Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Reduced Face ID Accuracy To Ease Production, Bloomberg Reports (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the quality-over-quantity dept.

In order to speed up the production of iPhone X, which Apple plans to begin shipping starting November 3, the iPhone-maker told its suppliers that they could reduce the accuracy of the Face ID facial recognition system, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing multiple people familiar with the matter. Earlier reports suggest that suppliers were facing difficulties manufacturing the Face ID system, something that was holding them back from manufacturing enough iPhone X units for the holiday season. From the report: As Wall Street analysts and fan blogs watched for signs that the company would stumble, Apple came up with a solution: It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people familiar with the situation. Apple is famously demanding, leaning on suppliers and contract manufacturers to help it make technological leaps and retain a competitive edge. While a less accurate Face ID will still be far better than the existing Touch ID, the company's decision to downgrade the technology for this model shows how hard it's becoming to create cutting-edge features that consumers are hungry to try. And while Apple has endured delays and supply constraints in the past, those typically have been restricted to certain iPhone colors or less important offerings such as the Apple Watch. This time the production hurdles affected a 10th-anniversary phone expected to generate much of the company's revenue. Apple has denied the claims made in Bloomberg report.

17 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Apple has already denied it by orev · · Score: 5, Informative

    Apple has already denied it: https://techcrunch.com/2017/10...

    1. Re:Apple has already denied it by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The problem is that News Organization in order to get the Headline over summarize something complex to a point where it is understandable to an 8th grader.
      Changing an engineering tolerance in a part once in mass production is actually fairly common action. This doesn't mean that they will reduce its accuracy as stated in its engineering specifications, but the lower tolerance would mean the mean of the products would reach the lower end of the tolerance range approved before manufacturing. I expect the problem is on this Dot generator on the iPhone X and they probably have problems reaching the maximum dot level... So other then 10,500 dots, it may have 10,031 Dots while the Specification says it needs to generate more then 10,000 dots. The tolerance level for the QA for the phone may had been 10,250 dots, and they lowered to to 10,000 dots.

      This isn't reducing the advertised capabilities, just lowering the tolerance levels for faster production.

      Just like the older iPhone are rated waterproof for 1 meter of water for 30 minutes, most of them released actually fair much better.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  2. Face ID by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No one wants Face ID anyway. Apple and the tech industry has completely run out of ideas in the mobile space. You might as well improve profit margins instead.

    1. Re:Face ID by VY99 · · Score: 2

      Yeah I'm with you, Face ID doesn't appeal to me in any way shape or form...at this point it seems like they're making changes for the sake of making changes rather than adding value to the user experience.

    2. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think they have any ideas on how to improve the user experience at this point. It is a smartphone. I can't think of any features that I want that a modern smartphone doesn't have, except for durability. It would be great to have a smartphone that doesn't require a case to protect it from drops.

    3. Re:Face ID by hipp5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They do? I'm pretty sure everyone is happy with PIN based logins. Does anyone even use Touch ID?

      Ah yes, the classic, "this is the way I experience things, ergo I'm sure that's how everyone else does too."

      I use the fingerprint reader on my Android and find it wayyyyyyy superior to using a PIN.

    4. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      I'm not being sarcastic. Who is demanding automation and voice activation? The reason there is a current push to automation and voice activation is FOR TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES. It is amusing you think it is about what YOU want.

    5. Re:Face ID by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, and this was the problem in the first place. Apple's stats indicated most people weren't bothering to set a PIN, so the phones were unsecured entirely. TouchID made it possible to provide some modicum of security (as much as 4 digits is gonna get you anyway) while giving everyone enough convenience that they were happy to use it.

      FaceID has the potential to be a much better implementation AND do some interesting things with face mapping and depth mapping besides that (see the minimum-viable-product that is the snapchat filters that more accurately map to one's face).

    6. Re:Face ID by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

      Who uses TouchID?

      Just about every single iPhone user out there?

    7. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If most users don't care enough to set a PIN, then why would they care enough about biometric security for Apple to invest money in producing it? Maybe there is an other reason that Apple is pushing this.

    8. Re:Face ID by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      If you have privacy concerns, why are you carrying around a mobile tracking device which uploads your location and activities to Apple and anyone else? You are right, I am shocked.

    9. Re:Face ID by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, see, here's the thing:

      A PIN is a nuisance. 99 times out of 100, I'm opening my phone to look at something like Facebook or check movie times or take a picture or place a call or whatever. 1 time in 100, I'm using my phone to pay for something, transferring money between bank accounts, or some other system where I really want to make sure that there's a way for the phone to verify that it's me.

      What I want is some way for my phone to know it's me without me having to memorize some number. Fingerprints, retina scans, face scans, voice-print, whatever.

      Now, yeah, grampa, you can yell about the kids today and how when you were their age you memorized 57 different unique passwords and you were happy! They have no business being anywhere near your lawn.

    10. Re:Face ID by geekmux · · Score: 2

      I'm not being sarcastic. Who is demanding automation and voice activation? The reason there is a current push to automation and voice activation is FOR TRACKING AND DATA COLLECTION PURPOSES. It is amusing you think it is about what YOU want.

      If no one was buying this shit, the automation industry wouldn't be in a constant state of growth. Doesn't matter who started it, or who didn't ask for it, or even what nefarious activity it drives. People DO use automation. A LOT of people. And none of them give a fuck about trading privacy or security for that convenience. Consumers are also lazier than ever, which is another reason automation and voice activation have become insanely popular, and ultimately drive demand. Look at the migration of authentication. PIN---Pattern---Touch---Face. Catering to lazy clearly sells product.

      Yes, I agree that we often get tech features shoved down our throats that seemingly no one asked for. Google Glass is a good example of what happens when product fails to create demand. Amazon Alexa is a Prime example of the polar opposite.

  3. From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sense by dryriver · · Score: 2

    Precisely _WHAT_ can't manufacturers produce that would "reduce the accuracy of Face ID"? It can't be an electronic chip - face recognition doesn't require special chips. That leaves things like the Face ID camera/lens - surely Apple would check beforehand whether that can be manufactured to spec? I just don't get WHICH component of Face ID is so incredibly hard to manufacture that Apple would need to "reduce the accuracy of its face recognition".

    --
    Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
  4. Biometrics by thegreatbob · · Score: 2

    Question is not rhetorical, and I'm really on the fence about it:

    Is biometrics a dead end for authentication/identification purposes?

    Even if it is unequivocally a dead end, is there still merit to seeing how far the rabbit hole goes, for the sake of discovery along the way?

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
    1. Re:Biometrics by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason Apple gave for introducing TouchID was that a vast majority of users weren't even bothering to put a PIN on their phone, so giving them an easy way to unlock the phone was better than nothing. There are definitely security concerns, but there's a BIGGER security concern when your phone isn't even locked to begin with.

      FaceID is just a different extension of that. Neither of them is meant to be 100% secure, just somewhat MORE secure. For me, I went from having a 6-digit pin to a passcode somewhat over 15 characters because the overhead of only having to type it once in a while was more than offset by the convenience of TouchID. I simply wouldn't have a passcode that long if it weren't for biometric authentication.

      If I really needed to keep my phone secure for some reason, I'd turn off TouchID/FaceID permanently.

  5. Re:From A Technical Standpoint This Makes Zero Sen by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2

    It's apparently the dot projector that's at issue. It's a component that projects 30000 infrared dots onto your face...and it's so small it fits in one part of the notch on the iPhone X. That's bound a high-complexity component at that size.