Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
iPhone X (apple.com)
995 points by interconnector 7 months ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 1743 comments



They make is so easy to login to the phone -- I'm still waiting for the ability to add multiple users. When I hand my phone to my daughter she should see her apps, my son, his. And when I hand my phone to my wife, she should unlock it and see.... her phone. If 256GB local storage and 11ac WiFi isn't enough storage and bandwidth to make this easy, I would be OK if it only kept the last GB of the camera roll.

Of course this sync should happen directly between our devices when they are on the same network. No need to go through the cloud.

By default if her phone rings it should only alert on her primary device. Unless she authenticates to my device at which point everything is there waiting. If her phone was ringing and she picks up my device and authenticates it should answer the call.

Ideally this is all smooth enough that we have matching devices and don't care which one either of us walks out of the house with.

The end game is that when networks are fast enough, the cloud mature enough, and homomorphic encryption performant, we get to the point where the phone basically lives in the cloud and anyone can pick up any iDevice, authenticate, and be looking at effectively their own device.


I strongly doubt that Apple will make it easier to share devices.

Every Apple device, from Macbooks to iPads to iPhones to Airpods is built to be a personal device. Even Macs, theoretically capable of multi-user, are a pain to share (eg try updating a Mac App Store app purchased with a different user account than the one you are logged in as)

Apple doesn’t want to sell one shared device to a family. They want to sell multiple devices to every family member.


Even changing the email address of the Apple account is a world of pain. It confuses all of the ecosystem. But I think it is just poor software design, not necessarily malice.


Who needs malice if one can have poor software design for free.


that's a good quote. Not sure if it means much, but it sounds good and intelligent :)


I targeted "funny", but "intelligent" sounds good too.


I've had the pain of trying to do this once before when my parents got a new email address. The Apple account was never consistent thereafter, with different devices showing either the new or old email address.

We solved it once and for all by creating a new Apple ID under the new email address.


The problem with doing that is the music and the apps purchased.


I think it might be OK if you turn on family sharing and add the new Apple ID?


Being allowed to have my own email address that I bought that relates to my domain would make iCloud a lot better. But it's not all that difficult to stumble across brittle edges unfortunately, so adding more isn't going to be helpful.


The number of hours I spend per week in front of an iOS device will not decrease by adding this feature. The number of hours my kids spend in front of iOS could conceivably increase though, speeding up the inevitable point where they get their own...


That's just it, though. It's not about number of hours for Apple. It's about units sold.


More hours would lead to more sold units.


Not if people share their phones.


It still could. Many people buy their kids cheap tablets now because buying them an ipad is too expensive, and later in life those kids will be familiar enough with the Android ecosystem that they may never switch to Apple devices.

If those same parents could instead just hand off their ipad to their children and have it only load their apps this could lead to them being more familiar with ios and buying apple devices later in life.

Not a guarantee obviously, but it could theoretically have an impact in future sales and market share.


Given that a lot of Apple users seem buy a new phone/tablet whenever it's available, I think children end up with the older models.


Still no decrease of sold units


I'm not sure what you mean by that, since what I'm implying is that there is no real economic incentive for Apple to support multiple users.

And on the other hand, there are also benefits (for Apple) of encouraging one-user-per-phone. For example, it makes it more likely it becomes an extension of your identity. Having multiple users per phone undermines that type of personal attachment.

This isn't something that started with Apple - mobile numbers have always been tied to individuals - but it's very convenient for their "lifestyle" approach to selling their units.


Mobile phones will never be shared by people who don't already share them. This is a convenience functionality, not something that would change how you use the device - from the exact reason you said: mobile phones are extensions of identities. This feature is something you would use when your own phone is out of reach (e.g. on a shelf in the living room) and your wife's phone is with you in the kitchen.

True, it will not exactly boost sales, but it will not decrease them. It will make some people more likely to recommend Apple. Everyone will still have their own phone.

You can overcome the risk of decreasing the likelihood of creating personal attachment by letting the foreign user log in to a de-personalized (no custom wallpaper and so on) space and use a limited subset of functionality, e.g. a browser, contact list, the Apple messenger app and a phone app (that would call from your own number/phone over VoIP); this functionality would be available only when both phones are connected to the same wifi.


I don't see it as being that cut and dry. These new features would have to be focus tested, designed, tested, rolled out, and tested some more. There are maintenance costs for it, as well as additional configuration to present to the user. Done poorly, this sharing option might be simply ignored by the user making the above a waste of time and resources that could be spent elsewhere.


It still seems like good investment considering Apple's abundance of those resources.


Adults will never actually have one phone for more people (maybe except for old people, but they don't need this feature to share the phone), it's always just a convenient feature when your phone is on the desk and your wife's one is om the sofa you're sitting on.


But the number of devices sold by Apple would multiply, which is the whole point.


considering all the hype of a sharing economy would not the opposite be more true?


Only if hype and reality are the same thing.


Then, at least around iPhone, they're idiots. I'm not going to have one cellphone for the whole family. Even in the best case scenario of my wife being a stay-at-home mom, I'm going to work. I'm not leaving my phone with her all day at home. And she's not going without a cellphone all day. So... where's the "one device per family" coming in? Even if we assume kids "share" - that works until they're what? 5? 6? 10? At some point the kid is going to want a phone at the same time you do, and eventually "No because I said so" is going to fall on deaf ears.


My 3 yo borrows my iPhone when we ride home from kindergarden and I don't want that he fells asleep. So he watches an episode of Fireman Sam on Amazon Prime or plays a game. He unlocks the phone with his "magic finger" and after 20 min I get my phone back.

It would be so fantastic if he could just start HIS apps and would access a restricted Prime account. My 6 yo is the same and since he was 2 1/2 I switched by iPhone twice. So I don't see the case that it's not important as they will get their own ones when they are 8 or so - that's 5 generations of iPhones.


I assumed iOS had multiple users, no? Android has native multi-user functionality, primary, secondary, and guest users. It allows to do exactly what you are asking. Samsung has an additional feature where a folder keeps a unique set apps (sandbox) that can be completely different than the rest of the phone. Samsung calls it a secure folder. That allows each set of users to have two set of apps if needed.

https://source.android.com/devices/tech/admin/multi-user


my $200 Xiaomi phone has exactly this functionality - 'second space', unlockable by second fingerprint


$40 Amazon Fire tablet.


I think you read the exact opposite of what GP wrote.


No, I really didn't.

>By default if her phone rings it should only alert on her primary device. Unless she authenticates to my device at which point everything is there waiting. If her phone was ringing and she picks up my device and authenticates it should answer the call.

He's talking about each person having their OWN DEVICE, but being able to seamlessly switch between devices among their family group.


Why are you arguing completely different points then?


I believe he's arguing against the idea that Apple won't implement this device sharing because they don't want to sell only one device per family.


Because he is not replying to GP, he is replying to the parent:

> Every Apple device, from Macbooks to iPads to iPhones to Airpods is built to be a personal device. (...) Apple doesn’t want to sell one shared device to a family. They want to sell multiple devices to every family member.

Not sure why people are having problem understanding that.


Oh, you just replied to the wrong comment.


I think GP was just saying that in the case of phones, it's silly to try to make the devices single-user since people are going to want to have their own phone anyway, even if they could log in to their partner's phone and see "their own".


"No because $1000" is a valid answer in my house.


I don't think that anyone was suggesting that they will pay $1000 for a child to have a phone. The iPhone SE sells for $150 - $199 brand new from bestbuy: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/at-t-prepaid-apple-iphone-se-4g...


Good price - is that SIM-locked to the prepaid carrier?


Yes. I think it needs to be in service with them for 6(?) months before they unlock?


> I strongly doubt that Apple will make it easier to share devices.

So Apple devices are actually closer to being a PC than what we commonly call a Personal Computer.


I don't think Macs are at all a pain to share, and your example isn't very compelling.


Steve Jobs talked about this when he returned to Apple. He basically discussed how he would work at his home Mac and then come to the office and login and suddenly with the internet and networking the work Mac would be exactly the same.

I think the ideal should basically be that. You can pick up a phone, any phone (limited to iPhones for Aplle), login to your iCloud account and suddenly it's your phone, indistinguishable from the other phone thst was yours, outside maybe unavailable hardware features.

That's one of the great things about web apps. I can log into Gmail anywhere and it's the same thing. I haven't used it, but I believe this is the promise ChromeOS delivers.


>> how he would work at his home Mac and then come to the office and login and suddenly with the internet and networking the work Mac would be exactly the same

I don't think this is the right end game. Now that almost every adult in the 1st world has a mobile phone in their pocket that is more than capable of being a desktop PC, the solution we should be heading for is universal docking stations (preferably) wireless. So that wherever you are, there's a large screen+keyboard+mouse (or the phone screen can be a trackpad) and your phone just connects to those, be it at work, or home, or in a hotel.

Your main machine is in your pocket; a lot of non-techie people don't even have any other personal computing device (laptop/desktop etc.).

Personally tho, I like having a division between my work machine(s), and my home machine(s).


I would like to have a docking station that could turn my phone into a desktop-like device, with a proper mouse, keyboard and monitor(s). I don't need much, a full-featured web browser, Spotify and a handful of other straight-forward apps are all I really need, but I wouldn't mind a fully-fledged Linux environment.

If I could also get a laptop-like dock, my phone would take care of ~95% of all my computing needs.

Strictly personal, though. I envision simply having a different phone for for work, for privacy reasons. But plugging it into the same docks.


You've more or less described Microsoft's Continuum [1]. Even down to the "handful of apps." Continuum as it exists today runs UWP applications only.

Rumors have been circulating for years about some future Microsoft mobile device. The latest rumors suggest a Windows 10 ARM device with x86 emulation and their new CShell "responsive" UI. If that rumor pans out, it's possible Windows 10 ARM may also include the Windows Linux subsystem, getting you closer to your ideal.

[1] http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/Continuum


Sure, but that would tie me to Windows 10, and I'm not exactly interested in that.


well the manufacturers would tie into their system. If apple implemented this, you would be tied to their ecosystem, no? Don't see a way around that :)


I definitely see a way around it. An open standard, based on USB-C 3.x would be ideal.

The docking station for my Thinkpad doesn't lock me into a specific software ecosystem. I see no reason why a hypothetical phone dock should be any different.


That's close to the day phone/night phone thing so causes instant revulsion for me.


I have a work phone provided to me for free, which I am allowed to use privately, as much as I want, no usage caps whatsoever. I am eligible to upgrade it every 2-3 years to theoretically any brand new Android or iPhone.

And yet, I insist on having a completely separate phone of my own, on my own subscription, completely separate from work.

The work phone is business-only, I have my company email, all of the apps we offer, and the ones we use internally, and that's it.

The personal phone has all the Facebook and messaging and other funtime apps that I use personally, and nothing work-related whatsoever.

The reason for all of this is that I used to have a boss who would call or email at 23:00 and ask me to do something, expecting it to be ready at 09:00 next morning, at the very latest. Because I'm on a "no maximum work hours" contract, he expected me to put in hours basically whenever he wanted (he was later fired, big surprise).

This is why I have two phones, and why my work phone now gets turned off when I leave work, and turned back on when I arrive in the morning. My personal life is not to be mixed with my work.

I fully understand the revulsion towards the day phone/night phone thing. My setup is not a case of handing over, it's a matter of keeping my personal life private.


Parent and grandparent posters: how about a sandboxed part of storage under employer's admin with employer's data? Your phone, they get to manage a small protected portion. VOIP for corporate voice calls?


That's what BlackBerry did with BB10 to support BYOD users.


And the new BlackBerry KeyONE does it too, even though it runs Android.

We have two of them in this household, they are VERY nice phones.


I was a backer for the never-got-off-the-ground Ubuntu Edge apparently back in 2013.

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge#/

I also like a division between home and work devices, but I largely accomplish that by simply having a Personal and Work account with Google.

More appealing to me is the idea of being able to have my Work computer with me all the time if needed, without carrying a special bag, etc. I like the vision of Universal Docking Stations, where you go the coffee shop and just sit down and start typing on your own device, with a full sized screen and keyboard, which you carry in your pocket.


This is exactly what the hand off feature in iOS is about, granted it does not work across all apps but they have done some great improvements with iOS 11 and hopefully will keep improving upon it in the future


Isn't this the decades-old idea of Plan9?


It is certainly something Rob Pike wants. Read the "What would be your dream setup?" paragraph here: https://usesthis.com/interviews/rob.pike/

A lot of people have had that idea over the years (remember John Gage's "the network is the computer"?) You could even argue The Shockwave Rider, a 1975 Science Fiction novel, described it pretty well.

I don't know about the Steve Jobs quote though, do you have a link?


The first time I saw this implemented was in 1996 at Olivetti Research Lab in Cambridge UK. Everyone had an IR badge, and when you walked up to a machine it recognized you and popped up your desktop (no login, and it was exactly how you left it).

Technology-wise it was a bit of a dead end. However the underlying protocol was VNC which they invented for this purpose.


It's the decades-old idea of thin clients.


No, it's not, because the CPU is still local, so you're not just using your device as a terminal to a remote server.

We don't have the infrastructure for this yet.

The absolutely open version - even if it was just storing apps centrally and downloading them on demand, and not downloading everything - would still require something like 100 times more bandwidth than we have now to be usably fast.

A workable version, with local storage providing device accounts for a small number of users, would still need more local storage than we have now, and storage isn't cheap enough yet to make this fully affordable.

256/512GB devices could possibly handle family needs, just about, but would struggle at work.


IMO network bandwidth and latency is a bigger problem than storage. Right now, I can stream [1] HD movies from my homeserver to wherever my notebook is right now, because the upstream at home is wide enough (6 megabits per sec). But that application only works because it has quite predictable bandwidth requirements and can cope with latency quite well. Many other applications would be horribly slow if every file access had a second-long roundtrip.

[1] via sshfs


IIRC, it's what he had at NeXT (in the office and on the machine(s) in his home). Plan 9 may have existed at AT&T, but first shipped in 1992 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Bell_Labs#History)


I see distributed computing as a slightly lower-level concept in the more generalised field of ubiquitous computing.


How often do you change phones? I get it more with the model of desktop computers, maybe even laptops. But phones? Why? Is this a vision of a world where phones are treated like umbrellas?

In any case, my desires are for the opposite. If you don't own the storage substrate, you don't own the data on it, and I prefer to own my data. I have an iPhone, but don't use iCloud, except for syncing a couple specific things.

I remember the first release, and remember the NeXT model of "home directories on an optical drive". I was really, really hoping at the time that the iPhone would be that home directory, portable between machines. Now, I join the chorus of folks who think I should just be able to plug a monitor and keyboard into my phone. But that also needs to come with a viable computing environment, which for me means a unix shell and hardware control. Which is why I'm bolting for an open phone, as soon one actually gets off the ground.


It seems obvious to me that Apple is developing the technology that will enable this. Handoff, continuity, iCloud, Apple Watch authentication/unlock... step by step, we're getting to a point where your user identity and your current work all travel with you.


This was looong ago and in the context of desktops which weren't as numerous and obiquitous as phones. Now Apple probably wants you to have 3, 4 of their devices and not 1 per room that can easily be shared.


I think a laptop is what he was really after, 1 computer that’s the same everywhere you are.


I mean, just to expand on this.... there's no explicit sync, and no explicit backup. It's always synced. It's always backed up.

Imagine you walk into an Apple Store and pick up the latest iPhone XV. And there you are looking at your phone, your contacts, your apps, everything.

Underneath, it's a virtual shim. In the first instant it's merely grabbing thumbnails of all your apps and notification metadata so it can "look right". As you click in, scroll around, you polyfill data as you need it. Obviously in some cases a more substantial download would be needed, so you may not be able to pop into an AR game with 1GB of assets within the first 10 seconds of picking up the device, but if your primary is on the LAN you could bring the necessary data locally in ~5 seconds from tapping the icon. Underneath it's doing something analogous to "docker run" on that apps image. In some cases this would lock the image from running concurrently on another device, in other cases multi-master could be fully supported with live sync of the backing stream, e.g. for Apple Mail.


> Imagine you walk into an Apple Store and pick up the latest iPhone XV. And there you are looking at your phone, your contacts, your apps, everything.

Imagine anyone points their phone at you in the street, and there they are looking at your phone, your contacts, your apps, everything.


Thanks for saying this. Personally I view a future where the entirety of my data is sloshing around in the cloud, ready to clone to an arbitrary device at the tap of a few keys to be a nightmare scenario.


ready to clone a new you - Weiyoun X! How may I serve the Founder?


I keep having to point out that assuming this is built on existing infra, FaceID is just the username. Everything is end-to-end encrypted. You can't get the data onto a new device the first time without the encryption key which Apple doesn't have.

You need your iCloud login/password and also (I think) an existing device which has the key to approve the request.

This is literally no different than how it works exactly today when restoring an iCloud backup onto a new phone, except imagine it can happen as a polyfill so it looks instantaneous instead of the 2-4 hours it seems to take today.


Or the cops.


> As you click in, scroll around, you polyfill data as you need it

polyfill definitely doesn't mean what you think it does.


Likewise. We use it for filling cracks in walls here in the UK.


Haha - how embarrassing! What's the term d'art for a virtual/shim file system which dynamically reconstitutes the data onto local storage as you request it, while presenting a false image to user-space that all the data actually is local already?


Bu you would have 1:1000000 chances to get into someone elses phone. With 7 billion people in the world it's not so crazy.


First time auth on new hardware would certainly ask for at least a PIN but more likely your iCloud password. For the encryption keys to transfer I think you would also have to allow the request from some other device which currently held them.

The Secure Element would need to be upgraded to support "multi-tenancy".

That's all assuming the feature works by building on the existing infrastructure.

Ideally between your face and your iCloud password you could bring your "profile" to new hardware without having to touch an existing device. After the first time, just your face is enough.


Meanwhile the front door lock on my house built a couple of years ago only has 10,000 different keys. They probably sold more locks than that in the last few months.


A four-digits pin code has 1:10000 chances to get into someone else's phone (on first try).


Read the GP comment. This is talking about walking up to any random phone and having your own environment synced to it seamlessly. For that to work, the phone would have to know it’s you with basically perfect precision. So 1 in a million is not nearly good enough for that use case.


But you can only enter a pin on a phone you have physically with you. With this proposed auto-sync, every new phone is potentially a gateway to anyone else's phone.


Not that it's much better, but I thought iOS now required 6 digits going forward?


You might check this out: https://www.hypori.com/platform


Sharing phones seems like an absolutely terrible idea. It goes against the simplicity and good design that Apple pursue. I can think of tons of problems with this: being out of signal; having biometric data in cloud; running face matching across huge databases where false positives are extremely likely; interrupted signal where things are corrupt; designing efficient caching algorithms; sharing onboard storage with multiple users; security properties protecting that data...

Personal devices are personal for a reason. Simple, elegant, effective. Expensive, yes... but a better solution is to buy your kids cheaper phones.


> seems like an absolutely terrible idea

Literally every single person in the world with an iPhone and young children wants this feature.

I'm guessing based on your proposed solution, you probably don't have kids? They don't want their cheaper phone; they want your phone.


> Literally

I literally think you don't know what that word means.

Edit: David Cross explains this point better than I ever could: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ly1UTgiBXM


From the OED:

  Literally (informal): Used for emphasis while not being literally true.


It means figuratively ;-)


It literally doesn't :)


It's literally been used that way for centuries [0].

Consider:

1. It's been used like this for centuries

2. By well-known writers including Dickens, Twain, Fitzgerald, Joyce, Brontë

3. The definition of such usage is included in all major dictionaries

4. It's incredibly common in real-life use of the language

To somehow insist that it doesn't mean that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, requires extraordinary feats of denial.

0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite...


If Android has it, do you want it enough to switch platforms? Or is Apple betting that, in general, people will just buy more devices?

