I'm not a fan of any facial-recognition to unlock/control a phone. I ride a motorcycle every day and I'm curious how it will work while I'm still wearing my helmet. For
For non-visor, probably not an issue. For a visor style, that's a bit more iffy. Depends on what percentage of the face needs to still be visible to work. They did show people wearing hats, glasses, and scarves etc., so I suppose there's a chance that you could raise the visor and still get it to work.
I was thinking the same, but I can never open my iPhone with my gloves anyway. So if I have to stop anyway to take a glove off, I might as well type in my code.
I'm not a fan of any facial-recognition to unlock/control a phone. I ride a motorcycle every day and I'm curious how it will work while I'm still wearing my helmet. For
For non-visor, probably not an issue. For a visor style, that's a bit more iffy. Depends on what percentage of the face needs to still be visible to work. They did show people wearing hats, glasses, and scarves etc., so I suppose there's a chance that you could raise the visor and still get it to work.
I was thinking the same, but I can never open my iPhone with my gloves anyway. So if I have to stop anyway to take a glove off, I might as well type in my code.
Motorcycle riding is dangerous enough with 80%+ of accidents caused by the other driver. So what kind of moron tries to unlock and use their phone while riding a motorcycle? Automatic jail time should be required.
My son and many of his friends use helmet comms to take calls, get directions via voice, that type of thing. Yeah they use their phones while riding, and it's common.
Well your son and his friends are idiots. No one should be unlocking their phones when they are riding/driving. That's just dumb.
You've very obviously never owned a motorcycle.
Doesn’t make it right. No more right than the jerks who text while driving.
Doesn't make what right Mel? It's handsfree, no different than using it in your car. I believe you're another commenter not familiar with the comm systems used by motorcyclists.
I'm guessing the FaceID will be popular with law enforcement. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug.
Were you listening to the presentation? You need to have your eyes open for it to work. They can’t force you to do that. Besides, I just can’t understand what it is that some people are so concerned about with that. What are you planning to do that this would be a problem? Should we be reporting you to the FBI?
Yes actually, with the appropriate legal justification, i.e. immediate probable cause or a warrant, they can force you to open your eyes and unlock your phone with your face, just as they can force you to use your finger to unlock it.
What they cannot do, even with a warrant, is force you to speak your password/passcode; it's a Fifth Amendment thing.
Though with a warrant, they can still legally try to crack your phone themselves, and if they succeed, their access is completely legal.
Yes, with proper legal authorization. But you’re wrong about the password. There has already been a case where the judge required the password be given. What we don’t know, is whether that will become a precedent, or a one off.
cracking your phone is the other thing that people don’t want to talk about. But in an earlier post, I pointed out that in a border situation where you turn off biometric security, and refuse to give your password, or open the phone yourself, they can take your phone for, what is now, an unspecified time, and open it themselves. That’s worse.
and, again, right now, we’re granted some amount of security by the government, but that doesn’t mean it will last forever. The EU is pursuing a law that makes it illegal for manufacturers to produces devices that law enforcement can’t get into. The UK, which looks to be leaving the EU, is also looking into that. Will China and Russia be far behind if that happens? What other countries will follow? Would we be out of it, or would we do it here too? We have elements in this country that consider privacy to be dangerous.
this is why I think people are going too far with this. If law enforcement can’t crack some major cases, particularly if it involves terrorism of the right, left or whatever, the public will decide that these locked phones have to go, and that would be worse.
A person cannot be compelled to provide their password, Mel. The Supreme Court has ruled that out.
Fingerprints and faces are not similarly protected.
If you have a link to a specific case in which a person was forced to provide a password, I'd like to see that because it would ostensibly be a clear cut case of their fifth amendment right being violated.
I'm guessing the FaceID will be popular with law enforcement. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug.
Were you listening to the presentation? You need to have your eyes open for it to work. They can’t force you to do that. Besides, I just can’t understand what it is that some people are so concerned about with that. What are you planning to do that this would be a problem? Should we be reporting you to the FBI?
This is potentially non-trivial when you're crossing borders and you're a business traveler. If customs or immigration forces you to unlock it, they can view anything, including your emails, texts, phone call logs, etc., and there may be confidential company material, secrets, plans, IP, etc. With TouchID you can just avoid setting it up, and say that you forgot your password (or some such thing).
