For fanbois only? Face ID is turning punters off picking up an iPhone X As Apple bloggers anxiously try to be positive about Apple's Face ID, a poll suggests potential customers may actually be repelled by the face-scanning technology. 20 per cent of respondents in a poll of over 2,000 Britons said they were less likely to upgrade to an iPhone X because of concerns with Apple's new face …
It's a great solution for Law Enforcement, at least in the States.
The courts have ruled very consistently that police can compel you to unlock a phone or computer if it's locked using biometrics. And of course, with biometrics like face recognition, they need your cooperation even less than with a fingerprint scanner, not that the bar there is very high either.
This is just Apple's way of putting in a backdoor for Law Enforcement without having to call it one.
This post has been deleted by its author
" And of course, with biometrics like face recognition, they need your cooperation even less than with a fingerprint scanner, not that the bar there is very high either."
Except that you have to look at the phone ("attention detection") to unlock it. If you close or avert your eyes it won't unlock. This is better than fingerprint detection, which can be accomplished with a bit of physical coercion. You can't force somebody to look forwards, and even forcing their eyes open without blocking the recognition system would be a significant challenge.
Maybe actually do a very slight amount of reading before engaging in armchair criticism? Oh wait, I forgot, this is the Internet...
This post has been deleted by its author
Well, you sorta disproved your own point right there. Both a "mugger" and a "law enforcement official" (to take your example and the Reg's together) would have no trouble applying your finger to a fingerprint scanner. So I'm frankly not buying this argument at all.
Now, the argument that it's less convenient and reliable than touch id was, that seems to be a goer.
This post has been deleted by its author
The courts have ruled very consistently that police can compel you to unlock a phone or computer if it's locked using biometrics. [...] This is just Apple's way of putting in a backdoor for Law Enforcement without having to call it one.
How is this argument specific to Apple? Samsung, Google, Moto, and many other devices also have fingerprint scanners, and/or more easily fooled facial recognition.
It has been well established that biometrics are defeatable through a variety of techniques. Ditto for other convenience unlocks such as pattern match, 4-digit PINs, etc.
No one is forcing you to use biometrics, or any other convenience login. Delete the training and turn off the feature. Problem solved.
Lots of jokes when FaceID was first launched about your partner being able to unlock your phone by holding it in front of your sleeping face etc. I've no doubt the unfamiliarity will be a barrier (TouchID was similarly a bit scary when it first launched).
I don't have plans to get an X, and I'm not saying the system's good, however I don't think it is surprising that people are wary.
I'll stick with an alphanumeric password I keep in my head. Though I can still be held in contempt of court for refusing to unlock the device, that's a bridge I can afford to worry about crossing some other time. This way makes it very expensive for others to unlock my phone without my help.
Seems to me that fingerprints and facial recognition are not good ways to secure a device that is carried with the keys in plain view and easily accessed.
"You're perfectly free to do that. The iPhone X offers Face ID, it doesn't require its use."
You're right - and as such (despite what the headline says), it's not the Face ID that's turning this punter off picking up a p-p-p-p-p-penguin an iPhone X.
It's the fact that it's an iPhone.
(Obvious troll is obvious)
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
on Android in 2014. Decided it wasn't really solving anything, so lost interest.
3 years on, I really can't see anything has changed.
With the nod to Henry Fords dismissal of customers desires, I'd wager that if Apple asked their customers what they really wanted in the next-gen iPhone, a better removable battery, and SD slot would have been way above "FaceID".
But they didn't, and here we are.
I'm willing to bet money Apple customers do NOT want an SD slot.
Even the Android lot have gone away from it.
It's just another form of media that can go bad / be lost anytime and take your data with it.
Much better / simpler to send that data to a cloud provider - either vendor provided or third-party.
Expandable memory iis very very sensible. Not essential. But sensible.
It means the base price of the phone doesn't need to accomodate the memory requirements of all users. I for example carry 100Gb of music around on my phone. So I stick a big SD card in to hold that music. My girlfriend who has the same model doesn't so she doesn't.
