Face recognition. It's called face recognition. Facial recognition is a subset, and cannot by itself be used as a means of biometric authentication. I'll give everyone on this forum $1 if Apple comes on stage, ever, and uses the term facial recognition, by itself, to describe biometric authentication, without also including the term face recognition.
WWDC/16
"The big news in Photos this year is Advanced Computer Vision," Federighi told the crowd. "We’re applying advanced deep learning techniques to bring facial recognition to the iPhone."
59 minutes in
Face recognition. It's called face recognition. Facial recognition is a subset, and cannot by itself be used as a means of biometric authentication. I'll give everyone on this forum $1 if Apple comes on stage, ever, and uses the term facial recognition, by itself, to describe biometric authentication, without also including the term face recognition.
WWDC/16
"The big news in Photos this year is Advanced Computer Vision," Federighi told the crowd. "We’re applying advanced deep learning techniques to bring facial recognition to the iPhone."
59 minutes in
See my comment, above. Lol
I already knew exactly what your comment would be since the slide behind him said "Face Recognition". LOL.
But still of note even Apple's executive team has taken liberties with the terminology. He starts to say "Face", then thinking he was wrong corrects (!) himself to say "facial recognition". It's not the first time Apple has used face recognition and facial recognition interchangeably either. And in reality it really doesn't matter except to the language police does it? (except possibly in some future lawsuit involving a patent claim where Apple engineers used the "incorrect" phrase)
We all know what is meant by it. Kinda like so many here saying "I could care less". WE know it's the wrong phrasing but we still understand what they said.
You guys see only problems. Here are some possible solutions, without ever having studied the subject (so probably there are 100 times better ones, if you do work on it for years): 1) Double cameras can sense depth, thus no xerox can fool it. 2) Heat sensor can add further security versus a piece of paper. 3) Digital compensation for perspective means your face wouldn't have to be completely parallell to the phone surface for recognition. 4) IR camera could compensate for darkness.
In the European Union, facial dimensions are since long included digitally in passports – fingerprints are NOT.
Apple has agreed the security of Apple Pay with banks across the world based on Touch ID security. I’d expect the banks wouldn’t be happy if they just dumped the current standard and changed to something totally different without their testing/approval/agreement.
Facial recognition doesn't work in the dark. Not a replacement for touch ID
That one is wrong. IR sensors can work in the dark. They may not be as accurate. But Apple uses the screen as a flash. I assume they could do that for this as well to get a more consistent exposure, and color, even outdoors.
Ok, fine, but you would have to turn your phone toward your face precisely, so that the camera array can "see" your face.
Why are people everywhere saying this, despite the content saying otherwise?
It also said that the system is capable of recognizing a person even if the iPhone is laying flat on a table, not held in front of the user's face.
If you've tried the new document scanning feature in iOS 11, you'll note that you do not have to line your iPad above a page on the table to scan it -- it works at an angle like magic.
Then it would have to be a completely different camera, because I have my iPhone on a table and I turned on the camera and it's giving me a wonderful view of my ceiling and not my face. But even if that worked, it doesn't matter because it's not what people are going to do intuitively.
The bigger question is whether this is really a problem that needs a solution. Frankly, I find it even annoying to press the the Touch ID every time I want to use the device. I've always felt that there should be a timer on it. Sometimes I grow my beard and sometimes not. Sometimes I have longer hair and sometimes I have shorter hair. Sometimes I have bags under my eyes and sometimes not. Are all those different conditions going to work and if they do - then how secure could it possibly be? There are certainly more people who look similar than those who might have fingerprints close enough to be mistaken.
Fingerprints are unique, even among twins. It is crazy to think that Apple will ditch such a unique feature and replace it with the face easily copiable. The face is not unique. TouchID works with body electricity, but the face can be easily recognized with a mask, what is the body electricity of the face, an aura or something? Reminds me of the '60s Kirlian photography pseudoscience…
1) I agree that the facial recognition for security rumour seems silly.
2) While Touch ID has been excellent, there are people that can't use the feature.
3) We can't actually prove that all fingerprints are unique. There is a finite number of pattern combinations plus the inherent issue with biometrics that looks for a "within a margin of error" match, which is not something that's tolerated with passwords. There's also been plenty of arrests and convictions from false fingerprint matches over the decades. DNA helped sort out a lot of false convictions, but I'll let Adam tell you more about it.
