- This is an issue of Apple's own artificial creation.
- This doesn't even solve the issue.
So this all started because Face Unlock didn't work with masks, that's not Apple's fault. But what is entirely Apple's fault is that they break an option which resolves this only when Face Unlock is enabled: "Require Passcode."
When you disable Face Unlock you can set Require Passcode to e.g. 15 minutes/1 hr, and it largely mitigates the aggressiveness by which your iPhone re-locks itself while you're e.g. out grocery shopping in a mask and trying to use a shopping list. But when you enable Face Unlock this option is removed (forced to "Require Immediately").
So Apple enforces "Require Immediately" in Require Passcode, it blows up in their face, and then instead of backing down when masks broke Face Unlock, they instead over-engineer a solution where you have to buy an Apple Watch to work around it.
Their new work-around solution doubles down on exactly the same anti-choice problems discussed above because they forget to mention in this press release that you MUST enable a passcode on your Apple Watch to use this feature at all (and they're relying on the Apple Watch being less aggressive to re-lock than the iPhone).
If you jailbreak your iPhone you can just switch it from "Require Immediately" to e.g. 30 minutes and this mask issue is almost completely gone in one fell swoop. This Apple Watch fix only kinda works (e.g. lost connection to the watch = relock, Watch thinks it is off your wrist = relock, etc).
An even better solution would be to just show the "unlock with passcode" button at all times, and not just after Face ID has spent 15 seconds not recognising you because you have a mask on.
That was their claim, however my observation is that it just takes longer to fail before offering "swipe up to get the passcode interface". I have to waste many seconds of staring at my phone just to have the privilege of swiping up to spin the passcode interface display slot machine. You know what would work? Just showing the passcode interface as soon as the screen turns on.
Never does for me either, possibly because without a mask I have a beard so it struggles to tell if it's a mask or my regular face. ProTip though: swipe up again immediately and you get the passcode prompt.
I believe the immediate parent was talking about Face unlock outside of this update where the Watch is added. I have the same issue. Sometimes, (I guess?) it can tell I'm wearing a mask and pops up a number pad quickly, other times it authenticates my masked face, other times it just hangs trying to authenticate and after a few seconds I get a number pad.
FWIW I have a new Apple Watch and have this issue. I just installed the update so I haven't tested the Watch authentication. If it can't detect a mask I'll have the same issue as before waiting for a number pad.
I am guessing the rationale is that Face ID is supposed to be so good that you won't need to use your passcode. In regular use, Face ID unlocks my phone the moment I lift it; showing an "enter passcode" option button would be redundant because it's already unlocked. Obviously this falls apart with masks.
> What exactly is the reason/rationale that it has to fail on facial recognition first before proceeding to use passcode?
C O U R A G E
Joke aside, it seems that Face ID was a tremendous technical effort so you could have instant access to your phone. Besides unlocking, there's no other serious application (memojis aside). The fingerprint reader was probably removed just to prop acceptance of Face ID. Also, Face ID is less secure. If you're detained or mugged, just looking at your phone will unlock it before you can react and look away.
IMO, the 3D scanner should be on the other side, enhancing your pictures with 3D depth.
If you're detained or mugged you have other problems to worry about. They can also threaten you with a knife to get your pin code or put your fingerprints on the phone. If anything face ID requires your eyes to be open, they can knock you out and use your fingerprints more easily.
Law enforcement in most developed countries won't resort to violence to get your credentials but are happy to point your phone at your face.
By the "they can just use violence" logic, no computer is secure and we should throw them all into the ocean. Security can improve the intermediate cases- focusing solely on the worst case is unproductive.
They can also enforce you to use your fingerprint or face (in The Netherlands) but not PIN or password (in The Netherlands), both with proper (minimal) force. In UK, there's a law to force a user to give away their password. Which, IMO, is the same as being enforced to help your own conviction.
I always preferred the fingerprint sensor over Face ID. You can unlock the phone before even taking it out of the pocket. At my desk, I can unlock the phone without leaning forward so it sees me. The only time that Face ID works (better) is when it's freezing cold and you don't want to take your gloves off to unlock the phone.
You should set lockdown mode (enforce PIN/password authentication) before getting mugged. I don't know it's possible on iPhone, but possible on Android.
> If you're detained or mugged, just looking at your phone will unlock it before you can react and look away.
As far as hypothetical situations go, I prefer this over them cutting off my finger.
More seriously, in a situation where I'm detained or mugged, there will be a lot of external factors which are pushing me to unlock my phone, be it via passcode or biometrics.
FWIW, "SOS mode" (holding the power and volume up buttons) will purge information needed for biometrics to work and mandate a PIN on both TouchID and FaceID devices.
Off topic, and I know we're in the middle of an Apple-bashing thread, but the portrait mode on iPhone 12 is amazing.
Portrait mode is Apple-speak for pseudo-depth-of-field, which is the effect that real cameras do that make the subject in focus but the background blurry.
> You can’t physically force someone to look in a certain direction
Excuse me, but this is ridiculously easier than forcing someone to use their fingerprint; just wait until they are distracted, show them the phone and ask them "what is this?". It unlocks in less than a second with "Require Attention" activated. We prank each other this way when we forget our phones around the house.
We're not talking about pranks, we're talking about someone getting robbed. It will be pretty hard for the robber to "distract you" and spring the phone on you.
You can't make a general assertion like that because “better” depends on different factors:
* If you're concerned about someone who can see you typing, a biometric is better because they have far fewer chances to watch you — especially if you don't reboot outside of your home.
* If you're concerned about actual adoption, a biometric is better because you remove the constant frictional password entry cost which causes a large fraction of users to use short, easily-entered passwords.
* If you're concerned about someone who has enough access to construct a usable fingerprint / face facsimile but can't coerce you into providing a password or shoulder-surf it with a drone, a long password is better.
The only Android phone with secure face unlock was the Pixel 4, which didn’t have a fingerprint sensor. Some Samsung devices had iris unlock, which was also fairly secure, but even more finicky than face unlock.
Guess you miss the memo. The whole thing is avoid the authority. Is there an authority behind that I do not certain. But lots of our brothers and sisters do and did.
Yep definitely not on my Xiaomi Android 10 phone. I can do the steps in Google Maps but that doesn't trigger the Smart Lock. Also nothing in my settings for Smart Lock. Oh well.
I think it's slightly weird UI/UX to show the password prompt if FaceID will just instantly unlock the phone anyway (at least when not wearing a mask).
I have about a 60% success rate on their "fix" to this, varying wildly depending on which mask I am wearing. The better a mask fits, the less likely the solution is to work, because the phone seems to think it's an unmasked face, just not my unmasked face.
doesn't do that for me. just got a new 12 mini running iOS 14.4 and... I still always have to do multiple gyrations to get to 'passcode'. Still regretting moving away from the SE with the touch button in that regard.
ack. can't edit any more. So... I noticed that iOS unlock itself does behave that way (per the parent) BUT... individual apps that use face unlock still don't deal with masks. There's probably some varying levels of security with face unlock?
Interesting, mine seems to have like a 50% chance of unlocking anyways with my mask on, I thought they did some sort of improved face-with-mask detection or something
It is a cross between detecting the face is obscured, and recognizing the face if deformed by a tight-fitting mask. If you can get around the obscured face check, you can use the alternative FaceID profile while wearing a mask to deal with any nose/cheek deformation.
If a mask is on the tip of my nose and loose fitting, it seems to work.
they actually do this, but it doesn’t look like a button. the “face id” text that is shown when it tries to recognize your face is clickable and it brings the password form. awesome ux...
