One thing to Apple PR credit is faceid. For me it's hot needle replacement for failed attempt to integrate touchid into display, but for most people it is innovation.
If FaceID lives up to Apples claims it will have less friction and higher security, so win win, and I'm sure Apple are aware of how popular TouchID is, I don't see them replacing it with a dud.
Because it can be unlocked under the table or at a very low angle to be used in places such as a restaurant, meeting room, theater etc.
Because one can use TouchID for Apple Pay much quicker and more reliably in a crowded/rushed situation such as paying for public transport.
Becuase TouchID actually allows multiple users on the same device if if that is not an intended feature.
The list can go on....
Until people actually have the phones in their hands, how can you claim this?
For the edge cases generally a pass code will work (under the table / multiple users). I'm not sure what you do with your phone unlocked in your pocket...
TouchID being quicker is your opinion, and as neither of us (I assume) have used it, we'll see if it is quicker.
I just think there were lots of negativity about TouchID when it was announced, and look how successful that is, would Apple risk that success? I don't think so...
I would say the opposite, the interactions that the most users use the most often are the most important.
Edge cases are defined as what happens at the edge of operating parameters the classic example of a speaker that is played at the bottom or top 10% of it's output, edge cases do not have an intrinsic definition of occurrence rarity. It might not relevant to you, but if you like blowing up your house with all that bass or you have very thin walls and you have to listen to music very quietly then these are still edge cases but they are not rare cases for you.
In reality and in practice edge cases are pretty much anything that goes out of the (pretty narrow) definition of how a device or a service should be used (the classical remark of "you are holding the iphone wrong" comes to mind).
On your daily usability the edge cases are also much more important for the general satisfaction and subjective usability values of the device. When you are in a perfect position/condition to use your phone the environmental conditions overcome any design flaws, and you experience pretty normal usability.
When you say hold the phone on the floor by your bed to avoid the light creeping all over the room, under the table during a meeting, or as close to the floor when possible at a theater is when the flaws in usability start being apparent. That's when things like the placement of the fingerprint reader (or lack there of), weight, size, screen readability at low brightness and odd angles start to become more and more relevant.
Same goes for other things, you don't care about how much leg room there is in the back of your car until you need to fit 5 people over the weekend, despite you using it more times solo during the work week.
I think I understand the point you are getting at, design for tricky situations and the normal situations will be easier, but I think you are failing to see that you cannot design for every scenario, eventually you have to weigh up the feature sets of two technologies and pick the best one for most use cases and users, which Apple obviously thinks is FaceID.
I think FaceID will allow features simply not possible with TouchID, and expand across the Apple product line, and to other manufacturers, to the point where in 5-10yrs time we just expect screens to recognise us. This is an important step towards this.
> Because one can use TouchID for Apple Pay much quicker and more reliably in a crowded/rushed situation such as paying for public transport.
Since moving to the UK I was keen to give Apple Pay a try on the tube and I was disgusted at how slow it is. I think mobile-based contactless options are always going to be slower than passive card-based contactless.
I noticed this as well. Android pay is rock solid, Apple Pay required a few tries to work right.
It could just be an implementation detail of the Tube's readers. Or it could be the case on the phone, or it could actually be the phone, but there was a difference.
Sounds like a reason to improve the tech behind TouchID.
I will constantly downvote comments that make this point because unlocking your phone in your pocket is not a feature, it's a painpoint.
> Because it can be unlocked under the table or at a very low angle to be used in places such as a restaurant, meeting room, theater etc.
Do you use your phone without looking at your phone? Back when phones had buttons perhaps, but on tactile device this is almost impossible.
> Becuase TouchID actually allows multiple users on the same device if if that is not an intended feature.
wat
You’re not fooling anyone in meetings or at restaurants by using your phone under the table. We know you’re doing stuff with your phone. Everyone knows. Still, if you want to pretend to be slick, use the passcode.
