UPDATE: As you’d expect, Apple responded:
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.
There’s no room for interpretation here. The Face ID accuracy remains the same. Nothing has changed. Calling out Bloomberg’s report as completely false is a strong, necessary statement. A black eye for Bloomberg.
Alex Webb and Sam Kim, Bloomberg:
As of early fall, it was clearer than ever that production problems meant Apple Inc. wouldn’t have enough iPhone Xs in time for the holidays. The challenge was how to make the sophisticated phone—with advanced features such as facial recognition—in large enough numbers.
As Wall Street analysts and fan blogs watched for signs that the company would stumble, Apple came up with a solution: It quietly told suppliers they could reduce the accuracy of the face-recognition technology to make it easier to manufacture, according to people familiar with the situation.
And:
The company’s decision to downgrade the accuracy of its Face ID system—if only a little—shows how hard it’s becoming to create cutting-edge features that consumers are hungry to try.
If the facial recognition tech still works, this is not an issue. If facial recognition works well enough to not be fooled by all but the most unique situations (twins, for example), this is not an issue.
If reducing accuracy allows Apple to ship, this (if true) is a logical decision. It’s what businesses do. The key is to compromise without reducing quality to the point where it breaks. I think Apple would eat the delay before they shipped an iPhone X that didn’t meet their security standards.
We’ve seen plenty of examples of iPhone (and other Apple product) shortages that lasted months, with demand outstripping supply. I don’t believe Apple would risk the iPhone X reputation by shipping an iPhone X with less-than-effective facial recognition.
Completely agree. Why would Apple want to marginalize just to meet a deadline? There’s no real incentive and they simply don’t do this. They’d rather postpone or even scrap their plans if they don’t stack up to their stringent requirements.
8 and 8+ are out there and selling well. Apple’s not hurting for cash. Apple has shown indifference to placating Wall Street. No one else has this tech with this degree of sophistication. They’re not in the habit making empty promises. So there is really no practical urgency for Apple to push out a flawed or inferior product. Maybe if their last iPhone update was introduced 3 years ago, then I’d say they need to light a fire and get it done. Otherwise, patience is warranted here.
nah, this is just another BS Gurman rumor. There is no way Apple is making hardware decisions a month before launch. None. Any issues would have been identified and actions taken long ago.
Gurman & Bloomberg have some sort of agenda as nearly all of their coverage are unsubstantiated rumors with a negative slant designed to weaken Apple’s position. This is just another one, and is completely unprovable. FUD factory.
Tech journalism tends to rely on a single headline generator without understanding the ramifications of what it is writing about.
And, there are no experts or magic sages. Gorman, Ming-chi Kuo et al are not prescient or super-hunan. Corporations squash the leaks they don’t want public.
This typifies the level of naivety amongst tech pundits/journalists. Why would a company making the laser projector be “allowed” to lower the accuracy of facial recognition? Odds are that such manufacturers have never used the facial recognition system. They may not even have known until recently that their part was going to be used in such a system. They were contracted to manufacture a laser projector with N dots with such and such tolerance over dot size and spacing. If this story is true, then it is the tolerance over dot size and spacing that is being allowed to relax. Whether this results in reduced “accuracy” of facial recognition is a different issue. But those manufacturers are far removed from that step. Can you guys consult a real engineer when you write such drivel?
I think Gurman sold his soul for what he thought was a more prestigious position. Whatever production adjustments Apple would authorize would certainly be in writing. If anything my guess is it relates to overly critical requirements that don’t impact effectiveness. FUD sells better than boring facts.
Apple denies this and I believe them a lot more than I believe Bloomberg
I believe my ten year old when he says he has no homework more than I believe Bloomberg lately.
I think Dave’s comment is meant to be a denial, but it’s too weak of one to come across clearly.
Apple flat out denied this was true. i knew this was just another piece of BS from Gurman.
journalism aint what it used to be. Bloomberg isn’t supposed to be a rumors rag, they should require their writers to produce two independent sources as is the norm in real journalism.
Pfft. No timing of events was stated. We have no idea if this decision was made before or after announcement of features. Face ID possibly was meant to be more effective than advertised but spec change means it’s only as effective as advertised. So maybe nobody’s lying but Bloomberg is definitely omitting details.
Note that Mark Gurman did NOT contribute to that story!
Gurman is not credited on that story, neither on the byline nor in the note crediting other contributors.