I don't think it's about having the cash, I think it's about whether or not it's a viable change to make.
Given the lead times on iPhone hardware design, and the lead times on building the tooling and machinery to actually build that hardware, these things need to then get locked in well in advance.
It was April before face masks started to be recommended in the USA, which is reasonably the earliest that Apple might be considering that pivot.
Assuming Apple pivoted on the spot, consider the following:
1/ The full scale of the pandemic was even less known then than it is today
2/ China was still not operating normally, and it wasn't known if the lockdowns they imposed would prove to be a success or not, resulting in continued reduced availability of factories.
The implication from your (very terse) comment is that the solution was just to throw money at the problem. The trade off in that scenario is that Apple is then effectively asking it's suppliers to put their employee's health at risk in order to increase their customer's convenience.
We're dealing with a global pandemic. Some things can't be solved just by throwing money at the problem.
Also the commitment of resources and user interaction research and development consequences of user behaviour, I'm sure weren't decisions made by whoever proverbially "slaps on the last button at the bottom of the screen ".
I would be fascinated to learn about how the effects of such a interface change are studied.
Edit to clarify my inquisitive interest is in the Who Moved My Cheese effect on subsequent purchases after a long loyal customer has been made aware of the possibility of their most important attributes of the product which they're buying and paying a premium for, aren't guaranteed to continue to be available at all. If the most frequently used interface is up for unexpected total disruption, what is the effect that has upon the long term purchase plans of previously loyal customers?
The CDC put out guidance in March (not April), but it was in February that anyone involved with US supply chains knew shit was hitting the fan. If you were involved with global supply chains you knew shit was hitting the fan by January at the very latest.
Personally I find FaceID far superior to TouchID - wet hands, gloves and so on used to get in my way, whereas FaceID rarely fails (apart from one pair of sunglasses). It's only now that masks are commonplace that it's become an issue.
So, for me "failing at design" is "winning at design" as far as that particular feature is concerned.
Given that, even if they had decided to change course in January, making a design change and scaling production to millions of devices was probably beyond this year.
Absolutely. They aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have both. Some phones have fingerprint sensor on back and face sensors on front. You can choose which way you prefer (or both).
Other than Apple wanting to save cost, I don’t see why this wouldn’t have been possible.