As for holding that stufff in the cloud. Not much good if you are on a train in the UK and can't listen to anything because theres no mobile connectivity for at least 50% of your journey (and don't f'ing get me started on the supposedly wonderful train WiFi).
I'm sure that part of the reason why phone makers stopped allowing expandable storage is that it allows them to do market segmentation. Two different models of the phone with different amounts of storage and a price differential that's noticeably bigger than could be justified by the cost of the storage.
Packet,
are you having a laugh or just not terribly bright???
I mean, having quite a few GB of music stored (inaccessibly) in the cloud out here in the countryside just makes so much more sense than HAVING IT IN THE F'ING PHONE, doesn't it now?
Has it ever occurred to you that some folk may have different reqs to you, e.g. I f'ing hate touchscreens, so guess what - my phone has a keyboard!?
Cheers,
Jay
The entire setup was better than any device I've ever seen - seriously. Attention to detail and simplicity set a new bar.
FaceIDs brilliant and haven't *yet* had an issue with it and by default, it doesn't unlock if you're not awake/attentive unless you deliberately disable it.
queue morons who disable it and then lament about partners/"friends"/criminals stealing their details
Since it was asking potential customers whether Face ID would impact their purchasing decision I'm guessing that they don't have the phone yet. /s
I won't be buying it, or any phone, that has Face ID. Not because of the stuff that has been mentioned about the police and other people making you unlock your phone. I live in a place where a third of the year it's cold enough that my face needs to be protected from the cold when I go out. Unless I'm staying in a store for a while I stay wrapped up even on the bus. With using my fingerprint I can easily unlock my phone in the cold with just taking my glove off. I'll be damned if I have to uncover my face for anything that needs an ID.
I know that I can enter the password but then what's the use of having something of to save me from entering the password when I can't use it all of the time like I could with the fingerprint ID?
I know that I can enter the password but then what's the use of having something of to save me from entering the password when I can't use it all of the time like I could with the fingerprint ID?
But the face ID doesn't require extra hardware to work like fingerprint ID. It's all just done in software.
Apple's stance seems to be "if it can be done in software, screw the hardware! Hardware costs real money! Not just in the costs of the parts, but the costs to design, test and implement.
It's why they've ditched the keyboard, buttons, ports and jacks.
it's also why the battery is sealed in, one less part to design and integrate. (The battery cover)
Just think of how much money they save per year on the phones ditching every conceivable part they can do away with!
It's why every other phone maker emulates Apple, "How much can we save this year copying them?"
Apple's genius here is spinning cost saving measures as "trendy and hip" features to the consumer.
Well, Captain DaFt; FaceID requires an infrared camera and a dot projector that projects 30000 dots onto your face to create a 3D model (even in the dark) which is the handed over to a dual-core Neural engine and the authenticating secure enclave hardware that ensures the biometric data itself isn't leaked to the cloud, only authenticating tokens.
So, it does require extra hardware. Quite a lot.
Does it work well? I don't know, I haven't tried one, probably never will, let's see what people say after a few months. There was plenty of uproar when it was discovered by the chaos computer club that Touch ID could be bypassed using a time demanding process and sophisticated equipment.
I would suggest using bio-metrics for the average use case, just like we use key for our front door, but stick with a complex passphrase if afraid of the NSA/FBI/KGB/etc.
Well.....
I got mine on launch-day and FaceID was very good from the start. It has actually got better, works when I wear glasses or sunglasses and to be honest, if somebody takes it from me, then it's lost and I will be able to remotely disable it. Three attempts to unlock it with the wrong face and it's password only anyway. Much argument about absolutely nothing.
Please explain ?
And if this is true, doesn't this provide the answer to any law enforcement official faced with a non-compliant target who refuses to open their eyes in front of their device: Simply cuff 'em and slap some sunnies on. Done.
‘So, this is a survey of people who don't have it and haven't used it?
Will be more interested to see a survey of 10,000 people after they have used it for a few months.”
