Face ID, TrueDepth camera component supplies 'stable,' technology will span 2018 iPhone li...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,479member

    I see a new SE soon that hopefully drops the old one for the same price. 
    I see Apple introducing another OLED iPhone in 2018, that one using the 8 Plus chassis for a 6.5” display starting at $999. Then in 2019 the SE chassis will become OLEDized (4.7”) at $799. 

    Throughout Apple will continue to produce SEs using LED screens in a 4” inch configuration at $399. 
    Agreed.
  • Reply 22 of 35
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    Soli said:
    cali said:
    Soli said:
    cali said:
    Watch is the most practical. Imagine the battery life it will save? Only turning on when you look at it.
    I've considered that—and of course I'd love to see it happen posthaste—but I wonder when that will feasible.

    In the iPhone, the battery is large enough that the Face ID components can be a minimal power draw in that always-ready, instant-authentication state, but how will that translate with the Apple Watch battery and what I assume is both a better secure element and processor, both likely to be part of a future S-series SiP. The Series 3 Watch has a 279 mAh (1.07 WHrs) battery while the iPhone X apparently has a 2716 mAh battery; or about 1/10h the capacity.


    With time my friend, with time....

    The logical steps are increasing battery life with software and smaller components for a bigger battery.

    the question is less “how” is it gonna happen but “when”. At its current state the notch will look ugly on a tiny Watch but bet your as* Apple isn’t sitting around waiting for the tech to shrink itself.
    If Apple can shrink the notch into the bezel or somehow move sensors into the screen we will see FaceID on the Watch.
    At least with the Watch there's a large enough bezel that they could potentially put in there without affecting the device footprint or eating Into the display, at least how it's designed now. They could also put the sensors around the display, which could offset the load and even allow for the extra precision I mentioned by having multiple sensors and sensors further apart so that different angles of your eyes' gaze can be calculated. The possibilities are grande. #GodILoveTechnology

    Wow I didn’t even think about sensors surrounding the display. That’s totally possible, maybe even now. 
  • Reply 23 of 35
    Soli said:

    georgie01 said:
    cali said:
    I hope Apple can shrink the technology in 2018 or eliminate it. Maybe place the cameras and speaker into the tiny top bezel? That would be awesome.
    That would be great, but it’s pretty obvious that Apple either put in the X’s notch on purpose or is completely ‘owning it’. Either way, it’s not a trivial decision to back track now. At some point it was no longer a technical decision—they could have easily had a small bezel on top of the X with no notch. The notch is part of Apple’s UI design guidelines and developers can’t ignore it. I suspect we’ll be seeing the notch for some time.

    I think it’s a weird decision considering we’ve been looking at notch-less screens (TV’s and monitors) for decades. Maybe Apple is capable of redefining a standard like that but I’m not a big fan of it.

    With that said, I have preordered the X. 
    I think the notch is the right way to go. If you consider what a notch-less iPhone X would look like you now have a smaller overall display if you consider the same form factor, but now still have a forehead and chin because Apple would make the top and bottom symmetrical. But then you have nothing on the bottom, just a back bar; and you can't make that go to the edge because the rounded corners would look silly on the bottom but not the top, as well as the aforementioned symmetry issue.

    I think the rounded corners and all four sides have the same thickness edge, save for the notch, is the best option and makes the fit and finish look amazing. And it's not like we're getting any obstruction from the notch since the rounded corners are also obstructions to the previous right angles of the display and the safe areas will allow an even larger display of content without any obstruction, even with videos, if you tap the video. You also get more resolution, and better and brighter pixels. It's a win-win-win-win, IMO.
    So you’re a fan of the notch now, eh? ;)

