What I’ve said from the beginning is that the dot projector, which isn’t actually part of the camera, but is part of the FaceID system, is very hard to make.
this is a tiny device that projects 30,000 tiny dots of light up to about 2.5 feet. All of those dots need to be in proper relation to each other. If just a few overlap others, that knocks the entire thing off. Accuracy is compromised. Just how much is allowable, we don’t know, and we may never know. But the further out it projects, the more an infinitesimal inaccuracy will be magnified. So it may work at 12 inches, but not 18. If it works at 18, it may not work at the maximum distance.
if Apple’s standards work to 2.5 feet, which is a fairly good distance for something like this, possibly relaxed testing allows the same accuracy, but only out to 2 feet 3 inches, or to just 2 feet, which seems like more than enough for almost any useful purpose.
Edit:
what I’m adding, because I forgot to include it, is that these things vary in light output as well. As someone who has used literally thousands of LEDs over the years in projects and products, I can tell you that output can easily vary by 50% between the same model LED from a manufacturer. So if that output is low from the projector, it will fall below what required at a certain distance, also limiting the distance it can work, particularly in a bright environment.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
We should base who to believe on..stock price? Are you shitting me?
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
Should I believe Apple that has over 10 years experience in making mobile phones and has the trust of millions of people or should I believe failing Bloomberg that has a consistent record of lying to the public. It’s not that difficult a choice in my opinion.
Did Bloomberg claim that Apple made any changes that resulted in a less-accurate Face ID? I didn't recall seeing that but maybe? I thought all they claimed was that Apple reduced the quality assurance standards to increase yield, but I could surely have missed something in the article.
Actually, they did state that in the article, though of course they phrased it like a politician so they can deny it later. The intent to anyone with half a brain is clear.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
Hah, good one. Sorry but no, Mark German is not credible nor unbiased. His career has a steady narrative of trying to ding Apple. he’s a pro troll. I knew this was just another piece of BS from him (per comments on other thread).
Journalism aint what it used to be. Bloomberg isn't supposed to be a rumors rag, they should require their writers to produce two independent sources as is the norm in real journalism. Since this was refuted by Apple, who wouldn't lie over it due to the immense damage that would cause when the lie was exposed, we can conclude that Gurman did not have at least two independent sources for his story. In effect, he's still just peddling trash for wall street to eat up.
Customer excitement for iPhone X and Face ID has been incredible, and we can't wait for customers to get their hands on it starting Friday, November 3. Face ID is a powerful and secure authentication system that's incredibly easy and intuitive to use. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven't changed. It continues to be 1 in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.
Bloomberg's claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication.
The statement does not refute that testing changes have been made -- only that any changes made does not impact the accuracy of the system -- already significantly less prone to erroneous identification than Touch ID.
You "read it wrong". The statement does not refute that testing changes have been made because they don't have to refute that: The original article says nothing about "testing changes", this is just your divination. The original article says directly that "Apple has relaxed some of the specifications for Face ID" and as a result "it took less time to test completed modules." You must be very imaginative to infer some "testing changes" from that.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
We should base who to believe on..stock price? Are you shitting me?
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
AAPL is too widely held, too actively traded and too valuable for those kinds of games (it's part of the DOW30!) If someone releases a credible report saying the cornerstone feature of an upcoming product is deeply flawed, then you have to bet for or against that report directly (and quickly). So far, AAPL has recovered 50% of its losses since Apple refuted the report.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
We should base who to believe on..stock price? Are you shitting me?
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
AAPL is too widely held, too actively traded and too valuable for those kinds of games (it's part of the DOW30!) If someone releases a credible report saying the cornerstone feature of an upcoming product is deeply flawed, then you have to bet for or against that report directly (and quickly). So far, AAPL has recovered 50% of its losses since Apple refuted the report.
