This year's Galaxy S8 has already suffered an embarrassment related to the fact that its face recognition feature for unlocking the phone could be tricked to unlock with a simple photo of the person who set it up."
If you read the comments in the article, you would know that this is NOT a security feature and been around in Android for years. Even a few years ago they already proved that it was not a security feature, and when activated the phone tells you it does not recommend you use it.
This is but one example from this long article where facts get missed. Seems that is all that D "Fake News" ED can do.
The problem is that it's perceived as a security measure because that's what it's logical intended use is. Why would you include it if it's not intended to be used then? Simple. It's a marketing gimmick – a bulletpoint used to sell a terrible product to guilible consumers. They've only diminished the strength of their brand in regards to security just to claim "but we had that first". This is the modus operandi of Android.
Surprised nobody mentioned Portrait Mode on the iPhone 7 Plus which didn't come out until a month later.
The original article already acknowledges that:
"The delay in delivering a key advertised feature is not unique to Samsung. Last fall, Apple announced in advance that iPhone 7 Plus would ship before its Portrait mode camera feature was finished, and that the functionality would be delivered later as a software update. "
Yes, but when it did come out a month later, it was perfect. I've used it numerous times and it's really a great way to improve the look of portraits and still photography.
The iKnockoff theory is not just an Apple fanboy's whining and not as exaggerated as you may think. The stealing of IP by China has had a devastating effect on the US economy (large, greedy, profit focused, corporations are also to blame). This stealing not only hurts Apple but hundreds of US industries that invented and created products only to be run out of business by companies that steal. Apple produces tens of millions of smartphones each launch, for them to pull this off - the design, plans, procurement of components, communication and coordination of supply chain vendors need to all in place nearly a year prior. The unfortunate thing is - Apple relys on Samsung, their largest competitor for key components (displays, support chips) and Chinese based manufacturers for chip fabrication, production and assembly. These companies have the specs blueprints and the know-how in THEIR HANDS to make Apple products, and they have it way before customers even knows the product exists. It is quite easy for them to get products to market before the inventor of those products! If you don't think the Chinese government looks the other way, you are dead wrong. Modern 'Wars' between nations are not fought on battlefields (yet) but in the factories - those that control commerce become powerful nations. It's a matter of time before Apple's Ax chips will be copied as well.
A smart decision by Samsung - by releasing Bixby in its current state and disappointing users would have been a mistake. Samsung so desperately wants to lessen their huge dependence on Google software, but don't have the expertise to do it. Apple is getting close with their alternative offerings ... Apple Maps, Mail/Calendar, (Bing), Safari, Siri, Home Kit, Productivity apps... but still not yet the preferred choice or best in class in all of these categories.
Very true. Samsung is very keen on reducing their dependence on Google services. In turn, Google is trying to lessen their dependence on Samsung hardware. It is obvious that excellent hardware is far harder to duplicate than excellent software. Not that the software side is easy. Apple has struggled at times in trying to match Google services also, but more likely the struggle has been due to their respect for privacy while Google doesn't care.
If Bixby turns out to be quite useful, it will have the effect of blunting Google's assistant on the best Android product on the market. Most people have a tendency to just use what comes integrated into the device. It is better for Samsung to get it right than to put forth a half baked product on time. The Apple maps roll out needs not to be duplicated.
I understand the disdain and scorn for Google. The company is as bad as Microsoft was during their heady days of software dominance.
I don't understand the same thing directed at Samsung. They actually make very nice hardware. So much so that Apple used them to build the A series SOCs for a lot of years. Apple is now using them to build huge numbers of OLED panels. It is having serious repercussions for the rest of the Android OEMs who are losing out on the ability to produce high end smartphones with the technology, Google itself included in that.
Samsung's international phones also include the Exynos SOC which outperforms the QCOM equivalent with better battery life to boot. The Pixel uses the Snapdragon 821 exclusively. The Galaxy S8 will use the Snapdragon 835 for the US model and the Exynos 8895 for the international one. Though Samsung claims both versions will have equivalent performance, I suspect that battery life will be much better with the Exynos CPU.
And Tizen isn't half bad speaking from the perspective of owning the Gear S3 Frontier which allows me to make phone calls on the AT&T network independently of a phone. It perhaps may be a security nightmare, but then again so is Android itself. The Apple Watch is nice, but until Apple delivers on puttting an independent baseband radio into it, the device has little appeal for me. Samsung is the only manufacturer that has delivered a compelling wearable. LG and Huawei's Android Wear watches are atrocious designs.
