large, North American city there are many people who's fingerprints are so similar as to come up as false positives on those scans you see on shows like CSI. Also, when they do that stuff in real life, it's rarely a "100% positive or not" match like they show on TV. Sometimes multiple matches come up for different individuals, and it's a matter of interpretation as to what a "match" actually is or which is the closest match.
In practice, this is irrelevant in court, because if there are only three people in the city that match, most of the time the other two won't be on the database (because they aren't criminals), and therefore there will only be one match. Statistically however, in any given city there are others that *would* have matched, if every single citizen was fingerprinted and on the fingerprint database. Also, in the very rare case of multiple positive matches amongst the criminal population during an active investigation, they are most likely separated spatially, temporally, or by some other factor like age, gender etc.
If there is ever a day when 100% of the population is on a fingerprint database, as opposed to whatever it is now (20%?), it will be interesting to see how fingerprint scanners perform.
There is also the factor that the analysis is generally done on a set number of points that match up, perhaps if the number of points needed for a match are increased, then accuracy also increases and multiple hits would go down, but then a great deal of criminals would be let off the hook on the low end because this would turn a lot of the fingerprint evidence that's now accepted as a "match" into only a partial match.
I agree about small team size.
I worked for IBM in the 1960-1980 era. AIR, they had 400,000 employees, world-wide.
I worked on lots of software and hardware projects with team sizes ranging from 1 to hundreds of members.
The most successful teams, in my experience, had 5-7 members.
The main reason, IMO, was inter-member communication.
With smaller teams, each member can:
This limits or eliminates unproductive formal communication, status reports, meetings, etc.
This could be a typical communication between 2 members of a small project team -- the totality of the exchange:
A: "How's it going on the" [interrupted by B]
B: "I am a little behind because I am waiting for" [interrupted by A]
A: "Yeah, I just checked with him and he'll be back on sched tomorrow AM"
B: "Great! Then I'll be caught up by tomorrow evening!"
What just happened is almost magical -- in that brief disjointed exchange a lot of information was communicated, and the project status was updated for Members A, B and C by implication. And, very subtly, B and C set progress goals for themselves -- to meet or exceed.
Compare that to each member spending time documenting his progress, emailing and reading the emails of others... going to meetings.
I was on one large project team at IBM where a status meeting was scheduled for the next day. The project leader for our sub-group suggested that we have a pre-meeting meeting to discuss what we were going to say at the meeting... No Lie!
After a few months the project was canceled.
Anyway, the inter-member communication advantage of a small team allows it to be efficient and responsive.
http://humanresources.about.com/gi/o.htm?zi=1/XJ&zTi=1&sdn=humanresources&cdn=money&tm=26&f=20&su=p284.13.342.ip_&tt=12&bt=2&bts=2&zu=http://www.infoq.com/news/2009/04/agile-optimal-team-size
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Not sure how you figure. Apple still has to have a third party manufacturer the device. Presumably it will be done in China where technology espionage is rampant. In terms of security, Google probably has it right building the new Nexus Phone in the US. According to the reviews, the phone isn't that great, but building it here in the US is good from a lot of perspectives including the ability to keep the phone under tighter wraps.
The Motorola Moto X is not a Nexus device.
The components are all made in Asia, but the device is assembled in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
Apple won't use NFC. It already has Passbook. Passbook already is used more often then the NFC chips on Android. The failure of NFC has caused Google to leave out NFC chips on its own smartphones. Why use NFC when you can simply use your existing merchant scanner or WiFi or Cell Phone signal to transmit your payment?
Googles only in-house smartphone to date is the MotoX which has NFC. Not sure what you are talking about.
Can't we all just agree that Passbook and NFC have not lived up to their promises?
The 'tape trick' is a non-starter. The tech in question reads beneath the surface of dead skin.
It is a new technology which Apple owns exclusively. Likely Apple will manufacture the chips themselves or used trusted suppliers under controlled conditions. Apple could have a 2-year lead.
Forget desktops/laptops -- fp readers are used to provide access to the computer.
With mobile devices like iPhones and iPads -- fp readers are used to provide access to the device and... And through the device -- to pay for things, unlock things, provide secure access to things...
And Apple will have the 2-year lead to flesh out the infrastructure to support those activities.
What do you need to have with you? Wallet, Keys, iPhone... pick one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Not sure how you figure. Apple still has to have a third party manufacturer the device. Presumably it will be done in China where technology espionage is rampant. In terms of security, Google probably has it right building the new Nexus Phone in the US. According to the reviews, the phone isn't that great, but building it here in the US is good from a lot of perspectives including the ability to keep the phone under tighter wraps.
The Moto X is being built in Texas as a stunt. The reason why stuff is built in China is because it has tool and die expertise capable of setting up and reconfiguring a high production factory in days. The US couldn't do that in a year. US labor would add some cost, but not as much as you might think. The problem is the factories and manufacturing skills that America hasn't cultivated since the 60s.
Google doen't have to worry about that because it isn't building hardware in quantity for a global audience. It's batch building a small number of devices as a distraction. If you want tight security in a US factory, it will just drive up the costs even more. Google isn't serious about building hardware or it would do what the market leaders are doing in order to catch up.
I don't watch CSI so I don't know anything about the world of its fiction.
