Surely a simple solution is turn off the RF for a few hundred milliseconds while the fingerprint snapshot is taken, as to not affect the sensor, which wouldn't drop the cellular connections as they're easily robust enough to lose several seconds of data.
This all sounds like a lot of marketing bluster to me.
Sounds like you’ve tried to engineer a solution without examining the problem.
If you switch off the radio during authentication then that means users risk losing the connection while they’re authenticating. For starters that would mean online sites that need to maintain server sessions might fail. It would also mean that you’d risk losing your phone call while buying stuff on line. Disastrous for me because I often have to buy theatre tickets for Mrs Rayz2016 while receiving seat number instructions on the phone.
Surely a simple solution is turn off the RF for a few hundred milliseconds while the fingerprint snapshot is taken, as to not affect the sensor, which wouldn't drop the cellular connections as they're easily robust enough to lose several seconds of data.
This all sounds like a lot of marketing bluster to me.
Sounds like you’ve tried to engineer a solution without examining the problem.
If you switch off the radio during authentication then that means users risk losing the connection while they’re authenticating. For starters that would mean online sites that need to maintain server sessions might fail. It would also mean that you’d risk losing your phone call while buying stuff on line. Disastrous for me because I often have to buy theatre tickets for Mrs Rayz2016 while receiving seat number instructions on the phone.
The snapshot happens in a few hundred milliseconds, TCP doesn't drop the connection the instant there's a delay. It would resume exactly the same after the pause. FaceTime's buffering could easily handle the hiccup too.
Well Sony had it in Q4 2015 (except in the US, because Apple had patented a fingerprint reader in a power button in Q2 2015) and it is as fast as the one on the then current 6S. So really, Sony beat them to the punch by 4 years, which also means this is 4 year old tech that Apple is touting as an "incredible feat". That said, I have no idea how secure the Sony one is comparatively.
Also:
"On the cellular iPads, the top portion of the enclosure is the antenna," Ternus explained, which meant they had to place "this incredibly sensitive Touch ID sensor right inside an incredibly sensitive antenna, and had to figure out how to make them work with each other and not be talking over each other and causing interference."
Surely a simple solution is turn off the RF for a few hundred milliseconds while the fingerprint snapshot is taken, as to not affect the sensor, which wouldn't drop the cellular connections as they're easily robust enough to lose several seconds of data.
This all sounds like a lot of marketing bluster to me.
Which means you have no idea what it took to put a fast and secure version of Touch ID into the Sleep/Wake button.
If we are talking about technically having fingerprint recognition then it could've been done decades ago with those thin bar that you swipe your finger across, but note that Apple never once added that and your comments would also imply that Touch ID was never an impressive or advanced biometric inclusion at any point simply because it was after someone else had some very basic option. Do you not see the fault in your logic? It's like saying the Sistine Chapel is on par with the botched restoration of "Ecce Homo" because they're both religious art.
Well, I do, as I said and you conveniently edited out:
The touch sensors are essentially ultra-high resolution CMOS-based touchscreens, high enough resolution to capture the ridges of your fingerprint in detail high with enough resolution to authenticate.
There is no fault in my logic because I did not imply that TouchID was not impressive, you are using a strawman argument to disprove something I did not say.
The original TouchID was impressive, and at the time capacitive fingerprint readers were extremely rare, no one else had them. Squeezing all that into a button for the first time was an incredible feat. An entirely new form of an existing concept (that works very well) is what made the original TouchID impressive. Reshaping the button that uses preexisting tech to match what a competitor had 4 years prior is not an "incredible feat".
The reason Apple isn't using the bar method is because it required IR LEDs in addition to the sensor and was about 10mm thick. Sony is using capacitive sensing in their button, just like Apple. The security of it is mostly down to the resolution and the software, and there have been no reports of the Sony sensor being fooled any more easily than TouchID, which is good, but isn't infallible. Sony's in-button sensing was a first, and as such was more of an "incredible feat" than Apple's version 4 years later, though it again is just an evolution of a capacitive sensor. Apple seems to imply their sensor is "incredible" because of its apparent immunity to RF noise.