What I’ve read about a border check of your phone is that they can have the right to take your phone from you, and keep it for some time if you don’t comply. If so, will most people allow the phone check, with them there to watch, or would they prefer the agent to take the phone from them, and possibly have the FBI open it for them, looking at everything, and doing who knows what in your network at home as well, through your device. I would also imagine that if you used find your phone to lock it, or to wipe it, you would end up in even more trouble.
people have to understand this before they make a rash decision. So I don’t know if it’s a serious thing to say no in those situations. Several judges have already said that no biometric security pops up the fifth amendment, and there has been at least one case where the judge said that the password needed to be given too.
so,where does all of this stand?
Actually to be more specific here, Board Patrols or ICE are not police they are an agency and thus not subject to the same standard as Police are held to, they can violate your rights since they can not arrest you, they can detain you and then get someone like the FBI or police to arrest you. These agency are enforcing Agency or Federal rules in many case there is no due process. There are many example of DEA raiding a house tearing it apart only to realize they had the wrong house and owners had no recourse. Welcome to the world of Federal Agencies. As yourself what the Fed sent the ATF into Wako or Ruby Ridge when they want to get those people.
Oh, hitting the wrong house happens with regular police forces as well, and they don’t have to pay damages either.
I'm not a fan of any facial-recognition to unlock/control a phone. I ride a motorcycle every day and I'm curious how it will work while I'm still wearing my helmet. For
For non-visor, probably not an issue. For a visor style, that's a bit more iffy. Depends on what percentage of the face needs to still be visible to work. They did show people wearing hats, glasses, and scarves etc., so I suppose there's a chance that you could raise the visor and still get it to work.
I was thinking the same, but I can never open my iPhone with my gloves anyway. So if I have to stop anyway to take a glove off, I might as well type in my code.
I'm not a fan of any facial-recognition to unlock/control a phone. I ride a motorcycle every day and I'm curious how it will work while I'm still wearing my helmet. For
For non-visor, probably not an issue. For a visor style, that's a bit more iffy. Depends on what percentage of the face needs to still be visible to work. They did show people wearing hats, glasses, and scarves etc., so I suppose there's a chance that you could raise the visor and still get it to work.
I was thinking the same, but I can never open my iPhone with my gloves anyway. So if I have to stop anyway to take a glove off, I might as well type in my code.
Motorcycle riding is dangerous enough with 80%+ of accidents caused by the other driver. So what kind of moron tries to unlock and use their phone while riding a motorcycle? Automatic jail time should be required.
My son and many of his friends use helmet comms to take calls, get directions via voice, that type of thing. Yeah they use their phones while riding, and it's common.
Well your son and his friends are idiots. No one should be unlocking their phones when they are riding/driving. That's just dumb.
You've very obviously never owned a motorcycle.
Doesn’t make it right. No more right than the jerks who text while driving.
Doesn't make what right Mel? It's handsfree, no different than using it in your car. I believe you're another commenter not familiar with the comm systems used by motorcyclists.
Yeah, I’m familiar. Hands free or not, it’s more dangerous on a cycle than in a car, where handsfree has been shown to be just as dangerous as being intoxicated.
I'm guessing the FaceID will be popular with law enforcement. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug.
Were you listening to the presentation? You need to have your eyes open for it to work. They can’t force you to do that. Besides, I just can’t understand what it is that some people are so concerned about with that. What are you planning to do that this would be a problem? Should we be reporting you to the FBI?
Yes actually, with the appropriate legal justification, i.e. immediate probable cause or a warrant, they can force you to open your eyes and unlock your phone with your face, just as they can force you to use your finger to unlock it.
What they cannot do, even with a warrant, is force you to speak your password/passcode; it's a Fifth Amendment thing.
Though with a warrant, they can still legally try to crack your phone themselves, and if they succeed, their access is completely legal.