Samsung has many advantages over Google and even Apple as they make a vast array of home appliances. Tizen is going to be the center of their IoT efforts. Google will not be playing in any of Samsung's products outside of the smartphone and there is coming a time when the flagship phone comes with Tizen and Android is relegated to a less capable model.
Apple should be working closely with Samsung's IoT efforts making iOS the preferred platform for integration.
I even have a great deal of respect for Amazon. And they are probably the fiercest Apple competitor of all. They have built a worthy competitor to iTunes and also to Siri. But they did not do it the way Google did with iOS. Amazon has no one sitting on the Apple board of directors like Schmidt who literally stole the iOS interface and design. Had Google not done that, Bing wouldn't be driving Siri's search results, there would be no Apple maps and YouTube would still be included as a default app. Google is slowly being choked off from the most profitable group of mobile users, those who use iOS. And now Samsung is attempting to do the same. And they won't stop until they best Google. It may take some time, but it will come. Back in the 90's the notion that Samsung and LG would be the premier consumer electronics companies over the likes of Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Sharp and the like seemed preposterous too. But it happened. Even the brainiacs from MIT gave Hyundai no chance against the Japanese, yet they now build vehicles with better technology than any Japanese nameplate.
Samsung is Apple's true competitor. Google is going to go by the wayside. It is just a matter of time. That being said, the two companies have far more to gain by collaborating than trying to wantonly compete. A Wintel type allliance would be best for both. And in doing so, Google can see their nightmare come true. Being locked out of the premier hardware systems. It was their worry with respect to Microsoft and now they are worried about Samsung also. Why else are they building the Pixel along with that half baked Home product. They lost that market too. To Amazon of all companies.
Apple and Samsung should work closely together on more than just OLED panels. Porting Apple maps, iChat, etc. over to Tizen would go a long ways in reducing Samsung's need for Android. Apple could also make use of Samsung's 3D flash memory product also. Toshiba's product is falling behind and Micron is overpriced.
Apple and Samsung could easily have a very amicable and collaborative relationship. Both make premier hardware. They both profit from making smartphones although Apple does take the vast majority of the profits. However, Samsung can take the profits Google now makes from the software side allowing Apple to keep what they are already making. Both companies could be quite profitable and keep the market divided between themselves much like Intel and Microsoft did in the 90's and early 2000's.
If the Google/Android fans don't like it, tough. Denial isn't going to change what is happening. Perhaps Google should start investing its billions into developing something worthwhile instead of stealing my personal data and selling it to advertisers. Tizen may be a coding disaster, but Samsung isn't stealing my data the same way Google would and blast me with targeted advertising. And the company does build the best components in the industry. So they can do something right. They just need to apply the same standards to their software as they do with their hardware. They need to hire a guy like Avie Tevanian. Seoul National University produces the among the best scientists and engineers on the planet. Many of them go straight to Samsung. They are quite capable. They only need capable leadership and guidance. Apple could and should help them there. Google provides virtually no value to Apple. Samsung is an entirely different matter.
I just watched the 2015 Chinese animated film 'The Autobots'. Released in hundreds of Chinese theatres. I've never seen anything like it! Truly, unique creative genius at work!
This year's Galaxy S8 has already suffered an embarrassment related to the fact that its face recognition feature for unlocking the phone could be tricked to unlock with a simple photo of the person who set it up."
If you read the comments in the article, you would know that this is NOT a security feature and been around in Android for years. Even a few years ago they already proved that it was not a security feature, and when activated the phone tells you it does not recommend you use it.
1) you're right it's not a security feature -- it's a security risk. allowing easily tricked device authentication is a security vulnerability. A flaw. Weakness.
2) you're saying it makes sense to offer a feature that the phone itself then tells you not to use? that's insanity. can you honestly imagine an iphone doing this? no. and that's why these crappy samsung phones are only knockoffs of the real thing.
Surprised nobody mentioned Portrait Mode on the iPhone 7 Plus which didn't come out until a month later.
However, Apple did specifically say it was coming later at the keynote (as opposed to Samsung showing Bixby and waiting almost 2 weeks before telling us it would be delayed).
This year's Galaxy S8 has already suffered an embarrassment related to the fact that its face recognition feature for unlocking the phone could be tricked to unlock with a simple photo of the person who set it up."
If you read the comments in the article, you would know that this is NOT a security feature and been around in Android for years. Even a few years ago they already proved that it was not a security feature, and when activated the phone tells you it does not recommend you use it.