How the hell did you not get down voted to oblivion? You said something sensible about an Appleproduct. That is a mortal sin normally.
Chilling. The same tech will be added to Police Mug shot cameras, these will also be manufactured and sold by Apple - with a lightning cable connector to the suspect's iPhone.
The UK's electronic passport control will likely add the Apple facial recognition tech to every UK Border control, aswell as the camera booths used at Post Offices for Driving Licence/Passport applications. Unlocking your phone at the Border could be a fairly automatic process.
Nope, the requirements for unlocking a phone and for finding bad guys are inverted.
To unlock a phone, you're ok with some false negatives as long as there aren't false positives. For finding bad guys you're ok with some false positives as long as there are no (or as few as possible) false negatives.
There are already plenty of companies with such tech, no need for Apple at all.
It's always wrong if Apple do it.
No, it's always late when Apple do it. Copy / Paste, notifications etc. In fact the only original thing Apple ever did was take away the SD slot and charge an extra hundred for minimal storage upgrades. They didn't invent touch screen, rounded corners, slide to unlock etc etc etc...
There is one thing that they did do first, and it made all the difference.
With the original iPhone you were required to take a data plan. It's not that the iPhone did anything you couldn't do on a feature phone, in fact it was missing some stuff. It's just that most people didn't bother even though the apps were there because they didn't have a data plan.
It seems that those who are reasonably technically literate, especially with any exposure to security issues, understood very early on that face recognition was a clever gimmick answering to the by-now-classic definition of a "solution in search of a problem". Like so much internet-related BS, a daft idea—whether it's a connected kettle, fruit juicer, Bluetooth front door lock—produces something which is not only unnecessary, it's actually worse than what preceded it.
I won't rehearse at length the reasons why, because if you fall into the adults category, you know that a brain-stored 10+ alphanumeric character mixed case password, implemented in a device that (a) stores it securely, and (b) denies repeated fast brute forcing, is essentially uncrackable within the lifetime of the universe. Whereas leaving your fingerprints on every shiny surface you touch is unwise, keeping your password written on the ends of your fingers is daft, and crayoning it on your face is even stupider.
But neither science nor logic are of interest to Apple's marketurds, and, worse still, they also don't signify with the status-obsessed lemmings who are paying eyewatering sums for iPhone X ( people whose main concern, having acquired an X, is now to find anything made by Abercrombie that features a special "iPhone X pocket" to go beneath the huge, garish "Look everyone I pissed cash at A&F!!" logo).
In short, the iPhone is marketed as a status symbol, not on the basis of function or value—and for that reason, it will sell well to those who desperately want status, and fondly imagine this is the way to "get" it. Evidence-based, logical assessment doesn't stand a chance against gormless sentiment.
@Milton
Yes but who are the fanboys and who are the adults?
“Evidence-based, logical assessment doesn't stand a chance against gormless sentiment.“
Correct as evidenced but fact that Apple gives you EXACTLY what YOU asked for. A pin code. No one forces you to use any other means.
Given that, you are neither evidenced based nor logical. Apple gives you exactly what you ask for and it still is not enough?
So, fanboy, you can keep your gormless diatribe based on sentiment not fact.
I will be downrated to buggery, but your rant is literally insane. The iPhone (x or otherwise) gives you what you asked for
The point is more that FaceID (along with fingerprint scanning) does not replace a password. It replaces a username. To unlock ought to require something you have (username, fingerprint, face scan, bank card, whatever) and then still ask for something you know (password, pin number). This is security 101, and literally all phone manufacturers (not just Apple) are no longer bothering to enforce it.
But this approach would be incredibly cumbersome for a device that's unlocked many, many times a day. There's a huge difference between ideal and good enough security. Fingerprint or face unlocking is a good ballance between ease of use and security for most people - the most likely scenario for a badass trying to break into their phone is after losing it or having it stolen, not someone doing a Demolition Man on their finger or face.