I'd guess most people hand down their old phone to their kids and then carry that for occasions where they might need them (distraction while waiting somewhere, etc). I don't give my phone to my kids otherwise because I don't want them to drop it and break the screen.

(I'm an iPhone user and have kids.)


I do indeed 'solve' this issue by buying more devices, which is what Apple wants and is a disincentive to them fixing the core issue, so yeah, I'm contributing to the problem.

I used to have the big iPad Pro while my kids had the old busted iPad whatever-it-was. But they were like (to paraphrase), "Fuck you dad, that busted shit loads YouTube hella slow, we want yours!"

So I ended up with a busted old iPad in a drawer, my kids having the big iPad Pro, and I got myself the new smaller 10.5 one. They know they can't use that one, but they accept it because theirs is bigger and not noticeably slower or worse for the things they do.

Also, just to ward off more "bro, do you even parent?" comments from people with no kids: No, I don't let my kids use the iPad whenever they want. No, they don't get to watch TV and eat trash whenever they feel like it. They do chores and read books. Woo hoo.

But, anybody with kids will tell you: trying to implement a you will never, ever, under any circumstances, use my phone policy is completely insane. It will make your kids life worse, and it will make your life as a parent a LOT worse.

Oh shit, this United flight is stuck on the tarmac for an extra 180 minutes, and all our new coloring books are already done!

Buddy, I know you're tired, but this is a funeral service for good old Uncle Jesse who suddenly and tragically died, we really need you to hold it together so we can deal with your little brother who is definitely not...

(Et cetera times 1000 pls use your imagination...)

So in these instances, you really want to be able to hand your phone to your child. And if you do so, every piece of data you've stored in the cloud is at risk. And you just can't have critical business data on your phone. Which limits how useful the phone can be to you.

It's like having your own real, biological Chaos Monkey.

And it can be humorous. I laughed when my wife bought a new MacBook and during the very first 10 minutes of setting it, somehow pressed 'th' and had it auto-expand into 20 paragraphs of Japanese text. She was like, wtf, and handed me the machine... boom! Another 20 paragraphs of Japanese text (seemed to be a cooking blog post).

What I guess happened is:

1. somehow, some kid managed to copy a blog post

2. then they managed to somehow get to the "Text Expansion" settings on one of her iOS devices

3. then, they somehow managed to create a new shortcut for "th" and paste all the blog content into the shortcut expansion text area (didn't even think that was possible?)

4. the cloud did its cloud thing and now my wife can't type "the" on any of her machines

That's just a guess as to how that happened. But shit like that happens pretty regularly. The Chaos Monkeys also managed to delete my favorite photo of my wife — I only noticed because it was my favorite, so who knows how many non-favorites they've deleted. The weirdest shit shows up in my photo stream. I have thousands of notes consisting of variants of 'afhdsf8aiyfoew9ry4t340822u9rtf20悪悪悪'. And I can't find this super-super-important receipt in Evernote... another heinous data-loss Evernote bug, or.... the Monkey???

So yeah. Just because you'd like to hand your phone to your child safely does not necessarily mean you're a shitty parent.

If Apple had multi-user on iPhone, or even just a limited Guest Mode, it would get close to completely solving this problem.


"But, anybody with kids will tell you: trying to implement a you will never, ever, under any circumstances, use my phone policy is completely insane. It will make your kids life worse, and it will make your life as a parent a LOT worse."

My kids (2yo and 5yo) never use my phone and I haven't noticed an issue with my insisting on that. It's likely that they're not old enough to know that the age of their devices is limiting their play so I'll grant that I avoid that issue. And my wife isn't as insistent, so will share her phone with them to keep the peace, but it doesn't seem to be that often.

Might be the ages of the kids? Maybe 5-10yo is tougher?


Guided Access?


I was so happy when I discovered guided access.... until I realized you can still get it other apps by sharing :/


I have young kids (3 of them ages 2-10) and our family uses iPhones and I don't want this. Guided Access does what I need it to do. Beyond that I don't want them on my device and my wife doesn't want them on hers. For an iPad however, it might be nice.


> Literally every single person in the world with an iPhone and young children wants this feature.

Neither of my sisters, with multiple kids, want this feature. In fact, of all the people I know with iPhones and kids, only one has ever mentioned this.

And he believes coloured TTYs are an abomination.


Well, sure, they don't know they want it.

But if you asked all parents on earth "Hey, would you like to be able to hand your kid your phone and have them be able to use some apps, but not necessarily be able to delete all your data?" I think that the positive response would get pretty close to the literal meaning of "literally all".


> They don't want their cheaper phone; they want your phone

What they want isn't relevant. Maybe try some parenting.


[flagged]


I was like "wow how did that person read this in this comment ? did I miss anything ?".

But no, you just went and dig some comments from that user just to try to make a point ? What is this childish and grudgeful behavior, seriously ? I know, you answered since but you're just digging deeper, and still can't answer properly in a productive way why what they want matters more anyways.

Way to elevate the debate.


[flagged]


Nope, didn't work from you either. Still a shitty comment.


How about "children wanting something doesn't mean it's the right choice as a parent to give it to them, indeed it's often the wrong choice."

But I'm old, and still don't accept that the only way to have a child behave is to give them endless snacks and electronic entertainment on demand.


Darn, I really want to reply! But Mom also taught me not to feed Internet trolls.

BTW, Mom, thanks for being such a great parent when I was little!

:-)


Ok, lets turn this around. Can you imagine any situation, no matter how unlikely, where humanity should stop increasing their numbers or do you think we should keep increasing the population no matter what ?

I'm beginning to fear that for the vast majority of humans the urge to procreate is ingrained at such a fundamental level that no amount of rational thought can overcome it. Like the 3 laws of robotics that cannot be overruled, humans seems to have a rule that 'thou shall increase thy numbers'. We could grow until the planet is covered in 100 story skyscrapers where everyone lives like in a Japanese capsule hotel and there would still be people insisting that we grow the population.

Frankly, I think we as a species are fucked.


Beautifully put.

I think we are headed in the right direction though. The rate of growth plateaus in very developed nations, so we might just survive the current craziness.


Sure, but our environment might not.


If anything, our environment is more likely to survive than our species.


People stop breeding when they're prosperous enough to be comfortable and educated enough to defer gratification.

The correlation is well-known and widely documented. Native - i.e. non-immigrant - populations in the US and Europe are both shrinking now, sometimes dramatically.


> People stop breeding when they're prosperous enough to be comfortable and educated enough to defer gratification.

And when is that going to be something that's true for the entire global population ? It would require us to get rid of some massive issues regarding inequality and that is never going to happen.


This does ring true, but I can't think of any reliable sources backing that up. I'd appreciate it if you mentioned some.


Is he wrong though? Our planet will not be able to sustain the current population's growth rate.


So the solution is to keep breeding like rats ? Don't you think it's sad that we as a species seem unable to keep ourselves under control ?


This isn't actually a problem. https://youtu.be/FACK2knC08E


Who said anything about biometric data in the cloud? This doesn't need to work the same way the first time you see a device as it will work the second time you see it, after having fully authenticated the first time.

So, it doesn't have to alter the security attack surface or really even a major change in the secure element.

Someone from Apple should just reach out, the design is not simple but it's absolutely workable.


Oh, forgot the biggest: battery life killer.


Microsoft had this on Windows Phone -- sort of. It was for the most likely scenario: parents who hand their phone to their kids. They called it Kids' Corner, IIRC... Yes, here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=475jxWQ955c


>If her phone was ringing and she picks up my device and authenticates it should answer the call.

Unfortunately Apple don't get to decide how SIM cards, phone numbers and the cellular networks work. So that's not going to happen. Note how the watch has to have a SIM mated to your phone to take calls on your number.

As for FaceID and TouchID, that data isn't supposed to be readable at all, it's never sent to iCloud so how would it get synced between phones?

Then there's storage, all the contents of all your family's devices would need to be syncd between them all the time, multiplying up the amount of storage each device would need. You'd completely lose control of managing storage on your own device. You'd also essentially lose control of wireless bandwidth utilisation.

It's a lovely dream and maybe one day we'll get there. None of these problems are unsolvable in principle, but nobody can wave a magic wand and make them all go away. I think in the same way secure resource and feature sharing between apps required Apple to develop Secure XPC, this would require a lot of fiddly, complex technological and infrastructure groundwork before it could be possible.


Macs can answer incoming calls to an iPhone. Why not route the same way?

Maybe there are limitations like needing to be on the same WiFi network or some such.


The Mac isn't receiving the call, the phone is. The Phone is just handing off the UI to the Mac across Bluetooth and Wifi. If the phones worked this way, if his wife walked out of the house with his phone, and let's be clear at that point there might not even be a way for her to tell she's doing it, it would drop off the local network and incoming and outgoing calls would become impossible.


FaceTime audio, FaceTime video and iMessage don't suffer that problem and I preferentially use those. The cloud storage of biometric data is a problem though.


The scenario you describe sounds impractical, unlikely and unworkable, a very edge case "iOS fan family".

Walking out the door with just "any device" that is laying about? Nobody wants that. For one thing, an object like a phone is a personal device, not a sugar bowl passed around and left anywhere.

Your son and daughter will want their own devices, and it makes sense to give them their own devices such as your old phone or cheap phone. For one thing, when you hand your kid your phone you no longer have a phone. Someone might text or call, or the kid will burn through your battery with some game.

This only scratches the surface of what's wrong with your idea.


The wild thing is, apple kind of already did this with handoff, and the iOS/OSX syncing. If my phone is ringing in the kitchen, and i have my laptop with me on the couch i'll get an alert and i can answer the call on my laptop. Or iPad. It doesn't even need to be near the phone, as long as they both have wifi or LTE connected. And while ipads don't do multiple users, on OSX if my roommate or someone else signed in then their calls and messages would come through too. When configged right, even texting to/from real numbers works.

They obviously already have this tech most of the way there and just... haven't implemented it?


I have to believe it's where they are heading, I just really thought we would be there by now!


I think it still requires faster, more ubiquitous networking. But in general, I think you're correct. This is also probably the long-term solution to how to make iOS a full general-purpose computing device, which to date is somewhat at odds with the "app console" philosophy of iOS's restrictions and the App Store. If I can run anything I want in the cloud with minimal latency, the restrictions on the phone just don't matter as much.


Multiple users are not a common use-case. Everyone* over the age of 12 has their own phone. I doubt Apple will add that feature anytime soon.

*By everyone I mean the majority of people in first world countries, some second, and third.


The smartphone has become the modern day version of the pacifier. Pretty much every parent I know hands their phone to their child and it's unsettling how effective it is at pacifying children.

As for this feature request, I think it makes sense... I wouldn't want my kid tapping on my work email or social apps.


I wouldn't want my kid tapping on my smartphone at all. That description of "pacifying" is... both spot-on and deeply sad.


What do you find deeply sad about it?


iPhones have Guided Access which can restrict all usage to a single app:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202612


Modern version of the television, maybe. And why not?


It is a common case for other iOS device(s) though. iPad in a family is usually shared across family members. I do wish apple add this feature in iOS, for iPads at least.


Yep. Two iPads for 3 family members here. It's enough, but you have to remember on which one you left your stuff. If it could seamlessly recognize who picked up the tablet and switch to their stuff, no matter what ipad it was originally on, that would be magic.

I wouldn't even mind having a sync server in the house (a desktop mac, maybe) to help with that.


Yes, I'd really appreciate being able to hand my iPad to my daughter knowing she can only access her apps, and ideally for a set period of time. They seem to have this working reasonably well within macOS users.


What does my twin brother see when I hand him my phone?


Apple said in presentation you can't use FacialID if you have a (evil) twin.


Even identical twins might not have facial features (due to body fat percentage differences or sun exposure) which are close enough to fool it.

It's an interesting question how exactly the device switches to the remote profile mode versus an "authentication failed" route. If the profile has never existed on the device you'll need permission from someone who is live on the device (in other words you need to get past the lock screen) to retrieve a new profile.

But if two profiles are live on a device owned by identical twins who can't be distinguished by FaceID -- perhaps detected by trying to authenticate the human to both profiles and seeing if both pass -- you're going to need a PIN (or something else) to distinguish them.


Honestly, I am waiting to see how FaceID works for various use cases.

Just me, without a twin, change beards all the time (shave it, grow it, shape it, etc).

I have also have friends who do contact sports (brazilian juijitsu) and trust me, their ears change shape all the time.

I dont have any personal friends that box, but man, I can also see that not working so well.


He doesn't. You turn the feature off.


Well since it doesn't have touchid, you're pretty much back to using a pin/password, so back 5+ years ago


That will never work since the facial tracking isn't allowed to be connected to a network. Remember all the data for facial tracking is stored locally.


I would prefer to only have 3 “users”. Personal, Work and Guest. The Guest account would have access to a list of apps that I have installed but would not share my history and data. For example I do not want my wife’s YouTube history mixed with mine.

I think that setting up multiple accounts would make the experience worse as I don’t want other people to get too comfy. On an iPad that is a different case though.


This would be less beneficial IMHO on a phone. My wife sometimes uses my phone, but she always has her own nearby. when she is using it, its for a quick, specific reason.

But I could really see this on an iPad. iPad's are often shared around a household, this would be amazing for that. Macs themselves would also apply here.


unfortunately our current global network doesn't allow for proper delegation of trust, so your vision is more like a dystopia where a few single corporations and ultimate governments have ultimate power. homomorphic encryption is way too limited to allow these things. traditional encryption is only about encoding channels, its not about solving runtime and delegation problems. it seems more like its going to be the other way around. giant institutions will be replaced with DAC's which perform the desired functions of users/citizens. I'd be happy enough if iPhone would be an open system where I can run my desired OS of choice, with open hardware components and profits going not to already rich investors, who pay close to 0 tax using Irish/Dutch shell companies, but also more to employees and customers.


The amount of development, testing, and customer support this would require likely outweighs any profit increase by a couple of orders of magnitude. It'll never happen.


This is my only gripe with Apple. It's an incredible PITA to share devices even temporarily. You have to log the primary user out of their phone, login with your credentials and we are in business. This whole process is so long and frustrating that it forbids any sharing experience. I do wish Apple or someone made sharing devices a lot easier.


Ironically, a lot of tech companies had this vision for the enterprise in the late 90s. Insert your id card and instantly see all your stuff. Interestingly, for the most part the market rejected the idea. I suspect this is an idea that sounds good on paper, but ends up being undesirable to the majority of folks.


I think there was a lot of very poor executions too to be honest, with loading time everywhere unbearably long.


With the family tablet yes, my phone hell no!


What exactly is "your phone"? Is it that physical mass of circuits and lithium ions in your hand? Or is it the bits making up the user-land data you've accumulated on it over time?

"Do you think that's air you're breathing?" ;-)

What I dislike most is handing someone "my phone" for them to use for a minute and they are actually using my phone. If they authenticated and were immediately interacting with their phone I have no problem sharing the hardware for a minute when the wife/kids want to do something briefly on it.


I don't ever hand anyone my phone and it wouldn't be helpful anyway due to the passcode needed.

I understand the point you're making though. You want a phone that's a terminal to the cloud, with caching. That's a fine use case I suppose. Wouldn't stand in your way.

Many phones are cheap enough today (not to mention hand-me-downs) that there isn't a huge need however.


Well I have kids 5 and 8 that when they are using a screen (which is limited) it's always someone else's hardware, usually mine.

But it's also bigger than that. If everything you do user-land can be synced down fairly instantly to any piece of hardware - phone, tablet, desktop, TV, watch, etc. - it provides a level of mobility and usability which can enable some very powerful use cases.

Approaching a device and have it immediately be "yours" is important for the screens in the self-driving ride you hail, or the shared workspace you might rent by the minute, or even the TV you sit down in front of in your own living room.

But this could even extend to the POS terminal which you checkout with at a store, a screen you walk up to in a mall, a digital assistant you approach in a store, an ATM, etc.

FaceID is transparent walk-up/pick-up authentication, which is table stakes for some very cool possibilities.


If your kids are using your phone, and it becomes "their phone", what happens if someone tries to call, text or notify "your phone"? Do you expect some sort of hybrid profile with cross-notifications and contacts? That's messy.

Your kids want their own device. They will get it sooner or later. Mobile devices by nature are personal objects, complete with personal greasy screens and battery levels we have nobody else to blame for.

Approaching a device and having it become "yours" might be a fine idea for certain applications, but I'd argue the living room TV is better off having a default profile which everyone in the house uses. If one person's profile is lagging or missing content or apps or settings, they fall behind and we now have a frustrating scenario of some profiles better than others for watching TV. Obviously sub-usage areas such as Netflix makes sense to have different profiles, but not the whole TV.


Then allow any computer to be configured that way, but don't try to sell lack of this feature as a feature.


"I'm still waiting for the ability to add multiple users."

One shared device with multiple profiles for your family members VERSUS One device each for each family member

To understand how Apple chooses to prioritise, simply ask the question - "Which option makes more money?"


I don't want to share my device, ever. I like to know where it is at all times, even for benign uses like "i need a flashlight, where's my phone" or "what time is it." This feature would not improve my user experience.


Nobody forces you to setup multiple user accounts.


I'm not walking out of the house with my wife's phone -- it looks like a Russian tank ran it over several times.

Concur on all the other points. Devices should be as transparent as possible. They're empty shells by design.


> can pick up any iDevice, authenticate, and be looking at effectively their own device.

This is so obviously the opposite of what Apple has in mind. They want to sell as many phones as possible - not make them shareable.


Then it would be a "mePhone" and conflict with their branding. :)

On a more serious note, the most I think we'll ever see from them is limited web browsing as a guest user.


Even simple `Child Mode` will help drastically.


Heck, it would be nice if my desktops and laptops behaved that way. <plaintive sigh>


TouchID is not stored in the cloud. I hope FaceID isn't either.


[flagged]


What a totally useless comment. Please try harder to contribute to hacker news threads.


Why would you restrict this to iDevices?


I'm not sure what you mean? It's not going to work as a 3rd party service. So Apple can do it for its customers and I guess Google for its own, and Microsoft, and so on....

But how is Google going to ensure "full portability" across the lineup of all Android devices in the same way that Apple could do so for iOS?

Edit: Maybe this is what you meant? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15234615


> Your face is now your password

no, it isnt. and neither are your fingerprints. none of this publicly available data is a password.

a password is something i can change if it gets compromised. a password is secure from others.

biometric data is a username/id.

why do companies insist on getting this shit backwards?


> biometric data is a username/id.

> why do companies insist on getting this shit backwards?

They don't have it backwards, but they're also simplifying when they say it's your password. In the presentation they actually say specifically that there's a chance that someone else can unlock your phone (1 in 50'000 for fingerprint, and supposedly 1 in 1'000'000 for Face ID, given that you don't have a twin).

Reality is that it's somewhere in between. A fingerprint sensor or face reader will keep casual snoopers - and most people who find your phone on the street - out. That's all that matters for most people. It's not a username. It's at least moderately hard for someone to duplicate, and it's not something you'd actively share with someone. It's not as safe as a password, but Apple isn't trying to claim that either.

I think it's a good idea to avoid false dichotomy here. Biometrics is biometrics. It should be treated as distinct from passwords or usernames.


Watching someone key in a PIN and recording it, then swiping the phone is easier than building a 3D printed color model of someone's face. Not to mention that having the biometric unlock sitting on top of a PIN means that there are many fewer chances for the PIN to be observed.

Whether biometric access is a password or username is trying to force the wrong paradigm. Going back to first concepts, we had keys and we tried to make them hard to copy but not too inconvenient. The face is the key. No, there's no practical way to re-key this lock, but it's still a lock and key. But the door also has a deadbolt (PIN code) which has to be disengaged for the "face key" to function.

The username concept applies when you have multiple people using the same resource (and don't want to know or reveal whether any 2 people use the same password) -- which again doesn't apply to a single-user device.

Finally, all this combined with the quick "hard lock" of the device (5 taps of power button) gives me the impression of a very thorough approach to security.