This is but one example from this long article where facts get missed. Seems that is all that D "Fake News" ED can do.
Say what? Did you forget what Google did with Face Unlock after it was fooled by a picture? They added Liveness Check where you had to blink to "prove" you're not a picture.
It's beyond ridiculous that Samsung could have missed this given the publicity surrounding Face Unlock the first time it was fooled. Did they even test it with a picture when they were developing this? Shows how terrible Samsung is with software.
And why do we need 3 unlocking systems (face, iris, fingerprint)? Maybe they were thinking: "Google has 27 different messaging systems. We need to up our game and have multiple login methods."
It's probably worth noting that if VIV was worth buying, Apple would have bought it. The technical demonstration of VIV was impressive, but it didn't actually offer much more than what Apple would have probably been able to develop internally with Siri. (Context and new domains have already made their way into Siri, further enhancement is obvious.)
Also this is a good cautionary tale for other, more competent, manufacturers that an impressive, pre-planned presentation doesn't always translate to real world use.
A smart decision by Samsung - by releasing Bixby in its current state and disappointing users would have been a mistake. Samsung so desperately wants to lessen their huge dependence on Google software, but don't have the expertise to do it. Apple is getting close with their alternative offerings ... Apple Maps, Mail/Calendar, (Bing), Safari, Siri, Home Kit, Productivity apps... but still not yet the preferred choice or best in class in all of these categories.
I see what you did there. You're spinning an "embarrassing setback at a key moment for the company following the Note 7 fiasco" as a "smart decision by Samsung".
Another benefit to Samsung's heavily customized Android on their premium phones: you're not hassled by all these pesky OS updates and security fixes. Of course you always have the option to go third party ROM if you're willing to lose all the premium features and help the open source community in its QA efforts.
This year's Galaxy S8 has already suffered an embarrassment related to the fact that its face recognition feature for unlocking the phone could be tricked to unlock with a simple photo of the person who set it up."
If you read the comments in the article, you would know that this is NOT a security feature and been around in Android for years. Even a few years ago they already proved that it was not a security feature, and when activated the phone tells you it does not recommend you use it.
1) you're right it's not a security feature -- it's a security risk. allowing easily tricked device authentication is a security vulnerability. A flaw. Weakness.
2) you're saying it makes sense to offer a feature that the phone itself then tells you not to use? that's insanity. can you honestly imagine an iphone doing this? no. and that's why these crappy samsung phones are only knockoffs of the real thing.
It's not insanity. It's convenience.
By your logic we can conclude that any phone that allows you to use none of its security features, or very weak options (like guessable passcodes) is a security risk.
As for facial recognition, perhaps my only beef is that it is listed on the security page of Samsung's website. As long as warnings are on place, it isn't a problem, especially when the phone itself offers alternative methods (which aren't even available on the iPhone). And of course, even if you activate it, it cannot be used for payments.
I've asked this before but no one has dared comment. Should the iPhone force users to come up with strong passcodes? Should all SIMs ship with PINs? Should two factor security be an obligation?
Can you imagine the frustration for non tech users if their phones refused to accept their preferred codes because they were considered too weak? If you can imagine that, you can fully understand why Samsung offers the facial recognition feature but provides a warning when you activate it. It's convenience and it is up to the user to decide (after receiving the appropriate warnings) which level of security he or she requires, which for some phones IIRC, could even be no security at all.
Is that an option on the iPhone? I've never tried it but I know it will accept very poor strength passcodes.
If you claim that the mere existence of spoofable facial recognition is a security risk, then so is the existence of systems which allow for weak (or no) passcodes.
This year's Galaxy S8 has already suffered an embarrassment related to the fact that its face recognition feature for unlocking the phone could be tricked to unlock with a simple photo of the person who set it up."
If you read the comments in the article, you would know that this is NOT a security feature and been around in Android for years. Even a few years ago they already proved that it was not a security feature, and when activated the phone tells you it does not recommend you use it.
This is but one example from this long article where facts get missed. Seems that is all that D "Fake News" ED can do.
Say what? Did you forget what Google did with Face Unlock after it was fooled by a picture? They added Liveness Check where you had to blink to "prove" you're not a picture.
It's beyond ridiculous that Samsung could have missed this given the publicity surrounding Face Unlock the first time it was fooled. Did they even test it with a picture when they were developing this? Shows how terrible Samsung is with software.
And why do we need 3 unlocking systems (face, iris, fingerprint)? Maybe they were thinking: "Google has 27 different messaging systems. We need to up our game and have multiple login methods."