Wow, thanks for the tip. I would never in a million years have discovered this otherwise. I don't know if Apple's UX design has gone downhill lately or if I'm just getting older and stupider.
It's order of magnitude less than 15 seconds for me. And they have specifically implemented mask detection so if FaceID spots a face with a mask on it immediately shows the passcode keyboard.
Personally, I'm getting the passcode prompt in less than 1 second.
Because in the standard lock screen you see notifications. iOS switches from the lock screen to the numpad when it detects a facemask, or after a timeout from the unlock gesture (swipe up).
I’ve never seen it take 15 seconds… it takes 2 seconds with a mask and 3 seconds with no face visible at all, for me. Versus 1 second when Face ID works.
> you MUST enable a passcode on your Apple Watch to use this feature at all (and they're relying on the Apple Watch being less aggressive to re-lock than the iPhone).
When you refer to the Apple Watch being “less aggressive to re-lock,” you’re really overselling it. The Watch does not re-lock for the entire time it’s on your wrist after you first unlock it (which you can do with FaceID on your phone). I go weeks without typing a passcode on my Watch.
FaceID works better when your hands are dirty or unavailable (e.g. you're wearing gloves), TouchID works better when your face is covered or your look changed slightly[0].
FaceID has been a strict downgrade for me, there are very few situations where FaceID works and TouchID wouldn't have, the reverse is a daily occurrence. And things would be even worse if I couldn't work from home, as TouchID works just fine with a mask.
[0] in bed without my glasses FaceID works 0% of the time, even resetting the entire thing and re-registering my face with and without glasses, it works all of 2 days before it stops recognising me without glasses.
If a device supported and was provisioned with both, and unlocked with either, you would have double the potential for biometric attacks/vulnerabilities (remember that FaceID is an order of magnitude stronger biometric).
If you support just one with the other disabled, it is wasted hardware/space in a device with extremely limited size/cost budget. If you require both, you haven't fixed the usability issues.
Now you're taking up a fair bit of front of the phone real estate (and adding some cost) for a feature that I'm guessing most people don't care about. [ADDED: As others note there are potentially other options though that don't involve putting the home button back.]
In those dire situations I would opt for passcode unlocking with smartphone gloves. Face ID, Touch ID and passcode, only the most extreme scenarios would need more.
Also, these are not “extreme” or “dire” or even uncommon conditions - most of Northern Europe, Canada, and the north-eastern USA experience several months of such conditions every year.
Let me add to that several more anecdata: my parents could never get TouchID to work; it required them to re-register on a weekly basis. I don't know if it's because of their advanced age or physiology, but in winter, my fingers were also not reliable due to dryness.
FaceID has been quite good other than the masks issue. I just wish Apple would allow a grace period for rechecking auth.
There's no reason that a phone couldn't have touchid and faceid, other than the desire for every square mm of space to be a screen (any didn't they have touch ID on the back of the phone for a while too?)
Thats a very big "other than" virtually all users like and want to keep the full screen size. Their best next move would be to include underscreen fingerprint scanning and face id in the next iphone.
I usually only replace phones when the battery starts going. But I'm thinking of getting the SE anyway, just in case it isn't available when this one (X) finally goes.
Oh thank you. I've been making up my mind over which phone to get next. You've just helped me rule out the SE. The TouchID is one feature I've never had reliable experience with. I have sweaty hands, and it seems TouchID has trouble with fingers with sweat on them. But even when I dry my hands before attempting it it wouldn't always work. I thought FaceID would be worse until $WORK gave my team an Apple with FaceID. I got to see first hand how much better FaceID is. It's doesn't have a 100% success rate but it is much closer to 100% than TouchID in my experience. I just pick up my phone and it's unlocked almost instantly. A much better UX than I had with my previous iPhone 8 and 5s which had TouchID. I was disappointed they didn't improve it for the 8, it was just as bad as the 5s.
Mask-independent TouchID on the $399 iPhone SE has been 100% reliable. Even works in the dark, including close distances where FaceID forces you to move the phone back so it can focus. Allows the phone to be unlocked with one hand without looking, when multitasking.
One of the last reasons that I still use a 6s+ is the TouchID. I still like my headphone jack too, but the TouchID is the biggest feature I don't want to lose
I was a holdout with my 6S and it's Touch ID and headset jack. Finally upgraded to a XR last year due to general slowness of the 6S, especially with CarPlay.
I bought a aftermarket headset lightning adapter. Wireless charging largely eliminated my complaints about charging. Fast charging with an 18w brick is great as well!
I only miss Touch ID when wearing a mask. Face ID is otherwise so much more reliable and fast.
> Apple reached phone perfection with the iPhone 4;
Thank you, I tell people that I liked developing on that platform and the only reason I still don't is because XCode no longer supports it and I get critized like I'm a luddite.
It's a phone, you can't do a lot more on device other than add new sensors and new networking technology... it's like buying a new car because it has a 2021 instead of a 2020, it hasn't changed that much....
Touch ID had to go because the home button was removed. They are now developing on screen fingerprint detection to bring back touch ID as a secondaryunlock mechanism.
The newest ipad Air has touch id in the power/lock button on the side. I know production timelines probably made it impossible to do in reaction to COVID, but can you imagine if they had put this on iphone 12 late last year? So many iphone users would have bought one just to fix face ID with masks.
The iPhone SE is physically the same shape and size as the 4 but with much better internals. To me, that is "peak iPhone".
I still use an SE to control a few things around the house. Without a SIM, with the mobile radios and bluetooth disabled but wifi enabled, and with Apple's idiotic News app that nobody wants disabled, the battery lasts for 20 days. Peak iPhone.
Whoops, you are right. I forgot there was a size difference between the 4 and 5. I had decided to think of them all collectively as the sharp-edged iPhones.
Probably, I just happen to have owned the 16GB model that is now impractical for me, since iOS itself takes half of it. Replaced it for my daily carrying, but kept it around since it's so nice.
>MUST enable a passcode on your Apple Watch to use this feature at all
In all fairness, I believe they require you to set a passcode on your watch if you use it for Apple Pay. And, honestly, especially right now--while I don't always use my watch to pay mostly because the Magsafe wallet makes pulling out a card very easy--it's pretty convenient.
I have found the watch the most convenient NFC payment option of them all, if a place supports NFC payments at all. So many places still put the readers too close to the cashiers and getting a phone near them is awkward, but usually you can wave your wrist at them without problem. I still love how spooked cashiers sometimes get when you do that for the first time around them (and they often don't realize they support NFC payments because no one wants to try the awkward phone angle) and it looked like you just waved your arm to pay.
Our corporate iPhones require passwords every 2 minutes, because apparently having to type the passcode in dozens of times a day in the public is a better security model.
One of the core parts of Apple is having fewer choices, but striving to have the available options be good options.
Apple doesn't always succeed with picking the ideal middle point between too few and too many choices (most frequently, it's skewed towards the 'too few' side) however.
Well now that I’m so used to a level of privacy that locked iPhone provides (notification details are hidden), I just don’t mind having the phone relocked each time. It’s a trade-off that works for me.
Also, it wouldn’t surprise me if significant percent of users actually checks their phone at least one in 15 minutes. This would mean that their phones would be at unlocked almost all the time.
- This is about choice. Namely, expanding choice. So if that is your comfort level, keep doing what you're doing.