    Also, I don’t know how people are considering having face ID in the watch. The current notch space is wider than the entire watch face. Not to mention that motion activated screen is going to be much more responsive than face I’d will ever be for turning on the watch face. And, by the time it’s even feasible to put face ID in the watch (>5 years), the battery life will probably be good enough to have a constantly on watch face. 
  • Reply 24 of 35
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,506member
    More power to Apple for all good making it right face-id innovation. But, I still like Apple to have two brands of iPhones with one face-id and other with under-screen touchid. As far as OLED vs retina LCD is concern, most people don't care or see significant difference in daily usage. Apple needs to be smart to have multiple iPhones distinct with features and price differentiation. Let users decide,
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 25 of 35
    tshapitshapi Posts: 343member
    I think next years iphone is going to be only 3 phones. The iPhone X 5.8” the iPhone X plus 6.4 and an iPhone with minimal bezel at entry level maybe 5.2” 
  • Reply 26 of 35
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,028member
    Soli said:
    georgie01 said:
    cali said:
    I hope Apple can shrink the technology in 2018 or eliminate it. Maybe place the cameras and speaker into the tiny top bezel? That would be awesome.
    That would be great, but it’s pretty obvious that Apple either put in the X’s notch on purpose or is completely ‘owning it’. Either way, it’s not a trivial decision to back track now. At some point it was no longer a technical decision—they could have easily had a small bezel on top of the X with no notch. The notch is part of Apple’s UI design guidelines and developers can’t ignore it. I suspect we’ll be seeing the notch for some time.

    I think it’s a weird decision considering we’ve been looking at notch-less screens (TV’s and monitors) for decades. Maybe Apple is capable of redefining a standard like that but I’m not a big fan of it.

    With that said, I have preordered the X. 
    I think the notch is the right way to go. If you consider what a notch-less iPhone X would look like you now have a smaller overall display if you consider the same form factor, but now still have a forehead and chin because Apple would make the top and bottom symmetrical. But then you have nothing on the bottom, just a back bar; and you can't make that go to the edge because the rounded corners would look silly on the bottom but not the top, as well as the aforementioned symmetry issue.

    I think the rounded corners and all four sides have the same thickness edge, save for the notch, is the best option and makes the fit and finish look amazing. And it's not like we're getting any obstruction from the notch since the rounded corners are also obstructions to the previous right angles of the display and the safe areas will allow an even larger display of content without any obstruction, even with videos, if you tap the video. You also get more resolution, and better and brighter pixels. It's a win-win-win-win, IMO.
    So you’re a fan of the notch now, eh? ;)
    What's your point? Have I ever said the notch shouldn't exist on the iPhone X? I've said that you can't call the front of the device "all screen" because the notch takes up some of that area, but also said it's better than the alternate of the having unused areas of a symmetrical "forehead" and "chin."

    Also, what we're talking about here is how the sensors in the notch (which are less than what is needed for the Watch) can be applied to the border of the Watch—no one is suggesting that the display of the Watch would have a notch.

    Also, I don’t know how people are considering having face ID in the watch. The current notch space is wider than the entire watch face. Not to mention that motion activated screen is going to be much more responsive than face I’d will ever be for turning on the watch face. And, by the time it’s even feasible to put face ID in the watch (>5 years), the battery life will probably be good enough to have a constantly on watch face. 
    So the current components in the notch are wider the entire Watch means that it can't ever be smaller, or I pointed out have the components placed around it and with some redundancy (like 3 much smaller dot projectors that only push out 10k dots each), perhaps near the corners to help create a wider and therefore more accurate Face ID result? If that's the case, then how did the original PrimeSense HW turn into Face ID on the iPhone when the Kinect is wider than the iPhone? Oh, gee, that's a tough one¡

    2) Maybe by the time this happens the battery life will have improved to that point to being always one (something else I've already mentioned), but that's not where you should be focusing your always-on dream. It's display tech that will be the greatest push to allow that to happen. Currently micro-LED offers the best shot while also moving the quality of pixel longevity, color accuracy, and brightness forward at the same time. Still, having a bright display on all the time isn't an ideal situation because of the light being emitted so you can't trying to shoehorn traditional watch dynamics into a discussion about smartwatches so Face ID on a Watch could still be useful.