Security options depend on individuals' needs. The more we have to choose from, the better. IIRC, chemotherapy patients can have problematic prints. I'm sure there are multiple reasons why some people could prefer one option over another.
This year's Galaxy S8 has already suffered an embarrassment related to the fact that its face recognition feature for unlocking the phone could be tricked to unlock with a simple photo of the person who set it up."
If you read the comments in the article, you would know that this is NOT a security feature and been around in Android for years. Even a few years ago they already proved that it was not a security feature, and when activated the phone tells you it does not recommend you use it.
This is but one example from this long article where facts get missed. Seems that is all that D "Fake News" ED can do.
Say what? Did you forget what Google did with Face Unlock after it was fooled by a picture? They added Liveness Check where you had to blink to "prove" you're not a picture.
It's beyond ridiculous that Samsung could have missed this given the publicity surrounding Face Unlock the first time it was fooled. Did they even test it with a picture when they were developing this? Shows how terrible Samsung is with software.
And why do we need 3 unlocking systems (face, iris, fingerprint)? Maybe they were thinking: "Google has 27 different messaging systems. We need to up our game and have multiple login methods."
Security options depend on individuals' needs. The more we have to choose from, the better. IIRC, chemotherapy patients can have problematic prints. I'm sure there are multiple reasons why some people could prefer one option over another.
Nice apology for Samsung doing their usual "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks" method of developing products/features. Bonus points for trying to play the cancer angle to justify what is a stupid feature.
Comments
Apple produces tens of millions of smartphones each launch, for them to pull this off - the design, plans, procurement of components, communication and coordination of supply chain vendors need to all in place nearly a year prior. The unfortunate thing is - Apple relys on Samsung, their largest competitor for key components (displays, support chips) and Chinese based manufacturers for chip fabrication, production and assembly. These companies have the specs blueprints and the know-how in THEIR HANDS to make Apple products, and they have it way before customers even knows the product exists. It is quite easy for them to get products to market before the inventor of those products! If you don't think the Chinese government looks the other way, you are dead wrong. Modern 'Wars' between nations are not fought on battlefields (yet) but in the factories - those that control commerce become powerful nations. It's a matter of time before Apple's Ax chips will be copied as well.
If Bixby turns out to be quite useful, it will have the effect of blunting Google's assistant on the best Android product on the market. Most people have a tendency to just use what comes integrated into the device. It is better for Samsung to get it right than to put forth a half baked product on time. The Apple maps roll out needs not to be duplicated.
I understand the disdain and scorn for Google. The company is as bad as Microsoft was during their heady days of software dominance.
I don't understand the same thing directed at Samsung. They actually make very nice hardware. So much so that Apple used them to build the A series SOCs for a lot of years. Apple is now using them to build huge numbers of OLED panels. It is having serious repercussions for the rest of the Android OEMs who are losing out on the ability to produce high end smartphones with the technology, Google itself included in that.
Samsung's international phones also include the Exynos SOC which outperforms the QCOM equivalent with better battery life to boot. The Pixel uses the Snapdragon 821 exclusively. The Galaxy S8 will use the Snapdragon 835 for the US model and the Exynos 8895 for the international one. Though Samsung claims both versions will have equivalent performance, I suspect that battery life will be much better with the Exynos CPU.
And Tizen isn't half bad speaking from the perspective of owning the Gear S3 Frontier which allows me to make phone calls on the AT&T network independently of a phone. It perhaps may be a security nightmare, but then again so is Android itself. The Apple Watch is nice, but until Apple delivers on puttting an independent baseband radio into it, the device has little appeal for me. Samsung is the only manufacturer that has delivered a compelling wearable. LG and Huawei's Android Wear watches are atrocious designs.
Samsung has many advantages over Google and even Apple as they make a vast array of home appliances. Tizen is going to be the center of their IoT efforts. Google will not be playing in any of Samsung's products outside of the smartphone and there is coming a time when the flagship phone comes with Tizen and Android is relegated to a less capable model.
Apple should be working closely with Samsung's IoT efforts making iOS the preferred platform for integration.