That "margin of error" exists in everything science is dealing with. Even in DNA... If the opening statement of this guy's show is "we may not actually prove" then it fails from the beginning. We may not prove what? Is that an undecideable computability problem? The term "unprovable" has a scientific meaning and it makes sense only within a scientific context, not in a layman's show business context. The probability of finding two identical fingerprints is something already defined and we understand it as "unique" only within those limits.
So wouldn't scientists refer to it as being improbable instead of saying that they are unique, which carries the meaning "being the only one of its kind." I think even "statistically impossible" would've been better than "unique."
IMO, an incredibly silly conversation. Even if there is a very slight chance that two human beings have the same fingerprints (or close enough for the iPhone to make an error), what is the chance that the wrong one is going to get access to your iPhone? The chance that anyone is going to get hold of my iPhone is incredibly small unless I'm held up at gunpoint.
Facial recognition, as Apple said it, doesn’t necessarily mean biometric security use. It could mean for the propose of playing an AR or VR game. They didn’t take that any further than that sentence, as far as I remember. And AR, in particular, was a major focus of their presentation.
i would agree, for those who think it did mean that, that it could have meant that, as Apple rarely gives away information about upcoming devices so far ahead of their special presentations for those devices. So, they would’nt have stated it directly.
but I’m still uncomfortable about it, if it’s used alone, and not in conjunction with Touch ID, which has proven itself to be very reliable, and extremely rapid. What we’re hearing about this is that it works very fast - in the order of several HUNDRED milliseconds. So, a large fraction of a second, as opposed to almost instantly.
and then, someone here brought up changing ones grooming, beard, mustache, etc. if one makes a major change, they would redo the recognition, so that’s not a problem. But, what about minor changes? How much of a difference can the system tolerate? This is a major question. Fingerprints remain the same, and if one injures the finger, there are a total of five that can be set at once. But what about facial changes? If the tolerance is not enough, it’s going to be a pain. If it’s too much, it may not be secure enough.
There are far more variables for this than for a fingerprint. So for Touch ID, there’s isn’t too much work the phone needs to do other than encryption and readout. But for facial, there is an awful lot of processing needed. We read about Apple developing a machine learning chip for AR and VR, and if it’s available for this year’s phone, maybe that will be involved in this. But are they going to store some very complex hash of the face in a secure enclave the way they do it for the print? And if so, is that supposed to be the “standard” face view for us? Will we be able to store more than one, as we do with our prints?
there’s a lot of questions about how all this is supposed to work.
You guys see only problems. Here are some possible solutions, without ever having studied the subject (so probably there are 100 times better ones, if you do work on it for years): 1) Double cameras can sense depth, thus no xerox can fool it. 2) Heat sensor can add further security versus a piece of paper. 3) Digital compensation for perspective means your face wouldn't have to be completely parallell to the phone surface for recognition. 4) IR camera could compensate for darkness.
In the European Union, facial dimensions are since long included digitally in passports – fingerprints are NOT.
Sure, there are a lot of things that can be done. That doesn’t mean that they can be done as accurately as needed all the time. How many time has someone needed to redo their tap for Touch ID? The only times I have to do that is when I’m not really paying attention, and almost completely miss the sensor. Microsoft’s attempts, using 3D and everything else has not been very accurate. It missed a large percentage of the time. Touch ID is better than 99.9%, unless you really miss that sensor.
just because the EU does something doesn’t make it better, or even as good.
I disagree with the general assessment here that facial recognition doesn't solve anything and Touch ID is better. Let me give you two scenarios where it could be a much bigger improvement:
1. In the winter 2. Instant unlock
Right now, if I have anything on my fingers, I can't unlock my phone. In fact, I have a waterproof case for my iPhone 7, and I can't use my phone in the case because the Touch ID does not recognize that my finger is there to even trigger the virtual button. If you have a bandaid on your finger, you can't use it and if you are wearing gloves. Sure there are solutions to this, but none are exactly elegant.
Apple has redesigned the lock screen recently in a way that makes using it without Touch ID clunky, requiring the user to press the home button twice. With Touch ID is a little better, but is somewhat tricky. If you activate the Touch ID, then the notification screen disappears and it's almost impossible to get that view back. You have to unlock the screen without pressing too hard to be able to interact with notifications.