    3) I don't find the "motion activated screen" as responsible as you state. I have to lift and twist my wrist in an unnatural manner compared to a traditional watch so that the display will turn on, which I'm guessing you've experienced since you're pushing for the Watch face to be always-on without considering the downfalls of an always-on display when it's not sunny out.

    PS: If you're going to shoot down Cali's initial comment out-of-hand without even the possibility that sensors could be smaller and place around the already decent sized border on the Watch display, I'd say a better avenue attack than "the current notch is wider than the Watch," which I'm not sure is true, but either way, you're better off going after the security issues of what amount to cameras on your wrist being taken into sensitive areas. We've already seen many clever things people can do with photoreceptive sensor that aren't specific used as a standard digital camera so this may be something even Apple wouldn't want to tackle if they want the Watch to be the go-anywhere device.
  • Reply 27 of 35
    asdasd said:
    Soli said:
    I wonder if this component was ever in short supply or if this was one of the standard annual rumours for new iPhones. This one did feel different than previous reports of component shortcomings, but it's also an atypical year for the iPhone. I just hope that Face ID comes to iPads and Macs soon.
    You are too kind to that mystic seer of the East. I was going to post: “Oh sure, a month after you tried to destroy AAPL with your spurious, baseless “reports” of supple constraints, all is well now. Did you get enough cheap AAPL for your clients?

    reprinting Kuo’s trash rewards him for lying. 
    If you think he’s lying then you can make a killing. Seems reliable to me. There were shortages and they are being alleviated. 
    I have been doing very well (buying near term options on these false dips) thank you.  Kuo is a liar.  There has been “shortages” each and every iPhone launch since 2007. Then Apple reports record sales - each and every year.  Kuo’s attributing those initial shortages to non-existent production problems is the lie. The only problem Apple has ever had is satisfying surge demand (first adopters) when ramping production. 
  • Reply 28 of 35
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,566member
    Soli said:

    georgie01 said:
    cali said:
    I hope Apple can shrink the technology in 2018 or eliminate it. Maybe place the cameras and speaker into the tiny top bezel? That would be awesome.
    That would be great, but it’s pretty obvious that Apple either put in the X’s notch on purpose or is completely ‘owning it’. Either way, it’s not a trivial decision to back track now. At some point it was no longer a technical decision—they could have easily had a small bezel on top of the X with no notch. The notch is part of Apple’s UI design guidelines and developers can’t ignore it. I suspect we’ll be seeing the notch for some time.

    I think it’s a weird decision considering we’ve been looking at notch-less screens (TV’s and monitors) for decades. Maybe Apple is capable of redefining a standard like that but I’m not a big fan of it.

    With that said, I have preordered the X. 
    I think the notch is the right way to go. If you consider what a notch-less iPhone X would look like you now have a smaller overall display if you consider the same form factor, but now still have a forehead and chin because Apple would make the top and bottom symmetrical. But then you have nothing on the bottom, just a back bar; and you can't make that go to the edge because the rounded corners would look silly on the bottom but not the top, as well as the aforementioned symmetry issue.

    I think the rounded corners and all four sides have the same thickness edge, save for the notch, is the best option and makes the fit and finish look amazing. And it's not like we're getting any obstruction from the notch since the rounded corners are also obstructions to the previous right angles of the display and the safe areas will allow an even larger display of content without any obstruction, even with videos, if you tap the video. You also get more resolution, and better and brighter pixels. It's a win-win-win-win, IMO.
    So you’re a fan of the notch now, eh? ;)

    Also, I don’t know how people are considering having face ID in the watch. The current notch space is wider than the entire watch face. Not to mention that motion activated screen is going to be much more responsive than face I’d will ever be for turning on the watch face. And, by the time it’s even feasible to put face ID in the watch (>5 years), the battery life will probably be good enough to have a constantly on watch face. 
    The other problem a notchless design would present is that the iPhoneX still has an up orientation in portrait mode. Without the home button to anchor the device you still need some visual clue. Or Apple need to add the hardware at the bottom as well to make it universal.