I even have a great deal of respect for Amazon. And they are probably the fiercest Apple competitor of all. They have built a worthy competitor to iTunes and also to Siri. But they did not do it the way Google did with iOS. Amazon has no one sitting on the Apple board of directors like Schmidt who literally stole the iOS interface and design. Had Google not done that, Bing wouldn't be driving Siri's search results, there would be no Apple maps and YouTube would still be included as a default app. Google is slowly being choked off from the most profitable group of mobile users, those who use iOS. And now Samsung is attempting to do the same. And they won't stop until they best Google. It may take some time, but it will come. Back in the 90's the notion that Samsung and LG would be the premier consumer electronics companies over the likes of Sony, JVC, Panasonic, Sharp and the like seemed preposterous too. But it happened. Even the brainiacs from MIT gave Hyundai no chance against the Japanese, yet they now build vehicles with better technology than any Japanese nameplate.
Samsung is Apple's true competitor. Google is going to go by the wayside. It is just a matter of time. That being said, the two companies have far more to gain by collaborating than trying to wantonly compete. A Wintel type allliance would be best for both. And in doing so, Google can see their nightmare come true. Being locked out of the premier hardware systems. It was their worry with respect to Microsoft and now they are worried about Samsung also. Why else are they building the Pixel along with that half baked Home product. They lost that market too. To Amazon of all companies.
Apple and Samsung should work closely together on more than just OLED panels. Porting Apple maps, iChat, etc. over to Tizen would go a long ways in reducing Samsung's need for Android. Apple could also make use of Samsung's 3D flash memory product also. Toshiba's product is falling behind and Micron is overpriced.
Apple and Samsung could easily have a very amicable and collaborative relationship. Both make premier hardware. They both profit from making smartphones although Apple does take the vast majority of the profits. However, Samsung can take the profits Google now makes from the software side allowing Apple to keep what they are already making. Both companies could be quite profitable and keep the market divided between themselves much like Intel and Microsoft did in the 90's and early 2000's.
If the Google/Android fans don't like it, tough. Denial isn't going to change what is happening. Perhaps Google should start investing its billions into developing something worthwhile instead of stealing my personal data and selling it to advertisers. Tizen may be a coding disaster, but Samsung isn't stealing my data the same way Google would and blast me with targeted advertising. And the company does build the best components in the industry. So they can do something right. They just need to apply the same standards to their software as they do with their hardware. They need to hire a guy like Avie Tevanian. Seoul National University produces the among the best scientists and engineers on the planet. Many of them go straight to Samsung. They are quite capable. They only need capable leadership and guidance. Apple could and should help them there. Google provides virtually no value to Apple. Samsung is an entirely different matter.
2) you're saying it makes sense to offer a feature that the phone itself then tells you not to use? that's insanity. can you honestly imagine an iphone doing this? no. and that's why these crappy samsung phones are only knockoffs of the real thing.
But nice try suggesting they're worried. FUD.
Say what? Did you forget what Google did with Face Unlock after it was fooled by a picture? They added Liveness Check where you had to blink to "prove" you're not a picture.
It's beyond ridiculous that Samsung could have missed this given the publicity surrounding Face Unlock the first time it was fooled. Did they even test it with a picture when they were developing this? Shows how terrible Samsung is with software.
And why do we need 3 unlocking systems (face, iris, fingerprint)? Maybe they were thinking: "Google has 27 different messaging systems. We need to up our game and have multiple login methods."
If you saw the report on the security (or rather the lack thereof) of Tizen then you would not say that.
Tizen is a security nightmare.
Well played.
By your logic we can conclude that any phone that allows you to use none of its security features, or very weak options (like guessable passcodes) is a security risk.
As for facial recognition, perhaps my only beef is that it is listed on the security page of Samsung's website. As long as warnings are on place, it isn't a problem, especially when the phone itself offers alternative methods (which aren't even available on the iPhone). And of course, even if you activate it, it cannot be used for payments.
I've asked this before but no one has dared comment. Should the iPhone force users to come up with strong passcodes? Should all SIMs ship with PINs? Should two factor security be an obligation?
Can you imagine the frustration for non tech users if their phones refused to accept their preferred codes because they were considered too weak? If you can imagine that, you can fully understand why Samsung offers the facial recognition feature but provides a warning when you activate it. It's convenience and it is up to the user to decide (after receiving the appropriate warnings) which level of security he or she requires, which for some phones IIRC, could even be no security at all.
Is that an option on the iPhone? I've never tried it but I know it will accept very poor strength passcodes.
If you claim that the mere existence of spoofable facial recognition is a security risk, then so is the existence of systems which allow for weak (or no) passcodes.
Nice apology for Samsung doing their usual "throw everything at the wall to see what sticks" method of developing products/features. Bonus points for trying to play the cancer angle to justify what is a stupid feature.