Leaked iOS 11 GM confirms 'iPhone 8' 'Face ID' facial detection, revamped AirPods, more

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    Rayz2016 said:
    Wait…

    They put the charging light INSIDE the box?

    Isn't that a bit like putting the timer  INSIDE the oven?
    Not really, no, because every time you open it up to remove the airpods you instantly see the charge indicator which lets me know if it will last the workout, etc. For exact ready hold near phone or swipe to battery widget. Charging takes very little time so you plug it in and forget about it for 5-60 minutes (5 to charge the airpods for a workout, or 60 to charge the case for days)
  • Reply 22 of 35
    I don't mind Face ID, but it doesn't sound as secure as Touch ID, so I would be surprised if all the banks were still willing to trust the iPhones. Where are the facial feature data stored? In the same secure enclave as the fingerprint? Which versions of Apple phone and iPad hardware will be able to use Face ID? Will older hardware without Touch ID be able to use Face ID? If so, how is the secure enclave implemented in them since they don't have secure enclave hardware? So many questions.
    Yeah, Apple didn’t think of that and talk to the banks first. How would they possibly have thought about how this would affect one of their fastest growing services with Apple Pay. /s
  • Reply 23 of 35

    Rayz2016 said:
    Wait…

    They put the charging light INSIDE the box?

    Isn't that a bit like putting the timer  INSIDE the oven?



    Not really since I never use the light to check. I look at the battery legged indicator on my phone.
  • Reply 24 of 35

    mattinoz said:
    Don't want to set anyone's expectations high but could the redesigned Airpods with built in charging led be an indication the airpods will be included with some iphones and apple found a way to leave the charging case out as a cost saving trade off. That will explain the led on the AirPods itself. 
    The charging LED in question is not on the AirPods themselves, but in the AirPod charging case.  The LeD is being moved from the inside of the case to its outside, presumably so that a user could determine the charge status without opening the top of the case.
    They should change to a plastic hinge as well. I keep trying to open the shiny side.