    I'd think a notchless design is a long way off in order to get the sensors and camera under the screen panel near the middle so only mic speaker combo is needed each end to allow you to pick up phone anyway you like.
  • Reply 29 of 35
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,028member
    mattinoz said:
    Soli said:

    georgie01 said:
    cali said:
    I hope Apple can shrink the technology in 2018 or eliminate it. Maybe place the cameras and speaker into the tiny top bezel? That would be awesome.
    That would be great, but it’s pretty obvious that Apple either put in the X’s notch on purpose or is completely ‘owning it’. Either way, it’s not a trivial decision to back track now. At some point it was no longer a technical decision—they could have easily had a small bezel on top of the X with no notch. The notch is part of Apple’s UI design guidelines and developers can’t ignore it. I suspect we’ll be seeing the notch for some time.

    I think it’s a weird decision considering we’ve been looking at notch-less screens (TV’s and monitors) for decades. Maybe Apple is capable of redefining a standard like that but I’m not a big fan of it.

    With that said, I have preordered the X. 
    I think the notch is the right way to go. If you consider what a notch-less iPhone X would look like you now have a smaller overall display if you consider the same form factor, but now still have a forehead and chin because Apple would make the top and bottom symmetrical. But then you have nothing on the bottom, just a back bar; and you can't make that go to the edge because the rounded corners would look silly on the bottom but not the top, as well as the aforementioned symmetry issue.

    I think the rounded corners and all four sides have the same thickness edge, save for the notch, is the best option and makes the fit and finish look amazing. And it's not like we're getting any obstruction from the notch since the rounded corners are also obstructions to the previous right angles of the display and the safe areas will allow an even larger display of content without any obstruction, even with videos, if you tap the video. You also get more resolution, and better and brighter pixels. It's a win-win-win-win, IMO.
    So you’re a fan of the notch now, eh? ;)

    Also, I don’t know how people are considering having face ID in the watch. The current notch space is wider than the entire watch face. Not to mention that motion activated screen is going to be much more responsive than face I’d will ever be for turning on the watch face. And, by the time it’s even feasible to put face ID in the watch (>5 years), the battery life will probably be good enough to have a constantly on watch face. 
    The other problem a notchless design would present is that the iPhoneX still has an up orientation in portrait mode. Without the home button to anchor the device you still need some visual clue. Or Apple need to add the hardware at the bottom as well to make it universal.

    I'd think a notchless design is a long way off in order to get the sensors and camera under the screen panel near the middle so only mic speaker combo is needed each end to allow you to pick up phone anyway you like.
    1) Face ID can be used with the device flat on a table so it's not unreasonable to think you can hold it "upside down' and have it work just fine. There are plenty of iPhone apps that can work in all orientations and this is the standard for iOS for iPad.

    2) The camera bump is fastest and easiest way for me to orient the device when pulling it out of my pocket or picking it up without looking directly at it.
  • Reply 30 of 35
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,073member
    I'm a fan of both notches, the ones on either side of the sensors.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    For what absolutely little it's worth at this stage, my wildly speculative guess is Face ID stays limited to an updated X and (new!) X Plus. Only caveat to that, since my knowledge of Apple's actual production schedule is zero -- dunno whether next year's models are locked in yet -- I would think that they'd want to keep Face ID limited to the X for another year because profits.
  • Reply 32 of 35
    Should of added: Face ID on the iPhone "9" would undercut the X. Can't see that happening.
  • Reply 33 of 35
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,028member
    Manqueman said:
    For what absolutely little it's worth at this stage, my wildly speculative guess is Face ID stays limited to an updated X and (new!) X Plus. Only caveat to that, since my knowledge of Apple's actual production schedule is zero -- dunno whether next year's models are locked in yet -- I would think that they'd want to keep Face ID limited to the X for another year because profits.
    Manqueman said:
    Should of added: Face ID on the iPhone "9" would undercut the X. Can't see that happening.
    Limiting a technology they spent nearly half a decade and half a billion dollars buying and developing to just the iPhone X seems like an unlikely scenario to me so I'm going to guess that it'll be on future iPhones and other devices, not just the 2017 iPhone X.
  • Reply 34 of 35
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    georgie01 said:
    cali said:
    I hope Apple can shrink the technology in 2018 or eliminate it. Maybe place the cameras and speaker into the tiny top bezel? That would be awesome.
    That would be great, but it’s pretty obvious that Apple either put in the X’s notch on purpose or is completely ‘owning it’. Either way, it’s not a trivial decision to back track now. At some point it was no longer a technical decision—they could have easily had a small bezel on top of the X with no notch. The notch is part of Apple’s UI design guidelines and developers can’t ignore it. I suspect we’ll be seeing the notch for some time.

