
Apple’s Struggle to Get the iPhone X to Market on Time - runesoerensen
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/inside-apple-s-struggle-to-get-the-iphone-x-to-market-on-time
======
whatok
Apple response:

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/25/apple-reduced-iphone-x-
facei...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/25/apple-reduced-iphone-x-faceid-
accuracy-to-boost-production-report.html)

In a statement to CNBC, the company said, "Bloomberg's claim that Apple has
reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face
ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication."

Quote from updated article at least on BBG terminal right now:

Apple spokeswoman Trudy Muller said “Bloomberg’s claim that it reduced the
accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the
new gold standard for facial authentication. The quality and accuracy of Face
ID haven't changed; it continues to be one in a million probability of a
random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.”

~~~
ksec
Bloomberg has turned into a Apple rumors site ever since the arrival of Mark
Gurman. I have no idea why they are doing it and why the need of doing it.
After all Bloomberg is straightly not in the news or publishing business.

~~~
runesoerensen
_> After all Bloomberg is straightly not in the news or publishing business._

What do you mean? Bloomberg News was founded in 1990 and has 2300 employees
according to Wikipedia
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_News)

~~~
philbot1008
I believe that was an attempt at sarcasm ;)

------
oddevan
Via Dave Mark [http://www.loopinsight.com/2017/10/25/bloomberg-apple-
told-s...](http://www.loopinsight.com/2017/10/25/bloomberg-apple-told-
suppliers-they-could-reduce-face-recognition-accuracy-to-ease-manufacturing/)
:

> If reducing accuracy allows Apple to ship, this (if true) is a logical
> decision. It’s what businesses do. The key is to compromise without reducing
> quality to the point where it breaks. I think Apple would eat the delay
> before they shipped an iPhone X that didn’t meet their security standards.

So I don't think this is as big a deal as it sounds. The article makes it
sound like they're allowing a half-assed product to make it to market, but it
could just be reducing accuracy by a fraction that would be unnoticeable by
the majority of uses.

~~~
sschueller
After the password being displayed in the password recovery phrase in osx and
many other lapses in quality control I am no longer sure about that.

~~~
alsetmusic
Though I also hold concern for Apple’s QA decline, the difference between a
deliberate modification to alter the resilience of a tent pole feature and a
software bug in a massive codebase are significant.

Given that we all know next to nothing about actual performance of FaceID, I
see no reason to assume that this will equate to a broken product. We’ll find
out when it ships, just as we would if no change had been reported.

------
mmmBacon
This is likely a spec relaxation of certain components that has limited to no
impact on the accuracy of the assembly. This is really common in optics where
early design decisions get made and carried forward due to schedule concerns
because making changes impacts a ton of things further down like reliability,
assembly, etc... I don't see this as a big deal it's just making decisions
that improve manufacturability and yield while not having much impact on the
overall device.

------
_ph_
The more likely story is, that Apple set some initial specs for the face ID
module early in the development. This was probably a very strict spec, which
is of course difficult to match. Fast forward, some months later, as the
production devices are coming together and real production devices can be
evaluated, the specs can be relaxed somewhat, as Apple now has a clear idea
about the specs they need to have a functioning face ID device. Also, the
software might be a bit more tolerant to variations in the device. Of course,
the revised specs will increase yield too. But that is all what engineering is
about -finding out how far you can relax specs and still have a robust working
device.

------
Xophmeister
> While a less accurate Face ID will still be far better than the existing
> Touch ID

Really?