Yes, with proper legal authorization. But you’re wrong about the password. There has already been a case where the judge required the password be given. What we don’t know, is whether that will become a precedent, or a one off.
cracking your phone is the other thing that people don’t want to talk about. But in an earlier post, I pointed out that in a border situation where you turn off biometric security, and refuse to give your password, or open the phone yourself, they can take your phone for, what is now, an unspecified time, and open it themselves. That’s worse.
and, again, right now, we’re granted some amount of security by the government, but that doesn’t mean it will last forever. The EU is pursuing a law that makes it illegal for manufacturers to produces devices that law enforcement can’t get into. The UK, which looks to be leaving the EU, is also looking into that. Will China and Russia be far behind if that happens? What other countries will follow? Would we be out of it, or would we do it here too? We have elements in this country that consider privacy to be dangerous.
this is why I think people are going too far with this. If law enforcement can’t crack some major cases, particularly if it involves terrorism of the right, left or whatever, the public will decide that these locked phones have to go, and that would be worse.
A person cannot be compelled to provide their password, Mel. The Supreme Court has ruled that out.
Fingerprints and faces are not similarly protected.
If you have a link to a specific case in which a person was forced to provide a password, I'd like to see that because it would ostensibly be a clear cut case of their fifth amendment right being violated.
Not so simple. You could have easily found this yourself.
Wow, this from CNN. Seems some are beginning to shift to the correct terminology. I'm impressed. Maybe the tech sites will review the terms too as it becomes apparent the differing contexts the two terms - face recognition versus facial recognition - apply to.
could you explain the difference?
I don't know what's the big deal between face and facial
Face recognition is the term used to describe the process of identifying a specific person, such as from a database of known persons (no fly list, for example). This is face recognition.
There's also face detection, which is the process of detecting the elements of a human face within a scene. This is typically a precursor to application of face recognition algorithms, used to identify the owner of a face in a scene.
Then there's facial recognition, which is the process of detecting specific facial expressions (smiling, frowning, sadness, etc). This term is often used in the medical world to characterize specific inabilities of patients to recognize meaning in human faces. Or, I suppose, one could use the term facial recognition to mean the detection of someone who has recently come from a spa treatment appointment. (Kidding.)
This whole misunderstanding of the terms is what's causing the debate over biometric identification/authentication. FACIAL recognition is not FACE recognition. It can be used as a step in a face recognition process, but facial recognition is simply the process of identifying each feature of a face; eyes, nose, mouth, smiling, frowning, etc, but not used to determine whose face it is.
Facial recognition returns the result, here is the mouth and it is smilin,' which is useful to map that feature onto the face of an avatar or game character, or useful in mapping an overlay onto the person's actual face, ala Snapchat. But facial recognition does NOT return the result, 'this is Phil Schiller's face.' That biometric identification step is done by a method called face recognition. I know, I know, they sound the same. But facial recognition and face recognition, and face detection, are all three different things. Apple's acquisition of Faceshift and others suggests Apple will be employing facial recognition for AR apps, NOT for biometric identification. Face recognition, as stated by Phil Schiller at 1:29:40... in the event, is the correct term to describe what's happening no behind FaceID.
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
They don't need "help" to hide it, they could've just made that part of the screen black, easily, and "hid" it. That's it. They didn't, meaning they tried it and didn't like it, and you know they tried it. Go ask Alan Dye why not.
I don’t know that they tried it. But if they prefer the notch to making that part of the screen black then I question who’s making the decisions here. Ben Bajarin who is about as pro Apple as anyone said he hopes developers don’t embrace the notch. John Gruber said the notch (especially in landscape mode) looks “goofy”. I hope Apple does some PR around this and explains their thinking behind it. I’d like to know. Also while I think the animated emoji look cool and will be a hit with certain demographics it is odd that Apple chose it as one of the main selling features of a $1000 phone. Does Apple really think parents are going to be shelling out $1000 to buy their teenage kids the X? I can’t see adults using this feature much.
People always have problems with new design language when it first comes out. Remember all the hand wringing about Airpod design?
Its the same with the notch. After a while you won't notice it at all.
I think you are wrong about the Animoji. Everyone who I spoke to who are NOT kids/teenagers absolutely love the feature.
I work with a broad mix of ages, from 23 to 60. No one I spoke with gives one crap about animoji's. It's a bar trick that won't be used after the first day.
