His point was very valid. He was also correct when he stated that the test was really comparing a 2D system against a 3D system.
Incorrect. As I've repeatedly stated, the original point was it was a test of 3D facial recognition which it wasn't. How can that even be said when only one phone had a 3D system out of 5 phones in the test. And again, 2D and 3D systems aren't even mentioned in the entire article.
You are being pendantic by claiming article was on facial recognition. Strictly speaking, it was facial recognition but you would have to wilfully ignore the other aspects. The problem was that the phones tested weren't comparable among themselves. Would you agree that the testing was worthless from the outset?
No. All the phones have "facial recognition". Explain how testing facial recognition on phones that have facial recognition is worthless. (I admit, I get a kick out of saying I'm being pedantic in one sentence and in the very next sentence saying basically agreeing with me)
It is like saying I am going to test 'communication' and compare two cans connected by a piece of string and cell phones. Whichever way you look at it, it would be communication but the comparison would be utterly worthless (just like the article is).
Either this is a poor analogy or you're saying 2D facial recognition is equivalent to two cans connected by a piece of string and therefore worthless. Which is odd, because a little later in you post we have this:
Now, I am sure many iPhone users without FaceID would love to have access to a 2D facial recognition system (even being well aware of the security limitations involved).
And then this:
Of course, the real point of interest for Android users is that their 2D facial recognition systems are actually quite robust.
So, is 2D facial recognition worthless or something people would love and actually quite robust? Your post isn't clear on this.
The Bloomberg article states very clearly that the Android phones tested use facial recognition as a - convenience - feature.
I don't know what the point of that statement is. (And I think you meant Forbes unless you're referring to something else)
Of course, the TheDude121, also quite reasonably questioned why the Android test candidates did not include Android phones with 3D facial recognition. Perhaps the results wouldn't have changed but at least the comparison would have made more sense.
Finally! Yes, it's a reasonable question, but not for AppleInsider. That question is for Forbes. As I mentioned several times, it's highly unlikely that anyone at AppleInsider or on these forums can answer questions about decisions made by Forbes. That's just bizarre.
At the end of the day, all the phones in the test have facial recognition. in the real world, everyone's head is 3D so even phones with a 2D facial recognition will be used by people who are in 3D.
So, 2D and 3D systems aren't mentioned in the entire article? You are now being wilfully obtuse.
The whole point of TheDude121's point was to highlight that precise failing! The article is comparing two different technologies: 2D and 3D facial recognition. It isn't necessary for the article to state this fact although it is comical that they put the two technologies head to head in the first place when they could have used 3D depth sensing on Android phones. That said, in reality the 3D technology is in fact mentioned in the article:
"No such luck with the iPhone X, though. Apple's investment in itstech - which saw the company work with a Hollywood studio to create realistic masks to test FaceID - has clearly paid off. It was impossible to break in with the model.
Note that Bloomberg didn't say Apple's facial recognition but 'its tech' and 'FaceID'. In other words '3D Depth Sensing'. Can Face ID be 2D or only 3D. FaceID is synonymous with 3D depth sensing.
The anology is just fine. 2D sensing is not what is worthless. What is worthless is comparing two radically different technologies (with different underlying purposes). That is to say the simple fact that both can be used for communication doesn't make the comparison between two cans and a piece of string and cell phones worthy.
FaceID was designed for secure face unlocking. 2D systems were designed for convenience face unlocking. As a result, two wildly different technologies are used (and costed accordingly).
2D is quite robust for convenience use. I'm sure many iPhone users that don't have Face ID would find a use for it.
His point was very valid. He was also correct when he stated that the test was really comparing a 2D system against a 3D system.
Incorrect. As I've repeatedly stated, the original point was it was a test of 3D facial recognition which it wasn't. How can that even be said when only one phone had a 3D system out of 5 phones in the test. And again, 2D and 3D systems aren't even mentioned in the entire article.
You are being pendantic by claiming article was on facial recognition. Strictly speaking, it was facial recognition but you would have to wilfully ignore the other aspects. The problem was that the phones tested weren't comparable among themselves. Would you agree that the testing was worthless from the outset?
No. All the phones have "facial recognition". Explain how testing facial recognition on phones that have facial recognition is worthless. (I admit, I get a kick out of saying I'm being pedantic in one sentence and in the very next sentence saying basically agreeing with me)
It is like saying I am going to test 'communication' and compare two cans connected by a piece of string and cell phones. Whichever way you look at it, it would be communication but the comparison would be utterly worthless (just like the article is).
Either this is a poor analogy or you're saying 2D facial recognition is equivalent to two cans connected by a piece of string and therefore worthless. Which is odd, because a little later in you post we have this:
Now, I am sure many iPhone users without FaceID would love to have access to a 2D facial recognition system (even being well aware of the security limitations involved).
And then this:
Of course, the real point of interest for Android users is that their 2D facial recognition systems are actually quite robust.
So, is 2D facial recognition worthless or something people would love and actually quite robust? Your post isn't clear on this.
