Face ID Deemed Too Costly To Copy, Android Makers Target In-Display Fingerprint Sensors Instead (9to5mac.com) 129
"Android phone makers are 'rushing' to implement fingerprint sensors under the display for upcoming handsets," reports 9to5Mac, citing a new report from Digitimes. "Android manufacturers have decided that recreating the 3D facial recognition used by iPhone X is simply too costly to include, and are instead focusing on implementing Qualcomm's ultrasonic fingerprint scanners." From the report: The report says that including an Infrared depth-sensing facial recognition system like the iPhone X is simply too expensive for Android smartphones to offer, which cannot command the same price premiums as Apple's iPhones. This is a combination of hardware and software development costs. Digitimes claims the cost of the TrueDepth 3D sensors in iPhone X peaked at $60 per unit, an incredibly high proportion of the overall phone cost if accurate. Android makers are also worried about possible patent infringement from adopting Infrared dot projector systems. Instead, they have turned to in-display fingerprint sensors as their next-generation of device authentication. This depends on using Qualcomm technology for ultrasonic-based fingerprint scanners, which can sit below the cover glass and work even if fingers are wet or greasy.
Better anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
It works really well, though. (Score:2)
Re:It works really well, though. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has their different style.
I have been using both Apple and Android fingerprint scanners for years, and have found them quite reliable, regardless of conditions. Not just for unlocking the phone, but for unlocking apps like my 2FA authenticator app, which basically adds another layer of authentication without much fuss.
FaceID isn't really new. I have an old HTC device that could unlock just by looking at it, and it had the option to not unlock until you blinked for added security. I'd rather see
Re: (Score:2)
What about when your hands are wet? For me the fingerprint never works then.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're supposed to wipe your hands on your pants when you come out of the men's room. Don't handle your phone with wet hands. That's just nasty.
Re: It works really well, though. (Score:1)
I assume GP meant post shower/bath wrinkle fingers.
Mine fails then.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except it is. FaceID doesn't use the camera like the HTC. It fact, it doesn't even need visible light to function. It projects dots on your face using infrared and an infrared camera (separate from the photo/video camera) reads the map of your face.
Re: (Score:2)
Android makers are also worried about possible patent infringement
Good thing they're not worried about mindlessly copying everything Apple does though.
I'm not even saying this as an Apple fanboy, just an Android user who really doesn't want to see every random idea Apple has cloned badly into Android. It's bad enough when Firefox mindlessly copies everything Chrome does, I don't want my phone to fall into the same braindamage path.
Re: (Score:1)
The fingerprint thing was [for me] always finicky & unreliable. It created a perceptible sense of dread each time I was about to use it in non-optimal conditions. By comparison FaceID is unobtrusive and accurate.
The fingerprint scanner on my Galaxy S5 was highly unreliable, enough that I just turned it off and used my swipe pattern instead.
But the scanner on the back of my Pixel 2 is pretty good, and a feature I had no idea that I would like and use as much as I am. Worst case, it doesn't work and I enter my passcode like I would have without a fingerprint scanner.
Re: It works really well, though. (Score:2)
Not sure the tech difference between iPhone fingerprint and nexus/pixel, but I do know that the later unlocks faster and more accurately than both the former's fingerprint and face ID. Face ID also seems to be susceptible to being unlocked by people related to you even if they don't look like you (IMO photo based methods are better because of this, but I don't use either.) Not to mention, face ID can't easily be unlocked discretely. A problem with Apple's fingerprint scanner is that it's a glossy surface (I
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you could get a selfie camera behind the screen too. With an LCD it can go fully transparent, but the camera would make the backlighting uneven. That could be solved with some kind of movable cover or reflective one-way surface. Would probably not meet the standards for high end image reproduction but might be enough just for the status bar area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple will make a lot of money attacking 'the notch' as ugly as soon as they have something notchless to sell to the sheeple.
Re: Better anyway (Score:1)
And then what will the slashdot whiners whine about?
Re: (Score:1)
If you think the most egregious thing about the way Apple operates is 'the notch' you're seriously deluded.
Re: (Score:2)
FaceID seems to be working fine for me. I find its limitations to be less then what finger print readers have. Trying to unlock the phone while your hands are sweaty, dirty, or have gloves.
The Notches in the iPhone X screen has little to do with the FaceID, and more to due with the fact they could accomplish a non-rectangle screen with the OLED Display, Other Android phone with OLED Displays are using notches as well. Just because you can use that extra real estate for more information.
That said, FaceID is
Re:Better anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Amazingly, they are copying the notch [theverge.com] , just not the faceID.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly, they are copying the notch , just not the faceID.
So, there're merely a good artist, not a great one then.