Yes, what your strawman would be like saying the Sistine Chapel is on par with the restoration of Ecce Homo. But my argument is not that. It is that the original TouchID was much more impressive because whilst people always built cathedrals (sensors) from mud, Apple came along and built them from stone instead. Sony then reshaped that chapel into something much more sleek, but still out of stone, and 4 years later, Apple did the same and called it an "incredible feat" because they did it.
Perhaps instead of lapping up Apple's marketing, try using a more neutral stance to see the difference between actual "incredible feats" such as the original TouchID, and this, an evolution of already existing tech.
No, I quoted exactly what you wrote:
Well Sony had it in Q4 2015 (except in the US, because Apple had patented a fingerprint reader in a power button in Q2 2015) and it is as fast as the one on the then current 6S. So really, Sony beat them to the punch by 4 years, which also means this is 4 year old tech that Apple is touting as an "incredible feat".
And then you wrote:
and 4 years later, Apple did the same and called it an "incredible feat" because they did it.
If you had read the article you would've seen that it wasn't seem thing they had done with the first Touch ID. From how it's used, to how its placed, to the silicon, and algorithms all had to be reworked to make it work properly in that unique space. It was all right there.
If you were actually interested in the technologies then I'd suggest you wait because more info will be available, but your comments clearly show that you have no interests in what needs to be done to make this work for various finger placements on the switch while also keeping it fast and secure. That's what I'm interested in—not bemoaning a feature because "Apple wasn't first so therefore it's crap."
I agree with the comments above questioning why this is such an astounding engineering feat since other companies appear to have done the same thing several years ago.
It would have been much more helpful if the article had compared the different implementations, their accuracy, security, etc. rather than just paraphrasing an interview with Apple execs.
Meh. Android had it for years and no one ever complained about it being insecure or anything. Usual Apple taking credit for something that someone else already did years before.
Well Sony had it in Q4 2015 (except in the US, because Apple had patented a fingerprint reader in a power button in Q2 2015) and it is as fast as the one on the then current 6S. So really, Sony beat them to the punch by 4 years, which also means this is 4 year old tech that Apple is touting as an "incredible feat". That said, I have no idea how secure the Sony one is comparatively.
Also:
"On the cellular iPads, the top portion of the enclosure is the antenna," Ternus explained, which meant they had to place "this incredibly sensitive Touch ID sensor right inside an incredibly sensitive antenna, and had to figure out how to make them work with each other and not be talking over each other and causing interference."
Surely a simple solution is turn off the RF for a few hundred milliseconds while the fingerprint snapshot is taken, as to not affect the sensor, which wouldn't drop the cellular connections as they're easily robust enough to lose several seconds of data.
This all sounds like a lot of marketing bluster to me.
Which means you have no idea what it took to put a fast and secure version of Touch ID into the Sleep/Wake button.
If we are talking about technically having fingerprint recognition then it could've been done decades ago with those thin bar that you swipe your finger across, but note that Apple never once added that and your comments would also imply that Touch ID was never an impressive or advanced biometric inclusion at any point simply because it was after someone else had some very basic option. Do you not see the fault in your logic? It's like saying the Sistine Chapel is on par with the botched restoration of "Ecce Homo" because they're both religious art.
Well, I do, as I said and you conveniently edited out:
The touch sensors are essentially ultra-high resolution CMOS-based touchscreens, high enough resolution to capture the ridges of your fingerprint in detail high with enough resolution to authenticate.
There is no fault in my logic because I did not imply that TouchID was not impressive, you are using a strawman argument to disprove something I did not say.
The original TouchID was impressive, and at the time capacitive fingerprint readers were extremely rare, no one else had them. Squeezing all that into a button for the first time was an incredible feat. An entirely new form of an existing concept (that works very well) is what made the original TouchID impressive. Reshaping the button that uses preexisting tech to match what a competitor had 4 years prior is not an "incredible feat".
The reason Apple isn't using the bar method is because it required IR LEDs in addition to the sensor and was about 10mm thick. Sony is using capacitive sensing in their button, just like Apple. The security of it is mostly down to the resolution and the software, and there have been no reports of the Sony sensor being fooled any more easily than TouchID, which is good, but isn't infallible. Sony's in-button sensing was a first, and as such was more of an "incredible feat" than Apple's version 4 years later, though it again is just an evolution of a capacitive sensor. Apple seems to imply their sensor is "incredible" because of its apparent immunity to RF noise.
