If they are industry standard, others would be using them by now.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the techniques used are general techniques "but with a fingerprint scanner." Once the fingerprint image is converted to a hash, it is functionally equivalent to any other form of authentication data such as a hashed password. So the question is how Secure Enclave's method of handling the sensitive data compares with that of other hardware-based authentication setups that use a Trusted Platform Module (e.g. http://www.dell.com/content/learnmore/learnmore.aspx?c=us&cs=04&~id=smartcard&~series=latit&~tab=recommendations).
Thank you so much for a well written, easy to understand article on this. It can get really confusing when trying to explain it – but you did a great job. Thank you! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [url=http://olympiagold.com/]wholesale Jewelry[/url]
The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end. They are wrong. Guilty is guilty.
If only that were true in terms of perception (or to use that awful made-up buzz word: mindshare).
There are many people out there (admittedly perhaps those with an already anti-Apple bent), who simply see this as a case of Apple bullying Samsung. Apple's victories are not seen by these people for what they truly are (i.e. vindication of Apple's position), but rather, Samsung is seen as the underdog or victim.
So, for those of us who are fairly rational about such things; yes, guilty is guilty and the results are pretty clear.
But there are a ton of people who don't look at the detail (or who are perhaps very tribal or inclined to be tribal) who base everything off perception rather than facts.
If only that were true in terms of perception (or to use that awful made-up buzz word: mindshare).
There are many people out there (admittedly perhaps those with an already anti-Apple bent), who simply see this as a case of Apple bullying Samsung. Apple's victories are not seen by these people for what they truly are (i.e. vindication of Apple's position), but rather, Samsung is seen as the underdog or victim.
So, for those of us who are fairly rational about such things; yes, guilty is guilty and the results are pretty clear.
But there are a ton of people who don't look at the detail (or who are perhaps very tribal or inclined to be tribal) who base everything off perception rather than facts.
So what, Samsung and Google have been selling that proposition to the media for a couple of years now.
Their marketing dollars pay for a huge amount of influence.
So what, Samsung and Google have been selling that proposition to the media for a couple of years now.
Their marketing dollars pay for a huge amount of influence.
I think the marketing dollars are a factor (although not as big as people tend to think in terms of the audience I'm referring to).
I agree that we should say "so what" in terms of this idea that nothing will change in the minds of the die-hards, but what I'm expressing is the idea that if people think these court wins will cause anyone to re-think their stance and grant Apple some leeway...they are wrong.
The court battle matters "in the real world" so to speak, but in the world of online commenters and warring tribes, it only further polarises people (again, I'm just saying this is the likely impact as a matter of fact - I do think Apple were right to pursue these cases).
Comments
If they are industry standard, others would be using them by now.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether the techniques used are general techniques "but with a fingerprint scanner." Once the fingerprint image is converted to a hash, it is functionally equivalent to any other form of authentication data such as a hashed password. So the question is how Secure Enclave's method of handling the sensitive data compares with that of other hardware-based authentication setups that use a Trusted Platform Module (e.g. http://www.dell.com/content/learnmore/learnmore.aspx?c=us&cs=04&~id=smartcard&~series=latit&~tab=recommendations).
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/42717/width/200/height/400[/IMG]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url=http://olympiagold.com/]wholesale Jewelry[/url]
The pundits say Samsung and Google won in the end. They are wrong. Guilty is guilty.
If only that were true in terms of perception (or to use that awful made-up buzz word: mindshare).
There are many people out there (admittedly perhaps those with an already anti-Apple bent), who simply see this as a case of Apple bullying Samsung. Apple's victories are not seen by these people for what they truly are (i.e. vindication of Apple's position), but rather, Samsung is seen as the underdog or victim.
So, for those of us who are fairly rational about such things; yes, guilty is guilty and the results are pretty clear.
But there are a ton of people who don't look at the detail (or who are perhaps very tribal or inclined to be tribal) who base everything off perception rather than facts.
So what, Samsung and Google have been selling that proposition to the media for a couple of years now.
Their marketing dollars pay for a huge amount of influence.
So what, Samsung and Google have been selling that proposition to the media for a couple of years now.
Their marketing dollars pay for a huge amount of influence.
I think the marketing dollars are a factor (although not as big as people tend to think in terms of the audience I'm referring to).
I agree that we should say "so what" in terms of this idea that nothing will change in the minds of the die-hards, but what I'm expressing is the idea that if people think these court wins will cause anyone to re-think their stance and grant Apple some leeway...they are wrong.
The court battle matters "in the real world" so to speak, but in the world of online commenters and warring tribes, it only further polarises people (again, I'm just saying this is the likely impact as a matter of fact - I do think Apple were right to pursue these cases).