Re: (Score:1)
Not even Apple thinks it's a feature, knee-jerk. Only those other phone makers think that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds bad! (Score:1)
Bad choice.
I liked the fingerprint sensor on the back why my finger was likely to be. Even samsung eventually saw this was the way to go.
On the front as well souinds fine, but I see them removing the usable one.
And fuck face id, fuck it, waste of fucking time. May as well just remove all access controls.
Re: Sounds bad! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on the fingerprint thing. Android OEMs did one thing better than Apple, putting the fingerprint sensor in the correct spot (at the back), now they want to copy Apple anyway by putting the fingerprint sensor at the front. I disagree when it comes to Face ID. It's nice to look at the screen and have the phone unlock itself, but the iPhone X is expensive and is an iPhone (no Kodi, emulators and sideloading).
Since when does the iPhone have "no Kodi"?
While there is no Kodi App on the Apple iOS App Store, you CAN Sideload the Kodi .apt file using Cydia Impactor. This does not require Jailbreaking, and is completely legit and ok with Apple (since iOS 8.0).
Re: Sounds bad! (Score:2)
Re: That's a terrible reason to do a good thing (Score:1)
Your webcam will be fooled by a photo. These devices and the functionality they drive (authorize payments, unlock personal information, track location) is too important to use your cheesy webcam .
Re: (Score:2)
that functionality is too important to put on an easily stolen, easily hacked device like a phone.
Only stupid people allow such devices have access to their bank or credit card accounts.
That's probably 90+% of the human population, but that fact doesn't make it any less true. Stupid is still stupid even if almost everyone else is equally stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Your webcam will be fooled by a photo.
I don't remember showing you the code. If you seen it then you'd remember that, in fact, it won't :) I've used a derivative of that software as part of a commercial product that I sell, it's a membership facility access system. It has some features to help prevent static images being used, among other things. I'm not saying it's the same approach used by Apple for their security features but it's much more in depth than simple pattern recognition. The reason I got it running on the RasPi is that I had pla
Re: (Score:2)
I got facial recognition working with a VGA webcam hooked up to a Raspberry Pi v1.0.
Your facial recognition and Apple's FaceID are not the same thing. Your webcam is not doing three-dimensional mapping of the subject.
Re: (Score:1)
Not that you seem to need to be told given that you already know enough to tell me what it does and does not do but the release ve
What? (Score:2, Interesting)
OnePlus 5T [cnet.com]
Huawei Mate 10 [xda-developers.com]
Xiaomi Mi A1 [androidfilebox.com] - costs around $200. Works with most cellular operators of the world.
Those are optical & can be fooled with a pictu (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Some Android models use iris recognition, which makes it a lot more accurate and harder to fool.
In any case, the main submission is just flamebait.
Face ID / Iris scanning may be great for some security form factors, but they're not the most optimal for phones.
That's the real story, here.
Re: (Score:1)
Some Android models FAKE THE use iris recognition
There I fix it. Not one single Android device has ever done real iris recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had face unlock on my Note 2- in 2012. It is not well explained, but apparently faceid is supposed to work much better and faster (but doesnt?). It uses different technology I guess? So yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The notch has nothing to do with FaceID and everything to do with Apple wanting the screen to go edge to edge from top to bottom. The front-facing webcam was already there in previous generations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look at a photo of iPhone 8. Where the notch would be, there is no screen at all. The notch is not because of Face ID. It's because Apple wanted the screen bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
Sauce (Score:5, Insightful)
Best source for your Android news is ofc.... 9to5Mac.
Who the fuck upvotes those submissions?
Re: (Score:2)
Sourced via Digitimes, no less, the noted bastion of journalism.
Oh wait, no, they pretty much report every single rumor from the Asian supply chain, with no regard for how far-fetched they are.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually Apple sites are tougher on Apple then many non-Apple sites.
They like to see what competing systems are doing to see trends in the market, as Apple tends to be late to the game, but show up in style.
This is a huge advantage for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is going to start bringing FaceID into tablets, laptops, etc.
It's just a vastly better way to authenticate a person than a fingerprint, because it's passive. As others have said before, in practice it feels like you are using an unlocked phone, how it used to be... I look down and see I have notifications on my phone, before I can think about it the phone unlocks and I can see the notification text and press to open them if I like.
It's also more secure and reliable than TouchID (which I still use with other devices so I have a daily direct comparison). Your fingers too dry or wet? No TouchID. And as you get older, your fingerprints get a lot harder to read - the government global entry readers can't even read my mom's fingerprints at all, and TouchID does not work for her as reliably as it does for me.
Fingerprint ID systems are also way easier to spoof than FaceiD, especially behind the screen systems that can't measure some aspects of a finger being used that a direct sensor can. FaceID is about an order of magnitude more secure than fingerprints (even if you do hear the occasional story about a similar face unlocking a device, no-one tries as often with fingerprint sensors or they would find that can happen a lot more often).
