zorkor

Xed said:

elijahg said:

Xed said:

elijahg said:

hmlongco said:

Chris_Saul said:

Stretches credibility since it’s not like Apple is the first to have this capability

I suspect that once more it's a case of Apple taking a feature and actually doing it right....

https://beebom.com/galaxy-a7-power-button-fingerprint-scanner-face-unlock/

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."