> Watching someone key in a PIN and recording it, then swiping the phone is easier than building a 3D printed color model of someone's face. Not to mention that having the biometric unlock sitting on top of a PIN means that there are many fewer chances for the PIN to be observed.

With how cheap video surveillance is these days, any PIN that you've regularly entered on your phone in public is probably recorded on video somewhere.

So is your face, of course, but like you said that's much harder to reproduce.


> Watching someone key in a PIN and recording it, then swiping the phone is easier than building a 3D printed color model of someone's face

Right, but couldn't somebody just use my actual face? Steal my phone, hold it up to my face for a second to unlock it and then run off?

A really interesting thing to think about is what happens if somebody is in custody and is refusing to unlock their phone, but uses face authentication? Can the police just hold their phone up to their face and unlock the device that way or is there any protection from that in the law?


I thought something was mentioned about "active gaze" in the keynote? The phone detects if you're paying attention; it doesn't unlock if you have your eyes closed, it doesn't unlock if you aren't looking directly at it.

Should make it more difficult (though not impossible) to force an unlock by waving the phone in an unwilling person's face?


Not necessarily.

"Excuse me. Is this your phone?"

Or some derivative of that.

You only need to look at the phone for a brief moment. It's designed to quickly unlock. If you had to stare at the phone for 10 seconds it would be a frustrating experience.


yea but you realise the implication when revealing your pin in public. By contrast your face is something you wear in public without a second thought.


It's more like walking around with your pin written on your forehead.


Except that a regular pin pad lets anyone enter the pin. Your pin code can only be keyed in by 1:1000000 people [citation needed]. So no, your pin is not on your forehead. Your pin is an organic material with color and depth and movement that for all intents and purposes is your actual forehead.

The average opportunist thief won't be able to duplicate that key. The best that they can do is use your actual face, within a few feet from you, while you're staring directly at the phone in their hands.


Funny you should say that, here's a video of a guy accidentally unlocking a phone and using his apple pay by pointing it at him https://youtu.be/WYYvHb03Eog?t=1m27s


> building a 3D printed color model of someone's face.

A 3d rendering on a screen is probably enough. The device seems to infer 3D from motion, but would probably be fooled by a rendering or even a recording.

That makes all the interlocutors you had on video chat as potential ID thieves.


False. iPhone X has points(invisible) projected on your face from what depth is calculated. Same as xbox kinect i assume. So 3D rendering on flat display wont fool iphone.


I stand corrected. A depth sensor on the user-facing camer. That one of the weirdest design decision I have seen yet.


It's been done one some laptops via Intel RealSense depth cams or similar hardware. Not sure if any other phones have featured this, though. The ones I've seen typically add the depth cam on the back for niche stuff like 3D scanning.


1 in 1 000 000 is the same odds as a 6 digit PIN (though you can always change a PIN). That's acceptable to me.


Unless you have a twin... that's probably OK. Ease of use is probably most important. I didn't like that the first demo phone failed!


It wasn't that it failed to recognize, it was that it had restarted, and all iPhones require the passcode to unlock the very first time after restarting. (You can tell by the small text over the PIN pad in the video.)

My guess is that he didn't want to dwell on the issue, or didn't know the passcode.


Is it really true that adult identical twins will easily fool this or other modern face detection systems?


Facial recognition is something humans are known to be better at than computers, and identical twins throw off humans all the time.

Even when computers surpass humans at this task (probably not that far off) they will likely have difficulty with identical twins because of how they do facial recognition. At the moment computers do it by identifying points that correspond to the geometry of the face, like nose, eyes, and cheeks. These are all features that would be similar between twins. Usually humans can differentiate twins by fatness, scar tissue, hair style, etc. Not something that can't be overcome, but also not something common with current approaches.


Problem solved: We'll just add scars to twins' faces to distinguish them. /s


I don't know how they wouldn't. Hell, genetically they are probably similar enough that a DNA test can't tell the difference.


Actually DNA tests exist that can tell apart twins.


Is it a specific test, or all tests? If there is a story exploring this, I'd be somewhat interested in reading it.


The FAR rate is quite misleading especially for facial recognition. FAR counts on the data being "random" for that 1:50,000 or 1:1 million to be true. But you can bet whoever is targeting you will build a 3D profile of your face out of all the pictures it can find on you online. I at least assume it won't be "easy" from the get go to bypass Apple's face unlock tech, like it was for the Galaxy S8 with a god damn 2D picture that we've been known for a decade that's an effective attack, but I also don't think it's impossible. Machine learning techniques will become advanced enough in a few years to build someone's 3D profile like that.

Plus, as the parent said on the issue of not being able to replace your face as you can your password, they can still target your face data stored on the phone.


Yes, touchId/faceId sits in between, it's quick access token, which is enough for 95% of the time, but those other 5% are very important.


Those other 5% might be too important to have your phone involved with them.


Or, if one needs those 5% moments on phones, it's always a possibility (as stated on the keynote) to add password additionally.


Okay, but shouldn't developers make security easy? This makes introducing a sizable hole into existing security easy, which is the opposite of what you'd want.


Something that I think people underestimate is just how easy it is to observe you entering your password on a phone, and why that (in my opinion) makes thumbprints much more secure than passwords for casual usage - e.g. every-time you unlock your phone.

All you need is a camera over your shoulder and you don't even need to observe the key-presses as generally the current character is displayed on screen. You could likely observe 100s or 1000s of them a day with an overhead camera at transit stations and the like.

The same thing goes for "Tap And Go" contact less payments not requiring a PIN number under $100.

Everyone goes on about how people can run up a few hundred dollars at different stores with your card if they steal it. But consider exposing your pin to surveillance during most common transactions which then also lets you remove cash from an ATM with that card if stolen which is much harder to recover and is also much higher value than the generally $30-$100 limit for transactions without a PIN.

Next minute you'll freak out when I tell you I can clone your house key from a photo of it hanging off your belt...

The general point is that security trade-offs are generally deeper than you might realise on the surface, especially at "public outrage" levels of observation which so frequently haunt the public mind in recent times.


The other thing is that I kept my phone unlocked in the time after physical keyboards were dead but before fingerprints. There are way to many situations where I want to unlock my phone with one-hand.

A fingerprint lock is way more secure than no lock.


People will freak out... but I don't lock my phone. Never have.

It's either in my pocket or in my hand, and I never ever put it down in public. If get mugged (god forbid.. and do people still mug other people for phones these days?) there's nothing mega personal on it, and I can remote erase it pretty quickly.


Where do you live? Any urban center anywhere in the world phone theft is common.


I live in Dresden (Germany), and I've never even heard of anyone who has been mugged here. Sure, there will be cases in the statistics, but I can not name anyone who has been mugged, ever.


Theft is a superset of robbery; I know plenty of people who have had their phone stolen because they left it lying out in the open


I wasn't sure, hence asking. London, UK. btw.


This is a great point, and why I'd like to see more features being locked without a passcode. The move in iOS 11 to restrict device imaging without a passcode is a great step in this direction.

Perhaps we can see more customization as to what biometrics unlock and what they don't?


As long as biometrics don't unlock secrets (keys, passphrases, shared data etc) it is fine. In all other cases you are correct and it needs some form of replaceable, retractable secret i.e. a passphrase.

This would be a very welcome feature but considering how the secret stores work at this point it is not likely to see this any time soon.

Sidenote: The false positive rate on any biometrics is way higher than you think (it is highly disadvantageous to be black unfortunately, yes biometrics are racist). People usually consider the near bound (e.g. small sample size, high differentiation unless you have twin) of the people around them as proof it is impossible but this has been problem a fallacy in even mediocre sized studies.

It still works but I would really like to see your suggestion to make sure real secrets are properly stored/safe.


> As long as biometrics don't unlock secrets (keys, passphrases, shared data etc) it is fine.

That's a weird definition of "secrets". Mails may contain secrets. Pictures may contain secrets. Messenger posts may contain secrets (cf. all the leaks of chatlogs).

If I remove all apps from the homescreen that may contain secrets, that leaves me with the flashlight and Candy Crush.


On ATMs they use a keyboard with random multiple digits per key, e.g. "2 or 7", "8 or 0", etc. That's a defense to the "observing-attack", but it's slow and boring. Also, someone could unlock with other password.


Biometric data is authentication. One looks at their mother and says "hi mom" not "what's the passcode?". Your issue, I think, is that you don't trust the tools on the phone to read faces or fingerprints well enough to detect fraudulent login attempts.

Factors of authentication:

* What you know - things like passwords online that other people shouldn't know

* What you have - Two-factor tokens, certs (kind of "know" but used to supplement "have") that other people shouldn't have

* What you are - Biometrics like finger, face, or eye that are unique and difficult to duplicate or trick (ideally)

So the question becomes which and how many factors to require, and when, depending on the risk model.


> Your issue, I think, is that you don't trust the tools on the phone to read faces or fingerprints

And/or, you don't want to give Apple your facial or fingerprint information.


Unless you believe Apple is lying, that information is never sent to them. The hardware is designed such that, with TouchID at least, it's never even seen by the CPU on the phone.

If you do believe Apple is lying and is secretly phoning home with your personal information, then I think you'd have bigger problems than fingerprints; I would be more concerned about surveillance on everything you do with the phone.


How does that work? You put a piece of tape over the front-facing camera?


What kind of analogy is that? I don't know what you were trying to say but you're way off on saying it. I think OP's point stands, biometrics: are not be relied upon for these matters.


What OP means is that at least theoretically faces contain enough information to uniquely and correctly identify someone, which is the reason why we identify someone by looking at their face. If iPhoneX was as good as a person in recognising faces then this discussion would be meaningless.


It's not a password, but it's not a username either. It's something in between: It's vastly easier for me to type your username in the login box than it is for me to create a sophisticated prosthetic or high resolution 3D scan (with correct infrared coloration) of your face.


I wish people would stop repeating the canard that biometrics are usernames, not passwords. Biometrics are biometrics. They are different from both usernames and passwords. They have their own advantages and limitations. Learn them, understand them, and use them or not based on what they are, not some other thing they sort of seem like.


Prosthetics were specifically covered in the keynote.

The neural networks have been trained to recognise them as fake faces.


The weird thing to me is that apparently we have so many people on HN that consider themselves worth the effort to make full 3D renderings of their faces just to unlock a phone. Unless you were Osama Bin Laden, it seems highly unlikely anyone would go to the trouble. If you are that kind of person, you’re probably going to be protecting your information with much more than Face ID.


There would be more than enough detailed photos and videos of politicians, celebrities and business leaders floating around for a skilled sculptor to recreate their faces, there'd be some high value targets there.


They're not magic. You can make a fake with enough effort. But it's a lot of effort.



"My v̶o̶i̶c̶e̶ face is my passport. Verify me."

'Sneakers' had it right. Consider it more of a "passport."


Just remember to change your face regularly, and use a face manager so that you don't ever use the same face twice.


> I'm sorry, but we can't hire you for security reasons. You look too similar to our head of IT.


It's easy, find a local biker bar and put your hand in a familiar manner on one of the biker's girlfriend's behind.


Your both right and both wrong. Biometric authentication is an identity scheme. The combination of username and password is also an identity scheme. A certificate chain is another identity scheme.

Identities both identify who you are and are, ideally, difficult to fake. Username password artificially handled those two concerns separately, but that doesn't mean that all identity schemes must do so. For them to say it's your password is wrong, but for you to say it's your username is also wrong. It can be thought of as both or neither but it isn't either one on its own.


Their job is to sell. They want everyone watching to understand exactly what they mean.

For what it's worth, I would say that Face ID isn't quite a username either. Once known, anyone can reproduce a username. I can't easily recreate your face even if I know you well. That would require an extra set of skills/equipment. The same argument goes for Touch ID.


It isn't a username or password, it's another factor, similar to how we identify people that we know.

It's not perfect, which is why we have policies for accessing things. It's almost certainly a better security mechanism than a password.


In a perfect world, we wouldn't actually need passwords. If a machine can reliably tell that you are really you, then what's the point of passwords?

That actually works very well between humans; we let friends in our house without asking for passwords. Machines still have a bit of catching up to do, but Face ID is a step in the right direction.


> biometric data is a username/id.

Which is why it's called "Touch ID" and "Face ID".


It's important to note that in the context of these Apple features, "ID" is for "Identification", not some kind of "User ID" used as a Username.

Username != ID.


> Your face is now your password.

That's a direct quote from the product page.


Yet they behave like a password.


No they don't. They behave like a username/password combination. A username is an individual identifier and a password is a confirmation that the identifier is valid for the person it's identifying. TouchID and FaceID confirm both - that it's the correct user that has access and that the user is who they say they are.


Because people are lazy to remember passwords and or setting pin numbers on their phones.

FaceID and TouchID are compromises for an actual password or pin. Also, setting these things up force you to set a 8 digit pin.


Definitely this. When I was using an iPhone, it was for all intents and purposes locked behind my thumbprint (even though you could theoretically make a model thumb with my fingerprint and unlock it, it protects from everything other than highly skilled criminals/governments who very specifically target me). Now that I have a Galaxy S5, there's no way I'm writing in a passcode every time I unlock it (and that horrible "fingerprint scanner" is not a replacement for Touch ID), so it's just unlocked.


I consider biometric data a keepalive, nothing more. Any biometric system that doesn't require a non biometric pass at some point after boot before the biometric becomes a means of device authentication is broken, to me.


In iOS you have to provide the passcode to change any settings related to payments and security (among other things.)

Anytime you go 24 hours without unlocking your phone you are also required to give the passcode.


Also have to give the passcode on boot to enable the biometric shortcuts.


Equifax has taught us that you'll be perfectly safe if you regularly change your address, date of birth and SSN.

Apple is just following suit with the trend.


I had face unlock maybe 2 Androids ago and it was disallowed by corporate IT policy. PINs only or you couldn't get company email.


Because you could unlock Androids with a photo — even a low resolution Facebook photo. A 3D scan of your face is a bit beyond the Android scheme.


If only we had high resolution 3d printers or people who can carve lifelike portrait replicas out of stone! Oh, wait, we do. A bit more complicated, but if you think this is not way to simple to fool, you're out of luck.

Blood vessel scanner, or get out, see http://nsmartphone.com/fujitsu-lifebook-u745-review/


If they can build a captcha that keeps out robots based on mouse movements, I'm pretty sure they can build a facial recognition system that can keep out prosthetics based on facial gestures.


Isn't it though? It's the "password" to the secure enclave which then provides a "password" to the OS.

Edit: I agree with your statement that "a password is something i can change if it gets compromised. a password is secure from others." Which is why I like that there is a method for disabling TouchID/FaceID with iOS 11.


I agree and I think most of the comments here cover why this should mostly be OK.

Another neat feature in iOS 11 is the ability to disable Touch ID quickly, but touching the lock button five times. I assume this works for Face ID as well – this would help those who have immediate concerns that they would be coerced into using biometric data to unlock their device.

edit: updated to five touches


Small nitpick, but it's 5 taps to disable Touch ID and Face ID.


A very reasonable nitpick! thanks :)


Because it is safe enough for most people to keep their friends out of their phones, and faster+easier to use than typing in a passphrase.

It is also safer than not using a password, which I'm sure some people still do.


Apple is speaking to a broad consumer audience, not just technical people. "Password" is a reasonable concept that will be easily understood by a lot of people. "Biometrics" is not.


I agree, what about identical twins or a doppleganger?


Agreed completely. I hope I'm never in a situation where I'm forced to use my face or fingers as a password.


>biometric data is a username/id.

It's authentication. When it unlocks, it's authorization.


Who you are (authentication) and what you can do (authorization). But for iPhone they are effectively one and the same since there's only one account on the phone. You can only authenticate as the phone's primary user, after which point you have full authority.

When, Oh When!, will my kids get their own home screen and separate sandbox, limits, etc. when I hand them my phone?!


Is your face scan really publicly available?


You've made an excellent point here.


Not entirely true. Your email is your password. If you own email and access to it, you can reset and request new password.


Wow you sound like a real joy to work with. I don't think you've learned to step out of the shoes of an engineer and put yourself in the shoes of an average consumer or the company selling a new phone. The average consumer does not give a shit about the technical definition of a password.


I unlock my phone in my pocket with Touch ID all the time - ready to go and on the home screen by the time I've flipped it around in my hand. Feels like a straight downgrade in usability.

also, some engineer at apple had to continuously grow a beard to test this


Ok, the guy demoing the iPhone X just had to switch to the backup phone because the Face ID on the first one didn't work quite smoothly.


actually, the phone had been rebooted, so he needed to unlock with a pin to activate it.


Actually, the message ("Your passcode is required to enable Face ID") was identical to the message when too many failed Touch ID attempts are made, not when a phone is rebooted ("Touch ID requires your passcode when iPhone restarts").


Still, at least I didn't notice, and probably the average user didn't either, which makes it just look as a major blooper. I loved the phone though.


at least he knew the password and wasn't relying on the face recog to get into the phone, that could have been rough


IIRC he didn't use the passcode, they switched over to a backup phone.

For presentations like these you always have multiple devices standing by, ready to flip over to at a moment's notice.


I'm pretty sure the backup phone had an imitation of Face ID unlocking.


How are you "pretty sure" about that?


So you can't unlock your phone after coming from a plastic surgery?

I always thought chances of finding facial-doppelgangers are higher than fingerprint ones. Is that really wrong?


You always have the password as backup to unlock. If your appearance were to suddenly change remarkably, such as via plastic surgery or a horrific accident, you would set your new face after unlocking with the password.

Based on their phrasing, I'm assuming the "adaptive" aspect means that slow changes, such as gaining or losing weight, will progressively train the existing face - without it ever failing to recognize you because you passed some weight threshold. Same would go for growing a mustache or beard. As to whether you can shave off a 5-year beard and have it still recognize you without manual intervention, that would depend on how much the algorithm cares about your chin and lip regions vs. the rest of your face. Based on the demo, the hair on top of your head is 100% ignored.


Apple claims that the odds of a random person's finger unlocking your iPhone with Touch ID is 1 in 50,000, and the odds of a random person's face unlocking Face ID is 1 in 1,000,000.


That's interesting. I would think that identical twins would be very hard to distinguish... and those certainly have an almost 1:350 odds. Of course you're likely to know them, but still I'm not sure banks would be happy with that for FIDO.


They did say to not enable Face ID if you have an "evil" twin, which is pretty jokey, but probably 100% true.


A twin could walk into any bank with their sibling's passport and do anything they wanted.

Banks are all about risk management not necessarily avoiding and and all risks.


But a twin wouldn't be able to unlock my iPhone 7 with their finerprint.


You just disable FaceID in that scenario and go back to using a passcode.

But again if you can't trust your twin well then your phone is the last thing I would be worried about.


I think the number is if you choose another human at random, how likely is it that they'll be able to unlock your phone. Having a twin doesn't change that number much, since they're only one person out of 7+ billion. Of course, your threat model may be different from "pick a random human from anywhere on the planet."


> I would think that identical twins would be very hard to distinguish

Ask their mom. (Hint: They're not.)


If you want to teach Face ID to reject masks, you need to make some masks. Similarly, if it needs to be taught to reject a twin, you need dozens of twins. And if it starts labelling people incorrectly as their twins, is it worth it?

Perhaps they can sidestep this by offering a specific twin learning feature.


Twins are just examples of two people with very similar faces. If Apple are able to train Face ID to distinguish between 6 billion different faces they will also be able to distinguish faces of twins.


The twin's mother is inside the phone telling it what to do? Or the person you replied to is talking about technology finding it difficult to distinguish, and not a close family member?


My point is that twins are only difficult to distinguish for people who do not know them. For family and friends it's easy, which means that there are substantial differences even for faces of twins. The face detection technology will be able to recognize those differences as good or better than the twins' family and friends. If it does not now, it will eventually.