    I'd rather have a super durable hinge and let you try to open the wrong side. 
    Lmao agreed 
  • Reply 25 of 35
    wigbywigby Posts: 692member
    Don't want to set anyone's expectations high but could the redesigned Airpods with built in charging led be an indication the airpods will be included with some iphones and apple found a way to leave the charging case out as a cost saving trade off. That will explain the led on the AirPods itself. 
    Read closer. Charging LED on case in both older and newer versions, not the AirPods themselves.
  • Reply 26 of 35
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    Soli said:
    As I made the case over the past 12 months, Apple would not call a system designed to identify/authenticate a person by their face 'facial recognition.'  Apple will use the correct term, Face Recognition, thus FaceID.   If Apple uses the term facial recognition, which they might, it'll be in context of creating avatars that mimic the facial expressions of a user.  Facial recognition is a wholly inappropriate term to describe the process of authenticating a person by their face, though it might be a subset of that process.
    As I've stated before, you're missing the point when it comes to marketing. Apple choose Touch ID for a system where you're touching a sensor to read your fingerprint, so it would make sense that they would choose Face ID for one that reads your face. The argument about whether it's technically face recognition v facial recognition has absolutely zero to do with the marketing department.
    Yeah, maybe that's the case with respect to mapping the technical details to marketing but my point has always been, until today's comment, about the technology.  I still say Apple, on stage, if they delve into any description of the technology, the way they did with Truetone, with Retina display tech, with the milling of the Apple Watch cases, etc, will use the correct technical term in each context.  Face recognition for face-based authentication, facial recognition for mapping facial features to an Avatar, and possibly for use as a step in the face recognition process (face recognition algorithms can benefit from knowing the angle of a face in a captured image and also from what expression exists on the face in a captured image).  But facial recognition, by itself, does not include the Fourier transforms, blurring algorithms, eigenfaces and other tools used in identifying the owner of an imaged face.  
    The terms face/facial in English are interchangeable because facial just means pertaining to the face. The face is the noun and the subject. The distinguishing element is the verb, which follows. The verb is either detection or recognition/identification. So the phrases should be face/facial detection or face/facial recognition/identification. It may be a custom in the field to use face/facial as separate descriptors but that would be an arbitrary choice. The distinction is between what you are doing to the face, whether it's detecting the shape or identifying the person, which are actions/verbs. I wouldn't expect Apple to use facial much in either case for branding because of the other meanings associated with it (sexual, skin care). If there was to be a phrase for the object detection, they could use Face Detect and for identification/recognition, Face ID.
    lorin schultz
  • Reply 27 of 35
    Soli said:
    As I made the case over the past 12 months, Apple would not call a system designed to identify/authenticate a person by their face 'facial recognition.'  Apple will use the correct term, Face Recognition, thus FaceID.   If Apple uses the term facial recognition, which they might, it'll be in context of creating avatars that mimic the facial expressions of a user.  Facial recognition is a wholly inappropriate term to describe the process of authenticating a person by their face, though it might be a subset of that process.
    As I've stated before, you're missing the point when it comes to marketing. Apple choose Touch ID for a system where you're touching a sensor to read your fingerprint, so it would make sense that they would choose Face ID for one that reads your face. The argument about whether it's technically face recognition v facial recognition has absolutely zero to do with the marketing department.
    Yeah, maybe that's the case with respect to mapping the technical details to marketing but my point has always been, until today's comment, about the technology.  I still say Apple, on stage, if they delve into any description of the technology, the way they did with Truetone, with Retina display tech, with the milling of the Apple Watch cases, etc, will use the correct technical term in each context.  Face recognition for face-based authentication, facial recognition for mapping facial features to an Avatar, and possibly for use as a step in the face recognition process (face recognition algorithms can benefit from knowing the angle of a face in a captured image and also from what expression exists on the face in a captured image).  But facial recognition, by itself, does not include the Fourier transforms, blurring algorithms, eigenfaces and other tools used in identifying the owner of an imaged face.  
    Yes, you are right.

    Facial = face + superficial. As proven by Samsung, such method can be fooled by a static photo because it only recognised face superficially.