~~~
mikeash
Apple claims that Touch ID has a false positive rate of 1 in 50,000, and Face
ID has a rate of 1 in 1,000,000. So yes, there’s a lot of room for Face ID to
become worse and still be better than Touch ID.

~~~
infogulch
Here's the thing. Fingerprints are uniformly random [1]. Faces aren't. Your
average Joe can't use a global online database of fingerprints to find ones
that might be "close" to the owners to try to fool it, and that's only after
you _have_ the owners fingerprint, not a straightforward task. For faces that
database is literally called FACEbook, and getting a picture of the owners
face is trivial. And faces aren't random at all: sometimes even distant
relatives look alike.

I'm not saying that the 1/1M faceid false positive rate is _wrong_ for the
general population, I'm saying that the attack vectors to reduce that number
by large factors are much easier and readily available than for touchid.

[1]: Citation needed, I know.

Edit: Apparently I didn't make it clear that I don't think attack vector is to
show it a 2D photo (if you had a photo of the owner why would facebook even
come into this?), the attack vector is to find a lookalike using 2D photos and
show the phone their face in person. Facebook's role is to find the lookalike.
This should be trivial to socially engineer after you find the person.

~~~
mikeash
If their number is correct, there are only about 7,000 lookalikes on the
planet for any given user. Tracking one down and convincing them to
participate in your nefarious scheme seems non-trivial. And remember that you
must accomplish this within a fairly short time period (48 hours?) and two
failures will lock you out for good.

If you’re the target of an attack by a sophisticated organization like an
intelligence agency or a large industrial espionage operation, they _might_ be
able to pull this off. Common criminals will just break the phone up for
parts. And either way, it’s better than fingerprints.

~~~
infogulch
> convincing them to participate in your nefarious scheme seems non-trivial

Actually this would be the easiest part. E.g. A courier knocks a random
persons door and says please sign here and shoves a clipboard in their face
(that happens to have a faceid-sized hole in the metal frame) then hands them
a random package. Done. No convincing needed, worst case they're confused for
a day about why they signed for whatever you put in the box and who sent it
and then they forget about it altogether.

You're right about the 7000, except it's likely that a large fraction of that
7000 lives geographically close to you as most family does. I agree that this
will take more sophistication than what a common criminal could pull off, but
this opens up a wide range between that and state intelligence agency that
could try compared to TouchId.

I would like to see a security review with more details about how common false
positives are given that you only try lookalikes.

~~~
mikeash
That’s an interesting attack. Seems like you wouldn’t even need a lookalike.
Just pull that trick on the victim himself!

~~~
infogulch
That's a good point and seems obvious in hindsight, I didn't think of that.

------
yladiz
The big question is, did Apple state the 1 in 1 million number knowing that
they were having supply issues, meaning that the original component was more
accurate? This must have been known in some way before the keynote, so I
wouldn't be surprised if this is "old news" as in Apple told supplies to do
this around or before the keynote.

Of course we won't know how much things will change from Apple, but I assume
it's not a 50% drop (and even if it was, it's still apparently 10x better than
TouchID).

------
untog
This feels like an entirely unnecessary risk. Yes, it would be good to having
plenty of iPhone Xs available for the holidays, but they're a year-round
seller, and they'll sell a ton whenever they come out.

Feels like a strategic mistake by Apple - the iPhone 8 is pretty underwhelming
(should be called 7S) and they were so caught up in the mystique of the ten
year anniversary that they _had_ to have something else.

~~~
ballenf
> the iPhone 8 is pretty underwhelming

The 8 might well be a 7s, in all but name, but is hardly underwhelming as
compared other incremental iPhone releases in my view.

For me, it's a bigger improvement to my everyday use of the device by a mile
than:

6: larger screen (maybe an exception for this reason)

6s: 3d touch; 2nd gen touch ID

7: jack-less; splash proof; shiny option

8: Heavier/premium feel, wireless charging, much bigger performance bump than
usual

The 8 is the first phone where the phone can pretty much keep up with my
thoughts, which makes it an incredibly different experience. The rhythm of
using the device is just an order of magnitude different.

The 8 is forgettably underwhelming on its spec sheet (except speed), a marvel
and delight in person. Bottom line for me is that the spec sheet is
increasingly irrelevant to my satisfaction with a device.