I wonder what the odds are of someone unlocking your phone with a picture of your face? I've heard lots of biometrics companies say that their system is immune to such simple hacks in the past, only to immediately fall to such simple hacks in testing.


I believe it uses an IR camera, or similar tech, defeat that, sensing depth. Kinect style. A photo won't defeat it.


This time they’ve got an infrared sensore, as well as two cameras with different focal lengths, so they should be fine.


At least he didn't have to shave his beard off.


I had this feature on my 950 (Windows Phone). It was poor.

Slower and more error prone. Environmental changes such as extreme lighting (being outside) or wearing sunglasses stopped it from working.

Windows Hello and compatible webcams work really well in a stable desktop environment mind. I've just rolled them out across my firm.


No, you didn't have Face ID on your 950, you had whatever you had.

It's Apple's speciality to take good ideas that were never implemented properly and do it properly.


Oh, you didn't have this Apple (TM) brand name feature, you just had the feature. I guess that makes it... better?


It's the Apple modus-operandi of late, take an existing technology and improve it to the point where the friction is non existent.

Sure, many devices had fingerprint scanners before Touch ID, but the Apple implementation was pretty damn impressive compared to what came before.

Still, I can't help but feel that Face ID is a fudge they resorted to because they couldn't get Touch ID working through the screen reliably.


Like Apple Maps?


Would you say that Google never implemented maps correctly?

If not then what the GP said doesn't apply.

Of course we could talk about the fact that Google was demanding all sorts of user data from Apple and wanted the ability to display ads on top of the maps… But people never talk about that. And Apple replace the head of the division that messed it up.

Just Apple is mean.


Is Apple maps better now? Friends of mine using iphone seems to use Google maps.


I've never really had an issue with it. The data is much better than a few years ago. I don't use Google maps (I'm happy with Apple and its integration).

I've heard (anecdotally on podcasts) they're roughly even.

The one thing I've heard in the past is it really depends on where you live. Google had better data in rural areas or other countries (they've been at it for what, almost 15 years?) so Apple Maps may not be an option for some.

In the US? I'm not sure there is a big difference for streets.

(Pretty sure Apple has slightly fewer points of interest like businesses, but it's rare I run into that).


The corollary to "tak[ing] good ideas that were never implemented properly and do it properly", clearly, is taking good ideas that were implemented properly and completely fucking them up.


Well Scott Forstall was fired for among other things Apple Maps.

And that said they have made decent improvements over the years.


And also to take good ideas and never implement them because somebody already did it before them.

Even if that idea was good.


Come on, your 950 didn't make a 3d dot-map of your face. This is very different.


Yes it did an infra-red dot map of the face.

https://www.windowscentral.com/how-iris-scanner-lumia-950-an...

Amazing, -4 for mentioning this isn't a new feature. This is exactly how the kinect works, how windows hello enabled webcams work.


It didn't have face detection at all, it had an iris scanner. Where in that article does it say infra-red dot map of a face?

From https://www.petri.com/windows-10-tip-using-the-lumia-950-wit...:

>Let’s be clear about how Windows Hello works on the Lumia 950. It doesn’t use facial recognition, but instead relies on the front camera and a nearfield IR diode so that the camera can clearly see your iris. When you enable Windows Hello for the first time, your iris is scanned and a cryptographic hash is generated and stored securely on the phone. When you attempt to unlock the device using Windows Hello, a new hash is generated and compared with the original, and if the two match, access is granted.

>Facial recognition on the other hand, as used in some new notebooks designed for Windows 10 and Intel’s RealSense F200 camera, uses three different methods to recognize your face: infrared, a standard camera, and a 3D camera. This technology requires more space inside the device and as such isn’t suitable for use in phones, but unlike iris scanning works at a distance.

You didn't get downvoted for mentioning a feature already implemented elsewhere, you were downvoted by trying to claim a device did something it clearly didn't.


That article doesn't say anything about an infrared dot map of the face - just that "the infrared camera is first used to light up your eyes".

Additionally, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_recognition says "Iris recognition uses video camera technology with subtle near infrared illumination to acquire images of the detail-rich, intricate structures of the iris which are visible externally" which doesn't involve any kind of infrared dot map.


Do you not read your own sources?


I'm simply shocked that Microsoft would go first-to-market with an inferior product.


Samsung also has facial recognition on the S8. You can bypass it by printing out a photo of the owner's face. But I would expect Apple's implementation to be more secure and more reliable than previous poor implementations, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.


What a load of bull. A simple photo doesn't work, there was a lot more work involved in subduing the facial recognition on S8.


Well, it happened:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017/03/video-shows-galaxy-s...

Here's what Samsung has to say about the feature

>The Galaxy S8 provides various levels of biometric authentication, with the highest level of authentication from the iris scanner and fingerprint reader. In addition, the Galaxy S8 provides users with multiple options to unlock their phones through both biometric security options, and convenient options such as swipe and facial recognition. It is important to reiterate that facial recognition, while convenient, can only be used for opening your Galaxy S8 and currently cannot be used to authenticate access to Samsung Pay or Secure Folder.

Not exactly a vote of confidence from the manufacturer, is it?


This is not the first time Android has had face recognition to unlock phones. I remember the first time they tried, it was trivially easy to snap a picture of your colleague and open his phone.


Yes indeed. Face Unlock was apparently from Ice Cream Sandwich and fell for this back in 2011:

https://techcrunch.com/2011/11/11/android-facial-unlock-phot...

That's a beta version and I can't guarantee it was true of the release version, but since all they were working with was the normal front facing camera I doubt they were able to make this secure.


I alo had a lumia 950. It does not have face recognition, it has an iris scanner. An infrared light lights up your eyes and then the camera makes an IR picture where it analyzes your iris pattern. The reason it didn't work well is that your eyes had to be open (no squinting, like in bright light), close enough to capture a precise image and in exactly the right spot for the zoomed in camera. I eventually learned a gesture that unlocked it semi-reliably, but it was basically holding the phone right up to my face in the exact right spot.

Now that I see how apple is doing face id I think it will work more reliably ... eventually. I doubt they'll get it right on the first try because this is the kind of feature that has to bake in the real world (like apple maps). Still, they may surprise us like they did with the equally hard touch id feature.


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.


500ms is a LOOONG time. That's about how long my S8 needs, and I always question whether it works this time. 100ms or so would be great.


Looked like it was reasonably quick in the demo.


I may be wrong, but I remember reading something that most humans can't notice any lag below 200ms.


200ms is five frames/changes per second, and is definitely very noticeable. You may be thinking of a figure closer to about 12ms or so, which is the approximate threshold of perception for audio lag.


iPhone X's front camera shoots at 60fps


You can notice sub-200ms lag, but for when you aren't specifically watching for lag or firing a series of rapid events one-after-another, sub-200ms seems to be roughly the point where it "feels instantaneous."


In my experience a little under 100ms "feels" instantaneous.


Definitely noticeable in gaming, 200ms is unplayable.


Depends on how the game is tuned to handle it. Somehow we all played Quake / UT back in the day with that kind of ping.


FaceID with lag compensation! As soon as it sees a face it starts to unlock based on a fast prediction, then if the authoritative secure side of the chip says "No, authentication actually failed" it rolls back the clock and relocks itself!


200ms can refer to network latency, input latency, frame render time, etc.


That's absolutely not true. I can tell the difference between 60 hz (16ms) and my 144 hz monitor. I can tell when my 144 hz monitor is accidentally running at a lower refresh rate, including 120, 100, 75, and 60.

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.


That's not lag though, that's refresh rate.

The question is could you tell the difference between your 144hz monitor and your 144hz monitor with the signal delayed 100ms.


Good monitor reviews include a test of the delay. 3 frames delay (<100 ms at 60hz) is absolutely atrocious and easily detected by players in games.

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.


I notice a 1 frame in 60hz delay (<17ms) when comparing vsync on vs. gsync @ 57 fps. I'm sure many other video gamers will as well.


Yes. You'd feel quite drunk even controlling the mouse pointer with 100ms lag. This was/is actually a problem with some LCDs (VA in particular) that cached a frame or two in order to "anticipate" future changes so that they could adjust the voltage and make the image transition faster.

This overdrive is probably also the cause of burn-in-effects that seems to be especially common in VA panels.


I think almost everyone playing games could.


Is that because of the faster refresh rate, or because none of those divide evenly into 144 and thus you're getting weird frame stretching?

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


G-sync my dude. No frame stretching/sync tears.


Ah, I was just wondering if running a 144hz monitor at 60hz was like watching a 24fps movie at 30fps... if that makes sense? But the monitor can just switch its actual refresh rate.


Yeah, it'll really trick.

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.


If you've got a 1080TI you likely don't need gsync - it's only really useful when you're running slower than native refresh rate.


When native is 165hz...

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.


Agreed. If it's fast enough to unlock by the time my face is facing the iPhone, then I'm not losing any productivity there.

e: But watching the keynote, it's definitely doesn't seem that fast...


I disagree.

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.


That's probably why they make you swipe up. The gesture takes 500 ms at least, and it only has to unlock by the end of it.


it looked pretty slow on the demo. In the order of 1500ms.

TouchID is much faster.


The unlock itself actually looked pretty fast... it just seemed a bit awkward that it had to be paired with a swipe to unlock.


That matches what they did to touch ID in iOS 10: unlocking no longer actually took you to the home screen, just left you on the lock screen with your phone unlocked for... some... reason. There is a setting to change it, maybe there will be one for this as well.


One of the reasons was that on newer phones (the 6S and the 7) Touch ID was so fast that it was hard to even see the lock screen. If you use the home button to wake up the phone then you would be authenticated and the screen would go away before you had a chance to see anything.

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.


No, the issue is different. With FaceID, if there was no swipe, your phone would unlock all the time for no reason at all. For example while driving, or while having it flat on your desk and hovering near it, and so on.

I am very skeptical about FaceID. I actually love TouchID, can hardly imagine anything better, but Apple has surprised us before.


Yes! Imagine you just wanted to glance at your notifications. So you wake your phone and... it goes straight through to the home screen, darn it!


Oh yeah, I forgot that I had to change that setting. I definitely hope it's the same with Face ID - I don't use home screen notifications for anything.


True, it's three things:

- attention - faceid - swipe

And no cue to know if faceid worked before swiping. I couldn't see cues (maybe I missed them).


Except for that large padlock icon that shows the unlocked state when Face ID has identified you?


Aight, I failed, but it's really not how I like such information conveyed.


Agreed. I'd want the phone to look "more asleep" when locked, e.g. a dimmed or vignetted background photo which would pop to life when unlocked.


Something that "pop" yes. A border flash, a hint at the bottom that means "you can swipe now". The [un]lock icon can stay but it's to high focus to be a good UI.

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.


But then you'd never be able to look at your notifications without "unlocking" the phone. That doesn't seem too useful.


Adding a clearer visual cue for unlock would have no impact one way or the other here.


Sorry, I read your first response as the screen being dimmer, not the wallpaper. I was complaining that you wouldn't be able to read notifications if the screen was dimmed but that wasn't what you said. My bad!


A padlock icon in the corner unlocks when Face ID has authenticated.


top center of the lock screen


TouchID always takes a "slightly-perceptible" amount of time to work, so any improvement over that would be fine with me.


What about unlocking without looking at it ?


I'm guessing you can tap on the padlock to enter your passcode.


that requires paying attention (and probably looking at it, even if you know the location, a screen is too flat), unlike the home button.


gone away.


Especially if you have several banking or investment related apps that use touch-id.


For people using Apple Pay on the Oyster network in London, the speed of face recognition is absolutely gonna make or break this.


Just auth before you get to the turnstile.


It's having to look away from the primary activity of getting through the barrier that is the problem. Not sure how this will go down at 8am at Waterloo.


No different from now. Plenty of people have eyes down watching videos or reading while walking towards the barriers on both sides. Annoys the bejeezus out of me every single day.


you have to auth again when you use apple pay.


No you can pre auth. If you authing at the gate, then youre extremely annoying..


It's part of why I think it should be considered a breach of social etiquette to use your phone to pay on public transport.


Like the people who wait till they're at the gate before delving into their bottomless-bag-of-carrying for their oyster


This is incorrect. You can preauth even with the current touch id models.


Apologies but what do you need to do to preauth? Is this just the quick-double-pressing to open the Applet Pay wallet in advance? Do you still have to put your finger on it when making the actual payment?


Double press to bring up the wallet, then leave your finger on until the fingerprint changes to a phone with the message "Hold Near Reader to Pay". Then you don't need to leave your finger on when making the payment. Handy when you have to reach over a counter to "Tap" or need the payment to go through quickly (going through a payment barrier such as on the London underground). I assume FaceID will work the same.


Thanks!


More and more, these devices are getting less usable by non-human beings. First the Touch ID and now Face ID...

So much speciesism.


I mean, I know you're joking, but it's not really the case. Before Touch ID, you had to either leave your phone always unlocked, or have a pass code/word. Those options are still available, there's just two additional ways now with Touch/Face ID, so they haven't gotten less usable for non-humans, just more usable for humans.


Why add Touch ID to the laptop range which already had cameras when you're going to remove it from your next phone.

Could have just made the laptop camera up to scratch for this like Surface books are.

I feel we're being sold a compromise and until they failed to get a Touch ID sensor below that screen this was plan B.


You should look at the specs and how FaceID works. It's so much more than just a camera.

The iPhone X is currently the only device to support face detection. All other iPads, iPhones, and MacBook Pro range use TouchID. It was years before it was ever added to the Mac, it'll likely be years before FaceID arrives as well.


It's not just a camera trick. They have additional sensors to make this work.


My comment obviously implied adding the sensors to make it work, Surface Laptops use IR as well as far as I know...

My point is more that why make a big deal about shipping dead tech to the laptop if this truly is what they consider the future and a better system.


My guess is Apple isn't worried about being consistent. They will provide the best solution according to the tech available at the time and the other constraints of the product.


I remember when I first had this feature available on my android phone, like 2 or 3 phones ago, and quickly turned it off. Fingerprint FTW


The system Apple is using is leaps and bounds better than whatever 2d sensor was in that old Android phone


I'm sure it is, just as the one of my new Android is, but it wasn't about the speed or quality of the feature. I just didn't like it.


If this slows people down going through barriers on the tube there will be barely (but just) contained rage across London


After spending a week in London this spring, my (already high) appreciation of my Apple Watch went way up. Paying for my tube rides using my watch - even through sleeves and jackets - was really like magic. Don't think I could live there without one...


It's funny how the acceptable level of comfort changes. Having an oyster card in your pocket wasn't a huge issue before. It's slightly less convenient, but not really life changing.


I wonder if it works with scarves and hats covering everything but your eyes. It seems like an obvious oversight, but it's a Californian company that launched a maps app without any transit support...


It's not just the accuracy, but the context switch. Apple Pay only works because you don't need to look at your phone to make it work.


their website shows people with cold weather gear

https://www.apple.com/iphone-x/


A scarf that's barely covering the bottom of the guy's face? They don't know true winter. (or, like, Muslims)


It's a tiny minority of Muslim women who cover their faces, just for the record. (I assume a head scarf wouldn't interfere.)


I'm curious: can you suggest a source for this statistic?


It's really not a controversial point. I don't know how one would get precise statistics on it, but see e.g. the Wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niqāb


The keynote did say it works with hats, scarves, and glasses. It also works with face changes like growing out a beard.


How about a big helmet? I imagine snowboarders/alpine skiers/motorcyclist will have to take off the helmet to unlock. As someone who goes snowboarding in the winter, it sounds really annoying to not only have to remove a glove, but also the helmet, to unlock the phone (or unlock with a passcode, which is still a downgrade from using the fingerprint).


It's starting to sound a lot like:

    if (true) {
      unlock_phone();
    }


Yet if your fingers have any moisture on them it fails to work. Nothings perfect.


I can barely get the damn thing to work reliably when I'm watching carefully where my thumb goes. I salute you.


Yeah, TouchID only gets me in like 50% of the time, usually with 2-3 attempts. And yes, I've re-done the prints a couple times.

All these people posting about consistently unlocking it without looking seem like they're from a different universe.


The 7 touchid is much, much better than previous versions. Near instant


It's better, but it still sucks for me.

My 6 worked so infrequently that i stopped bothering. At least with my 7 it works about half the time on the first attempt or two. I've put my prints in many times, I've even recorded my thumb from all sorts of angles as multiple fingers. Still no joy.


I know people with very dry hands who have this problem. Maybe due to cracked skin?

Wet hands also cause problems, but wet beyond sweaty.


Blisters are another deal breaker. As a new golfer I've been feeling this. I imagine people who work with their hands all day (e.g. construction) may have a similar issue.


For me this happens ONLY when my fingers are wet or oily. Otherwise it works 100% of the time.


It works pretty well on my oneplus 3t, so it's not impossible to get right.


But then you have to adjust your grip, at least for me when I unlock my iphone I am using a different grip then when I try to click an icon on a homescreen, so if I would use face ID - it will save me some time for adjusting grip, at least that's what I imagine, of course nobody have tries face ID yet.


So what I'm talking about is: I place my thumb on the home button and three fingers on the back of the phone, while grabbing it in my pocket. The fingers are initially pointed down, in the same direction of the phone. As I drag it out of my pocket, I click the home button and flip the phone around, so now my fingers are horizontal across the phone (standard phone-holding position basically). It's almost always unlocked by the time I can see anything on the screen.

This requires you to always orient the screen "inwards" (towards your leg).


I don't understand why having the fingerprint sensor in the back of the phone (Nexus, Pixel and some other android devices) never took off that much. Ever since I got it on my Nexus 5x I absolutely loved it (Pixel now, same thing). It's incredibly intuitive, works both right and left handed, doesn't take up screen space, and they've just added a "scrolling" feature to open your notifications by swiping it. Seems like a no-brainer, I can't see any fault in it, and yet very few phones have it.


Yeah but this face thing will work fantastically while you are in handcuffs and the cop holds it up to you.


If you're already in handcuffs, can't they just as easily get your fingerprint?


FaceID won't work if you're not looking directly at it. They can't force your eyes to look at it.


Unless you close your eyes, or have remembered to hit the power button five times before they get the phone off you.


Im on a Nexus 5x, but I do the same thing, and had the same thought when I saw this in the keynote. I have my phone unlocked before I'm looking at it probably ~80% of the time.


How do you know the guy didn't just shave his beard? :)


Indeed especially when driving that millions of us shouldn't be doing but do anyway. Touch ID made it so easy to unlock ... can't imagine Face ID being a better in this scenario.


TouchID is great, but if I've been sweating or have some moisture on my hands for another reason (say I'm cooking and want to check the recipe) it fails horribly.


At one point (iOS 10?) iOS's quickness in falling back to the passcode prompt regressed greatly.

In the cooking use case you ought to be able to say "hey Siri, keep my phone unlocked", but she'd probably just search for that on Bing.


I usually say "hey Siri, open auto-lock settings" as I take my iPad into the kitchen.


But the reason you unlock it is to look at the information on your phone, so it's not like you are using touch id without looking at your phone after that, no?


I keep "loaning" my finger to family members all the time, when I'm driving, watching TV, and they want to borrow my phone. Not really sure Apple thought through this from every angle...


They could just hold the phone up and you could look over for a fraction of a second. No different than if you were talking to them.


Oh boy, that's going to be awful fun for parents. Let the kid play with a game; they call your name while pointing the forward camera at you and you've just Face ID'ed some in-app purchase.


That's an interesting corner case. My phone has a setting that lets me turn off touch ID for App Store purchases (so I would have to use my passcode) so I guess you'd just have to use that if your kid kept tricking you and you couldn't stop them.


Then you get the bill in the mail a couple days later and then ground your kid.


In the mail? :-)


It looks like they made a point in one of their promo ads that it also works at an angle and with weird lighting/obstructions (the video of the swimmer looking down at her phone that was flat against the edge of the pool).


This happens often to me when I used my phone as a sat nav, the phone was attached to the dash but would sometimes go to sleep if the battery went to 20%. I'd open it up again by just tapping the home.