ThAt doesn’t relate to truth or not, just what the market believes which has been shown to fail in the short term in great measures. If some does hold this kind of info if it turns true and then trades anything Apple since they they have knowledge, they are in trouble.
but on a stock like apple, analysts don’t have to do insider trading, they just have to shovel crap around at the appropriate time and they’ll get away Scott free. If tits refuted, what do they care, they made their money already....
this is should be criminal yet is never investigated or prosecuted
What I’ve said from the beginning is that the dot projector, which isn’t actually part of the camera, but is part of the FaceID system, is very hard to make.
this is a tiny device that projects 30,000 tiny dots of light up to about 2.5 feet. All of those dots need to be in proper relation to each other. If just a few overlap others, that knocks the entire thing off. Accuracy is compromised. Just how much is allowable, we don’t know, and we may never know. But the further out it projects, the more an infinitesimal inaccuracy will be magnified. So it may work at 12 inches, but not 18. If it works at 18, it may not work at the maximum distance.
if Apple’s standards work to 2.5 feet, which is a fairly good distance for something like this, possibly relaxed testing allows the same accuracy, but only out to 2 feet 3 inches, or to just 2 feet, which seems like more than enough for almost any useful purpose.
Edit:
what I’m adding, because I forgot to include it, is that these things vary in light output as well. As someone who has used literally thousands of LEDs over the years in projects and products, I can tell you that output can easily vary by 50% between the same model LED from a manufacturer. So if that output is low from the projector, it will fall below what required at a certain distance, also limiting the distance it can work, particularly in a bright environment.
I think the Face ID calibration process is conceived to iron out right such inaccuracies you summarized so well.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
We should base who to believe on..stock price? Are you shitting me?
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
AAPL is too widely held, too actively traded and too valuable for those kinds of games (it's part of the DOW30!) If someone releases a credible report saying the cornerstone feature of an upcoming product is deeply flawed, then you have to bet for or against that report directly (and quickly). So far, AAPL has recovered 50% of its losses since Apple refuted the report.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. As a holder of a fair amount of Apple stock, I’m obviously concerned at what does, and does not move the shares. As far as being widely held, you should know that only a tiny number (about 27.5 million shares per day) of shares are traded daily of the 5 billion that exist. Yet, that small number, and to an extent, the large private trades that most people don’t know about, influence the price on a short term (daily, weekly, monthly) basis.
we read of one company downgrading the stock, and it drops by a couple of bucks. We read that supplies will be short, another couple of bucks, or three. Sales are supposed to be down, more bucks.
why do you think the stock is down $10 from its recent high? Just...because?
Customer excitement for iPhone X and Face ID has been incredible, and we can't wait for customers to get their hands on it starting Friday, November 3. Face ID is a powerful and secure authentication system that's incredibly easy and intuitive to use. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven't changed. It continues to be 1 in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.
Bloomberg's claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication.
The statement does not refute that testing changes have been made -- only that any changes made does not impact the accuracy of the system -- already significantly less prone to erroneous identification than Touch ID.
You "read it wrong". The statement does not refute that testing changes have been made because they don't have to refute that: The original article says nothing about "testing changes", this is just your divination. The original article says directly that "Apple has relaxed some of the specifications for Face ID" and as a result "it took less time to test completed modules." You must be very imaginative to infer some "testing changes" from that.
I'm not certain where you think that a spec change wouldn't result in a testing change. By definition, if the spec changes, then the test has to.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
We should base who to believe on..stock price? Are you shitting me?
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
AAPL is too widely held, too actively traded and too valuable for those kinds of games (it's part of the DOW30!) If someone releases a credible report saying the cornerstone feature of an upcoming product is deeply flawed, then you have to bet for or against that report directly (and quickly). So far, AAPL has recovered 50% of its losses since Apple refuted the report.
