This guy is a clown. Face ID in the X isn’t some experiment, it’s the future of biometrics on the iPhone and possibly other Apple products. Not one consumer has used an X with Face ID yet this clown is out with a research note saying Apple will abandon it if consumers don’t take to it. Seriously?!?
The X is an experimental model. Not all of its features will necessarily move down into other models. And Craig did say that there could be multiple biometric systems eventually.
No, Apple doesn’t sell experiments. They have failures some times like the buttonless iPod Shuffle and the trash can Mac Pro but I wouldn’t call those experiments. Just like I wouldn’t call Touch ID in the 5S an experiment. Face ID isn’t going anywhere and if Apple were to bring in multiple biometrics it wouldn’t be so you can pick which one you prefer. Both would be required.
Fact is people haven’t used Face iD but are assuming it will be a poor experience compared to Touch ID. Then they couple that with the incorrect rumors/assumptions that Face ID exists because Apple couldn’t get Touch ID to work under the display and that leads them to Apple will abandon Face ID or add Touch ID as another option in future iPhones. Nonsense.
Face ID may come to all models next year but not to justify Kuo’s Samsung promotion. It may come to all Touch ID models not to replace Touch ID but to complement it. As Federighi pointed out according to MacRumors: "He confirmed that Apple believes Face ID is the future of biometric authentication, with the caveat that there are settings where different biometric techniques or combinations of biometrics could make sense.
I suspect if they add it to the 8S, they'll get rid of Touch ID. They don't seem to want to put it on the back and apparently struggle to put it under the screen. That giant home button is forcing them to keep the bottom bezel. With Face ID they could have slim, symmetrical bezels at the top and bottom. This will only happen of course if, as they say, everything goes smoothly on the X
Craig Federighi never said Apple struggled to put Touch ID under the screen. He said they stopped working on it once they knew Face ID was it. John Gruber did write that Apple was having issues but that Touch ID was always plan B and the company has been working on Face ID for over a year. This notion by some that Face ID was some rush job because they couldn’t get Touch ID to work is nonsense.
Face ID may come to all models next year but not to justify Kuo’s Samsung promotion. It may come to all Touch ID models not to replace Touch ID but to complement it. As Federighi pointed out according to MacRumors: "He confirmed that Apple believes Face ID is the future of biometric authentication, with the caveat that there are settings where different biometric techniques or combinations of biometrics could make sense.
I suspect if they add it to the 8S, they'll get rid of Touch ID. They don't seem to want to put it on the back and apparently struggle to put it under the screen. That giant home button is forcing them to keep the bottom bezel. With Face ID they could have slim, symmetrical bezels at the top and bottom. This will only happen of course if, as they say, everything goes smoothly on the X
That giant home button is a big convenience that the X switchers will sorely miss, at least a significant fraction of them. The Home button is a must for single handed use. In contrast the X requires the use of both hands since it doesn’t include the Reachability feature of the Plus neither. In almost all the hands-on videos of the X the Home gesture was performed with the other hand.
I have no objection against the use of both hands, this is default in the Android world. So the X may appeal to Android switchers. But it will be very difficult to convince existing iPhone users to abandon the convenience of the Home button, bezels and Touch ID and to learn new ways to use a smartphone to handle the X.
Have you used an X yet? It seems you’re basing this on people’s limited time in the hands on area at the keynote. I’ll wait for actual reviews before making judgement,
My problem with FaceID is that it further degrades our individual privacy and makes us more vulnerable to both over-officious government and predatory marketing.
TouchID is my physical finger on this phone. FaceID is my face on a potentially global database. Coming from the UK, one of the most surveilled societies in the western world, I find this worrying.
I'm not interested in being reduced to a target for near-field / face-recognition ads or constant surveilance.
An old fart? For sure - I actually like being an individual.
You’re not ann old fart - just an ignorant one. There is no “database” for Face ID, much less a global one. Just like Touch ID, a mathematical representation of your face is kept on the secure enclave on the phone. That’s it. Stop spreading ignorant FUD. Or are you a politician? In that case, you’re just acting as expected (this was a reference to an equally ignorant senator asking Apple similar questions, making it clear that neither he - nor you - have bothered to watch/read about it first)
I'm happy to be called ignorant when I am.
