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?
I get 20.56 million for today and the three months average as what I gave. These are pretty small numbers when compared to the 5.17 billion shares outstanding. Yet, they have outsize influence on the short term stock price. I’ll bet that when Berkshire was accumulating its 133 million, or so shares, privately, no one here was aware of it.
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.
Bizarre that the first Bloomberg story was even approved to run. Bloomberg hired well-known Apple rumor guy Mark Gurman a while ago and he didn't author the piece in question. Could be competition within Bloomberg among reporters to get top billing for Apple rumors, since Apple is always prime clickbait.
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.
Which is why I say “...if that’s true”. It would be a pretty boring discussion if all we said was...”we don’t know if it’s true”
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.
And that suggests another interesting question:
How does Apple (or anyone) test FaceID in a repeatable way???
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.
And that suggests another interesting question:
How does Apple (or anyone) test FaceID in a repeatable way???
What do you mean? I would assume you put on different hats, perhaps a wig, glasses, facial hair, makeup (, change expressions, alter angles in which the device in held, and bring in twins and other family members that look alike to do many tests to see how often it works. You could even test for cross dressers who many change their appearance in a radical way, wearing various facial coverings for safety (like a mask that filters air) or cultural reasons to see if the tech can penetrate the material to read your face, and even doing some simple prosthetics to see if a black and swollen eye from being in a fight, a swollen lip from the dentist or allergic reaction, or even temporary face paint if you're a sports fanatic or a gang member getting new face tattoos could affect it's ability to sense your face.
But even if those latter scenarios don't work all you have to do is input your passcode and then setup Face ID again which they showed was a very fast process.
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.
And that suggests another interesting question:
How does Apple (or anyone) test FaceID in a repeatable way???
I depends on whether they’re testing the entire system, or the individual components. Component level testing is pretty easy. Testing the entire system is rather more difficult.
now, we’ve seen that Apple made a big deal in stating, and showing that very realistic dummy heads won’t work against a real person. But, does that mean that they can’t test that dummy head as the original head? I’m not clear on that. If they can, and I don’t see why not, then they can do this easily in a standard setup. If they can’t, that’s one very tired person sitting through those millions of phone tests.
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.
And that suggests another interesting question:
How does Apple (or anyone) test FaceID in a repeatable way???
I depends on whether they’re testing the entire system, or the individual components. Component level testing is pretty easy. Testing the entire system is rather more difficult.
now, we’ve seen that Apple made a big deal in stating, and showing that very realistic dummy heads won’t work against a real person. But, does that mean that they can’t test that dummy head as the original head? I’m not clear on that. If they can, and I don’t see why not, then they can do this easily in a standard setup. If they can’t, that’s one very tired person sitting through those millions of phone tests.
Yeah, Federighi has looked a little strained in recent photos -- those Animoji require a lot of effort.
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.
I'm not sure you even read the Bloomberg story since Gurman didn't write it nor is he mentioned, but you clearly don't like the guy for whatever reason. As I recall from his time at 9to5 he was often the first to write positive news about upcoming features and products too. He wasn't always "dinging Apple". Perhaps you didn't follow 9to5 all that closely.
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.
You don't recall seeing that but maybe? You surely could have missed?
You don't have to build a time machine to find out you know. It seems you're just trolling, asking a question you could answer yourself, if you would have read the article again. I'll save you the time though; from the original Bloomberg article...
As Wall Street analysts and fan blogs watched for signs that the company would stumble, Apple came up with a solution: It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people familiar with the situation.
So basically, all the reports of Apple failing to produce enough units and "stumbling" were false... To save face, a story is being made up of how Apple was only able to not stumble because they allowed suppliers to reduce the accuracy of certain components.
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.
You don't recall seeing that but maybe? You surely could have missed?
You don't have to build a time machine to find out you know. It seems you're just trolling, asking a question you could answer yourself, if you would have read the article again. I'll save you the time though; from the original Bloomberg article...
As Wall Street analysts and fan blogs watched for signs that the company would stumble, Apple came up with a solution: It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people familiar with the situation.
So basically, all the reports of Apple failing to produce enough units and "stumbling" were false... To save face, a story is being made up of how Apple was only able to not stumble because they allowed suppliers to reduce the accuracy of certain components.
And I thank you for that. So they did imply the accuracy might be affected by the change in quality standards.
It’s great to see Apple make this statement. The media has been completely out of control in “reporting” rumors on iPhone X. I rarely read the news on Apple. 99% seems made up nonsense.
its not really a shock if you have been around Apple history for the last few years. rumors that result in a drop in stock value always turn up right before the iPhone
Just send an iPhone X my way and I'll test the accuracy a million times.
In a random test wouldn't you just have to get past 500k to have a greater than 50% chance?
But it's probably less than that since the closest physical match to your facial features are likely the people closest to you, which is why Face ID needs to be 20x that of Touch ID since fingerprint patterns are more unique between siblings, parents, and offspring, even though finger prints are heavily influenced by genetic factors (like basic size, shape, and spacing of dermatoglyphs).
This looks to be the last gasp in a long lineage of poorly sourced authentication stories that will ultimately culminate in this future meme; if your premium phone doesn't have face recognition at least equal to the iPhone X, then, it isn't an iPhone Killer.
Me, I'm more interested in Apple's rumored purchase of Visage.
Just send an iPhone X my way and I'll test the accuracy a million times.
In a random test wouldn't you just have to get past 500k to have a greater than 50% chance?
But it's probably less than that since the closest physical match to your facial features are likely the people closest to you, which is why Face ID needs to be 20x that of Touch ID since fingerprint patterns are more unique between siblings, parents, and offspring, even though finger prints are heavily influenced by genetic factors (like basic size, shape, and spacing of dermatoglyphs).
To have a useful statistical result, you would need to test it millions of times. But that number is a derived one. There’s no reason to believe it’s anything other than a mathematical calculation. It’s like the 1 in 50,000 for Touch ID. Realistically, it far less likely than that, in the real world. I can’t say the same thing for this though.
Comments
How does Apple (or anyone) test FaceID in a repeatable way???
But even if those latter scenarios don't work all you have to do is input your passcode and then setup Face ID again which they showed was a very fast process.
now, we’ve seen that Apple made a big deal in stating, and showing that very realistic dummy heads won’t work against a real person. But, does that mean that they can’t test that dummy head as the original head? I’m not clear on that. If they can, and I don’t see why not, then they can do this easily in a standard setup. If they can’t, that’s one very tired person sitting through those millions of phone tests.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_and_Ethel_Rosenberg
You don't recall seeing that but maybe?
You surely could have missed?
You don't have to build a time machine to find out you know. It seems you're just trolling, asking a question you could answer yourself, if you would have read the article again. I'll save you the time though; from the original Bloomberg article...
So basically, all the reports of Apple failing to produce enough units and "stumbling" were false... To save face, a story is being made up of how Apple was only able to not stumble because they allowed suppliers to reduce the accuracy of certain components.
But it's probably less than that since the closest physical match to your facial features are likely the people closest to you, which is why Face ID needs to be 20x that of Touch ID since fingerprint patterns are more unique between siblings, parents, and offspring, even though finger prints are heavily influenced by genetic factors (like basic size, shape, and spacing of dermatoglyphs).
if your premium phone doesn't have face recognition at least equal to the iPhone X, then, it isn't an iPhone Killer.
Me, I'm more interested in Apple's rumored purchase of Visage.