Re:This is a huge advantage for Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a huge advantage for faces. (Score:1)
Active? As in a hand reaches out of the screen and feels the bumps on your face?
Why? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't want passive authentication. I want active.
Why? FaceID is active when needed (like for conformation of a purchase). But the rest to the time, it works instantly when it knows you are the one looking at the phone.
And I don't want Apple or Google having access to biometric info that I can't change.
Right there with you! Luckily FaceID data is only held on the device (in the Secure Enclave where it remains encrypted) and does not leave it. Apple does not get any biometric data from you.
I'll keep my long passcode, thanks very much
That is more secure than any biometric system, just a lot more annoying. It means you turn off other things like notification text blocking or have larger purchase unlock timeframes because you don't want to have to enter passcodes as often...
And even then, I'm not sure passcodes are realistically more secure [xkcd.com].
I mean, realistically how much are you willing to suffer - either physically or legally - before you unlock your phone by whatever means you have? The realistic reason why you have a passcode is so that someone can't unlock your phone you leave on a table by accident, or lose in a cab. In that case FaceID works every bit as well as a long passcode, and is far more convenient the 99.999999999% of the time you have not left your phone in a cab.
Fingerprint scanners are pretty good but with a 1 in 50k chance that someone else's fingerprint will unlock your phone is it more possible some random person might unlock it.
Re: (Score:3)
What slope? It is a plateau. (Score:4, Interesting)
We are literally slipping down the slope as we read this. Hardly an assurance.
What about years and years of past behavior? There has been no slope; when possible Apple has kept personal data either encrypted or local only.
TouchID fingerprint data was also only ever held on device. You had to re-train for a new phone or tablet, even if you'd backed up the device locally.
Apple doesn't need or crave your data the way Google does. They have no advertisers to feed info to about usage, you just buy your device and that's enough for Apple.
Re: (Score:1)
Any random power tripping cop (so, pretty much every cop) can bypass your phone security simply by pointing it at your face and there isn't anything you can do about it. At least with a password they'd need to get a warrant and even then it's still your call whether or not to comply.
"Apple does not get any biometric data from you." (Score:2)
How do you know? Just because Apple says that doesn't mean they can sneakly do it. Do we believe them?
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's a good reason for Apple to not have it?
As in, law enforcement?
There are two ways to not give law enforcement something. One, is to simply not have it. The other, is to say it is not available to them for some reason.
The former is easy to defend - if you don't keep logs, then really, you cannot produce them when asked to. Granted, you may be forced to keep records after the fact if you have a
It's not random (Score:5, Informative)
I would guess that GP wants to be the one to activate the authentication process, and for it to not happen automatically at any moment "randomly".
It's not at all random. It's when you are looking at the screen.
Even then for some actions (like payments) it still prompts for confirmation, so it's not always completely automatic - just when that makes sense, like unlocking the phone (unlocking does not go to the home screen).
If you are in some app asking for a password the system can auto-fill, it does so - but does not submit it for you. Again, it's automatic in ways that are handy, but not ways that take some action you might not have wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is a huge advantage for Apple (Score:1)
We don't believe you. Another iPhone X user who is trying to justify his $1000 purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly how FaceID works... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, not even close (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft laptops already have FaceID type authentication
Sigh. Face recognition from images is utterly not the same thing as FaceID which uses a 3D mapping of the face from a variety of sensors.
Image Facial Recognition is about as secure as a TSA approved padlock.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the same, not in any way (Score:5, Insightful)
The implementation is different, but the end user result is the same.
Incorrect: If you are in a very dark environment it will not work, or if you are wearing glasses when you were not, or lots of other things where FaceID can clearly see and tell it is you when an image recognition cannot... it's not just being able to prevent anyone with a picture of you from unlocking your device we are talking about.
I know you are 100% sold on the Apple marketing
I'm not *sold on Apple marketing*.
The difference between you and me is I KNOW what is and is not marketing. You are just assuming something real is marketing; I use FaceID a hundred times a day or more, and still use TouchID nearly as much. So, I actually know what the hell I am talking about from a practical standpoint, not from any marketing.
I have also done a fair amount of my own work with image/facial recognition so I know exactly how "secure" it is not, and also know the many, many ways it may fail.
Re: (Score:3)
Image Facial Recognition is about as secure as a TSA approved padlock.
Yes but there are varying degrees. It is actually quite hard to fool the one on Surface laptops due to taking 2 images in colour and in near IR. Producing a photograph or something to fool this kind of sensing is incredibly difficult requiring custom printer dyes and some very careful working adjusting of the image to produce a photo that passed both the visual and near IR detection.