ThAt doesn’t relate to truth or not, just what the market believes which has been shown to fail in the short term in great measures. If some does hold this kind of info if it turns true and then trades anything Apple since they they have knowledge, they are in trouble.
but on a stock like apple, analysts don’t have to do insider trading, they just have to shovel crap around at the appropriate time and they’ll get away Scott free. If tits refuted, what do they care, they made their money already....
this is should be criminal yet is never investigated or prosecuted
What’s been called, maybe not criminal, but subject to civil injunctions and such, are analysts, and their people, getting individuals at suppliers to give proprietary information to them, and then report on it. It’s not that these guys pull things out of their rears, they do get info. The problem is that info is often tainted, in that those giving it out may have their own goals, or that it’s not enough to give a realistic picture.
at any rate. I don’t see these guys as always seeing the big picture. I do watch some financial shows on bloomberg. They can be pretty good. I find the hosts do know their stuff, and ask good questions. One a couple of months ago, had several people on from different investment houses. They all agreed that even if sales of the 8 and 8+ were somewhat low, and even if the X arrived late, which it did, that it wouldn’t matter, because even if the numbers for this quarter were low, and even if next quarter’s numbers were low, as Apple would retain its customers, and sales would be higher after, being made up by longer term high X sales.
i believe they’ve got it right. But that show didn’t get to a broader public audience. I find that these financial shows are far better than the quick quotable blurbs the public, in general, is subject to, and even some large investors get frightened by them.
What I’ve said from the beginning is that the dot projector, which isn’t actually part of the camera, but is part of the FaceID system, is very hard to make.
this is a tiny device that projects 30,000 tiny dots of light up to about 2.5 feet. All of those dots need to be in proper relation to each other. If just a few overlap others, that knocks the entire thing off. Accuracy is compromised. Just how much is allowable, we don’t know, and we may never know. But the further out it projects, the more an infinitesimal inaccuracy will be magnified. So it may work at 12 inches, but not 18. If it works at 18, it may not work at the maximum distance.
if Apple’s standards work to 2.5 feet, which is a fairly good distance for something like this, possibly relaxed testing allows the same accuracy, but only out to 2 feet 3 inches, or to just 2 feet, which seems like more than enough for almost any useful purpose.
Edit:
what I’m adding, because I forgot to include it, is that these things vary in light output as well. As someone who has used literally thousands of LEDs over the years in projects and products, I can tell you that output can easily vary by 50% between the same model LED from a manufacturer. So if that output is low from the projector, it will fall below what required at a certain distance, also limiting the distance it can work, particularly in a bright environment.
I think the Face ID calibration process is conceived to iron out right such inaccuracies you summarized so well.
I agree. This isn’t just hardware, after all. So it’s possible that Apple is willing to give up a bit of extra distance they feel isn’t really needed, but which would have been nice, for greater supply. As long as they feel confident that at the maximum distance they believe the phone would be used at, it’s just as accurate, then everything should work out the same for the user.
Honestly, I fully expect that Apple did this at some level somewhere in the design process - balancing accuracy, tolerances and yields is simply part of engineering and design process. We’re all happy with 1:1,000,000 accuracy. Suppose Apple could have gotten 1:10,000,000 accuracy by tightening the design criteria and lowering the production yields. Should we complain?
Honestly, I fully expect that Apple did this at some level somewhere in the design process - balancing accuracy, tolerances and yields is simply part of engineering and design process. We’re all happy with 1:1,000,000 accuracy. Suppose Apple could have gotten 1:10,000,000 accuracy by tightening the design criteria and lowering the production yields. Should we complain?
That I can agree with, this would have occurred a long time ago though, this kind of critical decisions is not done on a whim. Also, what Apple needs to beat is touched, not done hypotheticals and that’s why those things are just absurd
Honestly, I fully expect that Apple did this at some level somewhere in the design process - balancing accuracy, tolerances and yields is simply part of engineering and design process. We’re all happy with 1:1,000,000 accuracy. Suppose Apple could have gotten 1:10,000,000 accuracy by tightening the design criteria and lowering the production yields. Should we complain?
Lower production yields are possible if we're talking about adding 100k dots v 30k dots, but also see that extra processing which could add a slight increase in the battery drain (although I'd say it would be a fraction of an extra percent between charges) and longer time to authenticate a user and more false reads if we're going with 10x the accuracy. The same is true for Touch ID.
As I stated before, I'm not concerned as Apple they've earned my trust when it comes to security and privacy.