My point was that TouchID is local, here, with my finger, secure enclave - but do you believe that nothing is sent to the iCloud in this interaction? If my TouchID is sent to the iCloud then someone has to get my finger before they do harm. If anything is sent to iCloud regarding my face, then all bets are off - it's a prudent policy to think that anything you send over the net (phone, text, email . . .) will be intercepted and catalogued.
Like I said, I'm happy to be called ignorant, so just try to enlighten me rather than getting into all the ad hominem wanking (FUD. politician, blah, blah) nonsence.
Talk to me.
Even if the information get sent to iCloud, they still have no idea what you look like or your fingerprint look like. It's all garbled. They cannot reconstruct at all.
I'd love to believe you, but can you be sure that NSA and all the other owners of super-computers and advance deep-learning AI can't figure it out?
It's not quite accurate to day that the face of an individual cannot be connected to the FaceID face data for that individual. It's highly improbable, but not totally impossible.
It is true that the algorithms used to derive the data that's actually stored in your phone are one way mathematical "hash" calculations that, properly designed, cannot be reverse engineered to reconstruct the source data, i.e. your face. However, with sufficient time, resources and source data, it is possible to use those calculations to systematically start hashing source data using the same algorithms Apple does, and if you get a match, you can have a high degree of confidence that the source data that produced your data is the same that produced the data in the phone. It's not certain, of course. With the 1 in 1,000,000 statistic Apple quoted in their keynote, there are roughly 300 faces, statistically, in the U.S. that will unlock a given user's phone.
Given the "rumors" of certain organizations' collection of face data for their own purposes, and the alleged super computer processing power to which they have access, is it so hard to suppose that they could brute force such a thing if they truly desired?
Of course, there are some moderately massive hurdles.
For one thing, calculating the face data for each of the million potentials will take some time, on the order of hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of years, depending on what one postulates for maximum current computer processing power. However, that only needs to be done once for each face. It can be stored, and then re-referenced at any time.
For another, getting the data from Apple's Secure Enclave has proven, from all current reports, to be very difficult as well.
This makes it highly improbable to break into your phone without your face, but not impossible.
However, the more likely route for government to take in unlocking your phone is to simply get a court to order you to present your face to unlock it. The courts have already determined that you may legally be compelled to use your fingerprint to unlock in some circumstances; it's likely they'll decide the same for your face. This reason, and not the possibility that the government will try to brute force my phone, is why, when I do finally upgrade a phone that uses face data to unlock, I will disable it, just as I have done for fingerprint authentication.
We have to wait for iPhone X release and responses of users using Face Id. All skepticism about Face ID will die. Not sure why along with Face Id, Apple didn't put Touch ID on back as transition step. This is betting on new tech that Apple must be feeling very strong as future direction.
Regardless of how it's accomplished, the margin of error after all the development has been done and tested is what is critical. For TouchID the likelihood of a false positive is stated to be about 1 in 50,000. For FaceID it's 1 in 1,000,000. The false positive tolerance, therefore, is a bit tighter for FaceID, and that's the more critical of the two; false positive versus failure to recognize the user's face.
I don't think it's precisely accurate to call those "false positives". It is possible to get the same result data from multiple different sources, and the incidence of that is 1 in 50,000 for TouchID. Put another way, there are, statistically, roughly 6,000 different fingerprints in the U.S. that will result in the same TouchID data as my right index finger. Likewise, there are roughly 300 faces in the U.S. that will produce the same FaceID data as your face. It's not a mistake or an accident, it's just the way the math works.
My problem with FaceID is that it further degrades our individual privacy and makes us more vulnerable to both over-officious government and predatory marketing.
TouchID is my physical finger on this phone. FaceID is my face on a potentially global database. Coming from the UK, one of the most surveilled societies in the western world, I find this worrying.
I'm not interested in being reduced to a target for near-field / face-recognition ads or constant surveilance.
An old fart? For sure - I actually like being an individual.
Let's be realistic, people's faces are probably already in a global data base.
And the name of that database is... Facebook. Added voluntarily.
Maybe I watch too many movies lol, I like to believe and take Apple at its word and trust that it is out to protect our privacy.
I dont agree with kuo, Apple has probably spent over 1b on the true depth camera tech. I am fully expecting to see it on all future iPhones. Apple may slowly roll it out, but they will roll it out. I think it's important to the AR campaign Apple is building.
