>"guys, they're just creating false scarcity!"
>"guys, they're delaying the release to maintain quality!"
>"GUISE, THEY'LL SELL OUT ANYWAY!"
And now we know how they're making their deadlines - by literally sacrificing quality and reliability of the one thing meant to replace Touch ID.
>apple
>threadworthy
Read the article you just posted, you fucking idiot
techcrunch.com
>According to a new report from Bloomberg, Apple is changing its strategy when it comes to manufacturing the Face ID sensor in the upcoming iPhone X. Requirements have been lowered so that suppliers can produce those sensors much more quickly. Update: Apple says the claims are “completely false.”
>Update: Apple says the claims are “completely false.”
>Apple says
the company defended itself so it MUST be true.
>Update: Apple says the claims are (((completely false)))
>Customer excitement for iPhone X and Face ID has been incredible, and we can’t wait for customers to get their hands on it starting Friday, November 3. Face ID is a powerful and secure authentication system that’s incredibly easy and intuitive to use. The quality and accuracy of Face ID haven’t changed. It continues to be 1 in a million probability of a random person unlocking your iPhone with Face ID.
>Bloomberg’s claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec for Face ID is completely false and we expect Face ID to be the new gold standard for facial authentication.
>i-i-it's not true
>Update: Apple has issued a statement refuting the claims made in the Bloomberg article. The statement says “Bloomberg’s claim that Apple has reduced the accuracy spec of Face ID is completely false.”
>The central paragraph that Apple seems to be addressing with the statement is this one:
>To boost the number of usable dot projectors and accelerate production, Apple relaxed some of the specifications for Face ID, according to a different person with knowledge of the process. As a result, it took less time to test completed modules, one of the major sticking points, the person said.
>It’s not clear how much the new specs will reduce the technology’s efficacy. At the phone’s official unveiling in September, executives boasted that there was a one in a million chance that an interloper could defeat Face ID to unlock a phone. Even downgraded, it will probably still be far more accurate than Touch ID, where the odds of someone other than the owner of a phone being able to unlock it are one in 50,000.
One more time
>The bit where it says “downgraded” is likely the point that Apple felt compelled to reply to. The Bloomberg report says that Apple’s production schedule for the iPhone X was “very aggressive,” which I understand to be accurate. As far as the specific claims about the Face ID system having “reduced” accuracy, Apple says no.
>In fact, if it were to have made claims about accuracy and not updated them before the phone released this year, it would be on the hook to answer to that difference by consumer advocacy groups. Which also likely encouraged it to respond.
Stop falling for clickbait articles
>apple decreased the spec for the Face ID that literally had Tim Cook input a PIN rather than demonstrate it
Other people were trying to use Face ID on that phone, it didn't work with them, by the time the faggot tried to demonstrate the function, the phone asked for a PIN like it was supposed to
It's good for opening sales and apple got another free advert. Who knows if it's a bs or not. Sony makes lasers for fabs, but gooks and sharp can't make lasers for a shitty face id? Apple was retarded anyway with it.
>defaults to pin if too many face ID attempts are made
>somehow more secure
Lol gonna be so easy breaking into the new iphones then
Blacklisted
>i believe journalists
ITT: poorfags who would spend $950 on a Note 8, but complain about the iPhone X
Sorry, I meant Pixel 2 XL
>t. Tim "Cocksucker Extraordinaire" Cook
Note 8 still has a headphone jack and fingerprint sensor. Also USB C. Also pen.
And still slow AF compared to the competition.
Also *might* explode on you so... have fun with that
>Pixel 2 XL
Is that the one with the blue-ish display, the burn-in or the $200 discount?
>And still slow AF compared to the competition.
Citation needed. At this point no phone is "slow as fuck."
>*might* explode on you
Jesus iDrones are so desperate.
I know s lot of fans and none of them are excited for face I'd nor the new iPhones lol
How will apple ever recover?
>Bloomberg reporting on Trump
>FAKE NEWS REEEEE
>Bloomberg reporting on gun statistics
>FAKE NEWS REEEEE
>Bloomberg reporting on Apple
>This news source is a reputable and can be trusted.
TouchID always worked this way. The phone asks for the user's password after too many failed attempts.
Right wing in a nutshell.
They do the same shit about scientific consensus
>global warming
>REEE FAKE
>race is not a scientific concept
>REEE IT IS
>homosexuality does not fit the definition of mental illness
>REEE IT DOES
>whites have higher average IQ than blacks
>SCIENCE! See? It proves us right
>race is not a scientific concept
You cannot be this retarded.
en.wikipedia.org
Literally second sentence:
>such groupings lack a firm basis in modern biology
You dense mongol
>trusting tech journalists
>Everything that a tech journalist says about a company I don't like is true
Do you understand the definition of science? I suggest you look it up before displaying your ignorance further.
What kind of supposed tech enthusiast reads 'techcrunch'. Might aswell read wired or pcmag.
Revolting. You do realize that if the news you read is inaccurate you're not actually getting news faster than other sources.
Not that user but really. What field do you think race belongs to aside from biology?