Newer devices also turn on the screen just by lifting the phone. This is a great and subtle feature. But imagine just lifting the phone and then being able to interact with the reminder screen without needing to press anything. Authentication "just works" without you needing to think about it. There are other advantages as well. For instance, the device can monitor if it is being used by a human using eye tracking. When it's in use or predicts its about to be used, the screen can come on. Otherwise, the screen can turn off. This has implications for power management as well as removing the manual adjustment of auto-lock settings.
I disagree with the general assessment here that facial recognition doesn't solve anything and Touch ID is better. Let me give you two scenarios where it could be a much bigger improvement:
1. In the winter 2. Instant unlock
Right now, if I have anything on my fingers, I can't unlock my phone. In fact, I have a waterproof case for my iPhone 7, and I can't use my phone in the case because the Touch ID does not recognize that my finger is there to even trigger the virtual button. If you have a bandaid on your finger, you can't use it and if you are wearing gloves. Sure there are solutions to this, but none are exactly elegant.
Apple has redesigned the lock screen recently in a way that makes using it without Touch ID clunky, requiring the user to press the home button twice. With Touch ID is a little better, but is somewhat tricky. If you activate the Touch ID, then the notification screen disappears and it's almost impossible to get that view back. You have to unlock the screen without pressing too hard to be able to interact with notifications.
Newer devices also turn on the screen just by lifting the phone. This is a great and subtle feature. But imagine just lifting the phone and then being able to interact with the reminder screen without needing to press anything. Authentication "just works" without you needing to think about it. There are other advantages as well. For instance, the device can monitor if it is being used by a human using eye tracking. When it's in use or predicts its about to be used, the screen can come on. Otherwise, the screen can turn off. This has implications for power management as well as removing the manual adjustment of auto-lock settings.
You’re only partly right. For years, if you wear them, and most people don’t, there have been gloves for touch screens. Not a major problem. For the few who choose a waterproof case, you should note that it’s no longer required.
i don’t understand what you’re talking about using it without Touch ID, and it’s being clunky. If you choose to not use Touch ID, you need to use a password. What are you saying here? If you want to see notifications without unlocking the screen, or to do anything that you can do from the lock screen, then you press the on/off button on the right side of the phone. It’s easy, and not a big deal. Getting notifications back after unlock, you just swipe from the top.
what’s the “reminder screen”? Are you talking about the Control Center screen that you get with a left to right swipe from the lock screen, or elsewhere? You don’t need authentication for that. We don’t know if Apple is implementing eye tracking. That’s harder for people with glasses, and particularly with sunglasses, where you’ll have to take them off.
I disagree with the general assessment here that facial recognition doesn't solve anything and Touch ID is better. Let me give you two scenarios where it could be a much bigger improvement:
1. In the winter 2. Instant unlock
Right now, if I have anything on my fingers, I can't unlock my phone. In fact, I have a waterproof case for my iPhone 7, and I can't use my phone in the case because the Touch ID does not recognize that my finger is there to even trigger the virtual button. If you have a bandaid on your finger, you can't use it and if you are wearing gloves. Sure there are solutions to this, but none are exactly elegant.
Apple has redesigned the lock screen recently in a way that makes using it without Touch ID clunky, requiring the user to press the home button twice. With Touch ID is a little better, but is somewhat tricky. If you activate the Touch ID, then the notification screen disappears and it's almost impossible to get that view back. You have to unlock the screen without pressing too hard to be able to interact with notifications.
Newer devices also turn on the screen just by lifting the phone. This is a great and subtle feature. But imagine just lifting the phone and then being able to interact with the reminder screen without needing to press anything. Authentication "just works" without you needing to think about it. There are other advantages as well. For instance, the device can monitor if it is being used by a human using eye tracking. When it's in use or predicts its about to be used, the screen can come on. Otherwise, the screen can turn off. This has implications for power management as well as removing the manual adjustment of auto-lock settings.
Much of what you're asking for was available several years ago with the Moto X (2014). Waving your hand over it showed notifications. Wave also worked to silence the phone, useful in impromptu meetings. It used eye-tracking to determine if you were still looking at the screen so it wouldn't go into standby or alternately turning it off if you weren't, calling it Attentive Display. As you mentioned it helps save battery.