- When Face Unlock is enabled the iPhone doesn't take 15 minutes to re-lock. That's what is being requested, not what we have. 15 minutes would be much longer than the status quo.
The "Require Passcode" feature actually saved my data (and possibly my life) when I got robbed at gunpoint. The robber turned on my iPhone and was able to unlock it, so he assumed there was no PIN. He then turned off the phone to disable tracking (and inadvertently locked the phone, protecting my data and rendering the phone useless to pawn shops).
Strictly speaking, covid is not apples fault of course. However, as a long time apple user, I was always against forcing me to move from fingerprint to face ID. And my next iPhone will be an SE for exactly that reason. So I cant resist and feel a bit of "I always knew thats not a good idea". Face ID was a bold move which was punished by, well, lets call it reality.
If Face ID doesn't work it does pop up the passcode box. They tweaked it a versions back so it was faster to pop up when "mask detected" (though how well that worked as with any ML-based solution varied from person to person). Additionally the upward "home swipe" and "tap the Face ID indicator" options have both always immediately given the passcode box for me. (My favorite thing that happens sometimes is impatience with Face ID will have me swipe for the passcode box, the box will come up, and I get maybe one or two inputs in before Face ID catches up and finishes the unlock.)
This new Watch feature is great for people like me who are paranoid about punching in my passcode in front of a shop full of cameras and strangers, but it's a nice-to-have feature not a "required" feature as some of the above comments seem to complain it is.
I have a Samsung Galaxy as work phone and it has a fingerprint sensor unlock in addition to FaceID. Would love that in Apple iPhone due to masks becoming so prevalent.
Right you are, but for a different reason: Face masks entirely break Apple Pay. If you have an Apple Watch, lucky you, you can use the watch to pay instead. If you don’t? Well, tough luck.
Unlock with Watch apparently does not work with Apple Pay.
/e: Wasn’t aware of activating Pay using the code. Oops. :D
I'm sure passcode has always been a fallback option. I used to see it all the time when I had an iPhone with a Apple Pay compatible card some years ago.
I've been using Apple Pay from my watch since I got it, but only 2 weeks ago I found out I can pay for the Bus and MRT with my watch also! So I no longer need to carry around 1 additional card. (Singapore)
Something I just found out on Friday when my iPhone battery ran out while at the store: my Apple Watch could still make a purchase even though it didn’t have a cell connection. Pretty great!
Yep, I realized the same once when I didn't have my phone with me. It's just representing card data to the scanner, so it doesn't need a network connection.
Yup, some niceties like transaction finalized notifications don't catch up to your watch until you have a network connection, but nothing show stopping. (Your phone often still gets them immediately, but obviously if you don't have it with you, the tree fell in the forest and you don't know if it made a sound.)
Yeah, in general too many places still put the NFC readers too close to the cashiers because they still expect people to hand over cards like its 1999. Getting a watch near to some of those readers is far easier than most phones.
You can. I do it multiple times per week. It adds an extra 10s to “being ready for the register” but it’s hardly worth complaining about in a pandemic.
I just wish Apple Pay had a longer timeout because I want to have it open before I reach the register but by the time they're ready to scan it reauths.
Lots of comments here on the watch unlock, while the new privacy controls are requiring apps to ask for IDFA before it's given (and before you'retracked across apps with any identifiers). The MarTech industry is panicking to adapt and become compliant and there are estimates that it will drop ad targeting by ~75%. I see this as a huge win for privacy, if Apple actually enforces it (They have given no guidance on how this will happen).
also, a little poke in the eye of google: apple is proxying google's safe browsing lookups through its own servers so google gets less direct info about ios users.
It’s because they couldn’t figure out how to get better ROI from data processing than they get from positioning themselves as tron, fighting for the user.
Once they figure it out, their story will change very quickly. It’s naive to think that sending data to other huge company is proper solution.
It's because they don't have a business model that requires them to squeeze "ROI" lemonade from data processing lemons. Google's ad tech-driven business model will always require them to optimize that ROI. Their clients are advertisers and the advertisers want all the lemonade they can get and that snowball's the ROI.
Apple's clients are much more directly the users. Their financials seem to make it clear that they are way more profitable from user-oriented products and services than anything they could return on data processing and sale to advertisers or worse. They "couldn't figure it out", because they don't need to squeeze any lemons, they have far better things to sell than lemonade. (It's Google that looks far more undiversified beyond their single lame lemonade stand, and way more at risk if advertisers get bored of the taste of lemonade.)
It’s easy to have principles when they make you money. If current strategy will start to slow down, do you think shareholders will be more concerned with Tim’s personal story, or continued revenue growth? With or without Tim as a CEO.
CEOs are easily replaceable when business slows down. Especially if you aren’t rockstar founder, with majority of voting rights, and just a very effective administrator.
No doubt, but until that time - this CEO may take the threat of privacy loss a little more seriously than others who have not been part of a group that has been targeted for social and civil discrimination/violence.
Yuuuup. It's unclear to me if this is collateral damage, but it's also wreaking havoc in directly measuring the impact of your own ads (ex: see and ad for an app, install the app, make a purchase in the app - folks want to be able to tell if that purchase is attributable to that ad).
I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. The new policy doesn’t seem to try to break ads attribution globally - e.g. the App Store ads attribution continues to work regardless of tracking transparency choices. They’re also not trying to prevent first-party tracking - i.e. app analytics and the like.
Apple could have thrown a bone to folks and just allowed passing url parameters or similar through the App Store links to the app after it’s installed. No third party needs to get the data and advertisers get to actually know ROI like they do with the rest of the web.
Alternatively I’d love if Apple actually took a stance against data aggregation. Take on the actual creepy corps like LexisNexis or Experian or Transunion. Interest tracking is peanuts by comparison. Not to say we shouldn’t start somewhere, but I hope tracking transparency doesn’t end here.
> Apple could have thrown a bone to folks and just allowed passing url parameters or similar through the App Store links to the app after it’s installed
I thought they already allowed this through deferred deep linking?
Hmm I’m not aware of a way to do that short of fingerprinting a browser and running the same fingerprint on app launch. Would you happen to have docs for that approach?
it doesn't stop device fingerprinting and there'll be a bigger dash from virtually every company to fingerprint the hell out of all devices, get geolocation data, hoard up all possible IP information (wifi), identify nearby bluetooth device information and secure additional data points to link devices to users.
Touch ID is an entirely superior technology and Apple is profoundly stupid for removing it. It doesn't have to be in the screen, just put it on the back. The lengths they'll go to offset the removal of Touch ID are astounding, from IR face tracking, to degraded biometric security, and now to requiring an Apple Watch to unlock the phone with your mask on. Talk about a Rube Goldberg machine.
Sorry, it’s not. Face ID: Just pick up your phone and your phone automatically unlocks with your face. This experience is way superior than having to position your finger at a specific place every time you want to unlock it. Putting it on the back is even worse, you need to actually pick up your phone from the desk just to unlock it. I swear HN readers would create devices with the worst UX possible.
If you haven’t unlocked your phone by the time you’re looking at it you’re doing it slower than I am. Typically my phone is unlocked before I’ve even fully pulled it out of my pocket. The muscle memory for thumb (or finger placement if it’s on the back) is a pretty low barrier to usability, and can be learned quickly.
Can you unlock your phone without moving it in front of your face? I can, if it’s sitting across my desk I can unlock it without picking it up or moving my head towards it. I do this regularly.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten how many usability compromises you’ve made in using Face ID, but I guarantee it’s slower.
