Original iPhone early reviewer Steven Levy heralds iPhone X as kicking off Apple's next de...

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 49
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,098member

    Have these lasers been tested and verified as safe for using with Humans by the FDA?
    I will wait a while.   I would rather have an X with Touchid on the back and a Small notch not the giant eye-sore the X has.

    Apple is not using lasers in this case but there are still FDA requirements for LEDs since any light source of sufficient intensity, duration, and at (incompatible with human vision) wavelengths is a safety concern. The FDA requires that manufacturers adhere to the appropriate international standards for all products that have safety considerations. In this case I would bet that Apple is forced to achieve conformance to IEC-62471 (Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems) for LED illumination.

    Building complex products that are approved for sale in international markets requires adherence to a staggering number of product, safety, environmental, regulatory, testing, etc., standards that the average iPhone customer cannot begin to imagine. We all dwell on our own personal set of product functions and qualities that matter to us without realizing what a huge achievement it is just for the iPhone X to be available for us to purchase. Throw in the sourcing, manufacturing, and operational complexities and it's nothing short of amazing that it happens and at the amazing volumes that Apple achieves. When Tim Cook gets up in front of the world to show off a new product and conveys his thanks to the teams that made it all happen - this is a thoroughly sincere and heartfelt salute to his teams because he absolutely knows what it took to get to the announcement day while knowing very well that the committed ship date is going to happen as planned. 

    So yeah, everything that goes into the iPhone X including its LED illumination system safety conformance has been tested. 
  • Reply 42 of 49
    With AAPL up on both Friday and today, I think the value of the high-demand, higher value “X” is being factored into the stock price.
    I think @sog35 is somewhere, crying in his beer...

    But I am sure he'll be back, boasting how many millions of shares he bought right before AAPL went to $166+ per share.
    What was he going to do with his Capital after selling AAPL?  Buy some Shopify shares?  Maybe he can be found on a message board related to that company.
    Hope he got in after early October, when the stock price was around $115, otherwise he certainly would have sold out when it hit the low 90s a week later. 
  • Reply 43 of 49
    tzeshan said:
    tzeshan said:
    Face ID won't recognize him sometimes.  What will happen to all women who put on heavy cosmetics to the face?  
    It uses lasers to create a 3D depth map of your face. Cosmetics will have no effect.
    We can make many facial expressions.  For example, laughing will cause considerable change in face 3D. Does Face ID know you are making facial expression that is different from when you set it up?
    Animojis depend on being able to read your facial expression.
  • Reply 44 of 49
    fmalloy said:
    tzeshan said:
    Face ID won't recognize him sometimes.  What will happen to all women who put on heavy cosmetics to the face?  
    And I'm curious to see what happens when said makeup ends up smeared all over the dot projector and fancy illuminators and infrared cameras thru phone calls. Since the required precision is so high, you'd think it would required a crystal clean camera area, not one covered with makeup, sweat, and body oils from holding it to your ear. Don' t know about you, but my wife's screen is pretty greasy. I have a feeling owners are going to have to get used to wiping down their notch areas every time they want to unlock.
    Touch ID has issues with greasy, wet, or dirty lens.
  • Reply 45 of 49
    k2kw said:
    tzeshan said:
    Face ID won't recognize him sometimes.  What will happen to all women who put on heavy cosmetics to the face?  
    It uses lasers to create a 3D depth map of your face. Cosmetics will have no effect.
    Have these lasers been tested and verified as safe for using with Humans by the FDA?
    I will wait a while.   I would rather have an X with Touchid on the back and a Small notch not the giant eye-sore the X has.
    That's exactly why Microsoft stopped selling KINECT... a whistleblower like you called the FDA and tattled on their lasers. Maybe you should contact them about Face ID.
  • Reply 46 of 49
    schlack said:
    I think calling it a half way point is a good description. The features are cool and cutting edge. But it will take a few more years to fully realize their potential in software and use cases. Also, at ~$1,500 including decent storage, an Apple case, AppleCare, and tax (6%) it feels more like a tech showcase than a phone that most people will really buy. Even as a huge Apple fan without a budget per se, I don't think I could justify spending more than $800 on a new phone.
    I have a issue justifying spending $800 on old tech phone when for a small percentage increase you get the first of the new tech. I was undecided between an iPhone 8 256 and an iPhone X 256. That decided me on going the iPhone X route

    Just a small correction - for $800 you get "new tech". For a small percentage increase, you get "cutting edge tech".
  • Reply 47 of 49
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,936member
    dewme said:

    Have these lasers been tested and verified as safe for using with Humans by the FDA?
    I will wait a while.   I would rather have an X with Touchid on the back and a Small notch not the giant eye-sore the X has.