Other actions included "lift to ear" to automatically send all sounds thru the earpiece rather than the speaker, double-twist to do a fast camera shot, and double-chop motion to turn on the flashlight. Really that old Moto I had was actually very innovative in hindsight.
I disagree with the general assessment here that facial recognition doesn't solve anything and Touch ID is better. Let me give you two scenarios where it could be a much bigger improvement:
1. In the winter 2. Instant unlock
Right now, if I have anything on my fingers, I can't unlock my phone. In fact, I have a waterproof case for my iPhone 7, and I can't use my phone in the case because the Touch ID does not recognize that my finger is there to even trigger the virtual button. If you have a bandaid on your finger, you can't use it and if you are wearing gloves. Sure there are solutions to this, but none are exactly elegant.
Apple has redesigned the lock screen recently in a way that makes using it without Touch ID clunky, requiring the user to press the home button twice. With Touch ID is a little better, but is somewhat tricky. If you activate the Touch ID, then the notification screen disappears and it's almost impossible to get that view back. You have to unlock the screen without pressing too hard to be able to interact with notifications.
Newer devices also turn on the screen just by lifting the phone. This is a great and subtle feature. But imagine just lifting the phone and then being able to interact with the reminder screen without needing to press anything. Authentication "just works" without you needing to think about it. There are other advantages as well. For instance, the device can monitor if it is being used by a human using eye tracking. When it's in use or predicts its about to be used, the screen can come on. Otherwise, the screen can turn off. This has implications for power management as well as removing the manual adjustment of auto-lock settings.
Much of what you're asking for was available several years ago with the Moto X (2014). Waving your hand over it showed notifications. Wave also worked to silence the phone, useful in impromptu meetings. It used eye-tracking to determine if you were still looking at the screen so it wouldn't go into standby or alternately turning it off if you weren't, calling it Attentive Display. As you mentioned it helps save battery.
Other actions included "lift to ear" to automatically send all sounds thru the earpiece rather than the speaker, double-twist to do a fast camera shot, and double-chop motion to turn on the flashlight. Really that old Moto I had was actually very innovative in hindsight.
Yes. There are quite a few of these actions that can be useful. Double tap on the screen to show notifications, turn phone face down to send calls to voice mail etc.
So how does one use facial recognition in retail stores for Apple Pay?
Push the virtual home button and let the sensors do their thing on your face, from an angle, as the rumors have suggested it will be able to do? Don’t seem the problem.
zoetmb said: IMO, an incredibly silly conversation. Even if there is a very slight chance that two human beings have the same fingerprints (or close enough for the iPhone to make an error), what is the chance that the wrong one is going to get access to your iPhone? The chance that anyone is going to get hold of my iPhone is incredibly small unless I'm held up at gunpoint.
This has been answered. According to Apple, it's 1:50,000.
But addressing what you call "silly," since your fingerprints are all over the device, likely with your Touch ID fingerprint on the sapphire of the Home Button, it's not, as you say, "silly" to make the parameters of authentication more stringent so that a false-positive is less likely to occur. Also keep in mind :that you get far fewer tries with Touch ID than you do with a PIN, and that you can't use Touch ID without having at least a PIN, without inputting that PIN before Touch ID is active after a restart, and re-inputting your PIN once Touch ID has failed a handful of times in a row. This "silliness" of approximation v precision is the reason the a memorized code has priority over a biometric.
Is a bezelless front so important that Apple would ditch TouchID for that? If they cannot figure out where to put the TouchID, they can just revert back to bezels and put the TouchID at its old place, why not? With or without the physical home button, a bezel is an excellent place for TouchID, compared to the back of the phone and even to the display.
I personally wouldn't buy a bezelless (or near bezelless) iPhone because I like the bezels, they are a must when playing games in landscape mode.
So we have a problem of precedence. What is the precedence of a bezelless front over a tried and tested TouchID implementation?
Is a bezelless front so important that Apple would ditch TouchID for that? If they cannot figure out where to put the TouchID, they can just revert back to bezels and put the TouchID at its old place, why not? With or without the physical home button, a bezel is an excellent place for TouchID, compared to the back of the phone and even to the display.
I personally wouldn't buy a bezelless (or near bezelless) iPhone because I like the bezels, they are a must when playing games in landscape mode.
So we have a problem of precedence. What is the precedence of a bezelless front over a tried and tested TouchID implementation?