I did see a paper where some researchers did so, but then I've also seen one where they bypassed Face ID through the use of a
Re: (Score:1)
For some definitions of 'better' a passive ID system is true.
For the rest of us, however, a passive ID is expressly what we do not want. When I am authenticating to a piece of technology, I want explicit control to trigger that action. I do NOT want it to happen without me thinking. I do NOT want it to become the assumed condition at all times.
The scenario for the future is passive Face ID devices peppered throughout our environment, tagging us everywhere we go. Not at all interested. Specifically, I a
Re: (Score:2)
I really don’t like passive unlocking - and I can’t really see anyone who cares about security wanting it.
My MacBook Pro asked me if I wanted it to automatically unlock whenever my Apple Watch was in proximity, with the options being “turn it on” or “I’ll set it up later”. I looked, but there didn’t appear to be a “this stupid idea deserves to die in a fire” choice available.
That's why FaceID is better (Score:2)
I really don't like passive unlocking - and I can't really see anyone who cares about security wanting it.
My MacBook Pro asked me if I wanted it to automatically unlock whenever my Apple Watch was in proximity
But that's totally different. In the case of the Apple Watch, you might be near but not looking at the screen. It has no way to measure intent or true presence.
Witch FaceID the key to such a better usability model is not just that it is passive, the key is that it can perceive attention. It KNOWS if
voiceprint better (Score:1)
I want to factor ID. I don't want only fingerprints ID because courts precedent says I can be compelled to give fingerprint. I would like voiceprint ID added to both fingerprint or face ID. I have the right of silence in this country (USA).
Re: (Score:2)
The idea behind two factor authentication is something you have and something you know. Like you have to have a particular card and you have to know a passcode in order to get in the building. Just having a card or just knowing a code won't do it--you need both.
The interesting thing, and IANAL so I may have this wrong, is that the courts can compel you to provide things you have (like finger prints or your face) but you cannot be compelled to provide something you know. So if I have an "unlock code" on m
Google and Apple (Score:1)
Collecting your fingerprints and faces for the CIA
Do not want (Score:2)
Don't want face ID, and don't want on-screen fingerprint ID either! My android has on-edge fingerprint today and works perfect, integrated in to the side mounted power button. I'm already pushing it anyway, can touch without messing the screen and don't have to move my hand again since it is where my finger will naturally rest when holding the phone. No need to be an imitator when you are already best!
Great sensor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It already exists, it is called a Kinect, and it has many third party applications.
The FaceID system is essentially a miniature Kinect coupled with proprietary software for face recognition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not, but for your application, a Kinect may be what you need. iPhones are generally terrible for creative work anyways (it is not the Apple "Pro" line).
If you really want to use a phone, I think you can plug your Kinect on an Android device with a USB OTG connection. I don't think there is any kind of official support but you will probably have better luck than with an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
article is wrong on something (Score:3)
claims android phone makers cannot charge apple's premiums. Then why the pixel XL is more expensive that the iphone 8 plus? How about the Galaxy note 8?
Re:article is wrong on something (Score:4, Insightful)
Then why the pixel XL is more expensive that the iphone 8 plus? How about the Galaxy note 8?
None of the devices you listed including the iPhone 8+ have Face ID.
All are significantly cheaper than the iPhone X which does have Face ID.
The article itself is trollbait and probably wrong for other reasons, but logically at least this part makes perfect sense. Combine that with the fact that there's a huge worldwide shortage on VCSEL arrays I happily believe that Face ID isn't being implemented due to cost reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
the iphone X is on a different category and no device competes directly with it. until samsung releases the note X or something, the S series competes with the iphone #, while the Note series competes with the iphone # plus.
Re: (Score:2)
the iphone X is on a different category and no device competes directly with it.
What a silly comment. Every device competes directly with devices from other categories too. Moving price classes is a form of direct competition. My hatchback also competed against a Ferrari for my wallet. The hatchback won not only due to cost but also practicality.
The iPhone X is a nice phone, but to say no device competes directly with it is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
most likely you can't afford the ferrari, so honestly you can't compare both. unless you had the money and your (flawed) value system made you compare both cars, this isn't a fair comparison
Tired of senseless copying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"It may be nice to copy good ideas but some manufacturers also insist in copying the bad ones. e.g.: Headphone jack removal"
Android phones without a headphone jack predate the iPhone removal.
good (Score:1)
face ID doesn't work properly anyway, and it is too expensive.
why would you want it?
MY Intellectual property (Score:1)
All of my BIO data is MY intellectual property and not subject to ANY entity's use.
By collecting or attempting to use it in any form, those that collect it are agreeing to pay me $10,000,000 (Ten Million U.S. Dollars) per incident.