> Perhaps you’ve forgotten how many usability compromises you’ve made in using Face ID, but I guarantee it’s slower
Counterpoint: with Face ID, if my phone is facing me I can interact with it just by looking in its direction.
Got a message while I'm at my desk? I look at it, it unlocks and shows me the notification. Cooking and a timer goes off? I look at it, it lowers the volume of the alarm.
Everything has trade-offs and different people use stuff in different ways, but I personally prefer Face ID to Touch ID.
but what do you if you don't want it to unlock? like if you were in work and someone send you a nsfw message that you don't want your coworkers to see, or maybe you are in a car with other people etc etc. ...there's no way to stop that right?
at least with a fingerprint reader you can choose to glance at the lockscreen messages first before unlocking
Just looking at the screen does not unlock the device as you still need to swipe up to close the lockscreen. Before that, it does exactly as you describe, shows a glance on the lockscreen.
To clarify, it does unlock the phone - i.e. you are authenticated as you after you look at it - but you're right that it doesn't open the full message unless you tap on the notification.
I'd argue that when I used to pick my phone up, I'd place my thumb on the touch ID location as I was raising the phone to my face and it would unlock quicker than face ID.
I don't have a problem with either options, but I do think touch ID was slightly faster.
I like Face ID with phones. For iPad, getting the angle right for the face to be recognized seems trickier, so overall the Touch ID experience was superior.
I've actually found the opposite to be true - my iPad Pro will Face ID happily in any orientation and quite far off centre, whereas my face has to be very much centred for my iPhone to do the same.
I have sweaty skin and my success rate is at least as bad as yours. I confess to be very surprised at the love for TouchID here. I've used both TouchID and FaceID and I find the success rate of the latter to be much better. Perhaps we, dry and sweaty skins, are edge cases and most people apparently have 'normal' skin?
Both is fine with me. FaceID is great for any time you've got gloves on.
I wish they had an external version of it, e.g. an apple keyboard with touchID or support for generic webcams for FaceID so it'd work when docked, etc.
The Apple Watch has a nice function where it can substitute for TouchID/password entry for things like unlocking your Mac, authorizing changes to settings, unlocking 1Password etc.
> FaceID surely won't ever work with webcams however -- it uses a custom-built depth sensor separate from the camera.
iMacs could absolutely have the entire camera module, depth sensor included. Things would be rather more complicated for the laptops, the cover is thinner than an iPhone. Though obviously not as bad as the protruding back cameras, the front cameras module is still rather deep and would likely require increasing the depth of the cover to fit flush.
On the Windows side you can find Windows Hello certified third party cameras with the necessary IR and depth sensors. (I've seen Intel and Logitech options in stores.) Since the death of the Kinect the cost has generally gone way back up as it is a niche of a niche just to support easier logins and few applications anymore are using the IR/depth sensors as much (though even this far past the Kinect, Windows itself has additional eye tracking/attention tracking features these days than it ever had before for accessibility reasons).
Surely Apple could release a FaceID-compatible USB webcam if they wished. It's probably less likely for them to FaceID certify third party hardware, though.
(That said, I think Apple's other excuse for not supporting FaceID on more hardware is it uses the ML capabilities of some of their mobile A* chipsets. Maybe another thing they might claim can only be done with M1+ macOS.)
Completely agree. The new iPad Air even got it integrated in the sleep button, so Apple has the ability to continue offering Touch ID on all devices and keep the full screen display.
Apple should bring the same Touch ID-enabled power button to the iPhone that they have on the new iPad Air. That would make both the Touch ID and Face ID folks happy.
touch id never works - i've tried it a ton of times, and it eventually forgets my fingerprints or something, and just stops working... max it works is like 2 weeks, then... it's like i'm a new person. I have even tried training the same finger lots of different times, still no luck. And I've tried it on iphone and mac, no go.
Apple's insistence on only having face ID when competitors have fantastic and very fast in-screen fingerprint readers is just idiotic. I was kind of onboard when they first introduced FaceID, the argument that they don't want the sensor on the back and there is no room on the front was fair enough, but right now the technology has caught up. It's crazy that you can unlock a Samsung with your face OR an in-screen fingerprint reader, but you can't an iPhone.
These competitors aren’t held to the same standards Apple is. If it turns out you can unlock these phones with a printed fingerprint copy, nobody cares. But if it happens on iPhone it’s fingerprintgate.
For now. I'd wager in the next year or two we will see TouchID in the power button or under the screen. Are there Android phones with this tech already? Yes, you can almost always count on Android phones to have new types of tech before Apple but in my experience Apple's version is much more polished/solid/secure as whole. Android had "Face unlock" for at least a year or two before Apple but it was total crap. I had a coworker who had it and he ended up turning it off because it was so buggy/unreliable. FaceID for me had been pretty rock solid and I'm very happy with it. I'll be happier with a TouchID backup but I'm more than willing to wait for a secure and seamless version and not something rushed to market.
Correct. My wording could have been better probably. I would never put Android phone's face unlock in the same category as FaceID (nor their fingerprint vs TouchID). It's been a while since I've seen tech on an Android phone that Apple later implemented where the Apple's was just equivalent to the existing Android version, it's always a bigger stop forward.
This is because Apple will not add a feature just to tick a box or add a bullet point to a feature list, they will only add it if they can actually make it work well.
The fact that it can be unlocked with a picture doesn't mean it has no security.
The main use case for phone locking is that you leave your phone in a cab, a bar or wherever else in public and someone picks it up later. That person isn't going to know who you are and have a picture of you. They're still prevented from being able to take the phone they just saw laying around and go through your emails, etc.
The parent isn't saying that Samsung's face unlock isn't still useful. Just that "a picture of your face is the password" does pass the bar for security by any reasonable definition. It's a convenience feature. Apple's FaceID comes with real, and strong, guarantees about its effectiveness. Just the same as Samsung's fingerprint scanner.
Never used a Samsung phone but touchId and faceid gates access to payments, passwords and banking apps. Typing a complex password on touch screen isn’t very fun.
Which one? Android is an operating system, not a phone. There are ones which are just as secure as an iPhone(Samsung with its Samsung Knox vault) and cheap phones which have only basic fingerprint readers(and even then I don't see what the problem is, the biometric data is stored in the storage managed by the reader chip, inaccessible to the rest of the device for every commercial fingerprint reader out there). I thought HN was all about having consumer choice?
On my S21 you can tick a "fast unlock" option for face unlock which comes with a warning that it can be fooled by a picture then. So I'm assuming that by default it can't?
From samsungs site "This will improve the recognition speed but also reduces security, increasing the possibility of a video or image being incorrectly recognized as your face."
So I assume both can be tricked but one is a little better.
It's crazy that you can unlock a Samsung with your face OR an in-screen fingerprint reader, but you can't an iPhone.
I don't think it's crazy when one considers that Samsung will put that stuff on a phone, and whether it works or not is the customer's problem. We've forgotten Samsung's earlier "face unlock" attempts, haven't we? I haven't, it was bad enough to be one of the major factors in getting me to quit using Samsung phones (and Android in general). So to argue "well, Samsung does it", meh, maybe Samsung does, maybe Samsung lets the person that stole my phone unlock that phone with my photo.
What's your point? Obviously just because Samsung's implementation used to be shitty doesn't mean apple's would be, hopefully that's not what you are suggesting?
Point is, saying "Samsung has that feature" is like saying "Tesla has L5 self-driving next month". Just because a company says something doesn't make it true, and other companies are not required to try and compete with snake oil. Apple's ability to execute has little to do with it.