Yes, what your strawman would be like saying the Sistine Chapel is on par with the restoration of Ecce Homo. But my argument is not that. It is that the original TouchID was much more impressive because whilst people always built cathedrals (sensors) from mud, Apple came along and built them from stone instead. Sony then reshaped that chapel into something much more sleek, but still out of stone, and 4 years later, Apple did the same and called it an "incredible feat" because they did it.
Perhaps instead of lapping up Apple's marketing, try using a more neutral stance to see the difference between actual "incredible feats" such as the original TouchID, and this, an evolution of already existing tech.
No, I quoted exactly what you wrote:
Well Sony had it in Q4 2015 (except in the US, because Apple had patented a fingerprint reader in a power button in Q2 2015) and it is as fast as the one on the then current 6S. So really, Sony beat them to the punch by 4 years, which also means this is 4 year old tech that Apple is touting as an "incredible feat".
And then you wrote:
and 4 years later, Apple did the same and called it an "incredible feat" because they did it.
If you had read the article you would've seen that it wasn't seem thing they had done with the first Touch ID. From how it's used, to how its placed, to the silicon, and algorithms all had to be reworked to make it work properly in that unique space. It was all right there.
If you were actually interested in the technologies then I'd suggest you wait because more info will be available, but your comments clearly show that you have no interests in what needs to be done to make this work for various finger placements on the switch while also keeping it fast and secure. That's what I'm interested in—not bemoaning a feature because "Apple wasn't first so therefore it's crap."
Unless it’s made by the competition then you will not bother to read about it but if Apple made it then you will be interested. LOL.
FaceID is very convenient on a big screen device like an iPad.
There are a lot of people which don't like / want to use Face ID and for those Touch ID is the perfect solution. What has the screen size to do with Face ID?
Not sure where the eXperia TouchID power button was, but regardless of comparatives, internals may have such complex designs that implementation could have been very challenging? It is not clear what he is calling an 'engineering feat', but definitely solving own-design complexities isnt always one.. knowing Apple i imagine they did awesome, but they arent always the only ones necessarily, and there is much merit in innovation..
I am getting more confident that Apple will put TouchId to power button on 2022 Spring iPhone SE 3 allowing larger screen and same time keeping lower price.
..what there generally is too is less profit - if the company is set on always creating "the best Apple product yet" (i really hope FaceID doesnt follow 3Dtouch.. both sensors really would help.). So an SE model will generally be the last to get new technology or form, that enough flagship-profit models can be sold to offset 'engineering feats' costs. It might be a while before we see this power-button sensor in an SE.
To me it also looks new that Apple ships a new SE as early as 2022, but that analyst did feel confident, and pundits always said Apple needed a stronger entry-level market presence.. with the economy as it is it might very well be the time to do this.
This looks like a case of Apple 'talking it up' which they sometimes do.
This technology is mature now and ultra fast and functional. It has been for some time.
No doubt there are issues which make the implementation trickier because of placement etc but I'd take the comments as more as a 'selling' reference than anything else. Not that there's anything wrong with that in itself.
Surely a simple solution is turn off the RF for a few hundred milliseconds while the fingerprint snapshot is taken, as to not affect the sensor, which wouldn't drop the cellular connections as they're easily robust enough to lose several seconds of data.
This all sounds like a lot of marketing bluster to me.
Sounds like you’ve tried to engineer a solution without examining the problem.
If you switch off the radio during authentication then that means users risk losing the connection while they’re authenticating. For starters that would mean online sites that need to maintain server sessions might fail. It would also mean that you’d risk losing your phone call while buying stuff on line. Disastrous for me because I often have to buy theatre tickets for Mrs Rayz2016 while receiving seat number instructions on the phone.
The snapshot happens in a few hundred milliseconds, TCP doesn't drop the connection the instant there's a delay. It would resume exactly the same after the pause. FaceTime's buffering could easily handle the hiccup too.
But that doesn’t eliminate the risks when dropping connections during user interactions, even for a few milliseconds.
And that’s the other thing: even if you know for sure how long it takes to bring down and restart the communications stack and whatever security processes surrounding it, “a few milliseconds” is a hell of a long time for a processor. That is a colossal waste of time and power on an operation that may occur anything up to 300 times a day in extreme cases.