At this point they would already be committed to a design. We're only 60-90 days from reveal. Perhaps things didn't pan out as planned or perhaps they did. It's not likely we'll ever know which for certain.
So how does one use facial recognition in retail stores for Apple Pay?
Push the virtual home button and let the sensors do their thing on your face, from an angle, as the rumors have suggested it will be able to do? Don’t seem the problem.
So they’re going to be able to read my face while I have my phone pointed at the POS. In some stores where I use Apple Pay I know that wouldn’t work.
Is a bezelless front so important that Apple would ditch TouchID for that? If they cannot figure out where to put the TouchID, they can just revert back to bezels and put the TouchID at its old place, why not? With or without the physical home button, a bezel is an excellent place for TouchID, compared to the back of the phone and even to the display.
I personally wouldn't buy a bezelless (or near bezelless) iPhone because I like the bezels, they are a must when playing games in landscape mode.
So we have a problem of precedence. What is the precedence of a bezelless front over a tried and tested TouchID implementation?
Apparently bezel-less is the new innovation and anyone that doesn’t have a phone with out bezels isn’t innovative. Apple would get murdered in the tech press if they released a new phone with bezels. The calls for Tim Cook to resign would be all over.
Face recognition. It's called face recognition. Facial recognition is a subset, and cannot by itself be used as a means of biometric authentication. I'll give everyone on this forum $1 if Apple comes on stage, ever, and uses the term facial recognition, by itself, to describe biometric authentication, without also including the term face recognition.
WWDC/16
"The big news in Photos this year is Advanced Computer Vision," Federighi told the crowd. "We’re applying advanced deep learning techniques to bring facial recognition to the iPhone."
59 minutes in
See my comment, above. Lol
I already knew exactly what your comment would be since the slide behind him said "Face Recognition". LOL.
But still of note even Apple's executive team has taken liberties with the terminology. He starts to say "Face", then thinking he was wrong corrects (!) himself to say "facial recognition". It's not the first time Apple has used face recognition and facial recognition interchangeably either. And in reality it really doesn't matter except to the language police does it? (except possibly in some future lawsuit involving a patent claim where Apple engineers used the "incorrect" phrase)
We all know what is meant by it. Kinda like so many here saying "I could care less". WE know it's the wrong phrasing but we still understand what they said.
It's more than simply using the correct term. This site hosts many conversations about rumored new features and capabilities in Apple's products. Understanding the differences in these terms as we see Apple begin to use them in its presentations can provide insights that would otherwise be missed, as is evident in this thread.
The use of Face recognition to group pics in the Photos app does not imply Apple will extend face recognition to biometric authentication. Pictures that include faces are, typically, deliberately captured to provide a clear view of the face. The autofocus takes a bit of time to kick in, the person taking the pics is usually taking care to frame the pic in order to get a good result. Also, if among your collection of pics, a few are at oblique angles and don't get picked up by the machine learning face recognition algorithms used to group by person, then that's okay. These composition factors and tolerance for not recognizing a face are not in play when using face recognition for biometric authentication; the requirements are much more stringent and tolerance for error by the user is lower. It should just work a very high percentage of the time. In the photos album the task can be done in the background and can take time to add new pics to the appropriate categories. So hearing Apple speak about face recognition in context of a user's photo collection makes sense, and does not imply use of the technology for real-time biometric authentication.
As to facial recognition - the ability to recognize facial features at oblique angles and to recognize expressions and emotions - this is exactly the technology you would use in real-time in context of augmented reality applications, and I'll bet there will be aspects of this available in the ARKit libraries so that developers can access front-facing camera objects that return results including indication of various facial attributes.
With these distinctions in mind, readers of the various rumors might better grok the implications of the rumor details and we could avoid most of the misplaced speculation typical on the subject of face recognition being used for biometric authentication on a mobile device. It's just not likely to happen, certainly not in this year's iPhones. But it will come into play in other [future] contexts, such as in context of self-driving cars.