But....Tesla doesn't have L5 self driving. It's bogus. It doesn't exist. Samsung has an in-screen fingerprint reader. It works. The technology clearly exists and works. Whether Samsung fucked up in the past or not is irrelevant - the fact I was pointing to was that the technology to make in-screen fingerprint readers clearly exists, as an Apple customer I'd expect them to integrate it with their usual level of polish. Do it 4x as good as Samsung. Because at the end of the day it's not about Samsung - it's about why Apple hasn't decided to introduce this feature yet despite the pandemic painfully showing that having just FaceID is not good enough. This is not a rant to say Samsung it great and apple isn't - just purely saying that once again we're in a position we've seen hundreds of times before - other manufacturers have some fancy new features that Apple hasn't integrated yet. As their customer I wish they'd hurry up.
For me, the most common scenario in which I'd want TouchID is when I have my phone resting flat on my desk. Depending on which phone case you may or may not have on your phone, the power button might be conveniently accessible. I'd prefer a version that didn't require me to lift my phone up off the desk in order to unlock it.
I have used phones with all types of fingerprint sensor. Below the screen (Moto Z, iPhone 6S), at the back, in the power button (Moto Z3), and built into screen (Moto Z4).
Built into the screen is by far superior of all. The worst is at the back, with power button at the side not far from it.
I think having it in the back is genius as that's where I always have a finger as opposed to the front. It's so awkward to try to hold the phone in my hand securely AND holding my thumb on the scanner at the same time.
About half of the times i unlock my phone is when it is resting on the table. Fingerprint scanner on the back requires picking it up first, which is extremely uncomfortable to do every time. No. Just no.
I agree, but for a different reason. Today's phones are stupidly fragile and pretty much everyone puts some sort of case on them. I don't get this obsession from phone makers to make increasingly thinner devices, when a large number of end users just put an ugly case on it. Why not make them rugged to begin with?
I'm sure Apple can design a rugged phone if they wanted to. A rugged phone designed with shock/vibration/drop protection in mind is not the same as a fragile phone with a case on top.
All kinds of ruggedization are wear items. Even a bicycle helmet needs to be replaced after it has experienced an impact. They should be easily replaceable, like phone cases are now.
There are many designs possible, I don't understand why you want to shoehorn an unsuitable design meant for providing protection to the human head onto electronics. In any case, this is a good discussion, we know what to avoid so yes - we don't want to have a design that necessitates replacing the phone.
I've always found that unlocking your device with your fingerprint scanner on the front of the device only works nicely if you're holding it with the other hand.
> the argument that they don't want the sensor on the back and there is no room on the front was fair enough
No room on the front - fine, but under the screen readers have been improving a ton and I'm sure Apple could figure out something.
Don't want the sensor on the back - I don't understand this. Why not? It works for other devices, and they could even make the Apple logo into a reader to be discreet.
Not in the S20, at least. I was about to leave the exact same message but I went to a 12 Pro with Face ID because I couldn't stand Samsung's implementation.
If people think that Face ID is inaccurate, then they clearly haven't used under-screen readers. They're slow, unreliable, and imprecise.
S20 was particularly bad, give S21 a try though if you get the chance - they improved the scanning speed and the scanning area is now 2x the size so it's a lot easier to unlock the phone.
That does sound like it addresses my two bigger issues. The one that annoyed me the most was a direct result of those issues -- I didn't know if I was even pressing in the right place about 75% of the time.
It's especially draining when every first interaction with the phone is essentially "Are my fingers too sweaty? oily? Did I tap long enough? Did I press hard enough? Too hard? Did I even tap the right place? Screw it I'll just enter my PIN".
Yeah basically the S20 used their new ultrasonic sensor for the first time and it was meant to be the greatest thing ever, except that it was pretty small and slow so it wasn't great. S21 uses the same technology for recognition accuracy, but makes it bigger and faster.
Got an S21 and the sensor works as well as any Apple ever made. But yes, it seems like the technology has matured only very recently, the first in-screen readers were pretty crap.
I mean, I own the iPhone 12, 2020 iPad Air, and the iPhone SE2, so I'd assume those are state of the art when it comes to both FaceID and TouchID, no? Should be a pretty good comparison? Is there any other apple product you think I should try? I'll be very happy to give it a go.
With the frustration of the past year in iPhone not unlocking due to your face mask it seems like a proof of concept that iPhone should bring back TouchID.
Partway into the pandemic Apple added mask detection, so if it sees a mask it will fail instantly and not even attempt face recognition (so people could enter their passcodes right away without having to wait for face recognition to fail).
They also supposedly added the mask recognition "cut-off" because the ML was mistakenly learning people's masks and you could impersonate some people by wearing the same mask as they regularly wore. Another case where statistic models were likely to learn the wrong things.
Stayed with my iPhone 7 until iPhone 12 for the same (main) reason. Being able to have the phone unlocked on the way from my pocket was fantastic. Unlocking with Face ID takes at least two seconds extra, every time.
Everyone is missing the point. This is the start of a major battle between two tech juggernauts. One look at the Facebook ads manager will show you Facebook is very scared about this privacy update and trying to do everything in their power to mitigate it.
Apple is the gatekeeper and Facebook can't do anything about it. Their dominant revenue stream is about to be strangled.
I think Zuckerberg realizes he is screwed in the long run, and only his bet on VR with Oculus will save him.
I was spitballing but sure. It obviously shows how powerful Apple is and how locked their platform is.
And don't get me started on choice. It's a step in the right direction but Apple doesn't give a shit about choice or they'd allow multiple App stores, side loading, browsers, etc. They wouldn't be fighting with repair shops.
is it? of all the possible antitrust things they do i think this is isn't one of them: protect the users and give them choice back? that would be a hard case to make
Good chance FB will own the VR space from platform on a hardware and software level. My bet is they will be bigger in 10 years than they are now if VR materialises
That's a step in the right direction, but I sorely miss the Android "trusted bluetooth device" that would keep your phone unlocked.
I have really poor timing, and upgraded from a Google Pixel 2 to an iPhone with face id (and no touch id)just before the pandemic. Now I have to type my passcode to unlock whenever I'm wearing a mask because I have a Garmin watch and won't consider downgrading to an Apple watch. The Garmin watch kept my Pixel unlocked for me since it was a trusted bluetooth device.
I know a lot of people love their Garmin watches. Even though I have an Apple Watch I considered also getting a Garmin just for tracking outdoor workouts.
Other than battery life, the excellent app WorkoutOutDoors roughly replicates the workout functionality of Garmin watches for $10, but with arguably better maps. A feel like I need to mention it when there‘s an opportunity because the solo developer behind it is doing such great work.
The battery life is the key issue for me. My watch goes over a week between charges, and Apple watches seem to generally last a day or less. I went through a series of watches before the Garmin, and they either died quickly (MS Band and LG) or their battery life dropped to Apple Watch levels (Polar M600) and I know from experience that they will die at just the wrong time for me.
The Garmin I have is 3 years old and still going strong.
This. The battery in the Apple watch is abysmal. I understand that as a watch its "smarter" than the Garmin watches, but charging a watch everyday is a hard no for me. The Fenix 6x lasts for 2-3 weeks while training every day. I wish the Apple watch would prioritize its battery life.
Anecdotally, in the last few weeks, FaceID just started working for me with a couple of the types of masks I’ve been wearing. I wonder if they have made some tweaks to their recognition algorithms / are doing any sort of additional training on the fly.