But even the non-addicted probably need to trigger authentication at least twenty times during the day. For a processor, your design would be like rebooting the machine every time you wanted to load a new app.
So weighing all this (and a lot more neither of us have thought of), I can see why Apple decided to keep the stack running, rather than bouncing it up and down during authentication.
Even though I’m a big fan of FaceId, I’m surprised Apple hasn’t reintroduced TouchId as another way to authenticate on the new models (according to rumours). This mask-wearing thing will happen again, so I’d like to see them get ready for it.
Meh. Android had it for years and no one ever complained about it being insecure or anything. Usual Apple taking credit for something that someone else already did years before.
There is a big difference.
Yeah, Android had it for years, but didn’t worked properly and most important: it was unsecure. Every hacker could have access to your data. In an iPhone, even Apple can’t access the data stored in an enclave on your device.
Love all the armchair engineers claiming it was a simple task and all the iKnockoff morons thinking Android has TouchID. The internet gets dumber daily.
Love all the armchair engineers claiming it was a simple task and all the iKnockoff morons thinking Android has TouchID. The internet gets dumber daily.
You don't even have to be an armchair engineer to comprehend that the same functionality has been around for sometime now and working perfectly. Even as an off the shelf solution (which could be what Apple's is based off anyway). A teardown might shed some light on that.
What are those people missing in their observations?
Even though I’m a big fan of FaceId, I’m surprised Apple hasn’t reintroduced TouchId as another way to authenticate on the new models (according to rumours). This mask-wearing thing will happen again, so I’d like to see them get ready for it.
My guess is every 4 years.
I’m sure they are. This was obviously under development for some time. We may not see it in this year’s iPhone (unless it gets delayed) but I’m willing to bet it will be in iPhone 12S. Hopefully both technologies remain. TouchID is useful in public when we’re all pretending to be terrified, and FaceID for every other situation.
Love all the armchair engineers claiming it was a simple task and all the iKnockoff morons thinking Android has TouchID. The internet gets dumber daily.
You don't even have to be an armchair engineer to comprehend that the same functionality has been around for sometime now and working perfectly. Even as an off the shelf solution (which could be what Apple's is based off anyway). A teardown might shed some light on that.
What are those people missing in their observations?
That it isn't the same.
Functionality is not the same as capability, so I would ask, is Apple's TouchID more capable, more secure?
Likely, as Apple has very high standards, this TouchID is better than the competition.
Someone's "good enough" is not the same as perfect.
Well Sony had it in Q4 2015 (except in the US, because Apple had patented a fingerprint reader in a power button in Q2 2015) and it is as fast as the one on the then current 6S. So really, Sony beat them to the punch by 4 years, which also means this is 4 year old tech that Apple is touting as an "incredible feat". That said, I have no idea how secure the Sony one is comparatively.
Also:
"On the cellular iPads, the top portion of the enclosure is the antenna," Ternus explained, which meant they had to place "this incredibly sensitive Touch ID sensor right inside an incredibly sensitive antenna, and had to figure out how to make them work with each other and not be talking over each other and causing interference."
Surely a simple solution is turn off the RF for a few hundred milliseconds while the fingerprint snapshot is taken, as to not affect the sensor, which wouldn't drop the cellular connections as they're easily robust enough to lose several seconds of data.
This all sounds like a lot of marketing bluster to me.
Which means you have no idea what it took to put a fast and secure version of Touch ID into the Sleep/Wake button.
If we are talking about technically having fingerprint recognition then it could've been done decades ago with those thin bar that you swipe your finger across, but note that Apple never once added that and your comments would also imply that Touch ID was never an impressive or advanced biometric inclusion at any point simply because it was after someone else had some very basic option. Do you not see the fault in your logic? It's like saying the Sistine Chapel is on par with the botched restoration of "Ecce Homo" because they're both religious art.
Well, I do, as I said and you conveniently edited out:
The touch sensors are essentially ultra-high resolution CMOS-based touchscreens, high enough resolution to capture the ridges of your fingerprint in detail high with enough resolution to authenticate.
There is no fault in my logic because I did not imply that TouchID was not impressive, you are using a strawman argument to disprove something I did not say.