I'm concerned that Face ID will suck more than Touch ID, too.

I do the pocket-unlock you describe often. At the same time, Touch ID has its own limitations. For instance, it doesn't work if you try to unlock after recently holding a cold beer (or have even slightly damp hands for any other reason).


> Feels like a straight downgrade in usability.

You know, it really depends how fast it is. You need attentiveness to use your phone, so requiring attentiveness to unlock it doesn't seem unreasonable, provided it happens in less time than it takes to move your thumb to the glass.


> You need attentiveness to use your phone

No, this is not true. I can log in and activate functions of my phone right now without looking at it.

If I have to look at my phone, there is a problem. If the phone merely needs to see my face, maybe it's less of one. The iPhone is already slow enough I find myself waiting on it, I don't want it to be any slower.


People can be having a 'bad face day' if the Face ID doesn't work fast enough.


These keynotes were magical before leakers leaked everything. I'm wondering if Apple should scrap these and aim for smaller, unplanned releases instead.

As far as this phone goes, I am really excited to see how it stacks up to the Galaxy S8. Face ID is incredibly enticing, but Samsung Pay is much more universal. The only thing that is making me want to retreat back to an iPhone is its inferior Bluetooth audio quality.


I actually thought Tim Cook did a great job this time around. For the first time in a while, I got that "reality distortion field" feeling that I haven't had since Steve Jobs had been the presenter. I think these keynotes go a long way to sell the product. Admittedly, I haven't seen any of the leaks, so yeah I'm sure it's not as cool if you know what's coming, however I do remember from past leaks that they tend to leave out the narrative (just opting for raw features, photos, etc.) that don't really do justice to the product.


One way he's made these keynotes his own is by the humanity he's injecting into them. I've noticed that whenever there's a big keynote after some big crisis or tragedy, he'll acknowledge them in a very sincere way. I'm still moved by his brief remarks and moment of silence after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando.


While I think Tim was much more expressive this time around, I still think he sounds too stiff and rehearsed. The one thing that Steve did incredibly well was make his keynotes sound improvised, even though they weren't. I'm not sure if Tim will ever get there, as it's kind of a character trait. Phil and Cue are better at it, IMO.


I think it's really hard for him to act that way. He's a proven logistical and managerial genius but those qualities don't directly map to stagecraft.


And frankly in terms of stagecraft Tim Cook has come on leaps and bounds from his first few conferences.

As someone who's quite withdrawn and reserved at work, I'd imagine it's quite a challenge to have to develop those skills.


Within seconds, I really got the impression that he's been working on his presentation skills. I agree; much improved. The dramatic tension was noticeably better.


Honestly, my wife and I had no previous exposure to leaks besides "there will be something expensive".

And then it felt like the real Apple magic. We sat there and at every product presented we said "Wow, we want this. NOW!". While the iPhone 8 still felt quite normal, the iPhone X absolutely killed it for us. And let's not begin with the eSim-Watch... which is so SciFi that I wanted it back in 1990 when I was still 8 years old. We have to appreciate that there is more to life than revolution, Apple "simple" does evolution at a very high level and in the end, they lead the competitors. Today, we could see the stuff that Samsung and others will get right in a year or two. When Apple already presents their next evolution... It is not about having the right specs, but the right concept. I already know the friend who will come to me tomorrow that his HTC has and 8 core processor while Apple has only six. The point is: it is all useless without the whole package being perfect. And while Apple is freaking expensive upfront, the peace of mind is worth it.


I'm glad you enjoyed it but I should have you know that Apple is using a Samsung display and Samsung has been leading the pack in OLED display technology for at least the last 5 years. In fact, the S8 has a crisper screen than the X with its Super Retina display (570 ppi vs 471 ppi)


To quote the person you just replied to:

"I already know the friend who will come to me tomorrow that his HTC has and 8 core processor while Apple has only six. The point is: it is all useless without the whole package being perfect."


I'm an Android user for years now but I still find it embarrassing that it takes 8 cores to make an Android phone run smoothly.


It doesn't. I've been an Android user since the Nexus One. Android ran amazing on that phone, on pretty much every Nexus phone, and on my Pixel. It ran like crap on the LG G2x, a phone so flawed they lost a class action lawsuit about it. It ran mediocre on my Galaxy S2 and S4, but much better once I used Cyanogenmod. It ran beautifully on my Moto X Gen 1.

Android, just like iOS or any other OS, requires non-crap hardware (not amazing, just well designed) and an OEM that doesn't bloat it up with tons of crap. Newer versions of iOS run like crap on older iPhones, because the OS is designed for newer hardware. Android runs beautifully on well designed hardware, even inexpensive hardware like the Moto G. It runs great without bloated skins and shovelware that "adds value".


Being a long-time iPhone user and recently using Android for work (high-spec Nexus models) I can safely say that Android has a _long_ way to go both in terms of responsiveness and design.

It baffles me that Google are so bad at this.


I hear this from folks, and I must be missing something. My wife has an iphone as do many of my users/clients and so I use it a lot, and own an iPad myself. I really don't see a responsiveness difference. Design is more subjective.


Samsung has a Truetone display now? Don't think so. Samsung puts great components together in a good package then hobbles them with bad decisions, bloatware and incomplete features.


> Samsung has a Truetone display now? Don't think so.

Apparently it has, for a long time:

> The Adapt Display Mode provides real-time adaptive processing to dynamically adjust images and videos – for some applications it will vary the White Point, Color Gamut, and Color Saturation based on the image content and the color of the surrounding ambient lighting measured by the Galaxy S5 RGB Ambient Light Sensor (which measures color in addition to brightness).

http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_S5_ShootOut_1.htm


Yea, I meant one that actually works well.


So the 'true' in Truetone is actually a Scotsman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


No one thinks Adapt actually works as well as Truetone.


Feeds and speeds, feeds and speeds.


I was an iPhone user from the 3GS until my 6+ finally bit the bullet, and refused to give up the headphone jack. I genuinely love the iPhone and MacBooks.

I've been using the Galaxy S8+ since launch. And the Note 8 is, by any definition, as good or better than the iPhone X.

If you haven't used a Samsung phone lately, go try an S8 or Note 8. They have "the package" down. It just works, and doesn't require a PC or iTunes. I don't care about speeds and feeds. I care about how the phone operates on a daily basis.

iPhone X has FaceID and pin# to login. Samsung has face, retina, touch and pin options.

The Note 8 is cheaper, with expandable storage, a higher density display (with the same white balance adjustment), stylus, side-by-side applications, a headphone jack, samsung pay, and NFC.

(There are probably many more, but these are things I use on a daily basis, or very frequently in the real world)

The iPhone has iMessage and Facetime.

Seriously, it's worth a sniff of the other side of the pond. It took me 2 hours to transfer everything - contacts, media, apps. And another day to get the UI sorted (there's even an "ios mode" for the launcher that acts almost exactly like the ios interface). I still use an iphone often for work and it's honestly painful going back to it, there are so many little annoying papercut experiences.


On the other side of the fence here. I've been on vanilla Google phones since the Android Nexus. I have a Nexus 6P now, which was the flagship of that generation.

Between Google knowing my porn fetishes and the increasing number of issues & bizarre bugs (severe battery degradation, performance issues during normal usage, random freezes, photos occasionally not saving properly and getting corrupted) plus no security updates after 2 years, I've just about had it.


I had a 6p and ditched it for the S8+. Never looked back, it's a night and day difference.

Google/Huawei should be ashamed for the 6p.


I can confirm that Android has all these problems. I use both.

iOS is getting worse, but it's still an order of magnitude less buggy (in terms of crashes etc)


Samsung face login was hacked with a static image of of a face on paper. Sure they are first to a lot of stuff, but if it's not right it doesn't matter


I'm not normally a shit-on-Apple/Android-is-amazing guy, I'm actually typing this on a MacBook Pro right now. But let's reel it in for a moment. Edge to edge screen, Galaxy S8. Smart watch: Pebble, Galaxy Gear, ZenWatch, etc. SmartWatch with cell service that isn't huge: Galaxy Gear S2 3G (frankly, I think better looking than the Apple Watch). Wireless charging: YEARS go in dozens of Android phones. The only thing announced today that Apple very well may have done "right" is the face recognition. Nothing else today was new or r/evolutionary. Yes, Apple frequently does things right that other people have failed on. The iPhone truly revolutionized the smartphone, the iPad made the tablet a non-crap market, iPod was fantastic, but let's not pretend everything today was iPhone 1 level amazing.


> Yes, Apple frequently does things right that other people have failed on.

That is exactly what non tech people want. Things that just works. There is an enormous market of people that don't want cutting edge, but reliable and long lasting tech. Apple fits that way more than Android. That is their force. It is entirely within their philosophy to not include wireless charging unless it is their own they back for a long time, or a market standard emerges. Arguably since Ikea included Qi chargers in a lot of their affordable furniture, that made Qi chargers the emergent standard.


Then why are they still using Lightning instead of USB-C, when that's all they have on their new Macbooks?


They began using the Lightning connector 2 years before USB-C was a thing. They have a long term support philosophy and they stand by lightning. Perhaps in the future they deem the adoption rate of USB-C good enough to use that, but until then they'll keep using Lightning.


Because of all the docks and alarm clocks that still only expose a lightning port.

It will be super easy to support the USB-C Macbooks out of box -- they just swap out the USB-A-to-lightning cable and charger in the box with a USB-C-to-lightning cable and charger.


That's not really a great reason - there were lots of alarm clocks and docks with the 30-pin connector (and still are if you go to a Hotel!). That said, I'm not sure why Apple went with Lightning for their mobile devices instead of USB-C - maybe timing?


Honestly, I like the lightning port and connector a lot more than USB-C, from a physical engineering standpoint. I think USB-C is really inferior.


I'll admit that I had written off Apple in the last few years. Felt that they couldn't get their mojo back after Jobs' departure.

This felt very different. The iPhone X is the first iPhone I've seen in a while that I want.

Same for Apple Watch. I'd written it off but the eSim makes it a very alluring buy


Do you how many I have triggered the hidden side bottom panels while browsing, scrolling. iOS is far from been perfect.


Funny, I could never trigger it when I wanted to. The method is simple though; start your swipe from below the edge of the screen. For you, maybe don't swipe from the bottom of the screen, that's what the scroll acceleration is for. ;D


I have triggered the side contact panels as well. Hidden panels would always have these. They should have added a navigation controls like Android.


> Apple is freaking expensive upfront, the peace of mind is worth it.

Carrying a device worth $1000 around with me all day would not give me peace of mind. Quite the opposite. I'd rather carry a battered hand me down and not feel sick in my stomach if it falls off arm of the couch


Similar watches with LTE have been available from Samsung and others for years. Objectively speaking, Apple's latest watch isn't anything special.


Objectively speaking, no other consumer tech company grooms and refines their products do much as Apple. (Only got my first iPhone last year after being so hackerish minded as to avoid ever using them... could not be happier)


You meant to say grooms their customers.


Lol, Samsung's watches still don't have the value and usability of the first Apple Watch.


It's special in that it makes lots of money unlike really just about every other smartwatch.


and the $60 xiaomi 4K TV box has been around for a year...


The same Xiaomi that snuck spyware onto their phones a year ago?


That's like saying the Model T was built a long time ago, so a new Ferrari isn't anything special.


But Samsung hasn't sold it anywhere near as well as Apple. Honestly, I don't care about watches all that much so I don't go out and look for smartwatch related news, but even as a bystander I can't help but to hear all about Apple's new watch whereas your comment is literally the first I've ever heard of Samsung having something similar.


If some leaks can reduce the reaction to a product from magical to meh, perhaps the reaction was engineered by hype and not actual quality or features of said product.

To be concise, if something is truly groundbreaking, leaks don't diminish their value.


It doesn't diminish their value, but it takes away from the magic and showmanship behind the whole event.


Exactly, I think you're just describing marketing, which some would view as a form of dishonesty or at least smoke and mirrors.


I hate dishonest marketing as much as the next person but I don't think it's a stretch to say that there is nothing wrong with telling a good story about a product. And of course, telling that story means de-emphasizing unpleasant tradeoffs, and emphasizing pleasant ones. The ultimate concise version of this would be a list of features. That wouldn't be nearly as exciting or informative, would it? (I recognize that you did not personally advocate the position you relayed)


Honest marketing is explaining the value of a product. Marketing can be smoke and mirrors, but to deny its utility is shortsighted.


This is a fantastic point. Marketing isn't evil - it's just a tool. It gets you connected with things you want faster. And like anything it can be misused.


I think in most cases marketing deprives me of things I want faster being a resource hog.


That's advertising. Some consider it a subset of marketing. Some consider it an entirely separate area. I agree. Ads on web pages are resource hogs. ;)

In its purest form, marketing is any communication from a company. Without marketing you would not know about any products from any company. So some forms of marketing are very valuable to everyone. As with any discipline there are bad points as well.


It's no different than show or movie spoilers. Do they make the show less enjoyable? Does that reflect on the production quality?

People enjoy the keynotes for the suspense and shared joy and excitement.

Leakers of movies, shows or new device features do take away some joy from some people. For me, the fact that 99% of the features are available in some form on another phone already (unlike early iPhones) is a bigger spoiler than the leaks.

I love seeing how Apple can take existing common features and take them to 11 and it's why I've come back to iPhone.


these events (and many other things like unboxing the product) are a big part of the experience that apple wants. not everyone like it, not everyone cares about that side of things (and that's ok!), but for those who like these experiences, a leak is just like someone spoiling what happens in a movie.


I'm not so sure about that. Even though the iPhone 4 got HARD leaked, it was still such a diverge from the competition when Steve and Co keynoted it.

All of the X leaks had me wondering "I hope they have more to this because this is effectively a S8;" the keynote didn't change my opinion.


Having worked at Apple, the company feels like complete stress apocalypse all around for the 2 months before the fall major releases. I'm pretty sure no one would fall for the unplanned release thing, and that leaks would still happen


> These keynotes were magical before leakers leaked everything

Even without leaks, there's usually nothing really surprising in the keynotes. You get the usual hardware and software upgrade you would expect from a year to the next. Far from magical, I find these keynotes stereotypical. The fake enthusiasm, the marketing buzzwords and the endless flow of superlatives are sometimes painful to watch. I almost feel bad buying their products after seeing this (unfortunately they still make the best laptops!).


> (unfortunately they still make the best laptops!)

Are they still soldering hard drives and memory down? That pretty much permanently drove me away from their laptops.


Yes, but now everybody does it.


No, you still have choice. Not soldered memory is harder to find, but SSDs are replaceable in many models from multiple producers.


The leaks tend to be a consequence of their supply chain not being able to keep tight lips more than anything else. One approach to combat that would be to announce a product well in advance of production, but then you have announcements followed by six or more months of production ramp-up. Which is obviously awful.

Until Apple is able to bring much more in-house, which they can't realistically do in most cases involving manufacturing, the leaks are inevitable.

If you want to maintain the magic for yourself, though, that's simpler: don't look at Macrumors or what have you :)


This latest keynote was pretty much completely spoiled due to a leak which came internally from Apple (URLs to golden master iphone firmware). I was really surprised that happened. I follow Macrumors pretty closely so I'm used to seeing a lot of hardware leaks over the years from manufacturing partners, but this fall's leaks were kind of insane.


Maybe they leaked on purpose to control expectations leading into the event. If there hadn't been any leaks, would you have been underwhelmed by the design of the iPhone 8? and/or confused by the introduction of another phone as a 'one more thing' device?


Idk, with all the energy and secrecy they put into these events, why would they spoil it? I think they know the magic of the event is not knowing that "one more thing." Sure, with apple's leaky supply chain we can expect hardware details to come out, but full software release with art assets and animations fans used to mock up the FaceID setup process a few days before the event? I can't imagine Apple wanting that stuff in the wild.


Yeah Apple reducing the grip on the GM before the keynote was not a good idea


There's been speculation (which makes a lot of sense to me) that they've always done it this way, and even though it may not be a good idea it was just "the process".

Now that it's a bit in them so bad they'll probably change the way they do it, which I'm guessing they haven't thought about in a long time.


That's the thing though there were almost no supply-chain leaks this time. It wasn't a bunch of different cases and other parts that let us know what was going on.

It was leaks of software images, and those revealed WAY more than case leaks ever could have.


Homepod firmware leaked via their website, then a GM of iOS11 leaked - that's why these leaks were so high confidence. Software is something they couldn't bring more in house, these leaks were on them.


I realize that, but, as I said, the leaks tend to come not from Apple but from their suppliers and partners. Much of the iPhone X was known prior to the GM leak, including its overall design, construction, display notch, camera and sensor systems, etc..


I always thought that the leaks were deliberate to create media hype around the products.


Apple's (presumed) controlled leaks tend to be about setting expectations rather than "building hype": they're not going to deliberately spoil the reveals of their own press shows, but they may deliberately shoot down rumors about things their upcoming products don't have. Also, they tend to talk to established venues that don't have a reputation for rumor-mongering. If a "leak" appears on the WSJ, it's often presumed to be a tip from Apple itself; if it appears on 9to5Mac or MacRumors, it almost certainly is not Apple's own doing.


They also try and reveal controversial stuff early so the public can digest it before the event. And I'm sure they have a bunch of people working the social media trying to explain why them taking a feature away isn't such a bad thing leading up to the reveal event (I bet the removal of the headphone jack was deliberately leaked .


Does Samsung Pay work with more banks where you live? In France there is no support for it (due to come this month but still no dice). I suppose that both can be used anywhere you could use a contactless credit card.

(Aside: in France you can use Apple Pay anywhere a bank card would work up to 20€ but in shops with explicit support there is no limit, few have it though)


> The only thing that is making me want to retreat back to an iPhone is its inferior Bluetooth audio quality.

The S8 has AptX, which in my experience is really quite good. Once Android O drops for that phone you'll have AptX HD and LDAC as well. I've got a pair of Sony headphones. Running LDAC from my Pixel XL on Android O to them, sounds CD quality to me.


None of the headphones I use support AptX (Bragi Dash Pro, AirPods, Jaybird Freedoms); nor do any car audio receiver I know of.


iOS has supported AAC over Bluetooth A2DP for years. For some reason, it's not as widely supported by headphone makers as aptX.


Why would you support anything but your proprietary codec in your bluetooth controller chips? CSR didnt know either, was rewarded with handsome ($2.4B) Qualcomm buyout.


Having done development with CSR chips, AAC (and also MP3) support is shipped with the SDKs just like aptX is. AAC patent licensing may be more complex though.


You've been fooled. There was never magical, only a hype train.

Apple sell expansive product without argumentation about the technology. People who fall in this scheme are too easy tricked. I buy because of the technology, support not because I see a keynote. What a waste of time to see Apple Keynote and how they never had real innovation that increase the price by 2.

It's 2017, almost 2018 and Apple continue to over price the storage and you all support them?

It's just a phone, what do you want magic behind a phone?


Only apple fanboys checked out leaks. The average consumer did not look up leaks before the event.


FYI android oreo is getting high quality Bluetooth support.


The majority of these leaks came from Apple itself.


It would seem there are people ignorant on the subject. The majority of the leaks came from firmware prematurely release from Apple. A second leak was from iOS 11 GA download links.


They were also magical when they were announcing new, incredible features instead of small iterative improvements.


What were the new incredible features that are missing now? Seems like the iPhone has been a pretty steady march forward in terms of processor, memory, storage, screen, camera, hardware features, and the software enabled by the hardware capabilities. Why is this release underwhelming?


The front-facing dot projector and dual cameras


Meh. This and any of the last few keynotes would have been magical if they'd shown something that actually did something new.

What they've shown is just fancy new technology to do the same old things - great, now I can lock my screen in a different way!


Yeah the leaks gave this entire presentation away.

We are at peak Apple. If I may borrow a similar peak story I'd look at Microsoft and the release of Windows XP. Balmer banked on that cash cow for far too long.