I doubt they’re right. Animoji are already popular on a number of gaming networks that have them.
Don't think in terms of silly animated characters.
Here's another cool application. Set those silly animated emojis aside and think in terms of Facetune and other apps that allow a person to whiten their teeth and cover over blemishes. Now imagine being able to run through that process and instead of resulting in a cleaned up static image, you get a set of rules to apply to your face in realtime. So now when you FaceTime or go on a video chat in FB Messenger or any other app, your face is tuned up to look its best.
Imagine having at your disposal not just the Snapchat or FB Messenger masks, but professional clothing, suit and tie for a man for example, automatically layered onto your image. Now you can dress appropriately for business video conference calls you take from home, while actually wearing casual clothing.
A bit of imagination can surface unlimited potential.
To me, the big news was the AWatch. Form factors have points of optimization. Seems to me, smartphones are pretty much there. iPhone probably won't look much different in 5 years time, but functionality will continue to explode. Tbe notch doesn't bother me at all. I like to know which end is up.
Top selling watch? Wow. LTE? Wow. This is a space ripe for more features and massive, perhaps even smartphone replacing sales.
That's what I got from today's event.
"I like to know which end is up." Me too, kind'a tired of that rubber band around the lower half of my AppleTV remote.
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
They don't need "help" to hide it, they could've just made that part of the screen black, easily, and "hid" it. That's it. They didn't, meaning they tried it and didn't like it, and you know they tried it. Go ask Alan Dye why not.
I don’t know that they tried it. But if they prefer the notch to making that part of the screen black then I question who’s making the decisions here. Ben Bajarin who is about as pro Apple as anyone said he hopes developers don’t embrace the notch. John Gruber said the notch (especially in landscape mode) looks “goofy”. I hope Apple does some PR around this and explains their thinking behind it. I’d like to know. Also while I think the animated emoji look cool and will be a hit with certain demographics it is odd that Apple chose it as one of the main selling features of a $1000 phone. Does Apple really think parents are going to be shelling out $1000 to buy their teenage kids the X? I can’t see adults using this feature much.
Of course they tried it. If random internet people posted mockups of their various ways Apple could design for this screen, you know the internal design team did the same thing. You think they gave it no thought and just said ¯\(°_o)/¯ yeah we got these weird ear things and there's no way we could possibly obscure them by making them match the surrounding hardware like the Apple Watch?
The answer to your question is Dye who is in charge of UI, Horwath in charge of ID, and probably some marketing input so maybe Schiller. Maybe some input from Ive, who otherwise was probably mostly busy designing door handles for Apple Park. You think you're more qualified to make the final decision over these people?
You and your thoughts about Apple PR over explaining things, again.
"Adults" such as yourself who don't see the value in Animoji or facial recognition for avatar effects obviously are clueless when it comes to the fact that there are many *millions* of kids who ONLY use Snapchat to communicate. You are NOT the target market for that feature, but Apple is extremely smart when it comes to this sort of thing.
You're kind of a moron for reading as much as you do on this forum and not understanding most of these things.
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
They don't need "help" to hide it, they could've just made that part of the screen black, easily, and "hid" it. That's it. They didn't, meaning they tried it and didn't like it, and you know they tried it. Go ask Alan Dye why not.
I don’t know that they tried it. But if they prefer the notch to making that part of the screen black then I question who’s making the decisions here. Ben Bajarin who is about as pro Apple as anyone said he hopes developers don’t embrace the notch. John Gruber said the notch (especially in landscape mode) looks “goofy”. I hope Apple does some PR around this and explains their thinking behind it. I’d like to know. Also while I think the animated emoji look cool and will be a hit with certain demographics it is odd that Apple chose it as one of the main selling features of a $1000 phone. Does Apple really think parents are going to be shelling out $1000 to buy their teenage kids the X? I can’t see adults using this feature much.
Of course they tried it. If random internet people posted mockups of their various ways Apple could design for this screen, you know the internal design team did the same thing. You think they gave it no thought and just said ¯\(°_o)/¯ yeah we got these weird ear things and there's no way we could possibly obscure them by making them match the surrounding hardware like the Apple Watch?