Regardless of how it's accomplished, the margin of error after all the development has been done and tested is what is critical. For TouchID the likelihood of a false positive is stated to be about 1 in 50,000. For FaceID it's 1 in 1,000,000. The false positive tolerance, therefore, is a bit tighter for FaceID, and that's the more critical of the two; false positive versus failure to recognize the user's face.
I don't think it's precisely accurate to call those "false positives". It is possible to get the same result data from multiple different sources, and the incidence of that is 1 in 50,000 for TouchID. Put another way, there are, statistically, roughly 6,000 different fingerprints in the U.S. that will result in the same TouchID data as my right index finger. Likewise, there are roughly 300 faces in the U.S. that will produce the same FaceID data as your face. It's not a mistake or an accident, it's just the way the math works.
That's pretty much the definition of "false positive". Presented data which gets positively matched, but which the user does not wish to be positively matched.
I would be shocked if the false positive rate for TouchID were only 1:50,000. It is examining small sections of fingerprints with no orientation sensitivity. It's like checking passwords for short sequences of consecutive, correct characters without caring what is around them. kbsdvb1234kbusdv matches whd1234hjba! See? "1234" is right there! 1:50,000 is about the false positive rate of single whole-finger prints (the rate goes down a lot if you have other prints to let you know which finger left the print you're trying to match).
This guy is a clown. Face ID in the X isn’t some experiment, it’s the future of biometrics on the iPhone and possibly other Apple products. Not one consumer has used an X with Face ID yet this clown is out with a research note saying Apple will abandon it if consumers don’t take to it. Seriously?!?
The X is an experimental model. Not all of its features will necessarily move down into other models. And Craig did say that there could be multiple biometric systems eventually.
No, Apple doesn’t sell experiments. They have failures some times like the buttonless iPod Shuffle and the trash can Mac Pro but I wouldn’t call those experiments. Just like I wouldn’t call Touch ID in the 5S an experiment. Face ID isn’t going anywhere and if Apple were to bring in multiple biometrics it wouldn’t be so you can pick which one you prefer. Both would be required.
Fact is people haven’t used Face iD but are assuming it will be a poor experience compared to Touch ID. Then they couple that with the incorrect rumors/assumptions that Face ID exists because Apple couldn’t get Touch ID to work under the display and that leads them to Apple will abandon Face ID or add Touch ID as another option in future iPhones. Nonsense.
The X is an experiment. Literally. So was the original iPhone. And the iPod. And the MacBook air.
You have no idea if Apple would force both biometric systems, the answer is it might have two by default when touchID works under the glass, but Apple will allow people to turn one or the other off.
It is almost certain that Apple didnt get touchID to work this time, they are not perfect, but they are perfectionists. So it might have worked in the lab or 95% or whatever. Just not well enough for now.
We have to wait for iPhone X release and responses of users using Face Id. All skepticism about Face ID will die. Not sure why along with Face Id, Apple didn't put Touch ID on back as transition step. This is betting on new tech that Apple must be feeling very strong as future direction.
Regardless of how it's accomplished, the margin of error after all the development has been done and tested is what is critical. For TouchID the likelihood of a false positive is stated to be about 1 in 50,000. For FaceID it's 1 in 1,000,000. The false positive tolerance, therefore, is a bit tighter for FaceID, and that's the more critical of the two; false positive versus failure to recognize the user's face.
I don't think it's precisely accurate to call those "false positives". It is possible to get the same result data from multiple different sources, and the incidence of that is 1 in 50,000 for TouchID. Put another way, there are, statistically, roughly 6,000 different fingerprints in the U.S. that will result in the same TouchID data as my right index finger. Likewise, there are roughly 300 faces in the U.S. that will produce the same FaceID data as your face. It's not a mistake or an accident, it's just the way the math works.
That's pretty much the definition of "false positive". Presented data which gets positively matched, but which the user does not wish to be positively matched.
I would be shocked if the false positive rate for TouchID were only 1:50,000. It is examining small sections of fingerprints with no orientation sensitivity. It's like checking passwords for short sequences of consecutive, correct characters without caring what is around them. kbsdvb1234kbusdv matches whd1234hjba! See? "1234" is right there! 1:50,000 is about the false positive rate of single whole-finger prints (the rate goes down a lot if you have other prints to let you know which finger left the print you're trying to match).