I also have zero desire to be the guinea pig for all the new stuff on trial in
the X.

edited: fixed touch id introduction -- thanks

~~~
gurkendoktor
Is the iPhone 8 on iOS 11 merely faster than other phones running iOS 11, or
faster than, for example, an iPhone 5s running iOS 7?

I think (but this might be my rose-tinted glasses) that every iPhone since the
3GS ran everything at 60 FPS, and that app launches were mostly limited by the
launch animation, until each phone got its first major update. The one obvious
outlier is the iPad Pro 10.5 with its 120 Hz display, where everything is
smoother than it could possibly be on older devices.

I'd love to see data on this that's more accurate than sketchy YouTube
comparisons.

~~~
ballenf
I've used iPhones since the 3gs, and the iPhone 8 allows me to be more
productive than any modern phone (had the Samsung S4, s5 and an early Google
nexus device) I've owned since the blackberry.

I'm sure iOS 12 will slow it down, but for now I feel like my productivity is
finally getting back to _Blackberry_ days. My nostalgia for the instant
response of those devices has grown over the past few years as phone os's and
apps have become increasingly bloated. I really think there'd be a market for
an email / messaging only device intended to be carried along side a phone if
it did that one thing very well.

------
throw7
"While a less accurate Face ID will still be far better than the existing
Touch ID..."

Really? How so? I already know I do not want to have to look at my phone to
unlock it.

~~~
zimpenfish
> I do not want to have to look at my phone to unlock it.

But then surely you're 100% not the target market for any devices which
contain Face ID and the accuracy is wholly irrelevant to your life?

~~~
FilterSweep
What if every single other feature of the iPhone X is appealing to you?

~~~
MBCook
Still doesn’t matter. There is only one way to get those other features and
that’s accept FaceID.

It’s no different from the ‘I want a Pixel 2 XL but I want a headphone jack’
problem. The company is only offering you one choice. Go without the headphone
jack (or with FaceID) or don’t get the phone and hope for next year.

------
hodder
It seems like FaceID is an epic pain compared Touch. Most consumers do not
care about the 1/50K vs 1/1000k stats. They care about having to put an
internet square to their face for access. To me this seems like a huge mistake
for Apple. Lack of a home button also seems like a mistake. Both will likely
confuse and annoy long time customers and should've been solved with an
ergonomic button on the back.

~~~
mandeepj
> ergonomic button on the back.

That touchid on back is a huge fail from UX perspective. Samsung did it only
because they could not do it from front side

~~~
dpark
Why is that design a failure? My index finger is generally very near the Apple
logo on my phone when I’m using it. It would be entirely convenient if the
TouchID were there. It would actually be more comfortable than the current
location that requires an awkward grip and thumb reach.

~~~
Aaargh20318
I use my phone a lot when it’s lying on a desk, can’t unlock it when the
fingerprint sensor is on the back.

Besides, the convenience of TouchID is largely due to it being integrated in
the home button, you’d lose that too.

~~~
bhauer
> _I use my phone a lot when it’s lying on a desk, can’t unlock it when the
> fingerprint sensor is on the back._

You can still unlock a phone via its PIN if you don't want to pick it up.
(Edit: I have not owned an iPhone since the original. Does the iPhone not
provide a PIN option when Touch ID is enabled?)

~~~
spost
It does, but if anything that argument is a point in favor of “fingerprint
sensor on the back is poor UX”.

~~~
Kurtz79
It depends, if you consider using the phone while laying flat on a desk as a
normal or edge case.

I'm not an UX designer, but I would optimize for the nominal case, rather than
choosing a solution that is sub-optimal 90% of the time, but works better for
the remaining 10%.

~~~
mehrdada
As a long-time iPhone user who had been using Pixel more frequently recently,
the unlock phone-on-your-desk use-case is hugely problematic when you have
fingerprint on the back and it is a huge pain point. I have a long passphrase
for security but even entering a PIN is so 2012.