Not only is it obvious that they tried many options, there's an extra complexity to it over simply having a rectangular display. It's also obvious that Apple wanted to have the display huge the edge at the same thickness all the way around the display, which wouldn't be possible if have the kept enough forehead up top, which would also make the display look uncentered, especially in landscape mode.
And it's not like anything is lost by simply using the 5.15" for a 16:9 video without a single pixel being cropped out. In fact, you gain quite a bit over the 4.5" iPhone 7.
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
I love the notch.
Makes the X very unique
The truth is for most photo's, video's, and Apps - the top or side of the image does not have much important information.
Would you watch a movie in a theater with a dent at the left side of the screen?
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
They don't need "help" to hide it, they could've just made that part of the screen black, easily, and "hid" it. That's it. They didn't, meaning they tried it and didn't like it, and you know they tried it. Go ask Alan Dye why not.
I don’t know that they tried it. But if they prefer the notch to making that part of the screen black then I question who’s making the decisions here. Ben Bajarin who is about as pro Apple as anyone said he hopes developers don’t embrace the notch. John Gruber said the notch (especially in landscape mode) looks “goofy”. I hope Apple does some PR around this and explains their thinking behind it. I’d like to know. Also while I think the animated emoji look cool and will be a hit with certain demographics it is odd that Apple chose it as one of the main selling features of a $1000 phone. Does Apple really think parents are going to be shelling out $1000 to buy their teenage kids the X? I can’t see adults using this feature much.
People always have problems with new design language when it first comes out. Remember all the hand wringing about Airpod design?
Its the same with the notch. After a while you won't notice it at all.
I think you are wrong about the Animoji. Everyone who I spoke to who are NOT kids/teenagers absolutely love the feature.
I work with a broad mix of ages, from 23 to 60. No one I spoke with gives one crap about animoji's. It's a bar trick that won't be used after the first day.
I doubt they’re right. Animoji are already popular on a number of gaming networks that have them.
Don't think in terms of silly animated characters.
Here's another cool application. Set those silly animated emojis aside and think in terms of Facetune and other apps that allow a person to whiten their teeth and cover over blemishes. Now imagine being able to run through that process and instead of resulting in a cleaned up static image, you get a set of rules to apply to your face in realtime. So now when you FaceTime or go on a video chat in FB Messenger or any other app, your face is tuned up to look its best.
Imagine having at your disposal not just the Snapchat or FB Messenger masks, but professional clothing, suit and tie for a man for example, automatically layered onto your image. Now you can dress appropriately for business video conference calls you take from home, while actually wearing casual clothing.
A bit of imagination can surface unlimited potential.
Or register emotion, intent, so forth. How long before Siri can interpret facial gestures?
I'm guessing the FaceID will be popular with law enforcement. Maybe that's a feature and not a bug.
Were you listening to the presentation? You need to have your eyes open for it to work. They can’t force you to do that. Besides, I just can’t understand what it is that some people are so concerned about with that. What are you planning to do that this would be a problem? Should we be reporting you to the FBI?
Yes actually, with the appropriate legal justification, i.e. immediate probable cause or a warrant, they can force you to open your eyes and unlock your phone with your face, just as they can force you to use your finger to unlock it.
What they cannot do, even with a warrant, is force you to speak your password/passcode; it's a Fifth Amendment thing.
Though with a warrant, they can still legally try to crack your phone themselves, and if they succeed, their access is completely legal.
Yes, with proper legal authorization. But you’re wrong about the password. There has already been a case where the judge required the password be given. What we don’t know, is whether that will become a precedent, or a one off.
cracking your phone is the other thing that people don’t want to talk about. But in an earlier post, I pointed out that in a border situation where you turn off biometric security, and refuse to give your password, or open the phone yourself, they can take your phone for, what is now, an unspecified time, and open it themselves. That’s worse.
and, again, right now, we’re granted some amount of security by the government, but that doesn’t mean it will last forever. The EU is pursuing a law that makes it illegal for manufacturers to produces devices that law enforcement can’t get into. The UK, which looks to be leaving the EU, is also looking into that. Will China and Russia be far behind if that happens? What other countries will follow? Would we be out of it, or would we do it here too? We have elements in this country that consider privacy to be dangerous.
this is why I think people are going too far with this. If law enforcement can’t crack some major cases, particularly if it involves terrorism of the right, left or whatever, the public will decide that these locked phones have to go, and that would be worse.