    OTOH, face recognition is more tchnically details, involves in more mapping computational instead of just how you look like. It utilize array of sensors which makes it a lot more secure even to fingerprint. In biometric security, face recognition holds the highest point compare to all other bio methods, but also the most difficult to make it right and the most expensive to implement. Until last year, only Airport and goverment buildings implement face recognition, but this year everyone of us may have that in our hand.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 28 of 35
    I don't mind Face ID, but it doesn't sound as secure as Touch ID, so I would be surprised if all the banks were still willing to trust the iPhones. Where are the facial feature data stored? In the same secure enclave as the fingerprint? Which versions of Apple phone and iPad hardware will be able to use Face ID? Will older hardware without Touch ID be able to use Face ID? If so, how is the secure enclave implemented in them since they don't have secure enclave hardware? So many questions.
    And it should be pointed out that both your "touch" and your "face" can be used to compel you to open your phone if law enforcement insists. If you just leave the unlock feature a password/code you cannot be legally compelled to unlock your phone.
  • Reply 29 of 35
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    As I made the case over the past 12 months, Apple would not call a system designed to identify/authenticate a person by their face 'facial recognition.'  Apple will use the correct term, Face Recognition, thus FaceID.   If Apple uses the term facial recognition, which they might, it'll be in context of creating avatars that mimic the facial expressions of a user.  Facial recognition is a wholly inappropriate term to describe the process of authenticating a person by their face, though it might be a subset of that process.
    As I've stated before, you're missing the point when it comes to marketing. Apple choose Touch ID for a system where you're touching a sensor to read your fingerprint, so it would make sense that they would choose Face ID for one that reads your face. The argument about whether it's technically face recognition v facial recognition has absolutely zero to do with the marketing department.
    Yeah, maybe that's the case with respect to mapping the technical details to marketing but my point has always been, until today's comment, about the technology.  I still say Apple, on stage, if they delve into any description of the technology, the way they did with Truetone, with Retina display tech, with the milling of the Apple Watch cases, etc, will use the correct technical term in each context.  Face recognition for face-based authentication, facial recognition for mapping facial features to an Avatar, and possibly for use as a step in the face recognition process (face recognition algorithms can benefit from knowing the angle of a face in a captured image and also from what expression exists on the face in a captured image).  But facial recognition, by itself, does not include the Fourier transforms, blurring algorithms, eigenfaces and other tools used in identifying the owner of an imaged face.  
    The terms face/facial in English are interchangeable because facial just means pertaining to the face. The face is the noun and the subject. The distinguishing element is the verb, which follows. The verb is either detection or recognition/identification. So the phrases should be face/facial detection or face/facial recognition/identification. It may be a custom in the field to use face/facial as separate descriptors but that would be an arbitrary choice. The distinction is between what you are doing to the face, whether it's detecting the shape or identifying the person, which are actions/verbs. I wouldn't expect Apple to use facial much in either case for branding because of the other meanings associated with it (sexual, skin care). If there was to be a phrase for the object detection, they could use Face Detect and for identification/recognition, Face ID.
    My argument has never been about the meaning of the words but rather the terms used in the research and scientific community.  The two terms represent very specific, and different, technical capabilities.  The only reason to use them interchangeably or to use the incorrect term is the reason AI has previously provided; facial recognition has become the term widely [mis]used and therefore the term people are likely to search.  My contention all along has been that Apple, on stage in a presentation that you just know with be carefully scripted and reviewed by not just their marketing folks but also by their technical folks, will use the appropriate term in each context.  Whether the press picks up this subtlety is anyone's guess, but after Sept 12 there will be two separate capabilities on the iPhone X that will imply use of two separate terms when describing them technically, as is often covered by a site like APple Insider.  It'll become confusing, or at least less clear, if facial recognition is the term used to describe both the avatar mapping capability (appropriate use) and authentication (inappropriate use).  The latter is a function of face recognition technology.
    edited September 2017 beowulfschmidt
  • Reply 30 of 35
    I wonder what they would call it if the you had to physically press your face to the phone in order to unlock it... 🤔  FaceTouch ID? 😉
  • Reply 31 of 35
    Hope the airpods come with an external speaker on the case so I can find them with my watch. Something so personal as airpods shouldn't be so hard to misplace. 
  • Reply 32 of 35
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    I wonder what they would call it if the you had to physically press your face to the phone in order to unlock it... 🤔  FaceTouch ID? 😉
    FacePlantID
  • Reply 33 of 35
    ksec said:
    Thanks for killing all the remaining excitement Apple. The amount of leaks coming from Apple's own faults and software is getting fxxking ridiculous.
    My guess is Apple is taking a pragmatic view at this point.  The reason for their secrecy is two-fold.  Primarily to prevent competition from fast following, and secondarily to minimize consumers delaying purchases prior to a new release.  But both those goals become far less of an issue a couple weeks out from the introduction.  Samsung, for example, already designed and introduced its Note 8, and Galaxy 8 back in the spring.  Letting a few bits of information dribble out at this point won't change much.  But why do so at all?  I suspect it's simply a matter of not wanting to continue masking resources in the operation system and development kits.  That could be error prone, and Apple would want a truly gold master of these things this close to release.
    All true...   But there may be another reason as well:  Management of Expectations:
    As an IT consultant one of the things I was trained in was the management of expectations.   What we were told was:  "It doesn't matter how well you do.  It could be near perfect.  But, if it doesn't meet the customer's expectations, you will be perceived to have failed".