Tim Cook is doing the same thing here.

They need to buy Tesla and put Musk in charge of Apple.

Everything they do these days is just another way to milk the money machine for them.

They need a world class micromanaging innovator at the helm.


Because random advice from internet armchair experts would have worked wonders for them in the past have they followed it. I mean they're only breaking record after record, poor them...


People don't care about Apple because of it's MarketCap.


No, but its Market Cap is what it is because people care about Apple.

Whereas if it was some geek factory making "wild bets" on not-ready-yet technologies, like the kind geeks ask to see, it would be liked by few, ignored by most (and for good reason).

If someone wants that, they can buy all those wonderful innovative products MS, Samsung and Google regularly put out... Rocking their Google Glass look and pioneering VR with their Rift.


I think what makes (or made) Apple what it is, is that it did wild-bets correctly. So that's what people are complaining about - the fact that they can't, or won't make wild bets that win.

Is that extremely hard? Yes of course, but doing that effectively is why Apple got the reputation it has.


Wild bets on what? That people would buy a good smartphone?

That's not exactly Tesla (the inventor, not the company) territory, bet-wise.

Phones were one of the hottest markets already -- and they would have only gotten smarter, iPhone or not. The iPhone just brought lots of smartness and polish in concentrated form all at once -- it took around 3 years for competitors to catch up (Android wasn't released for another full year), and I guess it would have taken them like 5-6 years or so to put it all together (or course with less panache) if they iPhone had not existed at all. But still it was no wild bet (except in daring to deal with the telcos -- that was a big bet and took balls).

So, in 2017, what exactly product would you think Apple should introduce as a bet?


AR Glasses


We don't have the battery life to make those meaningful yet (and for another 5 years at least except if there's a huge battery breakthrough).

Plus, people don't like strangers with always-on cameras on eye level eyeing them (Glass-holes).

And people who don't need actual glasses, won't go around wearing AR ones, except if they're geeks and do it for the novelty.

Combined this makes them a non-starter.


I won't argue this point by point besides saying that those are each overblown concerns.

The broader point here, and this makes the point, is that Apple should be taking on any and all major challenges to keep it as a breakthrough trailblazing company. They have the cash, talent and position to do it.


Perhaps Apple can be accused of trailblazing at times, but only when they think they're going to make sufficient money doing it. I say this as a long-time Apple fan: they've never been in the business of experimental moonshots. They have products that don't pan out, sure, but they don't bring anything to market with a "this is crazy, but let's throw it at the wall and see if it sticks" attitude. What they've always seemed to be best at is looking at other good ideas that aren't setting the world on fire and figuring out how to fix them. Arguably, they did that with the original GUI concepts from the Xerox Alto/Star line, and kept doing it, from MP3 players to smartphones to tablets to smartwatches.

"Any and all" major challenges strikes me as kind of a recipe for (slow) disaster, unless Apple decides to set up a quasi-independent Apple Research division dedicated to moonshots. That would be kind of cool, to be sure, but it strikes me as something that isn't really in line with the kind of company Apple's been the last ~19 years.


I mean we're at the point now that they wouldn't be throwing anything at the wall - they would be doing what they always do, like you point out, which is why it makes sense.

Hololens, all the Daqri products, Meta are all in the HMD space with products that are selling. The AR HMD space is WAY PAST where the mouse and GUI were when they introduced it on the Macintosh. They could even buy Magic Leap if they wanted but could probably do better themselves. I mean I live this stuff. If Apple wanted to do AR glasses right, they could.


And yet, all those spaces and companies are totally irrelevant in the sizes and markets Apple plays. The average Joe would have difficulty even telling what they do from their name. Their utility at the moment is even less.

>I mean I live this stuff.

That's the selection bias issue. Most people don't and don't care for these technologies.

Over the last 20 years Apple has had the same kind for advice to get in to all kinds of fads that never went anywhere and technologies that were way before their actual mass market stage.


all those spaces and companies are totally irrelevant in the sizes and markets Apple plays

Just like the mouse and smartphone markets didn't exist previously.

You do realize that all of the majors are focusing heavily on AR right? As in, most of WWDC was dedicated to ARKit, nearly the entire Zuck Keynote was about AR etc...?

I was asked for what the next revolutionary technology would be that Apple could break out with, I gave it. It's staring everyone in the face and has been desired for the better part of 60 years - through thousands of iterations that never worked because processing, integration etc... weren't there.

Miss it at your peril.


>I won't argue this point by point besides saying that those are each overblown concerns

Overblown concerns that all made the Google Glass a total non-starter failure.

>The broader point here, and this makes the point, is that Apple should be taking on any and all major challenges to keep it as a breakthrough trailblazing company.

Nope. Apple should focus on carefully selected markets that keep it as a consumer favorite, best experience, record-profitable company.

Trailblazing breakthroughs in various random "major challenges" can be left to those without commercial concerns, like Google Labs who mostly makes up for money spend in positive press PR for its non-marketable "innovations".


We seem to be at peak Apple year after year, as it continues to inexplicably churn out new products and rake in money. Tim Cook somehow keeps popping up on stage with something new, devoid of vision and utterly oblivious he's standing on the precipice of catastrophic decline. Again.


IMO it's purely because Android as OS has not tapped into the UX that most iPhone users enjoy. So when replacement time comes around every couple years, users think why not get the new iPhone even though it didn't change much from my old one. My thought is most iPhone users would and maybe have considered switching but really enjoy the UX familiarity/simplicity of iPhone.

This is actually a conversation I have over and over with friends, family and coworkers. The OS switching cost/risks are too high although most iPhone users know the top Android devices are typically better than the iPhone the risk of not liking the OS experience is too high compared to the reward of taking slightly better photos or bigger screen or whatever Android does now that iPhone won't until XI


> the top Android devices are typically better than the iPhone

In some ways (and on paper), you're right. Apple's stores are a huge advantage though. Any family member that asks me what they should buy is going to be told to get an iPhone. The Genius Bar might not be perfect, but it's better than calling Verizon or posting a message on the One Plus forums.


For many, the Genius Bar may be hours away. For me it is over 3 hours. A full day of driving to deal with a Genius? I'll take my chances with the forums - they have yet to let me down.


Ever wait on Verizon's phone help line? I've never had an issue resolved in under 3 hours.


Just gotta keep climbing this mountain, before we reach the cliff on the other side.


Ugh, no. Goodbye privacy and corporate ethics, hello creepy analytics.


Facial data is stored on device, just like touch id fingerprints were. ML happening on device instead of on the cloud. By all means, if you see privacy leaks point it out but I don't see any here.


The "creepy analytics" remark is obviously a response to "They need to buy Tesla and put Musk in charge of Apple". Apple has a very good privacy track record. Tesla is the one with creepy analytics, witnessed by how the company is seemingly eager to release every detail of what you and your Tesla vehicle did leading up to a collision.


I mean, I like quality hardware and as far as I can tell, Apple is the only one even remotely trying to protect privacy. Compared to Google, Samsung, etc. at least.

So which phone maker fits your level of privacy?


You guys have been saying it's peak Apple for almost a decade. I'm tired of waiting, when do we get to the other side?


The problem is that a bad release of a novel product will make them uncool and will crash them on the market.


Exactly!

Tim talked about Steve's legacy, but really, was SJ's dream to build a stale stagnating company? Did he prefer money over putting a dent in the universe?


Steve's Apple was just like Tim's Apple: all about incremental improvement.

Youngsters might not remember, but I've followed those keynotes and introductions since 2002 or so.

It took 4 years for the iPod to get a color screen -- and 8 years to get a video camera. Several years to get Wifi. The original iPhone wasn't 3G -- that was the next model. Those years we waited year over year for Jobs to announce some extremely incremental updates. And people cheered for them -- they were actually exciting, all the press was speculating and gushing, and it was e.g. just a few additional features on the iPod, like the touch wheel as opposed to the old click wheel.

New announcements like the iPhone and the iPad were rare under Jobs too. And those products were low hanging fruit for Apple themselves -- a mobile phone and a table. Quite basic stuff -- not some whole new product category like flying cars and whatever people expect to see.

Apple is not in the business of creating experimental stuff to dazzle geeks. It's in the business in incrementally improving mass market products.

Besides, what competitor exactly did introduce those mythical "Jobs-worthy" products that people ask from Apple to deliver? Google Glasses? Microsoft's laptop/tablet combo that failed to gain much traction and is returned like crazy? https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/14/16142490/microsoft-surfac...

What Apple did better, and affected the industry, was not innovation in the sense of some new BS product category that didn't exist ever, it was delivery. Better thought out, more polished, and with lots of innovation in the details. The kind of innovation that the iPhone models get incrementally but few can understand, but then you use a model from 2-3 years ago and it feels ancient after you've used the last one.

For such introductions of new products, the Apple Watch has been one such under Tim's, err, watch, and it does great in the market (in fact it's almost the only smartwatch people can actually see in the wild -- it outsold Samsung Galaxy watches so much in units it's not even funny).


I'm not more young now, I have see the evolution and never see any Apple Keynote or Steve speech because they talk for nothing wasting time , but I remember a things that every company still can't do now, reducing overwaste, improve autonomy. A single AAA battery did the job for a full week in my Rio MP3 Player. I don't care about fancy color screen, video camera? come on, wifi? useless. If the mp3 player isn't working for a full week the product wasn't better.

There was no improvement on the MP3 player, only the storage, but on crap Apple storage, you don't have choice to throw away a device that have slow memory 8GB? when you can buy a SD card? Too much innovation from Apple...


>A single AAA battery did the job for a full week in my Rio MP3 Player. I don't care about fancy color screen, video camera? come on, wifi? useless

Well, you might find yourself in the extreme minority on this.

It's not like non-color-screen, non wi-fi full-week-lasting mp3 players don't exist -- there are tons of such models.

It's just that the market has spoken, and most prefer to be able to also stream, plays apps, etc on their multi-purpose device than get one such.

>There was no improvement on the MP3 player, only the storage, but on crap Apple storage, you don't have choice to throw away a device that have slow memory 8GB? when you can buy a SD card?

Well, obviously companies like Apple don't cater to some small niche of music aficionados. Most people don't care for juggling cards and having different parts of their record collection on different SD cards or whatever -- they did it with CDs and such on 1999 out of necessity. Heck, most people will just stream today and be done with it.

Also not sure how "slow memory" means anything in the context of an mp3 player. Ever had problem reading mp3s from the memory quickly enough?


I don't think Musk would be enticed by the prospect of heading up a company that's focused on animating poop emojis. He's busy saving our species.


Really? Armageddon has been coming for centuries. There is not evidence that humanity is about to be wiped out. Solar panels and electric cars are saving our species? From what?

Musk is certainly an inportant innovator, but he’s not a Messiah.


> Solar panels and electric cars are saving our species? From what?

Global warming


I wonder if the tech team involved with Face ID factored the birthday paradox into their security factor. They touted a "1 in 1,000,000" chance that someone else's face unlocks one's iPhone X.

Well, with the birthday paradox, let's say there were, say, exactly 1179 people in the Steve Jobs Auditorium and they all had iPhone Xs. That's 694,431 unique pairs of people, and there would be roughly a 50% chance of two of the attendees faces unlocking the same phone.

That's not helpful for brute forcing a single phone, but it is mildly disconcerting that a security factor of only 1 in 1,000,000 is considered a "wow" factor.

Edit: Some people are asking, "But isn't that equivalent to a six digit pin?" Yes, of course. I am just opining on the marketing spiel for security not being nearly as impressive as it sounds. More boring features like the secure enclave play a much larger role in the security of the iPhone than the "1 in X" chance of a successful unlock.


The difference is that if two people in e.g. a class have the same birthday then there will be a day when those two have birthdays, whereas if two people in the same auditorium have the same code, or face, then that has no implications. There is no process where all faces are cycled through and applied to all phones or similar.

So regardless of how many people in a room, or a country, have the same face you still need to bring your one phone up to 1 million people to unlock it.


More succinctly, there's only 365 possible birthdays while there's 1,000,000 possible "faces".


I don't think that's what Grustaf is saying.

The thing is if two of you have the same birthday then it falls on the same day . But if two of you have the same face, that doesn't mean you have to use the same phone. So unlike the birthday paradox where your birthdays "clash", you'd still have to try everyone's face on everyone's phone.

An actual Birthday Paradox equivalent would be if you had 1,000,000 phones and the 1,179 people in the auditorium, and you assigned people to a phone based on their face recognition ID. Then you would get your high chance that not everyone would get a unique phone.


You missed the point. GP is describing a qualitative difference, not just a quantitative one.


"There's a 50% chance that two people in this room have the same face" is not the same as "there's a 50% someone in this room has the same face as mine". The birthday paradox isn't really useful for conceptualizing FaceID's security.


I'm not saying 1 in 1,000,000 is great, but I don't see how the birthday paradox applies. Assume that I want to analyse whether face unlock is secure enough for me -- why is the chance that anyone else's phone gets unlocked by someone else's face even relevant?


Because if you're an actor with a lot of faces (eg, state level actor with a face db) to feed it, and you're sweeping large numbers of phones rather than trying to hit one in particular, this suggests they'd have an easier time than it sounds like when you're considering it in the private use context.


I think it can be assumed that the facial recognition is rate-limited, just like PIN entries. Even if you had a million phones and a million faces in your database, you could only try perhaps 30 faces on each phone.


If you know generally what the owner looks like, I imagine you could cut down your data set significantly before using it to bruteforce a phone


If you have the kind of surveillance tech people are postulating here, you already have a high-res-enough scan of the actual face of the person you target in order to produce something to unlock their phone.


Not likely - they used professional hollywood mask makers to test against... Remember, this is infrared with a 30k dot projector - the most accurate 3d visual record you could make would appear to be insufficient.


They'd have to be 3d faces. Not impossible. Maybe flexible displays will finally take off to facilitate hacking these things.



Choosing someone that looks like the owner would increase the odds greatly. You can't narrow down the search field like that with a PIN or a fingerprint.


Especially for groups of people who are less likely to be represented in the training data. Someone with the last name "Tillekeratne" for example is Sri Lankan, and Sri Lankans are probably underrepresented in Apple's training data. If you harvested images of Sri Lankans online you would probably need less than a million to get a false positive.


>If you harvested images of Sri Lankans online you would probably need less than a million to get a false positive.

Bearing in mind that FaceID uses a depth map of the face, you'll need more than photos harvested online. They also specifically said that they've tested against realistic masks to make sure they won't work, so I don't think it'll be quite as bad as you imagine!


> Choosing someone that looks like the owner would increase the odds greatly.

Yeah, like an identical twin, or family member.


One in a million, when the system ensures you only get 5 attempts (or whatever the true number ends up being), seems plenty for me.

I'm already comfortable using Touch ID and that number is much lower.


>> I'm already comfortable using Touch ID and that number is much lower.

Source? I was under the impression that fingerprint recognition was more secure than facial recognition.


Apple says that Touch ID's false positive rate is about 1 in 50,000: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204587

This number was also mentioned during the presentation today when they were comparing the two.


It was stated in the keynote that the numbers are much better (an order of magnitude) for face versus fingerprint.


In the keynote they've said that for Touch ID the error ratio was significantly lower, 1:50,000 to be exact.


More secure than 2D facial recognition or 3D facial recognition?


...or, you know, if you steal someone's phone, you might as well flash it over the victim's eyes.


or if it's confiscated and you're compelled to unlock it.


It seems like it'd be a lot easier to compel someone to unlock a phone using FaceID than TouchID and that scares me.


The names FaceID and TouchID are apt. They are IDs. Not passwords. You should unlock your phone by something in your memory. Unlock by face or fingerprint is an anti-feature for me.


Perhaps, but what if they ensured that FaceID only worked when you had both eyes open? It would then, be much easier to be non-compliant than it would with TouchID since it's harder to hold someone's eyes open without obscuring the face than it is to press the phone's home button against someone's finger.

Wink/Blink if you don't want to unlock your phone seems, to me, to give more consent to unlock than a fingerprint.


Ah, yeah, that's what I was trying to get across


When you record your face for the unlock, strike a pose that is not your default expression. Put your hand on your face with the sherlockian "hmmm" expression.

Guards/police won't know, they'll just hold the phone up to your face and try to unlock it.


Since it seems so much less invasive, I'd be worried the the arguments that you shouldn't need a warrant to do it will seem much more persuasive.


iOS 11 will force a PIN if you press the Home button five times (or, on the iPhone X, probably if you press the Siri button five times).


If they remember to look away, it won't unlock. Seems very unlikely to me.


Isn't the chance for the pin code 1 in 10,000?


For a 4 digit pin, yes. I believe iPhone now defaults to a six digit pin (equivalent to the 1 in 1,000,000), and the enclave will delay and lock out repeated attempts. They didn't say, but I would hope a similar lockout is employed on the iPhone X.

I strongly suspect that the number 1,000,000 was chosen due to marketing, and that the actual strength of the security lies in the enclave preventing repeated failures and this feature that disables Face ID by repeatedly pressing the power button.


It's interesting you're modelling the pairs as being unordered.

If person A's face unlocks person B's phone, does the reverse hold? I'd guess it's moderately likely, but not certain (e.g. the chance in the other direction becomes 1 in 1000 instead of the magical 1 in a million).


That's like saying "lightning is much more dangerous than thought, because what matters is not your risk of dying, but the risk of any one of 30,000 people dying".

If the risk is "1 in 1,000,000" that means it's 1 in 1,000,000. People understand that doesn't mean it never happens. But it's orders of magnitude lower than their risk of dying in any given year, so it's factually negligible.


I don't think anyone's considering faceid a "wow" factor in terms of its high security (or lack thereof). It's hard to get the general public excited about levels of security. Face ID is pretty much a hack, one that's existed on android phones for many years, that Apple has to polish as best it can.

I didn't watch the keynote: do they have touch ID on the back?


>> Face ID is pretty much a hack

>> I didn't watch the keynote

This is nothing like the version that's been available on Android for years. Read up on it or watch the keynote before jumping to wild conclusions.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was "bad" when I said "hack". I meant that it was introduced in order to solve a problem introduced by another design change (i.e. the removal of touch ID).


Well they introduced completely new dedicated hardware components that I've never seen in a smartphone to enable this feature. For me "hack" doesn't do the feature justice.


If using a 30k dot projector, 2 cameras (one IR), and a neural network processor is your idea of a 'hack', I'd love to see what you think an elegantly designed solution is!


You should watch the keynote then. Calling it "existed on android phones" is borderline incorrect as it uses infrared sensors to match 3D models of your face.


Yes, the "hack"-version existed in Androids. You know, the one that can be unlocked with any photo of your face.

This one goes a bit deeper with IR and depth mapping.


There is no TouchID on the X


Nope, no Touch ID. The presenter also failed to unlock via Face ID several times in a row, prompting a "please enter your pin to unlock phone message". Worst time for it to happen.


You are seriously misrepresenting what happened. The display phone was showing the “passcode is required to unlock” screen that iPhones show when they are cold-booted.


Huge mistake, IMO. People really love touch id, and it would've essentially been 'free' had they just moved it to the back. I've been using Huawei's equivalent on the Nexus 6P for over a year now, and it works like a dream.


> People really love touch id

What? TouchID effectively hands your entire phone contents over to the Feds, as it's significantly easier to compel a fingerprint than a passcode.

There is absolutely nothing to "love" about TouchID, unless you work in law enforcement.


The same applies to facial recognition too.


For “several” = 1, unless i missed something...


I have a suspicion that removing the home button and relying on swipe-interactions might be a step back in usability for the non-tech savvy people who have made up a large share of iPhone users.


might be a step back in usability for the non-tech savvy people who have made up a large share of iPhone users

"non-tech savvy"? I write software for the damned things, and my first thought was, "oh, great, more obscure swipe gestures to try and memorize." As an added bonus, the control center is now a swipe from the top, not the bottom like it's been for the last, what, five versions?