No, a "false positive" is a result that shows as matched, but isn't really matched. Such as, for instance, a positive result on a pregnancy test when the subject isn't actually pregnant. So if my stored face data, i.e. the result of FaceID processing my face, is different than yours, but my face unlocks your phone, that would be a false positive. This isn't that sort of thing. In the case of the algorithms used, there is a small, but finite, chance that two different source patterns result in the same final data. That's not a mistake, or "false", it's simply the way the math works out, and given the same source data, the result will be the same each time.
It's interesting to see how many people are quoting the rumors that were circulating prior to 9/12 as fact and how many people assume they know things about the iPhone X before it's been released.
Honestly, whether they struggled to put Touch ID on the back or under the screen or in the headphone jack doesn't matter. If face ID works and the response is positive, it will likely be here to stay. The things that would cause Apple to abandon Face ID would be technical/reliability problems, poor customer reception, or cost issues with the manufacturing that make if unfeasible. If it works well and people like it, I would expect to see it expanded to other models.
Personally, I'd wait. Touch ID worked fairly well when it first came out, it works *really* well on my 6s. I wouldn't be surprised if subsequent versions of Face ID are the same.
My problem with FaceID is that it further degrades our individual privacy and makes us more vulnerable to both over-officious government and predatory marketing.
TouchID is my physical finger on this phone. FaceID is my face on a potentially global database. Coming from the UK, one of the most surveilled societies in the western world, I find this worrying.
I'm not interested in being reduced to a target for near-field / face-recognition ads or constant surveilance.
An old fart? For sure - I actually like being an individual.
When a FaceID or TouchID is taken, it is saved into a set of complex numbers which cannot be reverse engineered at all. It has NO idea what you look like or what your fingerprint looks like. It is mathematically impossible. When it gets your picture of your face again, it converts the same thing to a set of hashes and compares them against previously hashed information and decides if it's close enough that it can safely unlock for you.
The keyword here is “close enough”. If Face ID relies on the “cognitive capabilities” of machine learning to determine that “closeness”, there may always exist some margin of error and it may happen that it does not recognize even the registered face of the true owner. If it always recognizes then it may be working with a large tolerance which may end up with being spoofed. The big difference between a face and fingerprint is that a face evolves, but a fingerprint remains constant the whole life of the person. I intuitively feel that a constant fingerprint pattern may be much easily and accurately modeled than an evolving face. How would you hash an evolving face? OK the location of the eyes, nose and mouth may remain constant but are these enough to develop an accurate and unique model of the face to be used as an encryption key? There are too many unknowns. I hope the white paper Apple is said preparing bring some answers to these unknowns.
There aren't "too many unknowns" -- otherwise they wouldn't have figured it out. But they did. You personally don't have to understand the code that does the job. Even if they were to tell you a high level summary (as Craig as done in the interviews) you still don't have access to or the ability to understand the implementation in the silicone unless you work with this stuff.
Your panic is the exact same panic people had over Touch ID. It's basically a panic over change, uncertainty, the unknown, etc. It has nothing to do with the reality of what is coded in Cupertino. Problem is the wetware, not the software.
You have no idea of what the knowledge is, what the code is. I am not under the obligation to understand and know their code. That implementation is their engineering secret and under protection. But the scientific knowledge behind that implementation is not protected and being such, may be harshly scrutinized by the professionals of that domain. If they can’t answer all of questions without revealing the implementation then they’ve just to register a patent. They said they’d publish a white paper, then let’s welcome that. You become boring with playing the psychologic profiler of those not sharing your emotions. Do you watch too much cop dramas?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Other than you pretend there are “too many unknowns!” (cue agent mulder) when in fact they’ve been very clear about the overall implementation. Of course i don’t have the code. But neither will you, ever. So to doubt what they’ve already said is silly and paranoid.
Hey Theothergeoff - thanks for the detailed comments, I appreciate them.
You are correct that I not particularly techno-savvy about FaceID, but I get the fact that we are all on databases everywhere and that “privacy” doesn’t exist anymore. I’m not living a fantasy, I got into this thread for two, more philosophical, reasons:
First, the thought of my face and my real-time geo-location being known (possibly via FaceID) troubled me because that takes individual surveillance to the ultimate level. Your comments about ATT IPV6 geo-location makes that worry moot. Sadly, I can believe that - we’re all on someone's map, all the time now. I still think it's terrible.
