nospam wrote:

>> If they had enabled
>> FaceID with masks a year earlier then she might have chosen the 12 Mini.
>
> you *really* don't understand anything about face id.

*Which slum do you live in nospam that you think you need this gimmick?*

1. FaceID is a gimmick.
2. Apple makes you "think" it's soooooooooo very "personal"
3. But it's just a marketing gimmick.

It makes people like you who live in the Bronx Projects "feel" better.
The fact the gimmick didn't work well with masks doesn't even matter.

Where do you live anyway that you think you _need_ faceid gimmicks nospam?
The Harlem slums?
The Oakland slums?

Which slum do you live in nospam that you think you need this gimmick?

On 2022-08-24 20:20, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>>   If they had enabled FaceID with masks a year earlier then she might
>>> have chosen the 12 Mini.
>>
>> you *really* don't understand anything about face id.
>
> *Which slum do you live in nospam that you think you need this gimmick?*
>
> 1. FaceID is a gimmick.

Assertion.

> 2. Apple makes you "think" it's soooooooooo very "personal"

It is very personal.

> 3. But it's just a marketing gimmick.

Assertion.

>
> It makes people like you who live in the Bronx Projects "feel" better.
> The fact the gimmick didn't work well with masks doesn't even matter.

So because a particular technology doesn't work in all circumstances,
it's not any good?

>
> Where do you live anyway that you think you _need_ faceid gimmicks nospam?
> The Harlem slums?
> The Oakland slums?
>
> Which slum do you live in nospam that you think you need this gimmick?

Interesting bigotry there...

On 8/26/2022 9:47 AM, Alan wrote:

<snip>

> So because a particular technology doesn't work in all circumstances,
> it's not any good?
Well if not for the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic that caused face masks
to be necessary, the whole Face-ID issue would have never gained so much
traction. It's not the an issue of "all circumstances" it's an issue of
such a necessary circumstance where it's not any good. TouchID was much
better but because of the need to get rid of the bezels, and the
reluctance to put the sensor on the side or on the back as many other
phones did, they couldn't continue with TouchID unless they did
under-screen TouchID.

Personally I really like the fingerprint sensor on my Note 9. I unlock
the phone as I remove it from the case on my belt, and can pay with
Google Pay without entering a PIN. On my iPhone Xr, if I'm wearing a
mask in a store (which is still the default in my area), Apple Pay is a
hassle.

In article <teau70$14ko$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Well if not for the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic that caused face masks
> to be necessary, the whole Face-ID issue would have never gained so much
> traction. It's not the an issue of "all circumstances" it's an issue of
> such a necessary circumstance where it's not any good.

covid was unforeseen and temporary, but despite that, apple updated
face id three times to work with masks.

> TouchID was much
> better

false. face id is faster, more secure and easier to use.

> but because of the need to get rid of the bezels, and the
> reluctance to put the sensor on the side or on the back as many other
> phones did,

for a phone, those are far worse locations. nearly all cases will block
its use (unless there's a hole cutout, which negates the protection
offered by a case). vehicle mounts will also prevent unlocking the
phone when mounted in the vehicle.

> they couldn't continue with TouchID unless they did
> under-screen TouchID.

which doesn't work very well, on a good day. there are also issues with
screen protectors, and in samsung's case, can spoof it.

<https://mashable.com/article/in-display-fingerprint-readers-suck>
I've tried just about all of the in-display sensors -- Galaxy S10,
Huawei Mate 20 Pro, OnePlus 6T, and even the one on the new
Nokia 9 PureView -- and none of them live up to the hype.
....
Another problem with in-display fingerprint readers: many screen
protectors don't play nice with them. Because some sensors, like the
one in the OnePlus 6T, require light to illuminate your fingerprints
before capturing an image of them, screen protectors can actually
get in the way.

Same goes for ultrasonic fingerprint readers like the one in the
Galaxy S10 and S10+. Only instead of blocking light, many third-party
screen protectors can block the ultrasound waves emitted from the
grooves of your finger when it touches the sensor. And the only one
that seems to work takes like 30 minutes. No thank you.

<https://www.androidcentral.com/in-screen-fingerprint-sensors-suck>
Being slower than regular fingerprint sensors is the best case
scenario. The worst is having these in-screen sensors regularly
misread your fingerprint, requiring you to give multiple attempts
before your phone finally unlocks.

<https://www.techradar.com/news/google-pixel-6s-fingerprint-scanner-is-p
erfectly-placed-so-its-a-shame-it-sucks>
While the placement of the fingerprint scanner on the Google Pixel 6
is perfect, the performance isn't so good. 