Actually, it's a swipe from top right. Top left is for Notification Center


That actually makes intuitive sense, now that there's a notch there dividing the clock—notifications are associated with time, so that's easy to remember—and the battery/wi-fi indicators, which are associated with the control center.

Jarring if you're used to swiping from the bottom, but it does make sense at least.


It reminds me of Motorola's option to remove Android's black button bar and rely instead of swiping gestures over the fingerprint reader [1]. I tried it and, to their credit, it works very well. But it felt unnatural and my muscle memory didn't adjust quickly, so I disabled it.

[1] https://motorola-global-portal.custhelp.com/app/answers/inde...


In my experience, it works like a dream. The combined fingerprint reader / home / back / app list button on MG5+ is great. I think it took a few minutes to fully internalize it. Also "make a twisting motion to start camera" is incredibly handy. I don't use the "shake for flashlight", as I fear it will misfire and empty my battery.


Maybe I should give it a second chance, but I agree that the other gestures are great. You should try the flashlight one, I have it activated in my MG5+ and has never misfired, since you need a pretty vigourous shake to activate it.


My P2 does that, and I find it works well. It's implemented slightly differently- there's no swiping.

Touch button (without actually pressing it down)=back

Long touch button (still without pressing it)=recent apps

Physical press of button=home

I have it set up to wake&unlock with a touch instead of a press, so the only time I have to press the button is to go the homescreen.


The Palm Pre did something similar and going to Android with buttons felt like a step back


I gave it a try and I like it. I think it's better than to waste screen space.


The presenter claims that once you've tried it for the first time you will realize that it was the best way. I agree with you and think that it's quite an assumption. Sure the homebutton may of created problems when it needed repair etc, but I really love having actual hardware buttons on a phone.


iPhone 7 solved the broken home button and to me it is perfect.


I think you're right. Swipe up to go home is fine, but swipe up and pause for multitasking is going to be a pain to explain to my parents.


But swipe left/right on the bottom bar shouldn't be too hard for them to learn. This also switches between apps, and it was blazing fast in the demo.


Indeed; one of the things that struck me about iOS devices versus anything else nowadays is the discoverability that the home button provides. The device is sitting on the table, and there is a single button to press. With a home button, it's obvious what to do.

That said, maybe the X branding is akin to 'Pro' and is not intended for the less tech-savvy


I don't think you'll see this be the default experience across Apple devices for quite some time. I don't think even the iPad Pro will have this edge-to-edge screen for at least a couple years – the home button is not dead.


This made me curious, so I picked up my iPhone 7 Plus and tried it. Of course I got the control center because it's not an X, but it feels completely natural. I'll be perfectly happy when that gesture replaces the home button.

In fact, this actually improves the lock screen quite a bit now - no more accidentally missing my notifications because the home button that woke up my phone also unlocked it and took me away from the screen.


I agree! I don't know how many times Ive seen a notification that caught my eye and before I could recognize what app it was from or what it pertained to I'd already auth'd and missed it.


I had to disable double-tap for multitasking (and bunch of other gestures) on my family iPads because they caused a lot of issues with older users. I wonder if there's going to be an accessibility feature to make it more friendly to people who have issues differentiating between "swipe up", "swipe up from bottom", "swipe up from bottom and pause" and other overloaded gestures.


Under accessibility iOS already has a floating menu button, that a lot of people, especially outside the US, enable. It actually works very well, and I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing iPhones sold with it enabled.


Any idea why people outside the US use this feature more often?


It was discussed at length at the time on different podcasts such as ATP and The Talk Show, and I recall it was the case mostly in Asia.

It had to do with the perception of the physical button's flimsiness and unreliability. And was coupled with the far different experience in regards to Apple Repair centers (sometimes not even provided by Apple itself) which made the whole experience an ordeal. So, to preserve the value of the phone, they preferred the software button instead.

Others chimed in to say that, other than having to deal with repositioning the button from times to times because it obscures something below, it was actually a step up in usability as it offers more options (there is a whole user configurable menu there).

Why they continue to do it after the 7's fake hardware button? Probably because of the latter cause.


Question regarding these new guestures: Are these a iPhone X only thing or they now supported on all IOS11 devices? I think from a hardware point of view it should be possible to let iphone 6/7/8 users to chose whether they now want to use the button or the guestures for this functionality.


I believe I've seen on Twitter that they are only on the new X model.


Don't most people (other than in the USA) already use an on-screen home button instead of the physical one?


I hadn't heard that. Why would they?



I have the setting in my EU,NL version. Do not use it though.


For what it's worth, I really miss the gesture bar on the Palm Pre (and other Palm) phones.

It had a little button there too, but swapping the swipe up for this works fine imo. I think this is a great move forward, but will wait until I have to use it every day to decide.


I can understand the compromise of the "notch" for the sensor bar in portrait-oriented UIs. Some thoughtful juggling of the status bar, some added interaction, and you're all set. A reasonable trade-off.

What I cannot understand at all is the compromise in landscape mode, for games and video. Rather than just black out the uneven area and limit the drawable area to the largest unbroken rectangle, everything Apple shows appears partially obscured by the notch. The AR game example literally has the notch starting to eat into the UI. In my book, this leaps from "acceptable trade-off" to "bizarre sacrifice." It's like living with a cracked corner of the screen, right out of the box.


This phone has a 19.5:9 screen so 16:9 videos will have vertical black bars on either side that are thick enough to envelop the notch. You can see that in this [1] hands-on video.

[1] https://youtu.be/OzTLlolkXxU?t=4m22s


Let me guess - it uses 19.5:9 because 18.5:9 and 18:9 were taken already and Apple can't really use a "used" concept? :)


I'd imagine they used that ratio because it allows (fairly standard) 16:9 videos to be displayed without the notch eating into them.


Said another way, why didn't they adjust the notch or other dimensions to support the nearest wider standard like 18.5:9?


These go to 19.5:9


Is 18.5:9 really a standard? And does it matter? They will sell a hundred million of these things and it will this become a standard size.


Well I think the notch at top of iPhone X is to make it a top notch phone.


Collect your last cheque from the front desk and get out


Thanks for the laugh. That said, I am concerned that HN is becoming more and more like reddit. No offense, but the reason I come to HN is for serious informative discussion, not puns and jokes. I realize this is an asshole thing to say but I just had to let this out.


Aah I agree. I do resist most of the time. But this 'HN is becoming Reddit' is itself a cliche repeated here far more often than I like. A direct "Please no joke' would be just fine.


*sighs, looks down, shakes head


iPhone X fails to unlock and asks for PIN?


I think it's good to leave that up to the app developer. They can choose to use the space around the notch or crop it.


Apple is asking devs not to crop it.

"Don't mask or call special attention to key display features. Don't attempt to hide the device's rounded corners, sensor housing, or indicator for accessing the Home screen by placing black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Don't use visual adornments like brackets, bezels, shapes, or instructional text to call special attention to these areas either."

https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/o...


Same guidelines also specify the safe area to put actual content, which excludes that area. In addition they suggest not hiding the status bar, which generally would push your content below it anyway.

> Inset essential content to prevent clipping. In general, content should be centered and symmetrically inset so it looks great in any orientation and isn't clipped by corners or the device's sensor housing, or obscured by the indicator for accessing the Home screen

...and...

> If your app currently hides the status bar, reconsider that decision on iPhone X. The display height on iPhone provides more vertical space for content than the displays of 4.7" iPhones, and the status bar occupies an area of the screen your app probably won't fully utilize.

[emphases mine]

My take is they don't want you putting a black background up there to mask it (unless all of your background is black, presumably) but you don't have to lay out around it either. For videos and photos in particular, since black is the normal background for outside the image I doubt there'll be an issue using it at the ends.


My take on this is that they're aiming to have people experiment with the two little areas rather than have everyone immediately "letterbox" it away. (Although to be honest it's a little baffling since I think it detracts from the phone, especially when playing games or watching videos).


Probably, yeah. I think the proof will be in how they deal with HUD-less full screen games like Infinity Blade--will they expect an animated background to draw around the notch, will they be OK with a 16:9 crop to normalize between phones, or what?


That's one interpretation. Cropping video content doesn't necessarily fall into that, yet I can see how some other designs would and why they would want developers to avoid that. Besides, there's also:

> Be mindful of aspect ratio differences when reusing existing artwork. iPhone X has a different aspect ratio than 4.7" iPhones. As a result, full-screen 4.7" iPhone artwork appears cropped or letterboxed when displayed full-screen on iPhone X. Likewise, full-screen iPhone X artwork appears cropped or pillarboxed when displayed full-screen on a 4.7" iPhone. Make sure that important visual content remains in view on both display sizes.

Emphasis mine.

EDIT: Also here [1]:

> Adhere to the safe area and layout margins defined by UIKit. These layout guides ensure appropriate insetting based on the device and context. The safe area also prevents content from underlapping the status bar, navigation bar, toolbar, and tab bar. Standard system-provided views automatically adopt a safe area layout guide.

The diagram shown suggests a "safe area" even inset a little from the notch.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/v...


I think they got their aspect ratio statement backwards. Surely 16:9 (iPhone 7) content appears pillarboxed on the 19.5:9 screen (iPhone X) and iPhone X content appears letterboxed on the iPhone 7?


I imagine most developers won't want to design a tweaked layout specifically for the iPhone X. As a compromise, developers will probably just avoid putting important UI elements near the horizontal edges, similar to what console developers used to do to accommodate older TVs [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_area_(television)


It's not as significant as the notch, but the corners of the display area are also rounded off, so the screen has some fairly interesting effective geometry in terms of viewable pixels.

I wonder if the graphics and UI SDKs will have built-in functions to determine where these boundaries are (as they're likely to change in future models), or if developers will just be expected to work around them as best they can.



> What I cannot understand at all is the compromise in landscape mode, for games and video.

I find that an odd glass-half-empty view. Since the screen has more pixels than earlier phones, instead of worrying about some being "taken away" by the notch, consider it as Apple adding some space for status info and the like to dead space that was previously bezel.


> instead of worrying about some being "taken away" by the notch, consider it as Apple adding some space for status info and the like to dead space that was previously bezel.

But my bezel didn't literally cover parts of videos or fullscreen app UIs.

I don't really get your point. Sure, overall you get more pixels but the screen still gets covered partially and you're not allowed to fill in the left and right of it with a black bar to make your content look not overlapped.


> I don't really get your point. Sure, overall you get more pixels but the screen still gets covered partially and you're not allowed to fill in the left and right of it with a black bar to make your content look not overlapped.

Plenty of content will use a black bar, especially 16:9 video.

For non-video content you could put info there that previously would have covered other content. (Plus I think the non-pixel notch area would be a perfect place for Safari to banish those stupid floating "share" buttons).

Instead of getting hung up on the camera zone and what it "takes away", think of the phone as having a large rectangular screen plus a pair of small rectangular additional screens, like ears. Even if those little regions were always black you'd still have more pixels than Apple's previous phones.


> Plenty of content will use a black bar, especially 16:9 video.

Huh? I'm not sure I follow. By default video playback does not unless you manually resize it. Apple's updated language means you can't explicitly do this to cover those gaps with a black bar, either.

It's not exactly the best user experience if I have to manually resize videos smaller to fit the screen properly.

> Even if those little regions were always black you'd still have more pixels than Apple's previous phones.

That would be great but Apple does not approve of that as per their updated language in their ToS for developers. You can't just fill it in with black bars (otherwise I would agree with you though I would argue Apple should have ways to automatically handle that).


The iPhone X display is 19:9. You cannot display video without either cropping or letterboxing, i.e. black bars.

And I don't know what you mean by apple doesn't approve of that: their own Human Interface Guidelines for the iPhone X ( https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/o... ) read: "Inset essential content to prevent clipping. In general, content should be centered and symmetrically inset so it looks great in any orientation and isn't clipped by corners or the device's sensor housing, or obscured by the indicator for accessing the Home screen. " They also include a picture showing precisely that.

Also just above that they read, "When designing for iPhone X, you must ensure that layouts fill the screen and aren't obscured by the device's rounded corners, sensor housing, or the indicator for accessing the Home screen." I.e. don't use a square element part of which would lie off-screen, do try to light up in a practical way all the pixels.

But regardless of what apple says, feel free to be unhappy about this if that makes you happy.


> The iPhone X display is 19:9. You cannot display video without either cropping or letterboxing, i.e. black bars.

So it looks like they do, in fact, black bar it by default. If you double tab it will zoom in which causes the video to be clipped by the notch. https://twitter.com/stroughtonsmith/status/90778373980314828...

> And I don't know what you mean by apple doesn't approve of that

Nothing what you posted is relevant to what I was discussing. In fact it was completely differently.

What I was discussing was having games / apps fill in the rest of the bar so it looks like a flat bar (so it won't look odd with partial content above and below the notch). Many iOS developers have been chatting about this over twitter and other forums and the language being pointed out seems to prevent deliberate obscuring / hiding of the notch itself. https://twitter.com/cabel/status/907684825376595968

> But regardless of what apple says, feel free to be unhappy about this if that makes you happy.

I don't follow; I originally replied to offer a correction to a statement you initially made. I never even stated that I am unhappy with the notch. I'm not a fan right now but it would likely grow on me and I was thinking about getting a new phone later this year.

There are some UX concerns that I think are legit to discuss. I don't see why that would make me someone who is happy to be unhappy.


Whatever. He and others quoted the same sections I did, and in fact made the comments in regards to video having to be letterboxed.

Sure, if you zoom in part will be lost but then again if you zoom in, because of the different aspect ratio other parts of the video will be cropped too.

I guess we simply disagree that this is a big deal.


When I saw them rotate and play the video I exclaimed "what in the unholy f_ck" and an entire Starbucks looked at me like I am the crazy one.

Thats one of the most awkward things Ive seen on an tech gadget that wasn't made by Doc Johnson.


you're shouting "what the holy fuck" in a starbucks becauseIOS didn't black out the screen near the notch.

You earned those looks.


Not so much that they didn't black it out, that the notch was a notch in the first place.

I get having a screen to the edge of the phone is "cool" there is a half inch of black on the top of the iPhone 7, cutting it down to a 1/4 of an inch or whatever it is on the X and not going to the edge would have been perfectly sane... right?!

Edit: It wasn't a shout, so much as a dumbfounded exclamation. In retrospect, I should have table flipped and yelled "Im switching to a Nokia!"


I'd like the notch more if it were less than half the width of the screen


Also, AND THIS MAY BE CONTROVERSIAL, but I don't need to take a selfie. Its cool, I'm fine. No one needs to see what I look like with my seat belt on.

I get that there is the FaceID, etc in there, but if they could reduce the size and focus on things that are necessary instead of narcissistic that'd be the bees knees.


Things that are in that cutout:

    - IR camera
    - IR illuminator
    - Proximity sensor
    - Ambient light sensor
    - Speaker
    - Microphone
    - Front camera
    - IR dot projector
Taking the selfie camera out doesn't let you make it significantly smaller, and FaceID probably uses that anyway (in addition to the IR camera).

https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Scree...


Yeah FaceTime to talk to your family is totally narcissistic.


Oh yeah, forgot about FaceTime. I've only used it like 3 times since it came out, but valid.


You may also want to recall that you are not the sole user of iPhones. Selfies are a valid use case even if you personally aren't a fan.


WHAT?


I've never used a tampon. Why do they sell them?


I'd venture say a tampon is not a narcissistic product.


To be fair, "what the unholy fuck."


Well I guess that's a matter of theology.


I assume they were kidding.


That's a bizarre reaction to a little black bar. 'Meh' or 'Bleh' seem more appropriate.


I'm an emotional being what can I say?


sounds like you experienced a 0th world problem


Did anyone else notice the false/misleading images in their promotional media?

https://images.apple.com/media/us/iphone-x/2017/01df5b43-28e...

There is no camera bulge there... they just deleted it. This is not something I expect from Apple.


I hope other manufacturers pick up on this and just make their devices thick enough overall to match the camera bulge, with a huge bonus in battery capacity.


Phone cases fix the bulge.

And, isn't it true that phone cases are pretty much a necessity? I remember I took my iphone case off a few a months ago... and just a week or two in, the screen shattered when I dropped it on the concrete floor outside as I was stepping outside the car.

Phone cases have a certain thickness (which is more or less equal to the thickness of bulge). In all likelihood, you'll have the case, so the bulge is perhaps not really a problem.


I hate cases, is like people covering their car seats.

I like using them the way they were designed.


I think we can chalk up this sort of thing happening once in, what, a decade(?) to an honest mistake.


No! It turns out this is something they have a history of doing!

https://www.theverge.com/2014/9/16/6209759/apple-has-an-emba...

In the exact same way! I'm very surprised, I did not think Apple of all companies would deliberately do such a thing.


>There is no camera bulge there... they just deleted it. This is not something I expect from Apple.

I would expect it from Apple these days. That bulge is the number one reason I will never buy a 7/8/X. Steve Jobs must have been rolling in his grave when they first showed that off.


The camera is on the far (under)side of the phone, which isn't even shown in this clip.


From the shot it looks like it's a complete side view so should be visible.

In reality it's probably that the camera is positioned just right so that it's obscured.

They did the same thing when they made the iMacs skinny, just show them at the exact angle to hide the giant butt on them and make them look razor thin.


The notch doesn't bother me that much. If anything, it adds character in a world where phone designs are getting more generic and less distinguishable.

The lack of a headphone jack (and no valid replacement, such as USB-C) gets me way more annoyed!


Agreed, I like the notch. Mind you, I don't even own an iPhone, but I also like the Essential (Android Phone) notch. The Android phone's notch was less wide, sure, but I'm not sure it matters.

By all means, if you're displaying UI stuff there then great, don't obscure your buttons with the notch. However I love seeing images/etc with all possible screen visible. I've been wanting a head/chin-less phone for years now.

From the looks of it, I love both of them. The Android and iPhone version.


Wireless headphones are the future.

Weird annoying notches in your screen better not be the future.


Wireless earbuds are yet another thing you have to remember to charge every night, easier to lose or break, expensive, and nonstandard. What's the point?


In the abstract, not having wires is clearly better in almost all situations - the only catch being, it doesn't take away features that wired tech have (lower latency, higher reliability/bandwidth, etc). Hopefully Apple's decision will spur some innovation in wireless charging/battery tech for headphones. Sometimes even if the decision is dumb, given the existing state of tech, it forces the industry to change, because of the market pressure that Apple exerts.


Except for musicians, who need a latency-free audio path that won't degrade depending on distance or saturation of the wireless spectrum. Given the amount of music apps in Apple's ecosystem, I'm pretty surprised they removed the one jack that made their device compatible with literally every musical instrument and mixing board out there. They're gutting a huge market.


The iPhone was never a good choice to produce professional music anyway. An OS running garbage collected apps, running on a hardware platform that suffers from thermal throttling is a bad combination to begin with.

>They're gutting a huge market.

How big is this market of people using iphones to produce music?


Have you ever even used a music app on an iPhone? They do not suffer from performance issues, even with several running at the same time. And Objective-C is not even garbage collected; it's reference counted, so I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Having attended and played hundreds of rock shows throughout the world, I've seen many musicians use iPads as synthesizers, loopers, effects pedals, and DAW recording studios. I and all of my professional musician friends use it in performances for both audio and visuals. The audio latency and MIDI support of iOS is legendary among musicians, and is why they dominate the musical app market compared to Android with its unusable 20-300ms audio latency.


Jesus. The adapter is like $7. Just leave it attached to your musical instruments and mixing boards.


...and charge it how? If it's in active use recording there's a decent chance it would be nice to charge and record at the same time.


Ditto. It's imperative to be able to charge while you're playing, since music apps along with the screen being on all the time really eats the battery quickly.