Is there hard evidence supporting the rumors that there has been a reduction in the accuracy of the Face ID modules? * No. There isn't any hard evidence. Why? Because the iPhone X Face ID cannot be tested by users and labs. Why is that? Because the phone has not yet been released.
* What we are reading in this article (and others about this topic) are unsubstantiated rumors. That's it.
Is there hard evidence supporting the rumors that there has been a reduction in the accuracy of the Face ID modules? * No. There isn't any hard evidence. Why? Because the iPhone X Face ID cannot be tested by users and labs. Why is that? Because the phone has not yet been released.
* What we are reading in this article (and others about this topic) are unsubstantiated rumors. That's it.
What is interesting is that if it’s true that testing has been loosened, it’s for production that’s coming on line, but not available yet. So the first few million will have the more tightly tested projectors, and the rest will have the more loosely tested projectors.
so if that is true, then an early production phone can be tested against a later production phone. But to be a useful test, rather than just a test of production variations, a number of phones need to be tested. The difference has to be a statistical significance. It needs to be greater than normal production variances.
If the rumor had come out of Gizmodo or CNET, it would be easy to dismiss. But because Bloomberg is highly credible and non-biased, this report has impacted AAPL stock valuation, meaning people are betting millions of dollars on the report's veracity. So now that Apple has made a comment (however contrived "and we can't wait..."), maybe look at how the stock does to decide who to believe.
We should base who to believe on..stock price? Are you shitting me?
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
AAPL is too widely held, too actively traded and too valuable for those kinds of games (it's part of the DOW30!) If someone releases a credible report saying the cornerstone feature of an upcoming product is deeply flawed, then you have to bet for or against that report directly (and quickly). So far, AAPL has recovered 50% of its losses since Apple refuted the report.
Unfortunately, that’s not true. As a holder of a fair amount of Apple stock, I’m obviously concerned at what does, and does not move the shares. As far as being widely held, you should know that only a tiny number (about 27.5 million shares per day) of shares are traded daily of the 5 billion that exist. Yet, that small number, and to an extent, the large private trades that most people don’t know about, influence the price on a short term (daily, weekly, monthly) basis.
we read of one company downgrading the stock, and it drops by a couple of bucks. We read that supplies will be short, another couple of bucks, or three. Sales are supposed to be down, more bucks.
why do you think the stock is down $10 from its recent high? Just...because?
My friend, who has 2 iphones (work & home, 6 and 7), updated the 7 over the air, and the 6 through itunes, clean install (factory reset + update, then restore from backup). He has tons of problems on the 7, but barely any problems on the 6. Maybe a clean install is the way to go.
I ran all the iOS 11 betas on my iPhone 7 with OTA updates, including the GM build, and I've had no issues at all. I did get a battery drain with watchOS 4.1 beta 3, but that was fixed by beta 4. I wonder if the model number which dictates the baseband processor is the culprit as that could be different.
Is there hard evidence supporting the rumors that there has been a reduction in the accuracy of the Face ID modules? * No. There isn't any hard evidence. Why? Because the iPhone X Face ID cannot be tested by users and labs. Why is that? Because the phone has not yet been released.
* What we are reading in this article (and others about this topic) are unsubstantiated rumors. That's it.
What is interesting is that if it’s true that testing has been loosened, it’s for production that’s coming on line, but not available yet. So the first few million will have the more tightly tested projectors, and the rest will have the more loosely tested projectors.
so if that is true, then an early production phone can be tested against a later production phone. But to be a useful test, rather than just a test of production variations, a number of phones need to be tested. The difference has to be a statistical significance. It needs to be greater than normal production variances.
Sure, once the iPhone X sells in the millions, then labs can start getting statistical data on the accuracy of the sensors. If there is a clear difference in sensor components or sensor settings, then that would be evidence that some change took place in the manufacturing process. (I could then imagine the resulting lawsuits.)
* But the reality is that all of this is speculation based on rumors from business websites. We know nothing for certain about this right now.