Reference some real data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewofArabia
Can't we all just agree that Passbook and NFC have not lived up to their promises?
False equivalency. NFC was a major deployment effort paired with cost-associated mobile hardware built into a generation of Android devices.
Passbook is a 1.0 app. One that had gotten tons of support.
You can dismiss both as not impressing you, but one was a boondoggle that has nowhere left to go because it's now obsolete via BLE, while the other is just beginning to take off as part of a low barrier strategy.
That's like equating the Microsoft Zune, Motorola Xoom, and iTunes Ping.
Ahh... Mystery solved! I always wondered why Apple supported 11 multitouch points... Now, if I only had something like a large sausage handy...
You're absolutely right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by patpatpat
Googles only in-house smartphone to date is the MotoX which has NFC. Not sure what you are talking about.
The reference is likely Google's latest Nexus 7, which "has NFC" but lacks an "embedded secure element" required for Google Wallet, making it hardware incompatible with all of the secure purchasing infrastructure Google rolled out related to NFC. That only leaves you the ability to "Android Beam," necessary because Android doesn't yet support Bluetooth LE.
So saying something "has NFC" does not mean it does anything useful, specifically does not mean it can do secure transactions (although, in truth, Google Wallet can't do secure transactions either) and is nothing more than marketing bullshit designed to tick off a feature box that a few Android Enthusiasts are looking for.
Just like the "8 core" X8 chips Google misrepresented as being some remarkable new technology with more cores than an A6X, when it really has the same, and is actually just a Qualcomm Snapdragon.
Just like the "16 core" chip Google claimed to have last year for the Nexus 7, which was really a run of the mill Tegra 3, but Google counted every shader as a "core" just to blow smoke.
Google is the king of bullshit, which is why people who can't get enough bullshit love the company so much. There's people on these forums who are completely full of bullshit, but keep gobbling it up every time Google puts out another BSPR.
Obviously, you've never attended a Hooker's Ball (or any street parade in San Francisco)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
It does sound like they have come up with something new. But I wonder how long it takes to do a reading? Will you have to hold your finger on the home button for a while or just "click" it normal speed?
Well, if it takes about the same amount of time as typing in (correctly, the first time) a password, then I'm in. I don't think it will take a long time to read. But that's just a guess on my part. I mistype passwords all of the time, or worse forget a password. I would also be interested in knowing if I don't have to constantly memorize the kagillions of passwords for all of the various things I log into and that since passwords are placed in one secure repository that all I had to do is stick my finger on a scanner and not have to constantly remember all of the passwords I cycle through for various websites, etc.
I live in New York City. I don't know if I'd make hipster neighborhoods synonymous with innovators and creatives. Those areas are positively conformist in their anti-conformist unity.
And none of that can be done through a computer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2
Apple won't use NFC. It already has Passbook. Passbook already is used more often then the NFC chips on Android. The failure of NFC has caused Google to leave out NFC chips on its own smartphones. Why use NFC when you can simply use your existing merchant scanner or WiFi or Cell Phone signal to transmit your payment?
I don't know if I would say that Apple won't use NFC. They mentioned they didn't think there was much of a need for it as of yet, but I heard that a company, I can't remember if it was Broadcom or Qualcomm, was going to embed an NFC chip in another chip set that would replace existing chipsets that Apple does use, so it's possible that it might be embedded in a future chip that Apple migrates to, so they might have it whether they use it or not. I just think if/when it's actually deployed that they would have looked into any potential security flaws much like the Android platform had when they first started introducing NFC to the market.
If Apple did have it, and I actually went to a store that used NFC technology to pay a bill, I guess I might be inclined to use it, but I only recollect going to one retail store that has that technology and it's not a place I frequent, so right now, it's not a "MUST HAVE", it's more of a "It would be nice, but not an absolute requirement".
Personally, I think it would be nice to see an IR capability to use a phone or tablet as a remote control to change channels and parameters of various stereo and video equipment. That would be useful, probably the only new feature of the S4 that I thought is cool. But it's not enough to make me switch.
As a whole? No but I have noticed quite a bit of tech upstarts are located in Brooklyn.
You have to look bigger and go beyond the obvious, using a fingerprint to unlock the device. The fingerprint is a very rapid way of identifying who is using the device. As such it can be used to rigger specific things based on a user. Think user profiles on an iphone. Using the phone as a remote, for controlling a future TV and thus using preferences set for each user from any idevice. It becomes a wireless access pad for other devices via low power bluetooth or airplay. Think of some of the other patents that have been shown recently.
iOS in the car. Unlock your car via the reader, on the phone, via the home screen, and the car auto adjust preferences based on the registered user. Add fingerprint authentication to a mac/macbook in the home or work and use the scanner, when in proximity to unlock. Think of the patents for home control, etc. This opens up a huge area that extends well beyond the phone. This technology also could be embedded in any future iWatch (If that is really a watch and not a name for their TV device) or wearable technology Apple develops. This then lets them leap frog others with no access to this technology.
Assuming this works as described and is flawless and is potentially open to Developers to utilize, this could be a windfall for Apple that seriously compounds the Apple ecosystem stickiness factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
Android doesn't yet support Bluetooth LE.
Come again? First one on the list, right above OpenGL ES 3.0.