A person cannot be compelled to provide their password, Mel. The Supreme Court has ruled that out.
Fingerprints and faces are not similarly protected.
If you have a link to a specific case in which a person was forced to provide a password, I'd like to see that because it would ostensibly be a clear cut case of their fifth amendment right being violated.
Not so simple. You could have easily found this yourself.
Wow, this from CNN. Seems some are beginning to shift to the correct terminology. I'm impressed. Maybe the tech sites will review the terms too as it becomes apparent the differing contexts the two terms - face recognition versus facial recognition - apply to.
could you explain the difference?
I don't know what's the big deal between face and facial
Face recognition is the term used to describe the process of identifying a specific person, such as from a database of known persons (no fly list, for example). This is face recognition.
There's also face detection, which is the process of detecting the elements of a human face within a scene. This is typically a precursor to application of face recognition algorithms, used to identify the owner of a face in a scene.
Then there's facial recognition, which is the process of detecting specific facial expressions (smiling, frowning, sadness, etc). This term is often used in the medical world to characterize specific inabilities of patients to recognize meaning in human faces. Or, I suppose, one could use the term facial recognition to mean the detection of someone who has recently come from a spa treatment appointment. (Kidding.)
This whole misunderstanding of the terms is what's causing the debate over biometric identification/authentication. FACIAL recognition is not FACE recognition. It can be used as a step in a face recognition process, but facial recognition is simply the process of identifying each feature of a face; eyes, nose, mouth, smiling, frowning, etc, but not used to determine whose face it is.
Facial recognition returns the result, here is the mouth and it is smilin,' which is useful to map that feature onto the face of an avatar or game character, or useful in mapping an overlay onto the person's actual face, ala Snapchat. But facial recognition does NOT return the result, 'this is Phil Schiller's face.' That biometric identification step is done by a method called face recognition. I know, I know, they sound the same. But facial recognition and face recognition, and face detection, are all three different things. Apple's acquisition of Faceshift and others suggests Apple will be employing facial recognition for AR apps, NOT for biometric identification. Face recognition, as stated by Phil Schiller at 1:29:40... in the event, is the correct term to describe what's happening no behind FaceID.
The problem is that these terms are too similar to each other, and so, lead to confusion.
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
They don't need "help" to hide it, they could've just made that part of the screen black, easily, and "hid" it. That's it. They didn't, meaning they tried it and didn't like it, and you know they tried it. Go ask Alan Dye why not.
I don’t know that they tried it. But if they prefer the notch to making that part of the screen black then I question who’s making the decisions here. Ben Bajarin who is about as pro Apple as anyone said he hopes developers don’t embrace the notch. John Gruber said the notch (especially in landscape mode) looks “goofy”. I hope Apple does some PR around this and explains their thinking behind it. I’d like to know. Also while I think the animated emoji look cool and will be a hit with certain demographics it is odd that Apple chose it as one of the main selling features of a $1000 phone. Does Apple really think parents are going to be shelling out $1000 to buy their teenage kids the X? I can’t see adults using this feature much.
People always have problems with new design language when it first comes out. Remember all the hand wringing about Airpod design?
Its the same with the notch. After a while you won't notice it at all.
I think you are wrong about the Animoji. Everyone who I spoke to who are NOT kids/teenagers absolutely love the feature.
I work with a broad mix of ages, from 23 to 60. No one I spoke with gives one crap about animoji's. It's a bar trick that won't be used after the first day.
I doubt they’re right. Animoji are already popular on a number of gaming networks that have them.
Don't think in terms of silly animated characters.
Here's another cool application. Set those silly animated emojis aside and think in terms of Facetune and other apps that allow a person to whiten their teeth and cover over blemishes. Now imagine being able to run through that process and instead of resulting in a cleaned up static image, you get a set of rules to apply to your face in realtime. So now when you FaceTime or go on a video chat in FB Messenger or any other app, your face is tuned up to look its best.