I don’t have an Apple Watch, and am running 14.4.2.
I don't have any links to back it up or anything, but my impression is that Face ID continually trains itself as you use it to help keep up with facial changes over time. At the very least I know it takes the data from failed attempts immediately followed by passcode unlock and uses it for training.
Depending on how either is implemented I could see it getting "used" to a masked face with enough samples. The question for me is if this makes it more susceptible to false positives, e.g. unlocking for people other than the owner wearing a mask.
Interesting I wonder how it deals with the case of e.g. someone giving their phone to another person (e.g. spouse) who then uses the passcode. I guess they could try and work out if it is a variation of the same person or if it is someone else entirely.
Every time you attempt authentication, and it doesn’t recognize you’re wearing a mask in particular, it’ll “retrain” the model when you authenticate with your passcode. If it was only a little bit off, eventually you’d retrain enough to get there with a mask. They mention this in their Security doc if I recall correctly.
I thought that AI could identify someone even if they were wearing a mask and our iPhone's were being silly. I've seen a few videos of Chinese grocery shoppers paying with their face with a mask on.
I have my Android phone linked to my Bluetooth headset, so my phone remains unlocked while I'm at my desk - I really like this feature.
Another neat feature was/is "trusted location", where your phone would remain unlocked while at home, for example. I used to have this enabled, but unfortunately the option disappeared after an update on my Xiaomi phone a whole back :(
If only it included Web Push API capabilities. But of course, Apple won't do that, as then developers wouldn't have to beg to be in their app store, and pay a 30% commission on any payments.
I would have more respect for Apple if they just came out and said it, but the fact they haven't mentioned it at all, is just cowardly.
I hope they never enable it. Watching people in my life “use” that feature, I wouldn’t be surprised if well over half if web push messages are sent to people who don’t know how they got enabled, or how to disable them (they just clicked away an annoying pop-up on a site they’d never, ever want messages from, not realizing what they did)
It’s mostly been desktop I’ve seen have this issue (including macOS). Maybe the UI is better on mobile so click-yes-to-make-the-annoying-popup-go-away-oops-now-you-get-push-messages isn’t an issue.
I specifically came into the comments to see about this, and am disappointed. It’s the biggest feature PWAs can provide and would really reduce the pressure to create native apps.
It's not in this version. I'm 50/50 on whether it will ever be enabled. If it's not enabled in iOS 15 around September then I'll raise my probability it will never be enabled to 90%. What incentive does Apple have for enabling it? 4 years ago when other browsers got it it was important. Now, with WebGPU 6-12 months from shipping there isn't much reason for them to ship a bunch of code to Safari that has to be maintained and tested forever. I know the code is already written and tested ATM, just pointing out why my probably that it won't ship is > 0.
This was a reason I inadvertently got some previous co-workers over-excited about a feature (only to find it was only in the betas I happened to be running). Still remember having to break it to the first person who really wanted to enable the feature that it must be in beta - and I spoke too early.
As an aside - earlier betas didn't seem to like various colored masks in my experience (turquoise being the main one) - which seemed to be fixed in later versions.
For context: worked at a COVID-19 Testing/Vaccination site - mask on more hours than not each 24... I _LOVE_ this feature still.
Couldn’t care less about the screen lock issue. Don’t know why everyone is spitting the dummy about it.
As others have mentioned Facebook must be worries as their main (only?) revenue stream via ads could now lose significant appeal to marketers.
Could Facebook pivot to a product company and release a fantastic VR/AR device to lure gen z away from iPhones? A Facebook glass? It’ll be interesting to follow their hiring for VR related jobs
Sorry for the shameless plug, but for those without an Apple Watch I've made a program [0] that implements the Unlock Mac with Bluetooth for any other device, including Android phones, Android Wear or Tizen watches or even some ear plugs.
5G on Dual Sim is a useful update, prior to this it was only possible to have 5G on one of the accounts (The hardware SIM, I think was the default not the eSIM)
5G on eSIM with Verizon worked great for me when it was all I had or it’s the only one enabled. 5G wouldn’t work at all on either line if both SIMs were in use.
ehhhh there was a lot of uncertainty around that. they just said a future update and it wasn't on time.
I had my doubts and other people had their doubts, dual sim modes have been neglected for some time and there are still several limitations in iOS that make it seem like its not much of a priority.
until the last few incremental updates you can tell from Apple's own communications on their forums that they thought of Dual Sim as more of a temporary traveller's use case, with them popping in a local sim card in different countries here and there. As opposed to someone that doesn't want to bother with two phones (or a handicapped VoIP number that also wouldn't have an iCloud account) and just always has two numbers in the same country. They are catching on, but the skepticism is there and they are incrementally fixing it successfully.
Nice. When I bought my iPhone 12 Mini this was a feature I specifically wanted. I saw them mentioning it was a software issue only, so it's great to see they solved it and followed through.
In the part of London I live in there's 5G available when I walk to the local shops - my network is Three UK. My secondary sim is EE, they also have a 5G network too, but i'm not completely certain where it's present
Sure. Here in Holland 5G from t-mobile is super fast too. We get 300Mbit down and 60Mbit up, easily....
I should remark though, that I used to get 200Mbit down anyways on 4G, only the upload was a lot slower..
Yes - I live in Austin on Verizon and it often shows 5G but is usually slower than my AT&T LTE was in San Francisco -- however -- occasionally I get 5G Ultra Wideband and got 1915mbps down this weekend https://i.imgur.com/BuQF13Y.jpg
The phone will show 5G when you're a carrier w/ a 5G network in the area, even if the phone itself is on a 4G network. The phone will choose to stay on the 4G network if it's trying to stay in a lower-power mode (eg: fetching notifications & emails in the background), and will dynamically jump to 5G on an as-needed basis.
From the official support document for the Smart Data feature:
> 5G Auto: Enables Smart Data mode. When 5G speeds don’t provide a noticeably better experience, your iPhone automatically switches to LTE, saving battery life.
Having used an iPhone 12 in an area with 5G service, I haven’t yet noticed the phone reporting LTE speeds, but given the way the statement above is worded (‘noticeably better’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting), I wouldn’t be surprised if the phone is mostly on LTE when it’s sitting idle or when I’m doing something like web browsing or music streaming that’s otherwise well within the capabilities of an LTE network.
Yes, I use Verizon and my iPhone 12 regularly connects to 5G around my house and work in South East Michigan. I haven't noticed it being any faster than LTE when running speed tests, but I'm sure it will get better over time once they're no longer running in a hybrid deployment.
Happy about being able to unlock the phone with my watch. Arrived after a year of mask wearing, but better late than never. Impossible to say right now when we'll put our masks away, if ever.
I already have an Apple watch, and still resent that their solution for removing the fingerprint scanner is buying a new expensive accessory. Under-display fingerprint readers have existed for years, so it's not an aesthetics issue.
My hands have turned into lizard skin from hand sanitizer (seriously, my knuckles have started to bleed from forming a fist) and I have no issues on my Oneplus pro 7.
I've only tried the Huawei P30 Pro years ago, and it worked fine. the only drawback is learning to find the spot where the sensor is, as you don't have the tactile feedback external readers provide.
Fingerprint reader in the back of the phone is one of the most ergonomic designs IMO, there's no need for it to be under-screen, I suggested it because Apple favors minimalist design.