    Apple was fast approaching that line where its customer's were expecting miracles from every new roll-out.  These 'leaks' and hints may be more to manage expectations than anything else.  What's left are not the major, headline  grabbing innovations but the details (which is actually where modern day Apple excels).
    radarthekat
  • Reply 34 of 35
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,309moderator
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    As I made the case over the past 12 months, Apple would not call a system designed to identify/authenticate a person by their face 'facial recognition.'  Apple will use the correct term, Face Recognition, thus FaceID.   If Apple uses the term facial recognition, which they might, it'll be in context of creating avatars that mimic the facial expressions of a user.  Facial recognition is a wholly inappropriate term to describe the process of authenticating a person by their face, though it might be a subset of that process.
    As I've stated before, you're missing the point when it comes to marketing. Apple choose Touch ID for a system where you're touching a sensor to read your fingerprint, so it would make sense that they would choose Face ID for one that reads your face. The argument about whether it's technically face recognition v facial recognition has absolutely zero to do with the marketing department.
    Yeah, maybe that's the case with respect to mapping the technical details to marketing but my point has always been, until today's comment, about the technology.  I still say Apple, on stage, if they delve into any description of the technology, the way they did with Truetone, with Retina display tech, with the milling of the Apple Watch cases, etc, will use the correct technical term in each context.  Face recognition for face-based authentication, facial recognition for mapping facial features to an Avatar, and possibly for use as a step in the face recognition process (face recognition algorithms can benefit from knowing the angle of a face in a captured image and also from what expression exists on the face in a captured image).  But facial recognition, by itself, does not include the Fourier transforms, blurring algorithms, eigenfaces and other tools used in identifying the owner of an imaged face.  
    The terms face/facial in English are interchangeable because facial just means pertaining to the face. The face is the noun and the subject. The distinguishing element is the verb, which follows. The verb is either detection or recognition/identification. So the phrases should be face/facial detection or face/facial recognition/identification. It may be a custom in the field to use face/facial as separate descriptors but that would be an arbitrary choice. The distinction is between what you are doing to the face, whether it's detecting the shape or identifying the person, which are actions/verbs. I wouldn't expect Apple to use facial much in either case for branding because of the other meanings associated with it (sexual, skin care). If there was to be a phrase for the object detection, they could use Face Detect and for identification/recognition, Face ID.
    My argument has never been about the meaning of the words but rather the terms used in the research and scientific community.  The two terms represent very specific, and different, technical capabilities.  The only reason to use them interchangeably or to use the incorrect term is the reason AI has previously provided; facial recognition has become the term widely [mis]used and therefore the term people are likely to search.  My contention all along has been that Apple, on stage in a presentation that you just know with be carefully scripted and reviewed by not just their marketing folks but also by their technical folks, will use the appropriate term in each context.  Whether the press picks up this subtlety is anyone's guess, but after Sept 12 there will be two separate capabilities on the iPhone X that will imply use of two separate terms when describing them technically, as is often covered by a site like APple Insider.  It'll become confusing, or at least less clear, if facial recognition is the term used to describe both the avatar mapping capability (appropriate use) and authentication (inappropriate use).  The latter is a function of face recognition technology.
    Apple's patent uses face/facial recognition interchangeably in the text for identification:

    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=22&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(apple.AANM.+AND+20170316.PD.)&OS=aanm/apple+and+pd/3/16/2017&RS=(AANM/apple+AND+PD/20170316)