    I think it’s a weird decision considering we’ve been looking at notch-less screens (TV’s and monitors) for decades. Maybe Apple is capable of redefining a standard like that but I’m not a big fan of it.

    With that said, I have preordered the X. 
    I think the notch is the right way to go. If you consider what a notch-less iPhone X would look like you now have a smaller overall display if you consider the same form factor, but now still have a forehead and chin because Apple would make the top and bottom symmetrical. But then you have nothing on the bottom, just a back bar; and you can't make that go to the edge because the rounded corners would look silly on the bottom but not the top, as well as the aforementioned symmetry issue.

    I think the rounded corners and all four sides have the same thickness edge, save for the notch, is the best option and makes the fit and finish look amazing. And it's not like we're getting any obstruction from the notch since the rounded corners are also obstructions to the previous right angles of the display and the safe areas will allow an even larger display of content without any obstruction, even with videos, if you tap the video. You also get more resolution, and better and brighter pixels. It's a win-win-win-win, IMO.
    So you’re a fan of the notch now, eh? ;)
    What's your point? Have I ever said the notch shouldn't exist on the iPhone X? I've said that you can't call the front of the device "all screen" because the notch takes up some of that area, but also said it's better than the alternate of the having unused areas of a symmetrical "forehead" and "chin."

    Also, what we're talking about here is how the sensors in the notch (which are less than what is needed for the Watch) can be applied to the border of the Watch—no one is suggesting that the display of the Watch would have a notch.

    Also, I don’t know how people are considering having face ID in the watch. The current notch space is wider than the entire watch face. Not to mention that motion activated screen is going to be much more responsive than face I’d will ever be for turning on the watch face. And, by the time it’s even feasible to put face ID in the watch (>5 years), the battery life will probably be good enough to have a constantly on watch face. 
    So the current components in the notch are wider the entire Watch means that it can't ever be smaller, or I pointed out have the components placed around it and with some redundancy (like 3 much smaller dot projectors that only push out 10k dots each), perhaps near the corners to help create a wider and therefore more accurate Face ID result? If that's the case, then how did the original PrimeSense HW turn into Face ID on the iPhone when the Kinect is wider than the iPhone? Oh, gee, that's a tough one¡

    2) Maybe by the time this happens the battery life will have improved to that point to being always one (something else I've already mentioned), but that's not where you should be focusing your always-on dream. It's display tech that will be the greatest push to allow that to happen. Currently micro-LED offers the best shot while also moving the quality of pixel longevity, color accuracy, and brightness forward at the same time. Still, having a bright display on all the time isn't an ideal situation because of the light being emitted so you can't trying to shoehorn traditional watch dynamics into a discussion about smartwatches so Face ID on a Watch could still be useful.

    3) I don't find the "motion activated screen" as responsible as you state. I have to lift and twist my wrist in an unnatural manner compared to a traditional watch so that the display will turn on, which I'm guessing you've experienced since you're pushing for the Watch face to be always-on without considering the downfalls of an always-on display when it's not sunny out.

    PS: If you're going to shoot down Cali's initial comment out-of-hand without even the possibility that sensors could be smaller and place around the already decent sized border on the Watch display, I'd say a better avenue attack than "the current notch is wider than the Watch," which I'm not sure is true, but either way, you're better off going after the security issues of what amount to cameras on your wrist being taken into sensitive areas. We've already seen many clever things people can do with photoreceptive sensor that aren't specific used as a standard digital camera so this may be something even Apple wouldn't want to tackle if they want the Watch to be the go-anywhere device.