I have an iPhone SE (which came with a fingerprint reader, as I assumed did all recent phones made by anyone), and I had no idea what all the hubbub was about until reading this comment thread. Another ridiculous own-goal by Apple. First MagSafe, now this.
sad that i still can't unlock my macbook with my iphone (without resorting to dodgy third party hacks). That would be really useful when the macbook is docked
In obvious mask will have gone before this year is completed. I am not wearing in most place now that we are not having mandate and i am having had my shots. It is in similar for persons around me. "if ever" is silly.
It was, yes. The SDK for App Tracking permissions has been there since 14.0. The change in 14.5 is that using the new APIs (and getting user permission) is now mandatory.
I go to the same coffee shop a few times a week and they always think I'm struggling with Apple Pay. Of course I am not - I am just waiting for Face ID to fail so I can use the PIN. Finally changed the setting to skip Face ID for Apple Pay directly.
The new iPhone will include a revolutionary feature where just touching your phone will unlock it, and it will not unlock if someone unknown touches it. It will be called "dactylogram scourer".
/s
Edit: 5 minutes and already got the first downvote
My Face ID is completely broken after getting water on my "waterproof" iPhone X. I downloaded the beta in the hopes of using my Apple Watch to unlock my iPhone without Face ID enabled. My employer enforces a device policy with passcode required immediately and auto-lock in 1 minute, so this would have been really nice. Unfortunately this feature only works a) with Face ID enabled and b) while wearing a mask. Not exactly just "Unlock with Apple with Apple Watch".
I wonder if Face ID is still able to partially detect a masked user's face, just with a much lower confidence interval. Maybe the presence of the watch allows Face ID to lower the confidence threshold when it detects a mask blocking half of the face. This is just a guess, I have no idea how Face ID works.
If Face ID can't detect anything when a user wears a mask then I completely agree with you. It seems really silly to require the mask in order for the watch unlock to work. I don't understand the security model there.
It works because you put your watch on, unlock your watch. Your watch remains unlocked until you take it off. I was under the impression if you’re wearing your watch and it’s unlocked, and then you pick up your iPhone, it acts as the key to your phone.
Oh, wow. I'm usually aware of Apple's new offerings, and I completely missed that there's a "waterproof" version of the iPhone X available. I just have the regular water resistant version.
I really hope Apple fixed the issue of wifi dropping out in iOS 14.5. It's been randomly dropping ever since iOS 13 (only device in the house that does), and I've been dinged by my provider in overage fees a few times because of it...
I had the same problem, it turned out that "Wi-Fi Assist" was enabled for some reason. After I disabled it it started working okay, at least I don't see "LTE" every time I pick the phone at home.
You don't get notifications when you get a new Email or Social Message? You don't have Facebook/WhatsApp/Email?
If not, then I applaud you. If you do, but keep notifications off, that's kinda respectable too.
But I'm guessing you do get a notification when you get a new text message, chat message or email.
Why should only native apps, that go through a dictatorship approval process from Apple, be allowed to send you notifications.
Of course, you should always be able to say "No" to a site or app sending you notifications. This is the case on Android, as could be the case on Apple.
Progress Web Apps are opening up the potential for developers to spend less time on the *worst* development platforms (xcode and android studio), and more time on their product.
That being said, it would be cool if an app could not "force" notifications to be allowed. Like, you could choose "Allow", "Deny" or "Hide" which would trick the app into thinking you had allowed notifications, but then just not show them.
It would stop bad advert behaviour. Although, on Android, I have never seen this be abused (yet).
I hard disable the permission to ask me for push notification permissions on every browser I can, because under no circumstances do I want a website to send me a push notification. Ever.
Sadly it also breaks a fairly common navigation flow in SwiftUI – having 2 navigation buttons on the same screen causes nav pushes to immediately pop back.
This does however show an interesting trade-off of SwiftUI: by being a more abstract definition of a view hierarchy, they can change out implementations more easily than before to further optimise in each OS release.
I'm hoping that they're essentially going down the route of rendering SwiftUI directly to Metal, their graphics API, as I'd expect that to be much faster and less energy intensive.
They integrated the "Waze-esque" feature into Apple Maps. Even Apple is getting their users to snitch on the PD. Siri is about to be the #1 public enemy of the traffic cops lol
Good. If municipalities want to raise revenue from my driving, then they should either raise taxes or implement tolls, not implement speed traps designed to trick people from out of town.
Unpopular opinion: people should just not speed. Even speeding just a little bit at high speeds drastically increases your car's emissions and is also dangerous (~40% increase in chance of death in a head on collision at 60 mph vs 55 mph). I don't think giving people a tool that helps them break what is in my mind a good/just/important law is the right move on Apple's part
So I live in New Zealand, and there was a period where cops were going all out with their new gadgets, and pulling people over whenever people speed above 4km/hr above speed limit that's like under 2.5MPH for you yanks.
I don't know how good you're at knowing how fast you're going. When the margin's that tight, you're going to either be very rich with a Tesla that's going below the speed. Or quite rich with a car like BMW that lets you set top speed. Or you're just going to go slow. like 10km/hr slower especially if you can't afford it.
The knock on effect was ridiculous. The trip took longer, and the amount of road rage witnessed on a daily basis was quite visible, wasn't a happy period for sure.
for any that are curious, I just learned the default, maximum speed limit in New Zealand is just 62mph! It seems living on an island paradise changes the need for speed.
I don't speed. Look up what a speed trap is. As an example, one that got me was a 50 MPH speed limit going down a mountain that twists and turns. The last dozen or so yards of the mountain, and around a turn, it suddenly becomes 40 MPH with no warning or time to slow down. Cops camp out at the sign and pull over people with out of state plates who are slowing down from 50 MPH to 40 MPH all while going downhill.
That feature is so helpful on google maps. I have to drive through a bunch of small counties every week and they all have so many cops on side of the road.
So if I can unlock my phone with FaceID + Apple Watch + Mask. Then in theory, wouldn't ANY person with a mask be able to unlock my phone? If you steal the phone at the right time, and unlock the phone while wearing a mask and still be in proximity to the victim wearing the watch. You will have an unlocked iPhone at your disposal. Quickly disable all of the security features, remove the SIM, and now you have a $1000+ item you can fence.
Sure, I guess that’s not out of the realm of possibility. But when you’re holding your keys in front of you when walking to your car to unlock it in the parking lot someone could snatch them out of your hand, sprint to your (unlocked car), turn on the car (because they have your keys), and speed off into the sunset. Now they have a $20k item. Possible? Yes. Practical enough to lose sleep over? Probably not.
I see that, however is there a way to remotely lock the iPhone from the watch? There is a small window to tap the “Lock iPhone” button before it disappears and the phone is unlocked. Or a clever person throws the phone in a faraday cage and thus blocks the lock signal from the watch.
For what it's worth, if you have a system with the T1 chip (Apple's been using the watch chip rebadged as a T1 for a few years as a SSD controller+security module), you can both unlock your laptop with your watch (built-in to the OS) and as a biometric sudo auth[0].
Someone who knows you could steal your phone, go near the front door of your house/apartment to be within wifi reach, login to your phone, unlock it and then wreck havoc on your life.
Android has had this feature for years and it still requires an initial unlock of the device to remain unlocked at the location you've picked. So when I get home I still have to manually unlock my phone once to keep it unlocked. As an extra safety measure the phone locks itself again after 4 hours.
This works basically as advertised, almost as fast as Face ID, and good haptics (plus a lock button) on your Watch. If you're on a bus and someone steals your phone, it can be locked immediately using the watch.
It does not do a "partial scan" of your eyes and forehead. It just detects a mask and triggers the Apple Watch unlock.