    In the case of avatar mapping, the verb would be better being changed. Recognition would be applied to the facial expression rather than identity. The word facial would be more appropriate only because you wouldn't say face expression, you'd say facial expression. When identifying a face, you wouldn't say whose facial is this, you'd say whose face is this. The separate words just fit better for their contexts but they aren't distinct in meaning, which will cause some confusion. Having actually distinct terms would be best e.g detection (is this a face?), classification (what expression/shape does the face have?), recognition/identification (whose face is it?).
    edited September 2017 gatorguy
  • Reply 35 of 35
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    Marvin said:
    Marvin said:
    Soli said:
    As I made the case over the past 12 months, Apple would not call a system designed to identify/authenticate a person by their face 'facial recognition.'  Apple will use the correct term, Face Recognition, thus FaceID.   If Apple uses the term facial recognition, which they might, it'll be in context of creating avatars that mimic the facial expressions of a user.  Facial recognition is a wholly inappropriate term to describe the process of authenticating a person by their face, though it might be a subset of that process.
    As I've stated before, you're missing the point when it comes to marketing. Apple choose Touch ID for a system where you're touching a sensor to read your fingerprint, so it would make sense that they would choose Face ID for one that reads your face. The argument about whether it's technically face recognition v facial recognition has absolutely zero to do with the marketing department.
    Yeah, maybe that's the case with respect to mapping the technical details to marketing but my point has always been, until today's comment, about the technology.  I still say Apple, on stage, if they delve into any description of the technology, the way they did with Truetone, with Retina display tech, with the milling of the Apple Watch cases, etc, will use the correct technical term in each context.  Face recognition for face-based authentication, facial recognition for mapping facial features to an Avatar, and possibly for use as a step in the face recognition process (face recognition algorithms can benefit from knowing the angle of a face in a captured image and also from what expression exists on the face in a captured image).  But facial recognition, by itself, does not include the Fourier transforms, blurring algorithms, eigenfaces and other tools used in identifying the owner of an imaged face.  
    The terms face/facial in English are interchangeable because facial just means pertaining to the face. The face is the noun and the subject. The distinguishing element is the verb, which follows. The verb is either detection or recognition/identification. So the phrases should be face/facial detection or face/facial recognition/identification. It may be a custom in the field to use face/facial as separate descriptors but that would be an arbitrary choice. The distinction is between what you are doing to the face, whether it's detecting the shape or identifying the person, which are actions/verbs. I wouldn't expect Apple to use facial much in either case for branding because of the other meanings associated with it (sexual, skin care). If there was to be a phrase for the object detection, they could use Face Detect and for identification/recognition, Face ID.
    My argument has never been about the meaning of the words but rather the terms used in the research and scientific community.  The two terms represent very specific, and different, technical capabilities.  The only reason to use them interchangeably or to use the incorrect term is the reason AI has previously provided; facial recognition has become the term widely [mis]used and therefore the term people are likely to search.  My contention all along has been that Apple, on stage in a presentation that you just know with be carefully scripted and reviewed by not just their marketing folks but also by their technical folks, will use the appropriate term in each context.  Whether the press picks up this subtlety is anyone's guess, but after Sept 12 there will be two separate capabilities on the iPhone X that will imply use of two separate terms when describing them technically, as is often covered by a site like APple Insider.  It'll become confusing, or at least less clear, if facial recognition is the term used to describe both the avatar mapping capability (appropriate use) and authentication (inappropriate use).  The latter is a function of face recognition technology.
    Apple's patent uses face/facial recognition interchangeably in the text for identification:

    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=22&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=(apple.AANM.+AND+20170316.PD.)&OS=aanm/apple+and+pd/3/16/2017&RS=(AANM/apple+AND+PD/20170316)

    In the case of avatar mapping, the verb would be better being changed. Recognition would be applied to the facial expression rather than identity. The word facial would be more appropriate only because you wouldn't say face expression, you'd say facial expression. When identifying a face, you wouldn't say whose facial is this, you'd say whose face is this. The separate words just fit better for their contexts but they aren't distinct in meaning, which will cause some confusion. Having actually distinct terms would be best e.g detection (is this a face?), classification (what expression/shape does the face have?), recognition/identification (whose face is it?).
    "In the case of..."   he technical and scientific community rarely commits the error of using the terms interchangeably or swapping than.  I saw exactly one technical paper out of many dozens where this occurred; where facial recognition was used in describing the process of face recognition.  That Apple may have committed this error in a patent application surprises me.  But we'll see in a couple days whether they make the mistake on stage, should they delve into the tech details of each context; authentication (face recognition) versus avatar mapping and other uses of facial recognition. 
Sign In or Register to comment.