Second, the very idea that Apple’s “Secure Enclave" can’t be retro-engineered, or cracked seemed so ludicrous. I wasn’t doubting Apple’s commitment to user security, just their capabilities to ensure it. After all, a few years ago, the concept of an AI beating Go Professionals was considered fantasy for the near future - enter AlphaGo. Maybe we should ask Ed Snowden what he thinks about Apples Secure Enclave.
My problem with FaceID is that it further degrades our individual privacy and makes us more vulnerable to both over-officious government and predatory marketing.
TouchID is my physical finger on this phone. FaceID is my face on a potentially global database. Coming from the UK, one of the most surveilled societies in the western world, I find this worrying.
I'm not interested in being reduced to a target for near-field / face-recognition ads or constant surveilance.
An old fart? For sure - I actually like being an individual.
Privacy and individuality are largely a thing of the past. "Social" media / tech hv brought on a paradigm so shift so quickly and so thoroughly, most people have yet to comprehend that it's happened.
We are the wrong species. 250,000 year old, hunter-gatherer brains, grappling with nuclear technology & always-on, instant communications. It must be clear that we don't see to be able to handle this complexity ;-(
From the Chicago Tribune article: Kaczynski cannot be surprised. “Once a technical innovation has been introduced,” he noted, “people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.)”
Kaczynski was a perfect example of a luddite. Here's where all such arguments break down. The fact that such people utilize written language, or language in any form, implies they are willing to accept some forms of progress, but not others. The evolution of complex language, the opposable thumb, culture, are all advances we cannot support modern society without.
Not to mention money, an imagined reality we all agree upon. Every time you spend money you re-affirm humanity's believe in the value of little slips of paper, which on their own have little utility value, as exchangeble for real goods and services. Money is an imagined reality and this shared imagined reality is what keeps our entire society functioning. But they are merely slips of paper or pieces of metal (e.g. gold). A hungry bear intent upon eating you cannot be bought off even with a pile of money or gold representing a million dollars (it's just a pile of paper or metal he can easily go around on his way to tackle you). Bears and lions and rabbits deal only with objective reality. Only humans deal in the imagined realities that allow us to build societies, transportation networks, corporations, churches, etc, to think about how the universe functions, travel into space, etc. Without all of this we would live as animals do, and that's a choice any individual can make, but you'd then be subject, as the natural world around us is, to humans who utilize the evolved capabilities and technologies at our disposal. Be a Luddite if you please, but know that it's a strictly human advancement that even allows you to grok that concept.
Hey Radarthekat
You are an AI moderator? Oh dear.
My point was that our brains have not been able to keep up with the technology they have created - and you reply with irrelevant nonsense about language, opposable thumbs, money, bears, Luddites . . .
Getting back to the point. Look out the window. How do you think we are doing on managing our population, environment, climate? Personally, I don’t think we are doing very well - can you grok that concept?
asdasd said: TouchID isn't going anywhere. It will be in the future versions of the X series.
Evidence beyond the patent they obviously couldn’t get working?
Well not getting it working yet, to their satisfaction, is what I am saying. Other people seem to think that they wanted FaceID all the time regardless. That that was always the plan, but Apple's actions on touchID on the Macbooks doesnt make much sense in that case. Why introduce something you intend to obsolete in a few years to a new line.
And that patent came from buying a company, after due diligence. It clearly worked well enough to buy the company, and the reason to buy it was to get it into a shipping device. Apple isnt a charity.
Comments
Fact is people haven’t used Face iD but are assuming it will be a poor experience compared to Touch ID. Then they couple that with the incorrect rumors/assumptions that Face ID exists because Apple couldn’t get Touch ID to work under the display and that leads them to Apple will abandon Face ID or add Touch ID as another option in future iPhones. Nonsense.
It's not quite accurate to day that the face of an individual cannot be connected to the FaceID face data for that individual. It's highly improbable, but not totally impossible.
It is true that the algorithms used to derive the data that's actually stored in your phone are one way mathematical "hash" calculations that, properly designed, cannot be reverse engineered to reconstruct the source data, i.e. your face. However, with sufficient time, resources and source data, it is possible to use those calculations to systematically start hashing source data using the same algorithms Apple does, and if you get a match, you can have a high degree of confidence that the source data that produced your data is the same that produced the data in the phone. It's not certain, of course. With the 1 in 1,000,000 statistic Apple quoted in their keynote, there are roughly 300 faces, statistically, in the U.S. that will unlock a given user's phone.