The original TouchID was impressive, and at the time capacitive fingerprint readers were extremely rare, no one else had them. Squeezing all that into a button for the first time was an incredible feat. An entirely new form of an existing concept (that works very well) is what made the original TouchID impressive. Reshaping the button that uses preexisting tech to match what a competitor had 4 years prior is not an "incredible feat".
The reason Apple isn't using the bar method is because it required IR LEDs in addition to the sensor and was about 10mm thick. Sony is using capacitive sensing in their button, just like Apple. The security of it is mostly down to the resolution and the software, and there have been no reports of the Sony sensor being fooled any more easily than TouchID, which is good, but isn't infallible. Sony's in-button sensing was a first, and as such was more of an "incredible feat" than Apple's version 4 years later, though it again is just an evolution of a capacitive sensor. Apple seems to imply their sensor is "incredible" because of its apparent immunity to RF noise.
Yes, what your strawman would be like saying the Sistine Chapel is on par with the restoration of Ecce Homo. But my argument is not that. It is that the original TouchID was much more impressive because whilst people always built cathedrals (sensors) from mud, Apple came along and built them from stone instead. Sony then reshaped that chapel into something much more sleek, but still out of stone, and 4 years later, Apple did the same and called it an "incredible feat" because they did it.
Perhaps instead of lapping up Apple's marketing, try using a more neutral stance to see the difference between actual "incredible feats" such as the original TouchID, and this, an evolution of already existing tech.
Holy shit that's a lot of shoveling just to prove my point. If the tech was really that inconsequential you wouldn't have had to written so much to to defend your point that Apple is not longer innovative.
You still fail to understand the difference between technically doing something and doing something well. This is why Apple is almost never first and yet they are the ones by which the technologies are measured once they enter the field. Touch ID was not even close to the first fingerprint biometric, but there was little reason to use insecure readers that required a very deliberate and controlled swipe on the backside of the device. And that's not even getting into speed or security.
The same goes an under the screen fingerprint reader? You really don't think Apple hasn't been working on this for years? The problem is you can't just something on the market that is for security without it being secure. Well, I guess if you're Samsung you can...
The article clearly says that they designed new silicon and algorithms because the scanner had to authenticate in a new way, but you clam that it was easy because "ultra-high resolution CMOS-based touchscreens" exist. You make no mention of the sample size for comparison which affects how secure the biometric lock is. If they wanted it to insecure it wouldn't been easy, just like Touch ID, which you now oddly remember as innovative and yet back in 2013 I'm sure you would've claimed that it was no big deal because that tech had existed for years.
Love all the armchair engineers claiming it was a simple task and all the iKnockoff morons thinking Android has TouchID. The internet gets dumber daily.
You don't even have to be an armchair engineer to comprehend that the same functionality has been around for sometime now and working perfectly. Even as an off the shelf solution (which could be what Apple's is based off anyway). A teardown might shed some light on that.
What are those people missing in their observations?
That it isn't the same.
Functionality is not the same as capability, so I would ask, is Apple's TouchID more capable, more secure?
Likely, as Apple has very high standards, this TouchID is better than the competition.
Someone's "good enough" is not the same as perfect.
Believe me. If it's deemed secure enough for biometric authentication for high sensitivity data (like payment transactions), you don't need 'feats' to make it better. It will get better as the industry moves forward.
Love all the armchair engineers claiming it was a simple task and all the iKnockoff morons thinking Android has TouchID. The internet gets dumber daily.
You don't even have to be an armchair engineer to comprehend that the same functionality has been around for sometime now and working perfectly. Even as an off the shelf solution (which could be what Apple's is based off anyway). A teardown might shed some light on that.
What are those people missing in their observations?
That it isn't the same.
Functionality is not the same as capability, so I would ask, is Apple's TouchID more capable, more secure?
Likely, as Apple has very high standards, this TouchID is better than the competition.
Someone's "good enough" is not the same as perfect.
Believe me. If it's deemed secure enough for biometric authentication for high sensitivity data (like payment transactions), you don't need 'feats' to make it better. It will get better as the industry moves forward.
Here's a very good podcast on the iPad that discusses the new TouchID starting at 7:22;
Evolutionary, different form factor, but still non trivial, especially incorporating it with the cellular antenna subsystem. It's an innovation, despite what you think.