Imagine having at your disposal not just the Snapchat or FB Messenger masks, but professional clothing, suit and tie for a man for example, automatically layered onto your image. Now you can dress appropriately for business video conference calls you take from home, while actually wearing casual clothing.
A bit of imagination can surface unlimited potential.
Well, to me, that would be silly, and overly vain. I do think that for a number of purposes, avatars, which themselves aren’t new, will be a major use for this type of technology. And millions of people are all ready using Animojis on a daily basic in these gaming networks. So you might want to dismiss this as being silly, but remember that that’s just your thinking on this. Not everyone agrees with that.
in fact, one of the biggest uses for this will be for animating characters in multiplayer games, and right now, tens of millions of people play them daily, maybe as many as 100 million.
I like the notch. It makes a break with styling. Android phones have been there too with similiar negative opinions from some but I like this design over say, the Sharp screen with corners cut off.
You'll have to ask me in a couple of years if I still like it, though.
From the photos I don't like the bezel. Seems like it's wearing a bumper case but built in but as that's likely a photo problem, I'll reserve final judgment until I hold one in my hand.
I’d love to know why Apple decided to embrace the notch. Was there no seamless way to hide it without it looking like a hack? Now that they’ve gone OLED I’m surprised we didn’t get dark mode which might have helped hide it.
They don't need "help" to hide it, they could've just made that part of the screen black, easily, and "hid" it. That's it. They didn't, meaning they tried it and didn't like it, and you know they tried it. Go ask Alan Dye why not.
I don’t know that they tried it. But if they prefer the notch to making that part of the screen black then I question who’s making the decisions here. Ben Bajarin who is about as pro Apple as anyone said he hopes developers don’t embrace the notch. John Gruber said the notch (especially in landscape mode) looks “goofy”. I hope Apple does some PR around this and explains their thinking behind it. I’d like to know. Also while I think the animated emoji look cool and will be a hit with certain demographics it is odd that Apple chose it as one of the main selling features of a $1000 phone. Does Apple really think parents are going to be shelling out $1000 to buy their teenage kids the X? I can’t see adults using this feature much.
People always have problems with new design language when it first comes out. Remember all the hand wringing about Airpod design?
Its the same with the notch. After a while you won't notice it at all.
I think you are wrong about the Animoji. Everyone who I spoke to who are NOT kids/teenagers absolutely love the feature.
I work with a broad mix of ages, from 23 to 60. No one I spoke with gives one crap about animoji's. It's a bar trick that won't be used after the first day.
I doubt they’re right. Animoji are already popular on a number of gaming networks that have them.
Don't think in terms of silly animated characters.
Here's another cool application. Set those silly animated emojis aside and think in terms of Facetune and other apps that allow a person to whiten their teeth and cover over blemishes. Now imagine being able to run through that process and instead of resulting in a cleaned up static image, you get a set of rules to apply to your face in realtime. So now when you FaceTime or go on a video chat in FB Messenger or any other app, your face is tuned up to look its best.
Imagine having at your disposal not just the Snapchat or FB Messenger masks, but professional clothing, suit and tie for a man for example, automatically layered onto your image. Now you can dress appropriately for business video conference calls you take from home, while actually wearing casual clothing.
A bit of imagination can surface unlimited potential.
Or register emotion, intent, so forth. How long before Siri can interpret facial gestures?
I would imagine that it can now. These Animojis are duplicating facial expressions. I’ve worked on studies of this many years ago. It’s a major research area. There’s no difficulty in mapping your expressions to what we already know of them. In fact, it’s pretty simple. Apple has to want to do it. They could even decide to finally give faces to Siri, and give them expression. Apple’s Animojis are better than others I’m seeing on gaming networks, but not very much better. Apple is animating more muscles. They got all the major ones, which is why they work so well. Others use less, but I can now see them upgrading to meet Apple’s new standard. But I can also see Apple using another twenty, or so, which would give them more subtly to expressions, assuming the Animojis themselves can be seen using them. Right now, they’re not complex enough for that.
Comments
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/26/can-government-force-you-to-unlock-your-phone-fifth-amendment
Fingerprints and faces are not similarly protected.