Bottom line... facial recognition will be a big feature, mentioned prominently on stage this September, but it'll have nothing to do with biometric authentication to unlock your iPhone or authorize purchases, etc. It'll be all about augmented reality. Face recognition will also be mentioned, in the same context it was mentioned at WWDC, a reiteration of the use of face recognition to categorize your photos, along with dog recognition, etc, also mentioned at WWDC. But it'll be a long time before face recognition is used as biometric authentication on a device that is moved about and held at oblique angles, or being turned on while sitting flat on a surface. You'll sooner see voice recognition used for authentication on mobile devices, and if so, only in limited contexts, perhaps as an alternative method to TouchID in that oft-mentioned context where the phone is laying flat on a table. That, I think, might be pretty cool.
See why I've been nitpicking the terminology all these past months?
Comments
But still of note even Apple's executive team has taken liberties with the terminology. He starts to say "Face", then thinking he was wrong corrects (!) himself to say "facial recognition". It's not the first time Apple has used face recognition and facial recognition interchangeably either. And in reality it really doesn't matter except to the language police does it? (except possibly in some future lawsuit involving a patent claim where Apple engineers used the "incorrect" phrase)
We all know what is meant by it. Kinda like so many here saying "I could care less". WE know it's the wrong phrasing but we still understand what they said.
1) Double cameras can sense depth, thus no xerox can fool it.
2) Heat sensor can add further security versus a piece of paper.
3) Digital compensation for perspective means your face wouldn't have to be completely parallell to the phone surface for recognition.
4) IR camera could compensate for darkness.
In the European Union, facial dimensions are since long included digitally in passports – fingerprints are NOT.
The bigger question is whether this is really a problem that needs a solution. Frankly, I find it even annoying to press the the Touch ID every time I want to use the device. I've always felt that there should be a timer on it. Sometimes I grow my beard and sometimes not. Sometimes I have longer hair and sometimes I have shorter hair. Sometimes I have bags under my eyes and sometimes not. Are all those different conditions going to work and if they do - then how secure could it possibly be? There are certainly more people who look similar than those who might have fingerprints close enough to be mistaken.
IMO, an incredibly silly conversation. Even if there is a very slight chance that two human beings have the same fingerprints (or close enough for the iPhone to make an error), what is the chance that the wrong one is going to get access to your iPhone? The chance that anyone is going to get hold of my iPhone is incredibly small unless I'm held up at gunpoint.
i would agree, for those who think it did mean that, that it could have meant that, as Apple rarely gives away information about upcoming devices so far ahead of their special presentations for those devices. So, they would’nt have stated it directly.
but I’m still uncomfortable about it, if it’s used alone, and not in conjunction with Touch ID, which has proven itself to be very reliable, and extremely rapid. What we’re hearing about this is that it works very fast - in the order of several HUNDRED milliseconds. So, a large fraction of a second, as opposed to almost instantly.
and then, someone here brought up changing ones grooming, beard, mustache, etc. if one makes a major change, they would redo the recognition, so that’s not a problem. But, what about minor changes? How much of a difference can the system tolerate? This is a major question. Fingerprints remain the same, and if one injures the finger, there are a total of five that can be set at once. But what about facial changes? If the tolerance is not enough, it’s going to be a pain. If it’s too much, it may not be secure enough.
There are far more variables for this than for a fingerprint. So for Touch ID, there’s isn’t too much work the phone needs to do other than encryption and readout. But for facial, there is an awful lot of processing needed. We read about Apple developing a machine learning chip for AR and VR, and if it’s available for this year’s phone, maybe that will be involved in this. But are they going to store some very complex hash of the face in a secure enclave the way they do it for the print? And if so, is that supposed to be the “standard” face view for us? Will we be able to store more than one, as we do with our prints?
there’s a lot of questions about how all this is supposed to work.
just because the EU does something doesn’t make it better, or even as good.
1. In the winter
2. Instant unlock
Right now, if I have anything on my fingers, I can't unlock my phone. In fact, I have a waterproof case for my iPhone 7, and I can't use my phone in the case because the Touch ID does not recognize that my finger is there to even trigger the virtual button. If you have a bandaid on your finger, you can't use it and if you are wearing gloves. Sure there are solutions to this, but none are exactly elegant.
Apple has redesigned the lock screen recently in a way that makes using it without Touch ID clunky, requiring the user to press the home button twice. With Touch ID is a little better, but is somewhat tricky. If you activate the Touch ID, then the notification screen disappears and it's almost impossible to get that view back. You have to unlock the screen without pressing too hard to be able to interact with notifications.