    You seem like maybe you're being a bit defensive. I'm not trying to 'shoot' anything down or 'attack' anything, just having a discussion. But you bring up some good points. Also, I realize that your disagreement was mostly about Apple's phrasing and not the notch itself. 

    However, Face ID on the watch still seems like a long shot, if it's ever going to happen. Even though you need less sensors, even putting a couple small sensors there, without messing up the symmetry of the watch face, seems like an insurmountable challenge. Also, you can't have multiple dot projectors because they work algorithmically based on the distance from the sensor. And of course, the way the watch is designed now, there's a significant curve in the outer glass that would further limit sensor placement.

    What could happen is integrating the sensors into a watch band attachment, which would also solve the privacy issue you mentioned, by making it optional. I think even a camera for video isn't even a large enough desire/need to warrant watch face space. But on a band facing the user it could be fun for some people, for candid, fun shots, similar to the ways go pros are used.

    Lastly, as for the motion sensing screen activation, it has worked surprisingly well for me. I'm actually fine with never having an always on mode. It's very very rare that I have to contort my wrist in a weird way or tap on the screen. Good point about the brightness of an always on mode though. Maybe Apple could have simple watch faces that don't draw much battery, then switching to a fancier watch face when motion activated by a wrist turn.

  • Reply 35 of 35
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,028member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    georgie01 said:
    cali said:
    I hope Apple can shrink the technology in 2018 or eliminate it. Maybe place the cameras and speaker into the tiny top bezel? That would be awesome.
    That would be great, but it’s pretty obvious that Apple either put in the X’s notch on purpose or is completely ‘owning it’. Either way, it’s not a trivial decision to back track now. At some point it was no longer a technical decision—they could have easily had a small bezel on top of the X with no notch. The notch is part of Apple’s UI design guidelines and developers can’t ignore it. I suspect we’ll be seeing the notch for some time.

    I think it’s a weird decision considering we’ve been looking at notch-less screens (TV’s and monitors) for decades. Maybe Apple is capable of redefining a standard like that but I’m not a big fan of it.

    With that said, I have preordered the X. 
    I think the notch is the right way to go. If you consider what a notch-less iPhone X would look like you now have a smaller overall display if you consider the same form factor, but now still have a forehead and chin because Apple would make the top and bottom symmetrical. But then you have nothing on the bottom, just a back bar; and you can't make that go to the edge because the rounded corners would look silly on the bottom but not the top, as well as the aforementioned symmetry issue.

    I think the rounded corners and all four sides have the same thickness edge, save for the notch, is the best option and makes the fit and finish look amazing. And it's not like we're getting any obstruction from the notch since the rounded corners are also obstructions to the previous right angles of the display and the safe areas will allow an even larger display of content without any obstruction, even with videos, if you tap the video. You also get more resolution, and better and brighter pixels. It's a win-win-win-win, IMO.
    So you’re a fan of the notch now, eh? ;)
    What's your point? Have I ever said the notch shouldn't exist on the iPhone X? I've said that you can't call the front of the device "all screen" because the notch takes up some of that area, but also said it's better than the alternate of the having unused areas of a symmetrical "forehead" and "chin."

    Also, what we're talking about here is how the sensors in the notch (which are less than what is needed for the Watch) can be applied to the border of the Watch—no one is suggesting that the display of the Watch would have a notch.