Arguably social 'science'. But I don't think lowly enough about you to think you're suggesting that.
>>race is not a scientific concept
Yes it is. Different bone structures and genetic makeup. The whole "one human race" thing is false. Different races are actually subspecies and they aren't classified as such because of feelings.
>>homosexuality does not fit the definition of mental illness
Yes it does. There's something seriously wrong with you if you want to take a dick in an orifice that's made for expelling waste from your body.
>>whites have higher average IQ than blacks
They do. I've lived near niggers and they're dumb as rocks.
My real point is that science is so broad that to dismiss race as not scientific out of hand is not logical.
Oh shit, we have a chimp on the loose.
That's a very wonky point.
What user said is that race isn't a scientific concept. Meaning it doesn't have a rigid and clear definition.
Of course you can draw your lines wherever you want and analyze whatever you want but the lines haven't been drawn. You need to go ahead and do that if you want to be taken seriously.
>rigid and clear
Sorry. Was a bit overzealous there.
Rigid is plenty.
whom, yourself ?
It may be wonky, but technically correct is the best kind of correct.
>magic is scientific because no one proved it isn't
This isn't how science works.
Race isn't scientific because there is no commonly known scientific definition of race and the intuitive idea used by literally everyone who defends the idea of human race is not scientific.
Well, you're technically wrong.
Yeah, nah, you're a cunt.
>I have no argument against something I know to be true
>"y-y-you're a chimp xd"
Race does indeed have a clear definition. It's definied by your genetic makeup and to and extent, your ethnicity (variance within races). If it wasn't "scientific" or "rigid" it wouldn't be in your medical records, dumb faggot. Your race plays a role in what kinds of illnesses they should look out for and what treatment options are available.
Maybe if you stop inhaling your own farts and pull your head out of your asshole, you won't be so detached from reality.
Technically correct can also be practically useless.
The funniest part is that I can't tell if you're genuinely a knuckle dragging retard who uses common lack of sense to handwave science, or if you're just pretending to be one.
Nu-Sup Forums was a mistake, albeit an entertaining one.
>race is defined
Give me unanimous definition. Or even just your rigid definition that lets me determine the race of anyone I meet.
>medical records
>a purely scientific record
No. By no means. Its political. And they don't register race here. Because it's not well defined. Nobody is gonna write quadroon on a medical record. And nobody is gonna apply some political philosophy of 1 drop black=black.
You really should start trying to make a scientific definition. Something which actually traces genetic groups. Because I'm sure that you realize that the appearance which many people who use race as a concept describes as significant simply won't cut it with the massive individual variance.
It's best to never pretend people pretend to be retarded. It's impossible to distinguish the two because it's so easy to be stupid and hard to be clever.
>Everything a company tells me to cover its own ass is true
>certain races are not predisposed to certain genetic diseases
>"i-i-it's all political!"
These are some seriously retarded mental gymnastics you guys are doing. Posting in this thread is like coaching the special Olympics.
>muh 1 drop
If someone is 1% black African and 99% white European they could still carry genes that expose them to certain illnesses. Sickle cell anemia is just one of many examples.
Sorry to burst your bubble but Sup Forums was right again.
>100% european gets sickle cell anemia
>Sup Forums permanently BTFO
No, not at all. It has to do with averages. The exception doesn't make the rule. Just because you have a single digit IQ that doesn't mean the rest of us do too.
I never claimed otherwise.
>race is a scientific concept, here is how we measure it:
>if you are black, you have a higher chance of getting sickle cell anemia, therefore if you have a sickle cell anemia you have a higher chance of being black
Best way to measure it is through observation of physical traits and through genetic testing. You're arguing a a dumb position.
>implying the burden of proof is on the company and not the journalists
>observation of physical traits
Wow, very scientific. You are very logical today, have a logic sticker. I didn't know we have race detectors in our eyes. Pity that scientists don't have them and are blind to Real Genuine Truth.
>through genetic testing
Again, foolish scientists must be blind to the results of genetic testing, because they demand to see actual definitions and not just unverifiable correlations.
Give me the definition.
How do medical professionals make their notes on race?
No of course you didn't. I never claimed you did. But you're wasting everyone's time with your bullshit.
Wasting everyone's time? Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not know where the fuck you are?
user it may be completely alien to you but I've had constructive discussions in this place. Since you've been introduced to Sup Forums with Sup Forums most likely. Or worse yet you've come after the gamergate bullshit. You wouldn't have a clue about how you can actually learn something by talking to people.
You're clearly a political person. And everyone knows politics isn't about being correct it's about lying in a way that doesn't let most people catch you. So of course you'll keep having these conversations where you're thinking that belittling your conversation partners and never presenting a convincing argument is how it should be.
If you were not just politically interested you'd at least have a small list of journals discussing the subject. Or even just a study that uses the word race in a well defined manner.
But you're not. You're just gonna keep throwing words with no substance.
And please don't come with a prove a negative suggestion. I won't respond.
What the fuck did you turn this thread into you God damn twats
>implying it isn't
I never knew that the new iphone could spray water.
You appear to be well and truly lost, I recommend you find an adult.