Fingerprint on the back is a _major_ UX issue. I hope FaceID would work fine
at an angle.

------
noncoml
I think buying the iPhone X as soon as it is released is a huge gamble, no
matter the struggles Apple is going through with FaceID.

If past performance is an indicator, and given the amount of new technology
coming in iPhone X, I expect a multitude of problem with the first devices.

Despite its high price, this is the only thing that holding me back from
upgrading on day-1.

~~~
raldi
_> I think buying the iPhone X as soon as it is released is a huge gamble_

Why? If you don't like it, you have 14 days to return it.

~~~
noncoml
Assuming that the problems will manifest in the first 14 days

~~~
MBCook
If they don’t then you’re covered under warranty for any defects.

If it’s a problem with something like face ID or a hideous screen you’ll know
fast. It’s not like the FaceID sensor will ‘wear out’ after a few weeks of
usage.

~~~
rvshchwl
That is not always true. When the iPhone 6 started to "bend" unexpectedly,
Apple denied the problem completely and refused replacements until they
started to receive bad press for it. Even after that, they didn't acknowledge
the problem at all, and claimed that only a handful of devices were affected
when in-fact a substantial percentage were. Same thing kind of happened this
year with the phone casings expanding.

If a significant hardware issue presents on the iPhone X, Apple will most
likely try to delay or deny any fixes or replacements, especially because they
are under a struggle to meet the demand as it is.

------
runesoerensen
_" It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-
recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people
familiar with the situation."_

~~~
smn1234
Official statement ?!!?

~~~
eli
Reporting from "people familiar with the situation" is the opposite of an
official statement

------
mattbarrie
Of course apples problems are all supply related, not demand

------
tatrajim
All the hallmarks of classic Bloomberg FUD.

------
jordache
swipe up is much more of an effort than a simple tap on the screen.

------
FilterSweep
FaceID really is the feature that is ruining the new iPhone for me. And the
fact that its (currently) the sole reason why interested customers can't get
one come November is another major dealbreaker (IIRC OLED was a problem too).

Moreover, it brings into question what "Designed by Apple in California"
means. Is Apple the misunderstood savant, yearning for perfection, requiring
their latest work of art not being shipped/produced without it 100% matching
the dreams of the designer? Or, is Apple trying to sell as many units of a
functional, brilliant, working product as possible? If they see themselves as
the former (and by Job's tone, they do) _why undercut FaceID accuracy_?

Is an iPhone X an iPhone X without the FaceID?

My purchase of this device (compared to the iPhone 8) solely lies on the
ability to use an iPhone X _without_ the FaceID. I don't want it and I
certainly don't _need_ it. There are also far too many situational "what-ifs"
Apple doesn't seem interested in addressing. I've asked a few people and
haven't gotten a solid answer if its a _requirement_ on setup of a new iPhone
X.

:ed: grammar

~~~
shinratdr
> I've asked a few people and haven't gotten a solid answer if its a
> requirement on setup of a new iPhone X.

I don't know why you would assume this. I think it's very obvious that it
isn't. TouchID is also not a requirement for any previous iPhone.

There is nothing about the iPhone X that would require FaceID. If you're happy
just using a passcode, then that's your choice. They've given no indicators
otherwise.

~~~
FilterSweep
> They've given no indicators otherwise.

FWIW, a "Genius" at an Apple storefront yesterday told me that FaceID will be
required. I brought up the exact same objection that TouchID was not required,
but clearly the APIs are different.

The crux of my point remains, however. _Apple chose to make FaceID a
dealkiller for supply of this product_.

~~~
shinratdr
Regardless of what you call them, Geniuses are just CSRs, and I think we've
all gotten ill-informed information about products and services from CSRs
regardless of the company. I would stick to official press releases and copy
about the device for accurate information.

There is absolutely no way FaceID is required, I would bet my life on it. It
flies directly in the face of the whole "Apple cares about your privacy" thing
they've been pushing as of late.