The Bloomberg article states very clearly that the Android phones tested use facial recognition as a - convenience - feature.
I don't know what the point of that statement is. (And I think you meant Forbes unless you're referring to something else)
Of course, the TheDude121, also quite reasonably questioned why the Android test candidates did not include Android phones with 3D facial recognition. Perhaps the results wouldn't have changed but at least the comparison would have made more sense.
Finally! Yes, it's a reasonable question, but not for AppleInsider. That question is for Forbes. As I mentioned several times, it's highly unlikely that anyone at AppleInsider or on these forums can answer questions about decisions made by Forbes. That's just bizarre.
At the end of the day, all the phones in the test have facial recognition. in the real world, everyone's head is 3D so even phones with a 2D facial recognition will be used by people who are in 3D.
So, 2D and 3D systems aren't mentioned in the entire article? You are now being wilfully obtuse.
The whole point of TheDude121's point was to highlight that precise failing! The article is comparing two different technologies: 2D and 3D facial recognition. It isn't necessary for the article to state this fact although it is comical that they put the two technologies head to head in the first place when they could have used 3D depth sensing on Android phones. That said, in reality the 3D technology is in fact mentioned in the article:
"No such luck with the iPhone X, though. Apple's investment in itstech - which saw the company work with a Hollywood studio to create realistic masks to test FaceID - has clearly paid off. It was impossible to break in with the model.
Note that Bloomberg didn't say Apple's facial recognition but 'its tech' and 'FaceID'. In other words '3D Depth Sensing'. Can Face ID be 2D or only 3D. FaceID is synonymous with 3D depth sensing.
The anology is just fine. 2D sensing is not what is worthless. What is worthless is comparing two radically different technologies (with different underlying purposes). That is to say the simple fact that both can be used for communication doesn't make the comparison between two cans and a piece of string and cell phones worthy.
FaceID was designed for secure face unlocking. 2D systems were designed for convenience face unlocking. As a result, two wildly different technologies are used (and costed accordingly).
2D is quite robust for convenience use. I'm sure many iPhone users that don't have Face ID would find a use for it.
Yes, Forbes. My bad.
Wow, you're really stretching here. I guess I have to be really clear with you. The article doesn't use the term "2D" at all and only uses the term "3D" when talking about the model head. Sure the "systems" are mentioned. But do you honestly believe that the normal Forbes audience can be expected to know that when they see "Face Unlock" and "Face ID" that one of them means "2D convenience unlocking" and the other means "3D secure unlocking"? I can guarantee you that most people who aren't hanging around on tech websites and posting on those forums can even remotely explain how either system works. They know they look at their phone and it unlocks.
You're right, Forbes didn't say "Apple's facial recognition" because the entire article is about facial recognition. Do they need to be that redundant? It even has quotes from people at LG and and Samsung referring the the technology as "facial recognition" (not 2D facial recognition).
And you keep mentioning the Face ID is for secure unlocking and the 2D systems are for convenience. I don't know why you bring that up. In either case the 2D systems were able to be fooled, regardless of them only being for convenience.
For the record, I doubt there are very few people out there that need to worry about their phone being taken from them, a model of their head and face being produced and used to unlock their phone against their will.
Comments
The whole point of TheDude121's point was to highlight that precise failing! The article is comparing two different technologies: 2D and 3D facial recognition. It isn't necessary for the article to state this fact although it is comical that they put the two technologies head to head in the first place when they could have used 3D depth sensing on Android phones. That said, in reality the 3D technology is in fact mentioned in the article:
"No such luck with the iPhone X, though. Apple's investment in its tech - which saw the company work with a Hollywood studio to create realistic masks to test Face ID - has clearly paid off. It was impossible to break in with the model.
Note that Bloomberg didn't say Apple's facial recognition but 'its tech' and 'FaceID'. In other words '3D Depth Sensing'. Can Face ID be 2D or only 3D. FaceID is synonymous with 3D depth sensing.
The anology is just fine. 2D sensing is not what is worthless. What is worthless is comparing two radically different technologies (with different underlying purposes). That is to say the simple fact that both can be used for communication doesn't make the comparison between two cans and a piece of string and cell phones worthy.
FaceID was designed for secure face unlocking. 2D systems were designed for convenience face unlocking. As a result, two wildly different technologies are used (and costed accordingly).
2D is quite robust for convenience use. I'm sure many iPhone users that don't have Face ID would find a use for it.
Yes, Forbes. My bad.
You're right, Forbes didn't say "Apple's facial recognition" because the entire article is about facial recognition. Do they need to be that redundant? It even has quotes from people at LG and and Samsung referring the the technology as "facial recognition" (not 2D facial recognition).
And you keep mentioning the Face ID is for secure unlocking and the 2D systems are for convenience. I don't know why you bring that up. In either case the 2D systems were able to be fooled, regardless of them only being for convenience.
For the record, I doubt there are very few people out there that need to worry about their phone being taken from them, a model of their head and face being produced and used to unlock their phone against their will.