Managed to make it work. I usually don't put the mask over my nose as, having glasses, makes them all foggy and I can't see anything (protip: I don't care about how effective that is, the mask for me is just the minimum to confirm to current regulations).
Seems that faceID is really anal about the mask being OVER the nose before it's recognized as a mask! This is why it wouldn't work before.
So if you're having problems, be sure to wear a mask as apple expect you to.
For fucks sake it still requires the phone to recognize the fact that you're wearing the mask to allow AW unlock—and good luck if the mask isn't the one Apple trained this shit on or lighting conditions are not optimal.
I do want to look the manager who decided that in the eye. What serious attack vector is this supposed to close? Somebody sawing your hand off and unlocking your phone? You have much bigger problems then.
Why? Some women, especially in certain cultures, do indeed have beards. It takes nothing away from people who won't use that emoji, but it lets them be represented while giving others another optional emoji to use.
In which cultures does women have beards? Without any example it seems something you just pretend exist. Women in general (ie without special medical conditions) don’t grow enough facial hair to produce a beard in a lifetime.
I'm not sure it's true that they grow beards as part of their culture. They don't cut their hair as part of their culture (or religion). Then, some women have a lot of facial hair for a variety of biological reasons. If they're very committed Sikhs, then they don't cut it off - but it's not that they are deliberately trying to have more facial hair. At least, that's my reading from about 2 minutes of research....
Culture isn't going to lead to women magically sprouting beards. It may make the small percentage of women with facial hair not shave it off, but most women of whatever culture you're talking about(Sikh I presume) aren't going to have a beard because they can't grow one in the first place.
Somewhat related, but this thread made me look into it - and it seems a huge oversight that there isn't a "pregnant man" emoji - only pregnant woman. Probably all unicode emojis accepted with a certain gender variant should just include the other major gender variant as well. I can't really think of something that one gender can do that another gender can't do, if you allow that people can change their gender at will.
In that "naturally growing" number are women who suffer from PCOS or other hormonal disorders. So the number is smaller than 7% for women that naturally grow hair absent some kind of disorder. And of those that remain, many grow hair but it would not be classifiable as a beard. So I would stand by my statement that this only affects a small percentage of women.
I know both cis [0] and trans women who have beards, and while it's definitely nonconforming to Western standards, it is merely part of the incredible diversity and variation in human biology.
[0] Yes, cis women with beards exist. Many cis women feel dysphoric about any facial hair they may have, of course, but (just like with trans people) exceptions exist and not everyone is dysphoric about their endogenous sex characteristics.
Because literally not _every single group on earth_ needs to be represented.
It's an emoji pack... I don't need it for it to be exponentially more difficult to find ones I'm looking for because now we need every single permutation of race x facial hair x gender x skin color x marriage pair x favorite cereal.
You're wealthy, tall, young, male, English-speaking programmer who posts about how they are "constantly called the smartest person people know", whining that other people being represented by emojis is inconvenient to you so it shouldn't be allowed.
That should cause some embarassment and self-reflection.
Lol @ your attempt to shame me. It doesn't work because I regret nothing, and apologize for nothing. It's not illegal to seek feedback about self from others. It's not illegal to be tall, young, male, english speaking. And most of all, it's not illegal to think a woman with a beard emoji is ridiculous.
"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express." - XKCD 1357 alt text.
> "it's not illegal to think a woman with a beard emoji is ridiculous."
Did you put any thought about anyone other than yourself before deciding this? What thought did you put in before deciding it's ridiculous?
Appears that it's caused by Poly-Cystic Ovary Syndrome/Disease, which is "one of the most common causes of female infertility, affecting 6% to 12% (as many as 5 million) of US women of reproductive age." says the CDC.
we had a better idea when all emoji were existing as yellows only. we are having no need for to reference skin color in small pictogram. is seeming very like american thing, pushing race obsession on rest of this earth.
The yellow emoji remain. Skin tones are an option. They literally do not affect you if you do not want to use them, but provide people who do want to use them or have representation, the ability to do so.
Ok well then we are missing a metric shit ton of emojis related to me, and now I am HYPER offended that they're not included.
For one, I'm tall. I see now emoji which emphasizes my tallness. I lie awake each night in excruciating agony at being under represented.
I also have a large amount of cowlicks that make my hair unlike any haircut currently available in emojis, as I need to cut my hair a weird way. I find this egregious that no one has ever thought to include it and now I feel grossly under represented. I would go so far as to call it inhumane.
Furthermore, they have no 5-oclock shadow emoji. As a programmer, other 5-oclock shadow humans will understand my SEARING discomfort that this group has not been properly represented. Thankfully I can grow a beard, but I suspect people who can only grow half-beards are also EXTREMELY offended at this fact that there are no "patchy beard" emojis.
There actually are people who actually are underrepresented in things. They aren't lying awake in excruciating agony, they're just being unfairly treated as inferiors. Even mocking this as if it's about "being EXTREMELY OFFENDED" is in poor (clueless) taste. People don't deserve equal treatment because they are offended, people deserve equal treatment because of a fundamental presumption that people are created equal.
In the context, "Apple added emojis that benefit other people and not me, so now I'm ranting on the internet about it" is meta-poor-taste, the idea that someone else doing something that benefits someone who isn't you is bad.
> and now I am HYPER offended that they're not included
Are you actually offended? Or are you just claiming to be offended in order to get your way, while simultaneously complaining that other people claim to be offended to get their way?
he is making point that such request are silly, like other thing such as beard lady. maybe some chick is wearing a lot of make up, but we are not needing to make "make up" emoji for to represent.
If you type a word related to the emoji you're looking for then it will be automatically suggested to you. You don't need to scroll through the whole menu.
It is very definitely not that. "Womyn" was specifically created by trans-exclusionary feminists and using that term is a signal of affiliation with that crowd.
There have been male and female Siri voices for a long time. According to the Apple style guide: "When referring to Siri, simply use the name “Siri”. Do not refer to Siri with pronouns such as “she,” “him,” or “her.” Depending on language support, Siri may offer a male or female voice, or both."
Yes, it is saying in announcement. She was given differing voice before in past, but it was needing configuration option for to enable some other. It is bad change though, now each person must make choice rather than having normal default.
- This is an issue of Apple's own artificial creation.
- This doesn't even solve the issue.
So this all started because Face Unlock didn't work with masks, that's not Apple's fault. But what is entirely Apple's fault is that they break an option which resolves this only when Face Unlock is enabled: "Require Passcode."
When you disable Face Unlock you can set Require Passcode to e.g. 15 minutes/1 hr, and it largely mitigates the aggressiveness by which your iPhone re-locks itself while you're e.g. out grocery shopping in a mask and trying to use a shopping list. But when you enable Face Unlock this option is removed (forced to "Require Immediately").
So Apple enforces "Require Immediately" in Require Passcode, it blows up in their face, and then instead of backing down when masks broke Face Unlock, they instead over-engineer a solution where you have to buy an Apple Watch to work around it.
Their new work-around solution doubles down on exactly the same anti-choice problems discussed above because they forget to mention in this press release that you MUST enable a passcode on your Apple Watch to use this feature at all (and they're relying on the Apple Watch being less aggressive to re-lock than the iPhone).
If you jailbreak your iPhone you can just switch it from "Require Immediately" to e.g. 30 minutes and this mask issue is almost completely gone in one fell swoop. This Apple Watch fix only kinda works (e.g. lost connection to the watch = relock, Watch thinks it is off your wrist = relock, etc).