The scanner on the Pixel 6 feels a tad slow. I'm talking a fraction
of a second or so, but there's a noticeable delay versus some of
the many phones I've used over the years. 
....
It's not just when I'm unlocking the handset either. I've had to scan
my finger multiple times before being allowed into my other apps
which I secure with the biometric tech. 

You really need to get your finger placement spot on, as otherwise
the Pixel 6 struggles to verify your digit

> Personally I really like the fingerprint sensor on my Note 9. I unlock
> the phone as I remove it from the case on my belt, and can pay with
> Google Pay without entering a PIN.

same as with an iphone, both touch id and face id.

you claim to have an apple watch, so there's no need to even remove a
phone from wherever it may be. just use the watch to pay.

> On my iPhone Xr, if I'm wearing a
> mask in a store (which is still the default in my area), Apple Pay is a
> hassle.

you claim to have an apple watch, which would eliminate the hassle of
using an iphone and apple pay. or as noted above, just use the watch
itself.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 03:22:55 +1000, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <teau70$14ko$1@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well if not for the once-in-a-lifetime pandemic that caused face masks
>> to be necessary, the whole Face-ID issue would have never gained so much
>> traction. It's not the an issue of "all circumstances" it's an issue of
>> such a necessary circumstance where it's not any good.
>
> covid was unforeseen and temporary, but despite that, apple updated
> face id three times to work with masks.
>
>> TouchID was much
>> better
>
> false. face id is faster, more secure and easier to use.
>
>> but because of the need to get rid of the bezels, and the
>> reluctance to put the sensor on the side or on the back as many other
>> phones did,
>
> for a phone, those are far worse locations. nearly all cases will block
> its use (unless there's a hole cutout, which negates the protection
> offered by a case). vehicle mounts will also prevent unlocking the
> phone when mounted in the vehicle.
>
>> they couldn't continue with TouchID unless they did
>> under-screen TouchID.
>
> which doesn't work very well, on a good day. there are also issues with
> screen protectors, and in samsung's case, can spoof it.
>
> <https://mashable.com/article/in-display-fingerprint-readers-suck>
> I've tried just about all of the in-display sensors -- Galaxy S10,
> Huawei Mate 20 Pro, OnePlus 6T, and even the one on the new
> Nokia 9 PureView -- and none of them live up to the hype.
> ...
> Another problem with in-display fingerprint readers: many screen
> protectors don't play nice with them. Because some sensors, like the
> one in the OnePlus 6T, require light to illuminate your fingerprints
> before capturing an image of them, screen protectors can actually
> get in the way.
>
> Same goes for ultrasonic fingerprint readers like the one in the
> Galaxy S10 and S10+. Only instead of blocking light, many third-party
> screen protectors can block the ultrasound waves emitted from the
> grooves of your finger when it touches the sensor. And the only one
> that seems to work takes like 30 minutes. No thank you.
>
> <https://www.androidcentral.com/in-screen-fingerprint-sensors-suck>
> Being slower than regular fingerprint sensors is the best case
> scenario. The worst is having these in-screen sensors regularly
> misread your fingerprint, requiring you to give multiple attempts
> before your phone finally unlocks.
>
> <https://www.techradar.com/news/google-pixel-6s-fingerprint-scanner-is-p
> erfectly-placed-so-its-a-shame-it-sucks>
> While the placement of the fingerprint scanner on the Google Pixel 6
> is perfect, the performance isn't so good.
> The scanner on the Pixel 6 feels a tad slow. I'm talking a fraction
> of a second or so, but there's a noticeable delay versus some of
> the many phones I've used over the years....
> It's not just when I'm unlocking the handset either. I've had to scan
> my finger multiple times before being allowed into my other apps
> which I secure with the biometric tech.
> You really need to get your finger placement spot on, as otherwise
> the Pixel 6 struggles to verify your digit

Mate of mine doesn't see that with his new Pixel 6 Pro,
which surprisingly doesnt even have facial recognition.

>> Personally I really like the fingerprint sensor on my Note 9. I unlock
>> the phone as I remove it from the case on my belt, and can pay with
>> Google Pay without entering a PIN.
>
> same as with an iphone, both touch id and face id.
>
> you claim to have an apple watch, so there's no need to even remove a
> phone from wherever it may be. just use the watch to pay.
>
>> On my iPhone Xr, if I'm wearing a
>> mask in a store (which is still the default in my area), Apple Pay is a
>> hassle.
>
> you claim to have an apple watch, which would eliminate the hassle of
> using an iphone and apple pay. or as noted above, just use the watch
> itself.