I think speed of the facial recognition will make or break this. If it takes less than 500ms of me staring at it to unlock it could feel fluid enough. Any longer and it'll be annoying every time.
200 ms is like a full react/response time for a human to take action in response to input, our actual sense of time is much finer than what our nervous system can make our muscles do.
Curious as I just got back into gaming after several years and everyone seems to love 144fps now, wondering if I should upgrade. I have a 1080Ti, so I could presumably render that
Upgraded to a 165hz G-Sync panel recently and it was a revelation after running at a v-synced 60hz for years and years.
Order the 1080TI about a week later as the 970 I had wasn't cutting it at 1440p.
I actually find most modern games run at about 90-110fps with what I would consider "good settings".
Even if you turn settings way down 165 is really hard to maintain.
The question is could you tell the difference between your 144hz monitor and your 144hz monitor with the signal delayed 100ms.
But of course, that's not the problem. It's ok that the phone doesn't unlock with out me noticing the delay. It just can't be so long that I start doubting whether it works.
This overdrive is probably also the cause of burn-in-effects that seems to be especially common in VA panels.
e: But watching the keynote, it's definitely doesn't seem that fast...
First off, as the person above said, you can start the unlocking process long before it's even facing with with touch-id, as you're taking it out of your pocket. With this, this "timer" starts only when it's fully out and facing you.
Next up, in this, it has to be facing you perfectly. You can't unlock it sneakily under the table, you can't do it while someone else is looking at your phone, etc.
Lastly, you still need to manually swipe to actually open the phone, so it's not like you're not using your finger either. If at least you could unlock it without using your hands that would be something.
At the end of the day, I still want to see properly reviews of what the actual successrate is too. It's not all about speed, if it fails 5% of the time, that's extremely annoying.
TouchID is much faster.
- attention - faceid - swipe
And no cue to know if faceid worked before swiping. I couldn't see cues (maybe I missed them).
To be honest, with the full glass, I expected something like.. a full screen fingerprint scanner (have no idea if it's feasible at all). I thing TouchID is the best biometric input for casual operation.
Their solution was to split it into two different steps.
You have the same issue with Face ID. If the "lock screen" went away as soon as you look at your phone you could never actually look at the notifications there.
Clearly they had to do something. Does this work well? I guess we'll find out when the reviews come out.
I am very skeptical about FaceID. I actually love TouchID, can hardly imagine anything better, but Apple has surprised us before.