If you have a link to a specific case in which a person was forced to provide a password, I'd like to see that because it would ostensibly be a clear cut case of their fifth amendment right being violated.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/us/miami-sextortion-phone-security-trnd/index.html
https://consumerist.com/2016/12/13/court-rules-that-police-can-force-you-to-tell-them-your-phones-passcode/
There are more.
Face recognition is the term used to describe the process of identifying a specific person, such as from a database of known persons (no fly list, for example). This is face recognition.
There's also face detection, which is the process of detecting the elements of a human face within a scene. This is typically a precursor to application of face recognition algorithms, used to identify the owner of a face in a scene.
Then there's facial recognition, which is the process of detecting specific facial expressions (smiling, frowning, sadness, etc). This term is often used in the medical world to characterize specific inabilities of patients to recognize meaning in human faces. Or, I suppose, one could use the term facial recognition to mean the detection of someone who has recently come from a spa treatment appointment. (Kidding.)
This whole misunderstanding of the terms is what's causing the debate over biometric identification/authentication. FACIAL recognition is not FACE recognition. It can be used as a step in a face recognition process, but facial recognition is simply the process of identifying each feature of a face; eyes, nose, mouth, smiling, frowning, etc, but not used to determine whose face it is.
Facial recognition returns the result, here is the mouth and it is smilin,' which is useful to map that feature onto the face of an avatar or game character, or useful in mapping an overlay onto the person's actual face, ala Snapchat. But facial recognition does NOT return the result, 'this is Phil Schiller's face.' That biometric identification step is done by a method called face recognition. I know, I know, they sound the same. But facial recognition and face recognition, and face detection, are all three different things. Apple's acquisition of Faceshift and others suggests Apple will be employing facial recognition for AR apps, NOT for biometric identification. Face recognition, as stated by Phil Schiller at 1:29:40... in the event, is the correct term to describe what's happening no behind FaceID.
Here's another cool application. Set those silly animated emojis aside and think in terms of Facetune and other apps that allow a person to whiten their teeth and cover over blemishes. Now imagine being able to run through that process and instead of resulting in a cleaned up static image, you get a set of rules to apply to your face in realtime. So now when you FaceTime or go on a video chat in FB Messenger or any other app, your face is tuned up to look its best.
Imagine having at your disposal not just the Snapchat or FB Messenger masks, but professional clothing, suit and tie for a man for example, automatically layered onto your image. Now you can dress appropriately for business video conference calls you take from home, while actually wearing casual clothing.
A bit of imagination can surface unlimited potential.
The answer to your question is Dye who is in charge of UI, Horwath in charge of ID, and probably some marketing input so maybe Schiller. Maybe some input from Ive, who otherwise was probably mostly busy designing door handles for Apple Park. You think you're more qualified to make the final decision over these people?
You and your thoughts about Apple PR over explaining things, again.
"Adults" such as yourself who don't see the value in Animoji or facial recognition for avatar effects obviously are clueless when it comes to the fact that there are many *millions* of kids who ONLY use Snapchat to communicate. You are NOT the target market for that feature, but Apple is extremely smart when it comes to this sort of thing.
You're kind of a moron for reading as much as you do on this forum and not understanding most of these things.
And it's not like anything is lost by simply using the 5.15" for a 16:9 video without a single pixel being cropped out. In fact, you gain quite a bit over the 4.5" iPhone 7.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/03/us/miami-sextortion-phone-security-trnd/index.html
oops. I meant to post this yesterday. Somehow I didn’t.
in fact, one of the biggest uses for this will be for animating characters in multiplayer games, and right now, tens of millions of people play them daily, maybe as many as 100 million.
I would imagine that it can now. These Animojis are duplicating facial expressions. I’ve worked on studies of this many years ago. It’s a major research area. There’s no difficulty in mapping your expressions to what we already know of them. In fact, it’s pretty simple. Apple has to want to do it. They could even decide to finally give faces to Siri, and give them expression. Apple’s Animojis are better than others I’m seeing on gaming networks, but not very much better. Apple is animating more muscles. They got all the major ones, which is why they work so well. Others use less, but I can now see them upgrading to meet Apple’s new standard. But I can also see Apple using another twenty, or so, which would give them more subtly to expressions, assuming the Animojis themselves can be seen using them. Right now, they’re not complex enough for that.