Meanwhile in the real world people want to actually unlock their phones quickly and, given the opportunity, they'd disable any security rather than use a long, complex passcode everytime they want to check Facebook. Personally I'm not an Apple fan, but the fact that my Mum can operate her iThings without calling me every 5 minutes (as she does for everything else electronic) proves they're doing something right.
We didn't need a poll to work this one out, some of us got there *way* before.
The thing is, Apple only has itself to blame here. If they had just put it in and raved about the technical detail it probably would have been fine and considered innovative and all these other words the marketing people drool over.
But no, they had to put in something that would use what is arguably quite a leap in facial recognition technology*, and the best they could come up with was a way to animate emojis. Honestly? If I were part of that team I would have suggested that leaving that out would be better until you had a real deep use for it later, because this reduced this new tech to toy/gimmick/solution-without-problem status.
I am disappointed that nobody involved in this from idea to implementation ever stopped to think if this was really the impression they wanted to give because I would have asked questions.
Stupid, really stupid. I was interested in the X, but after seeing that demo I decided that I was better off with an 8 as an upgrade to my 6 so I've drawn a great, well, "X" through the other one..
* If it worked, which is one of the reasons I always hold off on buying new ideas in hardware for a couple of months - also saves hours queueing like a moron.
I'm still no fan of any of Apple's user authentication systems. It's certainly a step forward to have situations that require a second method of authentication. But Apple still does not offer the option of requiring REAL Two-Factor, or Three-Factor Authentication at all times. It's dirt simple to setup! Just require a password, 'Something You Know', as well as Face ID, 'Something You Are'. I'd gladly thank Apple for adding the third authentication method as well, 'Something You Have', that commonly being a digital dongle with a one-time password provided to the device.
IOW: YES! It is clearly a disadvantage to one's US privacy rights (Fourth Amendment) and rights to not incriminate one's self (Fifth Amendment) by making it as easy as applying one's finger or showing one's face to an iOS device.
It is FAR more secure to instead have an un-obvious password within one's head, while exercising one's right to silence, if one does not want another person entering the realm of one's smartphone.
IOW: It's the usual balance/teeter-tauter of Convenience Vs Security. Take your pick. Maybe turn off the Touch ID, turn off the Face ID and stick to just an obscure password, until such time as Apple offers REAL Multi-Factor Authentication as an option.
We wait...
"turn face id off and have a pass code. If you're some kind of security obsessed luddite"
Then why the hell pay over £1k for something and not use all its features esp when some of those very features are responsible for the ludicrous price tag (that and profiteering from people who will pay anything for a badge)???
Beggars belief
Then why the hell pay over £1k for something and not use all its features esp when some of those very features are responsible for the ludicrous price tag (that and profiteering from people who will pay anything for a badge)???
There's a lot more to an iPhone than just the gadgets (and I won't buy the X exactly because the extra costs are not justified by usable features). We use iPhones because they're very easy to secure to a point that even a security luddite (aka "management") can be trusted to be safe with scant instruction. THAT is the value we pay for.
Personally I wouldn't miss the whole TouchID thing, the only way I'd use that is if I could use it in combination with a then somewhat shorter PIN because it's not a spectacularly good FP reader (I've been in biometrics for years, and I know FP readers that are far harder to fool - but they cost accordingly).
If you're some kind of security obsessed luddite.
I am, and I have (well, Touch ID). I have client confidentiality to protect, so my phone's on a password (a 6 digit PIN is too easy to shoulder surf) and is set up in such a way that I can nuke client details in seconds if I am heading for a border I don't trust, like the US, Chinese or Russian one.
It's not just all about the user itself, you see.
You are NOT REQUIRED to use Face ID (or Touch ID) at all. It has an off switch. You don't even have to train it.
If it doesn't work for some reason, you can still unlock the device with a PIN or password -- which you have to set up before you can even enable and train the biometric.
On restart, the biometric login is disabled until the password or PIN has been entered.
Apple stores all of the credentials -- bio and otherwise -- in an encrypted secure enclave, and said data never leaves the device.
This stuff is all well documented. Read more, harrumph less.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