Given the "rumors" of certain organizations' collection of face data for their own purposes, and the alleged super computer processing power to which they have access, is it so hard to suppose that they could brute force such a thing if they truly desired?
Of course, there are some moderately massive hurdles.
For one thing, calculating the face data for each of the million potentials will take some time, on the order of hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of years, depending on what one postulates for maximum current computer processing power. However, that only needs to be done once for each face. It can be stored, and then re-referenced at any time.
For another, getting the data from Apple's Secure Enclave has proven, from all current reports, to be very difficult as well.
This makes it highly improbable to break into your phone without your face, but not impossible.
However, the more likely route for government to take in unlocking your phone is to simply get a court to order you to present your face to unlock it. The courts have already determined that you may legally be compelled to use your fingerprint to unlock in some circumstances; it's likely they'll decide the same for your face. This reason, and not the possibility that the government will try to brute force my phone, is why, when I do finally upgrade a phone that uses face data to unlock, I will disable it, just as I have done for fingerprint authentication.
I dont agree with kuo, Apple has probably spent over 1b on the true depth camera tech. I am fully expecting to see it on all future iPhones. Apple may slowly roll it out, but they will roll it out. I think it's important to the AR campaign Apple is building.
I would be shocked if the false positive rate for TouchID were only 1:50,000. It is examining small sections of fingerprints with no orientation sensitivity. It's like checking passwords for short sequences of consecutive, correct characters without caring what is around them. kbsdvb1234kbusdv matches whd1234hjba! See? "1234" is right there! 1:50,000 is about the false positive rate of single whole-finger prints (the rate goes down a lot if you have other prints to let you know which finger left the print you're trying to match).
You have no idea if Apple would force both biometric systems, the answer is it might have two by default when touchID works under the glass, but Apple will allow people to turn one or the other off.
It is almost certain that Apple didnt get touchID to work this time, they are not perfect, but they are perfectionists. So it might have worked in the lab or 95% or whatever. Just not well enough for now.
Apparantly they did try that.
FaceID uses the same technology that is needed for AR and also for reading gestures.
No, a "false positive" is a result that shows as matched, but isn't really matched. Such as, for instance, a positive result on a pregnancy test when the subject isn't actually pregnant. So if my stored face data, i.e. the result of FaceID processing my face, is different than yours, but my face unlocks your phone, that would be a false positive. This isn't that sort of thing. In the case of the algorithms used, there is a small, but finite, chance that two different source patterns result in the same final data. That's not a mistake, or "false", it's simply the way the math works out, and given the same source data, the result will be the same each time.
Honestly, whether they struggled to put Touch ID on the back or under the screen or in the headphone jack doesn't matter. If face ID works and the response is positive, it will likely be here to stay. The things that would cause Apple to abandon Face ID would be technical/reliability problems, poor customer reception, or cost issues with the manufacturing that make if unfeasible. If it works well and people like it, I would expect to see it expanded to other models.
Personally, I'd wait. Touch ID worked fairly well when it first came out, it works *really* well on my 6s. I wouldn't be surprised if subsequent versions of Face ID are the same.
You are correct that I not particularly techno-savvy about FaceID, but I get the fact that we are all on databases everywhere and that “privacy” doesn’t exist anymore. I’m not living a fantasy, I got into this thread for two, more philosophical, reasons:
First, the thought of my face and my real-time geo-location being known (possibly via FaceID) troubled me because that takes individual surveillance to the ultimate level. Your comments about ATT IPV6 geo-location makes that worry moot. Sadly, I can believe that - we’re all on someone's map, all the time now. I still think it's terrible.
Second, the very idea that Apple’s “Secure Enclave" can’t be retro-engineered, or cracked seemed so ludicrous. I wasn’t doubting Apple’s commitment to user security, just their capabilities to ensure it. After all, a few years ago, the concept of an AI beating Go Professionals was considered fantasy for the near future - enter AlphaGo. Maybe we should ask Ed Snowden what he thinks about Apples Secure Enclave.
I like the idea of a cabin in Montana though ;-)
And that patent came from buying a company, after due diligence. It clearly worked well enough to buy the company, and the reason to buy it was to get it into a shipping device. Apple isnt a charity.