Newer devices also turn on the screen just by lifting the phone. This is a great and subtle feature. But imagine just lifting the phone and then being able to interact with the reminder screen without needing to press anything. Authentication "just works" without you needing to think about it. There are other advantages as well. For instance, the device can monitor if it is being used by a human using eye tracking. When it's in use or predicts its about to be used, the screen can come on. Otherwise, the screen can turn off. This has implications for power management as well as removing the manual adjustment of auto-lock settings.
i don’t understand what you’re talking about using it without Touch ID, and it’s being clunky. If you choose to not use Touch ID, you need to use a password. What are you saying here? If you want to see notifications without unlocking the screen, or to do anything that you can do from the lock screen, then you press the on/off button on the right side of the phone. It’s easy, and not a big deal. Getting notifications back after unlock, you just swipe from the top.
what’s the “reminder screen”? Are you talking about the Control Center screen that you get with a left to right swipe from the lock screen, or elsewhere? You don’t need authentication for that. We don’t know if Apple is implementing eye tracking. That’s harder for people with glasses, and particularly with sunglasses, where you’ll have to take them off.
Other actions included "lift to ear" to automatically send all sounds thru the earpiece rather than the speaker, double-twist to do a fast camera shot, and double-chop motion to turn on the flashlight. Really that old Moto I had was actually very innovative in hindsight.
But addressing what you call "silly," since your fingerprints are all over the device, likely with your Touch ID fingerprint on the sapphire of the Home Button, it's not, as you say, "silly" to make the parameters of authentication more stringent so that a false-positive is less likely to occur. Also keep in mind :that you get far fewer tries with Touch ID than you do with a PIN, and that you can't use Touch ID without having at least a PIN, without inputting that PIN before Touch ID is active after a restart, and re-inputting your PIN once Touch ID has failed a handful of times in a row. This "silliness" of approximation v precision is the reason the a memorized code has priority over a biometric.
I personally wouldn't buy a bezelless (or near bezelless) iPhone because I like the bezels, they are a must when playing games in landscape mode.
So we have a problem of precedence. What is the precedence of a bezelless front over a tried and tested TouchID implementation?
The use of Face recognition to group pics in the Photos app does not imply Apple will extend face recognition to biometric authentication. Pictures that include faces are, typically, deliberately captured to provide a clear view of the face. The autofocus takes a bit of time to kick in, the person taking the pics is usually taking care to frame the pic in order to get a good result. Also, if among your collection of pics, a few are at oblique angles and don't get picked up by the machine learning face recognition algorithms used to group by person, then that's okay. These composition factors and tolerance for not recognizing a face are not in play when using face recognition for biometric authentication; the requirements are much more stringent and tolerance for error by the user is lower. It should just work a very high percentage of the time. In the photos album the task can be done in the background and can take time to add new pics to the appropriate categories. So hearing Apple speak about face recognition in context of a user's photo collection makes sense, and does not imply use of the technology for real-time biometric authentication.
As to facial recognition - the ability to recognize facial features at oblique angles and to recognize expressions and emotions - this is exactly the technology you would use in real-time in context of augmented reality applications, and I'll bet there will be aspects of this available in the ARKit libraries so that developers can access front-facing camera objects that return results including indication of various facial attributes.
With these distinctions in mind, readers of the various rumors might better grok the implications of the rumor details and we could avoid most of the misplaced speculation typical on the subject of face recognition being used for biometric authentication on a mobile device. It's just not likely to happen, certainly not in this year's iPhones. But it will come into play in other [future] contexts, such as in context of self-driving cars.
Bottom line... facial recognition will be a big feature, mentioned prominently on stage this September, but it'll have nothing to do with biometric authentication to unlock your iPhone or authorize purchases, etc. It'll be all about augmented reality. Face recognition will also be mentioned, in the same context it was mentioned at WWDC, a reiteration of the use of face recognition to categorize your photos, along with dog recognition, etc, also mentioned at WWDC. But it'll be a long time before face recognition is used as biometric authentication on a device that is moved about and held at oblique angles, or being turned on while sitting flat on a surface. You'll sooner see voice recognition used for authentication on mobile devices, and if so, only in limited contexts, perhaps as an alternative method to TouchID in that oft-mentioned context where the phone is laying flat on a table. That, I think, might be pretty cool.
See why I've been nitpicking the terminology all these past months?