    Apple is not using lasers in this case but there are still FDA requirements for LEDs since any light source of sufficient intensity, duration, and at (incompatible with human vision) wavelengths is a safety concern. The FDA requires that manufacturers adhere to the appropriate international standards for all products that have safety considerations. In this case I would bet that Apple is forced to achieve conformance to IEC-62471 (Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems) for LED illumination.

    Building complex products that are approved for sale in international markets requires adherence to a staggering number of product, safety, environmental, regulatory, testing, etc., standards that the average iPhone customer cannot begin to imagine. We all dwell on our own personal set of product functions and qualities that matter to us without realizing what a huge achievement it is just for the iPhone X to be available for us to purchase. Throw in the sourcing, manufacturing, and operational complexities and it's nothing short of amazing that it happens and at the amazing volumes that Apple achieves. When Tim Cook gets up in front of the world to show off a new product and conveys his thanks to the teams that made it all happen - this is a thoroughly sincere and heartfelt salute to his teams because he absolutely knows what it took to get to the announcement day while knowing very well that the committed ship date is going to happen as planned. 

    So yeah, everything that goes into the iPhone X including its LED illumination system safety conformance has been tested. 
    Well put. I would only add that in the case of LED lighting, as with some other areas, regulators had a difficult task as there was no real long term data to feed off while regulations were put together.

    There have been studies that showed the harmful effects of some  LED lighting due to many factors but I think LED regulations have now matured to the point that if you purchase from a reputable source, things should be fine.

    Perhaps if you purchase a cheap LED torch, the quality of the LED doesn't matter but if you plan to switch to (non bulb) LED house lighting (which you hope to have for many years), it is worth sourcing the best you can afford just to be on the safe side and take a common sense approach (not looking directly at the light source while it's on).


    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 48 of 49
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,098member
    avon b7 said:
    Well put. I would only add that in the case of LED lighting, as with some other areas, regulators had a difficult task as there was no real long term data to feed off while regulations were put together.

    There have been studies that showed the harmful effects of some  LED lighting due to many factors but I think LED regulations have now matured to the point that if you purchase from a reputable source, things should be fine.

    Perhaps if you purchase a cheap LED torch, the quality of the LED doesn't matter but if you plan to switch to (non bulb) LED house lighting (which you hope to have for many years), it is worth sourcing the best you can afford just to be on the safe side and take a common sense approach (not looking directly at the light source while it's on).


    You are right-on about LED lighting concerns. At one point LEDs were regulated in the same way as lasers and the fact that many lasers in consumer products are diode based added more confusion. The bottom line is that any high intensity light source produced at wavelengths that are damaging to different structures in the human eye are a concern. The only difference between lasers and LEDs is that all of the energy produced by a laser is concentrated at one wavelength (coherent) while LEDs produce light whose energy is distributed across many wavelengths (incoherent). So even though some of the wavelengths produced by LEDs are potentially damaging to specific parts of the eye the energy levels at those wavelengths are very much lower than they would be for a laser that is tuned exactly for one wavelength that happens to be damaging. In fact there are lasers that are classified as "eye-safe" such as ones used for LIDAR navigation, positioning, and navigation for autonomous vehicles, robots, and measurement instruments. However, as you say the absolute and systematic effects are still being assessed. Many "eye-safe" lasers are classified as such based on potential damage to the retina/macular structures of the eye. Newer studies are now looking into whether "eye-safe" lasers/LEDs have negative effects on the frontal structures of the eye like the cornea. As far as LED light bulbs are concerned there has been a conscientious move to reduce the amount of blue light emitted by LEDs over the past decade since blue and UV are bad for the retina. Staring into an LED light bulb or high intensity LED for extended periods of time is not a good idea in any case, just like staring into the sun for any period of time is not a good idea. 
    avon b7
  • Reply 49 of 49
    spheric said:

    k2kw said:
    tzeshan said:
    Face ID won't recognize him sometimes.  What will happen to all women who put on heavy cosmetics to the face?  
    It uses lasers to create a 3D depth map of your face. Cosmetics will have no effect.
    Have these lasers been tested and verified as safe for using with Humans by the FDA?
    What the fuck...? What on earth are you talking about? That’s pure FUD nonsense. If you have a link that shows Apple lasers are harmful to human health, share it. But you won’t, because it doesn’t exist. 
    Put your uninformed knickers back on. Lasers are harmful and can potentially severely damage your eyes. Which is why they are NOT used for Face ID. The dot matrix is an infrared projection. 
    Like I said — if you have something to show Apple lasers are damaging unsuspecting users, please share it. But also like I said, you won’t because it doesn’t exist. 
Sign In or Register to comment.