You have no idea if faceid will be slower than Touch ID. You have no idea if faceid will limit the phone to just one user.
You’re out on some pretty weak limbs with this list of nothingburgers that goes on.
Do you know what distance? I mean, literally no-one has an iPhone X right now to test this.
> data could easily leak to any number of surveillance programs
Never leaves the Secure Enclave on the phone - same as Touch ID.
You're commenting on an article written by a guy with an iPhoneX
I don't know that "Apple" had a first choice at all, and I suspect that there was diversity of opinion within Apple about which authentication method would be superior if both were technically feasible.
People might reasonably prefer fingerprint to facial recognition for speed reasons, allowing the phone to be unlocked by the time you look at it.
Seriously, the "back of phone" placement for the fingerprint sensor has downsides when it comes to "phone on the table," but it's awesome for the pocket. I just got a Pixel 2 XL, which has a more reliable fingerprint reader than any other one I've used (comparison points: Nexus 5x, iPhone 6+, 2017 Macbook Pro touchbar), and it's amazing. My phone is utterly reliably unlocked by the time I clear it from my pocket.
And a back fingerprint reader + the FaceID system would be great in combination. The FaceID system could compensate for the back-of-phone fingerprint reader's weakness when it's on your desk (or when wearing gloves/hands wet).
I've tried the back of phone ones and they just do not work for me. For me, back of phone is a downgrade. I guess having both FaceId and back of phone would not impact me, but only going back of phone would have me sticking with the older phones as long as possible.
This review suggests that it's not "only imperceptibly slower," with its talk of the De Niro look.
They probably figure that people should be using CarPlay, though.
EDIT: It is innovative to do things well for the first time.
I frequently unlock a phone that's flat on a desk that's at an arm's length. Now, to unlock, I suspect I'll need to lift and point that device towards my face in order to authenticate. Since I haven't tried the iPhone X yet, I'm not sure how liberal they are with the angle required to capture your face, but it seems unlikely this can be done with the device flat on a desk.
To me, that's unfortunate ... and it's a feature change that having TouchID integrated into the display, as was rumored to be their original intention, would have avoided.
I'm not certain I'm getting the phone. But if I do, it'll be for the camera. It's my number one use case of my phone, and it seems like it's got a great camera. I know there are good alternatives from Android, but I'm largely married to the Apple ecosystem.
Often this is fine because the new stuff is unambiguously great. Sometimes it's miserable. That's life as an Apple customer.
So don't worry: the Apple upgrade cycle really isn't that bad.
Microsoft SP4 have had that for 2 years (unlocking with 3D scanning of the face), so I'd not call it innovation. But regardless, a sensor on the back would be better IMO.
For example, if you have an app open in a folder, you'll have to press the home button 3 times: once to exit the app, another to exit the folder, and a third to go home (unless the messages app is on the dock, then you can press twice to reach it).
I'd be worried about messaging the wrong person, and I also have fat fingers so that's no help :(
This is all speculation of course - and likely outside of the scope of this conversation, hopefully I'm not detracting too much though :)
Although it wasn't particularly either when it was first introduced.
“Once you’ve added a fingerprint, subsequent scans of that finger are nearly instantaneous. Touch ID is way faster than “fast enough”. I’d call it “I can’t believe it works this quickly” fast. It’s also very accurate — only a handful of times over the past week have I had to try a second time, and each of those times, I hadn’t really squared up my finger with the sensor.”
I know many people regard DF as overly biased, but as I recall, the general reception for Touch ID was very positive. Let me know if you find a review that says otherwise.
Personal experience from having got a 5S at launch. And every iPhone with Touch ID since.
I'm expecting Face ID to be the same - kinda clunky but amazing on the X, almost frictionless on the XI, and then almost completely transparent on the XII.
Project Tango looks amazing but will it ever get beyond the developer-edition phones and tablets and into our pockets?
As much as I admire them, Google seems to do hardware launches very badly.