It's hard to express the convenience and ease-of-use in wireless earbuds until one tries them. If you hate wires, then these are straight up revolutionary


I totally get wireless headphones. The problem is, not every device I listen to music on has Bluetooth. I don't take my phone on runs and I'm not buying two sets of headphones. Not to mention, even when I'm not running, I listen to music on my iPod classic and only use my phone for podcasts.


The Nintendo Switch is a good example - it has a headphone jack but no bluetooth headphone support.


It has Bluetooth comms to up to 8 Joycons and a general purpose operating system, so the limitation is probably a lacking audio implementation, not physical impossibility.


Good news... Apple has the device for you! (the Apple Watch)


What are they if you love wires?


Don't worry just make sure you plug in your families 4 laptops, 4 sets of wireless headphones, 4 phones, 2 tablets, 2 ereaders. If you arrange it right you could have an entire shrine to technology.


with inductive charging, this could be as simple as setting all of your devices on a table with a large enough mat (one day.. since obviously not all of those devices support it today).


Used to think like that. Bought a pair. Am 100% converted.

Wired earphones are cumbersome and don't really offer any significant audio advantages.

I have a pair of studio headphones for listening to music when I'm at home. But when I'm out in the gym or heading to work on the metro, wireless earphones are 200% more convenient.

Remembering to charge them is easy. I reach my office and plug the charger right next to my laptop charger. Impossible for forget it


Every night? You either don't have AirPods or you do and you use them a lot.


i probably charge mine every two weeks. amazing product.


> expensive

To be fair, OK-ish quality wireless earbuds are now available for ~$30.

You can get voice quality ones for less than $20.

Charging is annoying though. :(


To be fair, I think the wireless charging pad will help a ton here


I've very glad they went with a current standard like Qi instead of inventing their own.


You don't get to decide the future! Apple gets to decide the future. Notches and dongles for you.


Well, yeah. They're the ones putting in the graft. So it makes sense they're the ones who get to decide the future.


A headphone jack doesn't stop you from using wireless headphones.


That's true, but it's not a sufficient argument. An integrated MiniDisc player would also not stop you from playing music from files stored on the phone, but it wouldn't be a strong argument for including an integrated MiniDisc player.


The real argument is that having a wired option is not a money maker for apple. Apple wants YOU to buy accessories, which are the meat of their business with ridiculous margins. That's just selling to users something they don't need in the first place and making them pay premium for it.


What is that an argument for? It seems like you should be arguing why removing the jack is a bad idea, but plenty of good ideas could also be implemented purely to make money.


> Apple wants YOU to buy accessories, which are the meat of their business with ridiculous margins.

This is laughably false. Accessories are a tiny percentage of Apple's revenue.


Apple will likely sell tens of millions of AirPods this year. At $159 each, and presumably at very healthy margins.

This is no small business, even by Apple's standards!

Removing the headphone jack was a marketing-driven decision. AirPods are a cool product, but wouldn't have sold anywhere near as well without the forcing effect of the jack removal.

This guy managed to install a fully-functioning jack back into an iPhone 7:

https://strangeparts.com/bringing-back-the-iphone-headphone-...


How many fewer AirPods do you think they would sell of the iPhone 7 still had a headphone jack? Given that every iphone 7 came with lightning EarPods and a lightning to headphone jack adapter, I would guess that AirPods sales would barely have been affected.


I never said that accessories don't make Apple money, but that money is a tiny percentage of the amount brought in by devices.


I want this.

Maybe use it as product placement in the movie 'Last Action Hero 2'?


Maybe they're the future, but they're still much crappier than a pair of wired Shures, by a long shot. When that changes, then wireless headphones will be the present. Until then, leaving off a headphone jack is an idiotic omission.


Notches will disappear when we’ll be able to put all those sensors under the screen. Until then I think of them as “more” screen rather than less. However cutting into videos/photos taken on the phone is wrong.


It's amazing they can make screens that are non-rectangular. Are there any details on the manufacturing of them?


The actual tech challenges aren't that bad, it's more just supply/demand. Check out below for more info.

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/102540/why-t...


The idea is that you don't break things that work fine and then replace it with a proprietary island solution that isn't even supported by your non ipad/iphone devices. If I buy lightning headphones can I use them on my macbook? No.

I haven't used wireless headphones yet but I will continue to hesitate until they have fixed the audio quality and pairing issues for good.


Try Airpods. They are amazing and the audio quality and pairing are stellar if you can deal with their fit/shape. It's been about 5% of people that I've had try them where they just don't fit or sit right in their ears.


> the audio quality and pairing are stellar if you can deal with their fit/shape

Wait, you mean for music? I've tried them once and I felt as soon as there's more than 5-6 instruments the expression goes way down, it becomes basically impossible to even identify all the strands. Would not recommend - you can get something like AKG k702's for cheaper and get better sound.


I've got a pair of Grado headphones and a set of those exact AKG phones and I test a few different songs with each pair of anytime I'm assessing a new set of headphones. I test "Fame" by David Bowie, "Bohemian Rhapsody" by Queen, and "Paranoid Android" by Radiohead. The Airpods sounded great for in-ear headphones but they did have a significant break in period of almost 2 weeks. In addition to the fit, ease of pairing, and the overall experience, I can still wholeheartedly recommend them. The AKG's are great but they're not for the same target. I'm not going to go running or working out in my AKG's or my Grado's.


Fair enough. I could see myself wanting wireless headphones for physical exercise, because cable noise is annoying. Thanks for the break in info, it does explain quite a bit!


Have you tried Shures, or any other decent pair of in ear monitors? If you haven't, you should.


I have. None are wireless and offer the same ease and consistency with as good of sound as the Airpods.


I've heard they are not better than ear-pods sound-wise


They may not be but I even the EarPods sound good to me and have good range once they're broken in. If you only ever put them in your ears for 1 song and decided they were no good, you're not going to get the best or most objective sound.


For all the things Essential Phone didn't do well, it actually did do this part correctly and letterboxed videos & games to avoid the camera cutting into the content.


Any reasonable developer will likely just use the safe area (which excludes the notch) to display video, photos or games.


Apple specifically says not to do this in their updated Human Interface Guidelines.


If you use Safari to view a web page in landscape mode, is the majority of the left edge of the page just chopped off?

Or did they make an exception for that, since most webpages are not specially designed for each and every device that Apple makes?

This is a weird UI problem and I'm looking forward to seeing how Apple addresses it in each of the built-in apps.


It looks like this: http://i.imgur.com/yXA0Reg.png


Wow that's messed up. I didn't realize it extended beyond video.

On the plus side it's only gonna be an easy software upgrade to fox this for video and the web although it remains to be seen whether apple will accept they're wrong.


Done. I’m out. I’ve bought every top level upgrade for the last 10 years of upgrade cycles. But now I am out. No new “rose gold” status for me. :(


No, the text stays in the center portion only. The guidelines say that content covers the screen in landscape unless it’s text, in which case it’s inset.


So those stupid share icons on the side of news sites are going to be completely inaccessible?


What part of the guidelines are you referring to? [1] says "Adhere to the safe area and layout margins defined by UIKit", and the graphics show a "safe area" which excludes the notch at the top.

[1] https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/v...


It’s part of the new WWDC videos they posted today. Let me see if I can find a link to them.


Just when I thought we had finally kissed "Title-Safe Area" goodbye...


Apple is the worst about not following their own Human Interface Guidelines.


Do you have an example of where they don’t follow their guidelines? In my experience they’re pretty good about it; it’s Google that can’t get it together and follow Material Design or whatever their new guide is.


The iTunes app is a notorious example.


Is Apple a reasonable developer for the built-in media apps and Safari full screen video?


The aspect ratio of the screen is wider than 16:9, so full-screen 16:9 video will be boxed in on the other dimension first.


Good luck getting your app rejected.


The problem is not the notch but the rounded corners.

I think they wanted to show how "cool" is the whole edge-to-edge screen with all the four rounded borders. If you black out the notch and keep that side square, then you must do the same on the other side and the screen will just look like the old rectangular display.

While I'm sure there will be some option to do this, at least for video, for me, a square shaped phone would have made sense.


> I can understand the compromise of the "notch" for the sensor bar in portrait-oriented UIs.

Me too. Still, it'll be nice if there's an option to disable the notch and just use a slightly shorter display. There are no doubt Apple engineers out there who want this, so I hope it's a hidden accessibility setting :)


This is something that can be largely fixed by the software, but it requires 3rd part developer coordination, that honestly only Apple can pull off. In iOS11 there is a concept of a safe area that UI should respect. With constraint based layout you can have a single layout that moved critical UI components outside of the notch area if its present.

The problem is that the AR game was most likely built with Unity, which has its own 4-5 different UI systems, and my guess none of them are aware of a safe area.

The problem is fixable, but why did Apple allow demo that was not polished enough to work well with their flagship phone?


I agree, when they first demoed it I was pretty shocked. For games, I can kind of understand, they can likely work around it...but for video? No videos are recorded with the thought of the left side of the screen being cut off.


Pretty much all professionally recorded content pays attention to safe zones, and has done so since the CRT days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_area_(television)

Phones historically have been weird for not cutting off part of the image that CRTs and even flat screen TVs have been known to do.


Annoyingly, my TV won't let you turn it /off/. Not only that, but it won't accept it's own panel's native resolution of 1366x768, only 1280x720 which it then scales up to crop off a bunch of pixels. It's like they were dedicated to making a 720p television look like blurry bigfoot butt.


And this is the true irony of the persistence of title-safe areas: Broadcast switched over to digital nearly a decade ago, analog set-top boxes haven't been produced in large quantities in years, and thus the concept of overscan should be completely dead by now.

Yet TV manufacturers, for some reason I cannot wrap my mind around, continue to implement it, often by default (or in the extreme case, as you mention, with no way to disable it). And so title-safe areas continue to be an issue long after the obsolescence of the technology they were invented to work within.


I was pissed off at my projector doing that (same problem with a different native resolution), but then it was a $90 projector. Sorry for your TV.


Tvs historically have been criticized by filmmakers for cutting off part of the image. Safe zones are only useful when using analog film cameras and movie projectors, not with digital video. Of course, you will never place the face of an actor on the edge of the frame, but that doesn't mean that space is useless for the director or the cinematographer. Every filmmaker has a rectangular frame in mind when composing.

And even if you don't care about watching the film in the right conditions, isn't it annoying to know there's something you're missing behind that notch? It's like having somebody's head in front of you when you go to the movies. Also, there are many films that have a 2.35 aspect ratio, which is wider than 19.5/9.

Sure most of the videos are not films and you wouldn't use a phone to watch films in the first place, but for that price I expect those little details that make the difference. I think Apple has lost that in the recent years.


Honestly the video producers are already used to this bullshit, and have recorded expecting it already. Why? Tube TV. Just when I thought we were going to be able to kiss overscan-safe area goodbye (I mean it's 2017 come /on/), we now have to keep it. Maybe it'll be called "funky phone safe area" now.


Not necessarily true. There's still quite large amount of video (or film) content adapted from wider aspect ratios that has been thoughtfully framed with the expectation that it will eventually be squeezed into a consumer device-friendly 16:9 aspect ratio.

I don't expect the area encompassed by the notch to be meaningful to a lot of video content (possibly most). I think there are scenarios where it would be a minor problem, though.


I've also heard the screen itself is slightly wider than 16:9, though in which direction I don't know. Hopefully, wide enough for native 16:9 to naturally black bar the notch


Maybe that's where you're supposed to put your thumb.

I already find watching video on a phone annoying because my fingers get in the way. I'd think it would be worse on this device.


Probably that's marketing I would expect game developers to rationally use the unobscured portion


But they will use the obscured portion irrationally.


Oh man that notch bothers me. I suppose maybe I'll get used to it, but is making such a drastic design decision really worth the extra few millimetres of pixels on each side of it? It just bothers me aesthetically looking at images of it.


I had a similar though about video playback shown. Given it's OLED it seems like leaving it black should work OK in landscape


Here we go...

"Placing black bars makes your app feel cramped"

Screenshot from Apple design video: https://twitter.com/SteveMoser/status/907686208154816515


Yep, Apple doesn't want devs to blackbar it.

https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/o...

"Don't mask or call special attention to key display features. Don't attempt to hide the device's rounded corners, sensor housing, or indicator for accessing the Home screen by placing black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. Don't use visual adornments like brackets, bezels, shapes, or instructional text to call special attention to these areas either."


"Don't hide it because there's nothing wrong with it... but don't draw any extra attention to it either."

It's like the way people talk about moles or scars.


It's good the screen extends around the sensors. People will figure out better way to use it, or you might say, work around it.


Same feeling I get when websites have sticky headers – just like the one on apple.com


Which begs the question:

Would Jobs have delivered this?

note: I personally say no. The form factor is, with all it's curves, a failure for creating UI/UX that feels complete. It's going to force more people to go Android first with their software development. When Android starts getting newer and better software more frequently the sea change will continue to widen and even long lasting fans will want to try something else.


People go iOS first because iOS has a much better market for paid apps - if Objective C wasn't enough to discourage this approach, I doubt a notch in the UI will be.


> It's going to force more people to go Android first with their software development.

I don't understand this comment. What do "all its curves", as you say, have to do with iOS developers suddenly preferring Android? The iOS App Store has approximately a 7x revenue potential vs. Android's store, why would a developer abandon that just because of a new phone's form factor? There have been many new form factors in iOS devices over the last years, and that hasn't swayed anyone.


Probably not, but trying to run the company by the philosophy of "Would Jobs have done this" is impossible, since if emulating Steve Jobs' brain was possible, he wouldn't have been a unique talent.


Eh. The ethos died, too.

The protruding camera on the back of recent models would be considered unacceptable.


I don't think "beg the question" means what you think it means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Here is another explanation http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/begs-the-...


Not only does it (descriptively by usage, whatever pedants might prefer) mean exactly what it was used upthread to mean, that usage is structurally distinct from an impossible to confuse with the usage pedants prefer (and helps the pedant-preferred version make sense.)

That's the TL;DR version, the full rant is available at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13708712


OK if that's as much sense as an anti-pedant can make, I'm gonna side with the pedants.


It's even on the linked wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question#Modern_us...


All that post says is that it is common to use it incorrectly, which it is, but we should not encourage bad habits.


> All that post says is that it is common to use it incorrectly

I'm not sure if “that post” refers to the grandparent or the one linked from it, but in either case you are incorrect. There are several other things addressed beyond frequency of usage.


It only begs the question because you decided to bring it up.



This isn't reddit.


On what authority does the author of this site tell me what things mean in my own native language?


Well, "beg the question" is a translation from latin - petitio principii - so pedants could say it isn't from your native language (unless you meant latin).

Language evolves - things that start out as misunderstandings or errors become informal usage, then dominant usage, then the correct way.

Others stay misunderstandings or errors.

It pays to learn the correct way so you sound educated as you speak, and so other educated people don't automatically discount what you say, but there's little benefit in attempting to correct others.

That said, mis-using erudite words or phrases spoils the effect.


>Language evolves - things that start out as misunderstandings or errors become informal usage, then dominant usage, then the correct way.

Yes, language does evolve. For example, American English has evolved in such a way that "beg the question" now means "raise the question" to the vast majority of people in the year 2017.

Forgive me, but I think you're in the minority of people who bristle at the contemporary usage of this phrase, which makes you come off as incredibly pedantic.


Please note that I responded to the "by what authority" comment, not the "begs the question" comment... The reason to care about official meanings is to avoid sounding uneducated.

I literally could care less about "begs the question". The formal use can be depreciated - we're not likely to staunch that floe. But irregardless of my feelings, people who flaunt the official meaning and right "begs the question" in the increasingly common usage have the wrong affect - they sound like they're putting on heirs - "raises" or "brings up" each sound more naturist.

(Yes, that was fun. I hope you like it, too!)


Top notch response! :)


> Language evolves - things that start out as misunderstandings or errors become informal usage, then dominant usage, then the correct way.

Kind of like how "I could care less" actually means you don't care at all, despite the literal interpretation of the sentence meaning that you're capable of caring less, which means you DO care.


You are allowed to use the same words as an idiom while not using that idiom. The words make sense as a non-idiom. It is not a misuse to do this.


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."


I don't understand what point you're making.


The point is that you don't get to mean what you want to mean. That's childish. You mean what others understand you to mean.


Relevant xkcd - https://xkcd.com/1860/


You can mean what you want, but in this case you're using an important idiom from philosophy to mean something else. People will pick you up on it. Best to say "raises the question" if that's what you mean.


We lost this fight a while ago. I see and hear "begs the question" to mean "raise the question" from all sorts of media.


And people don't pick up after their dogs.


Oh, I do say "raises the question", because I'm aware of this debate and I want to head off language pedantry. That doesn't mean I don't disagree with said pedantry.

I've literally never seen a usage of "begs the question" that couldn't be immediately disambiguated by context.


None. I just imagine it's useful that other people understand you.

But hey, if you want to use the wrong words, phrases, etc, then it's your right to do so. ...


Well I am glad you cast it in terms of people understanding one another, because everyone understands the (scare quotes:) "wrong" version of "begs the question" perfectly.

Words mean things, but what they mean is a social phenomenon, not handed down from some authority.


> if you want to use the wrong words

You say while advocating for a mistranslation.


Perhaps I misunderstand you - what am I advocating for? I thought I was advocating to keep everyone on the same page?

Should I start randomly using your and you're? If you can figure it out, what's the point of using the "correct" one?


> what am I advocating for?

Aren't you advocating for the "correct" use of "begging the question"? I'm just pointing out that such a use is also wrong.

> I thought I was advocating to keep everyone on the same page?

As if it actually confuses anyone.

> If you can figure it out, what's the point of using the "correct" one?

Because misspellings slow down comprehension. Using words in a different manner that both people understand doesn't.


Language is such a messy affair lol.

I can see where you're coming from. It just sucks that this argument seems to be, "there is no right, get used to wrong shit". And I know, I know, you're debating whether it's wrong at all - but I can't help but feel when people say the exact opposite words than what they mean, it feels wrong. For example, "I could give a damn" vs "I couldn't give a damn" _(and variations of it)_. It's an almost hilariously opposite meaning to what the user intended, yet.. it's going to become the "right" meaning.

Is there no end in your eyes? When does this just start becoming broken English?


> "I could give a damn" vs "I couldn't give a damn"

That's more understandable to object to because the words in a literal context are being misused. This is the creation of an idiom because of people misremembering the phrase. It's probably too late to stop, but idioms aren't created at a very rapid pace.

Begging the question is nearly the opposite situation. There exists an idiom where the words as taken literally are a mess, and people are using the same words, basically-correctly, to not mean that idiom.


The author did not lay claim to authority but they did give a reason for taking the time to tell you what things mean in probably their own native language; that reason was laid out in the second paragraph of the section with the heading 'What it is not'


I read this comment and thought "oh I have a friend that would love this guy."


Laziness


Do you think phones are a "done" thing? I mean what we are seeing these days is more of an evolution than revolution. With iPhone X I think we know what the phone industry will move towards for next 4 years.

All these features are cool and somewhat exciting but nothing groundbreaking that will change computing/communications forever.

VR was supposed to be the game changer but it appears that it will also take around 4-5 years at least to be mainstream.

What do you think will bring the next revolution in personal computing and communications?


> Do you think phones are a "done" thing? I mean what we are seeing these days is more of an evolution than revolution.

It's always been an evolution. What we're seeing now is a trend towards cellular everywhere, and device-agnostic services (same phone number on your Apple Watch as your iPhone). The next shift seems like it will be greater situational awareness in your devices -- your device can understand its surroundings (ARKit), and what you look like (Face ID).

So phones as a category may lose their uniqueness, in that other devices can fill the same roll, but I think we'll always see an evolution of a phone -- that is, a pocketable connected computing device.


It wasn't always an evolution. Despite all the apple "oh we changed everything look at us" they really did. And for the first few years after that everything was changing so fast it was a revolution. But it has since slowly died out and I guess new technologies with faster innovation will become the new iphone revolution