tulkas
About
- Username
- tulkas
- Joined
- Visits
- 33
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 1,275
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 3,757
Reactions
-
Apple has been 'all-in' on iPhone X Face ID replacing Touch ID for over a year - report
sog35 said:tulkas said:mjtomlin said:tulkas said:Gruber is just trying to help them save face. He knows as well as everyone else that they intended for TouchID to be there. They filed patents. They bough LuxView, they bought up patents from Privaris. All to do scanner under the display. He might be right that it never comes back now, because they never want to admit a mistake so publicly.
But if you look at how clumsy the gestures are to compensate for removing the home button altogether (instead of adding a virtual button) and these are gestures that have been used and extended for entirely different purposes for years and recently and how clumsy the demo was and think about use cases, then it is pretty apparent, if one is being honest, that this was a concession.
"Save face"
That's laughable. Apple doesn't need to save face - they never publicly declared they were going that direction. They've mentioned time and time again how much they do that they end up saying no and shelving it. It could very well be that they DID get Touch ID working under the screen but decided not to use it, because they thought Face ID would be a better system especially with the advancement of AR over the passed few years.
Furthermore, patenting something does not mean it will ever become a product. Apple has many patents relating to embedding different sensors into displays and rarely do any see the light of day - embedding a camera and speaker, etc. And buying a specific company does not always mean they want it for a specific product or technology. Sometimes they really want the talent - P.A. Semi was a company that designed PowerPC CPU's... Apple bought them for the talent to develop their Ax series of SoCs.
And I can believe they would make that decision. I think they had every intention of having TouchID in the glass. But I also think that either they couldn't get it working as well as the Home Button implementation or they realized no one would use FaceID if TouchID was an option...or both. But now that they have gone with just FaceID, there is little chance of going back and adding TouchID in glass. That would be acknowledging a mistake. So, that's where their army of damage control "writers" comes in. Grub leads the pack.
I get it. Some of you can't see fault with Apple. I'm a long time Apple user, longer than most of you have been alive. Hell, I've probably been commenting here longer than many of you have been alive. But being an Apple fan shouldn't mean turning off your brain. -
Apple has been 'all-in' on iPhone X Face ID replacing Touch ID for over a year - report
Gruber is just trying to help them save face. He knows as well as everyone else that they intended for TouchID to be there. They filed patents. They bough LuxView, they bought up patents from Privaris. All to do scanner under the display. He might be right that it never comes back now, because they never want to admit a mistake so publicly.
But if you look at how clumsy the gestures are to compensate for removing the home button altogether (instead of adding a virtual button) and these are gestures that have been used and extended for entirely different purposes for years and recently and how clumsy the demo was and think about use cases, then it is pretty apparent, if one is being honest, that this was a concession. -
Nissan debuts redesigned Leaf with Apple CarPlay, offers Apple Watch with reservations
-
Google pledges to stop scanning emails in Gmail for personalized ads
gatorguy said:ericthehalfbee said:"Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization after this change."
So what WILL they be scanned and used for?
Just not for ads. -
Google pledges to stop scanning emails in Gmail for personalized ads
ericthehalfbee said:"Consumer Gmail content will not be used or scanned for any ads personalization after this change."
So what WILL they be scanned and used for?
But they intentionally added qualifiers to their statement, "for ads". With that qualification, scanning for any other sort of data mining is A-OK.