Comments
this is a tiny device that projects 30,000 tiny dots of light up to about 2.5 feet. All of those dots need to be in proper relation to each other. If just a few overlap others, that knocks the entire thing off. Accuracy is compromised. Just how much is allowable, we don’t know, and we may never know. But the further out it projects, the more an infinitesimal inaccuracy will be magnified. So it may work at 12 inches, but not 18. If it works at 18, it may not work at the maximum distance.
if Apple’s standards work to 2.5 feet, which is a fairly good distance for something like this, possibly relaxed testing allows the same accuracy, but only out to 2 feet 3 inches, or to just 2 feet, which seems like more than enough for almost any useful purpose.
Edit:
what I’m adding, because I forgot to include it, is that these things vary in light output as well. As someone who has used literally thousands of LEDs over the years in projects and products, I can tell you that output can easily vary by 50% between the same model LED from a manufacturer. So if that output is low from the projector, it will fall below what required at a certain distance, also limiting the distance it can work, particularly in a bright environment.
I think he meant it the other way around. From what he said, it looks that he’s saying that people are selling off because of the report, which indeed does happen all the time.
but it’s true ( as I think he also believes) that some people will think that big investors will sell because they believe the reports themselves, and so some people will look at the stock and buy or sell because they think the price reflects the truth of the report if big investors are selling. After all, many people believe that big investors have inside information, and trade on that.
its convoluted reasoning. But many people feel powerless, and so will follow the market because of that reasoning.
Journalism aint what it used to be. Bloomberg isn't supposed to be a rumors rag, they should require their writers to produce two independent sources as is the norm in real journalism. Since this was refuted by Apple, who wouldn't lie over it due to the immense damage that would cause when the lie was exposed, we can conclude that Gurman did not have at least two independent sources for his story. In effect, he's still just peddling trash for wall street to eat up.
but on a stock like apple, analysts don’t have to do insider trading, they just have to shovel crap around at the appropriate time and they’ll get away Scott free. If tits refuted, what do they care, they made their money already....
this is should be criminal yet is never investigated or prosecuted
we read of one company downgrading the stock, and it drops by a couple of bucks. We read that supplies will be short, another couple of bucks, or three. Sales are supposed to be down, more bucks.
why do you think the stock is down $10 from its recent high? Just...because?
What’s been called, maybe not criminal, but subject to civil injunctions and such, are analysts, and their people, getting individuals at suppliers to give proprietary information to them, and then report on it. It’s not that these guys pull things out of their rears, they do get info. The problem is that info is often tainted, in that those giving it out may have their own goals, or that it’s not enough to give a realistic picture.
at any rate. I don’t see these guys as always seeing the big picture. I do watch some financial shows on bloomberg. They can be pretty good. I find the hosts do know their stuff, and ask good questions. One a couple of months ago, had several people on from different investment houses. They all agreed that even if sales of the 8 and 8+ were somewhat low, and even if the X arrived late, which it did, that it wouldn’t matter, because even if the numbers for this quarter were low, and even if next quarter’s numbers were low, as Apple would retain its customers, and sales would be higher after, being made up by longer term high X sales.
i believe they’ve got it right. But that show didn’t get to a broader public audience. I find that these financial shows are far better than the quick quotable blurbs the public, in general, is subject to, and even some large investors get frightened by them.
As I stated before, I'm not concerned as Apple they've earned my trust when it comes to security and privacy.
* No. There isn't any hard evidence.
Why? Because the iPhone X Face ID cannot be tested by users and labs.
Why is that? Because the phone has not yet been released.
* What we are reading in this article (and others about this topic) are unsubstantiated rumors.
That's it.
so if that is true, then an early production phone can be tested against a later production phone. But to be a useful test, rather than just a test of production variations, a number of phones need to be tested. The difference has to be a statistical significance. It needs to be greater than normal production variances.
If there is a clear difference in sensor components or sensor settings, then that would be evidence that some change took place in the manufacturing process.
(I could then imagine the resulting lawsuits.)
* But the reality is that all of this is speculation based on rumors from business websites.
We know nothing for certain about this right now.