BTW, when you preference your posts with "believe me", which you've also done in the past, it's a tell that you aren't being completely honest.
Apple quotes a 1:50,000 chance of a non valid fingerprint unlocking the iPhone (original Touch ID sensor) and a 1:1,000,000 chance for a non valid face to unlock an iPhone with Face ID
Those aren't non zero chances of security failure, and I'd venture that the competition isn't all that much better. Yeah, improvements to security are warranted, and likely implemented in the newest Touch ID sensor.
Comments
And then you wrote:
If you had read the article you would've seen that it wasn't seem thing they had done with the first Touch ID. From how it's used, to how its placed, to the silicon, and algorithms all had to be reworked to make it work properly in that unique space. It was all right there.
If you were actually interested in the technologies then I'd suggest you wait because more info will be available, but your comments clearly show that you have no interests in what needs to be done to make this work for various finger placements on the switch while also keeping it fast and secure. That's what I'm interested in—not bemoaning a feature because "Apple wasn't first so therefore it's crap."
What has the screen size to do with Face ID?
..what there generally is too is less profit - if the company is set on always creating "the best Apple product yet" (i really hope FaceID doesnt follow 3Dtouch.. both sensors really would help.). So an SE model will generally be the last to get new technology or form, that enough flagship-profit models can be sold to offset 'engineering feats' costs.
It might be a while before we see this power-button sensor in an SE.
To me it also looks new that Apple ships a new SE as early as 2022, but that analyst did feel confident, and pundits always said Apple needed a stronger entry-level market presence.. with the economy as it is it might very well be the time to do this.
This technology is mature now and ultra fast and functional. It has been for some time.
No doubt there are issues which make the implementation trickier because of placement etc but I'd take the comments as more as a 'selling' reference than anything else. Not that there's anything wrong with that in itself.
In an iPhone, even Apple can’t access the data stored in an enclave on your device.
What are those people missing in their observations?
I’m sure they are. This was obviously under development for some time. We may not see it in this year’s iPhone (unless it gets delayed) but I’m willing to bet it will be in iPhone 12S. Hopefully both technologies remain. TouchID is useful in public when we’re all pretending to be terrified, and FaceID for every other situation.
Functionality is not the same as capability, so I would ask, is Apple's TouchID more capable, more secure?
Likely, as Apple has very high standards, this TouchID is better than the competition.
Someone's "good enough" is not the same as perfect.
You still fail to understand the difference between technically doing something and doing something well. This is why Apple is almost never first and yet they are the ones by which the technologies are measured once they enter the field. Touch ID was not even close to the first fingerprint biometric, but there was little reason to use insecure readers that required a very deliberate and controlled swipe on the backside of the device. And that's not even getting into speed or security.
The same goes an under the screen fingerprint reader? You really don't think Apple hasn't been working on this for years? The problem is you can't just something on the market that is for security without it being secure. Well, I guess if you're Samsung you can...
https://www.biometricupdate.com/201910/cheap-screen-protector-bypasses-samsung-galaxy-s10-fingerprint-biometrics
The article clearly says that they designed new silicon and algorithms because the scanner had to authenticate in a new way, but you clam that it was easy because "ultra-high resolution CMOS-based touchscreens" exist. You make no mention of the sample size for comparison which affects how secure the biometric lock is. If they wanted it to insecure it wouldn't been easy, just like Touch ID, which you now oddly remember as innovative and yet back in 2013 I'm sure you would've claimed that it was no big deal because that tech had existed for years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs8ez2i4Uf0&feature=emb_logo
Evolutionary, different form factor, but still non trivial, especially incorporating it with the cellular antenna subsystem. It's an innovation, despite what you think.
BTW, when you preference your posts with "believe me", which you've also done in the past, it's a tell that you aren't being completely honest.
Apple quotes a 1:50,000 chance of a non valid fingerprint unlocking the iPhone (original Touch ID sensor) and a 1:1,000,000 chance for a non valid face to unlock an iPhone with Face ID
Those aren't non zero chances of security failure, and I'd venture that the competition isn't all that much better. Yeah, improvements to security are warranted, and likely implemented in the newest Touch ID sensor.