    Also, I don’t know how people are considering having face ID in the watch. The current notch space is wider than the entire watch face. Not to mention that motion activated screen is going to be much more responsive than face I’d will ever be for turning on the watch face. And, by the time it’s even feasible to put face ID in the watch (>5 years), the battery life will probably be good enough to have a constantly on watch face. 
    So the current components in the notch are wider the entire Watch means that it can't ever be smaller, or I pointed out have the components placed around it and with some redundancy (like 3 much smaller dot projectors that only push out 10k dots each), perhaps near the corners to help create a wider and therefore more accurate Face ID result? If that's the case, then how did the original PrimeSense HW turn into Face ID on the iPhone when the Kinect is wider than the iPhone? Oh, gee, that's a tough one¡

    2) Maybe by the time this happens the battery life will have improved to that point to being always one (something else I've already mentioned), but that's not where you should be focusing your always-on dream. It's display tech that will be the greatest push to allow that to happen. Currently micro-LED offers the best shot while also moving the quality of pixel longevity, color accuracy, and brightness forward at the same time. Still, having a bright display on all the time isn't an ideal situation because of the light being emitted so you can't trying to shoehorn traditional watch dynamics into a discussion about smartwatches so Face ID on a Watch could still be useful.

    3) I don't find the "motion activated screen" as responsible as you state. I have to lift and twist my wrist in an unnatural manner compared to a traditional watch so that the display will turn on, which I'm guessing you've experienced since you're pushing for the Watch face to be always-on without considering the downfalls of an always-on display when it's not sunny out.

    PS: If you're going to shoot down Cali's initial comment out-of-hand without even the possibility that sensors could be smaller and place around the already decent sized border on the Watch display, I'd say a better avenue attack than "the current notch is wider than the Watch," which I'm not sure is true, but either way, you're better off going after the security issues of what amount to cameras on your wrist being taken into sensitive areas. We've already seen many clever things people can do with photoreceptive sensor that aren't specific used as a standard digital camera so this may be something even Apple wouldn't want to tackle if they want the Watch to be the go-anywhere device.


    You seem like maybe you're being a bit defensive. I'm not trying to 'shoot' anything down or 'attack' anything, just having a discussion. But you bring up some good points. Also, I realize that your disagreement was mostly about Apple's phrasing and not the notch itself. 

    However, Face ID on the watch still seems like a long shot, if it's ever going to happen. Even though you need less sensors, even putting a couple small sensors there, without messing up the symmetry of the watch face, seems like an insurmountable challenge. Also, you can't have multiple dot projectors because they work algorithmically based on the distance from the sensor. And of course, the way the watch is designed now, there's a significant curve in the outer glass that would further limit sensor placement.

    What could happen is integrating the sensors into a watch band attachment, which would also solve the privacy issue you mentioned, by making it optional. I think even a camera for video isn't even a large enough desire/need to warrant watch face space. But on a band facing the user it could be fun for some people, for candid, fun shots, similar to the ways go pros are used.

    Lastly, as for the motion sensing screen activation, it has worked surprisingly well for me. I'm actually fine with never having an always on mode. It's very very rare that I have to contort my wrist in a weird way or tap on the screen. Good point about the brightness of an always on mode though. Maybe Apple could have simple watch faces that don't draw much battery, then switching to a fancier watch face when motion activated by a wrist turn.

    1) Perhaps I am. My apologies. Yes, my issue is with referring to the front of the device as being all screen, which might be how forum members have referred to it—not Apple.

    2) I don't think this can happen any time soon for the reasons previously stated, but I also don't think it's impossible, and I see benefits that could shore up limitations with the current "Wake screen on wrist raise" setting. When looking at effectiveness of the raise to wake feature I would agree that it's worked out well, but there's still that "dead zone" where you can't look at your wrist to see the time or a notification without the arm and wrist turn being in play. I imagine that Apple would want to find a resolution to that if they can.

    3) Perhaps the tech in Face ID can be lower power and shrunk so that instead of being used for security purposes, like with the iPhone, instead its using some much simpler level of scrutiny to merely judge if your eyes are looking at it. You still authenticate with a PIN when you put it on, just like you do whenever you restart an iPhone, but then after the display can work with wrist raises and/or a gaze. Perhaps there's even a wavelength that when reflected off the retina or lens (as opposed to the cornea) it would being a near certain indicator that you're looking at the watch face.
    patchythepirate
Sign In or Register to comment.