Perhaps the worst one is that you cannot easily unlock your phone while it lays on a conference room table to see the contents of a message. You need to picking it up and point it at your face. Likewise when using the phone while it is in a stand/holder.
The one and only benefit I found is during the winter, it is easier to unlock the phone with gloves on.
Both of them are terrible for security.
Please stop propagating this falsehood, or at least accept that it comes with caveats. Biometric ID on Apple devices is likely to be a significant improvement for many users.
If you're trying to secure your data from the NSA, carry a flip phone and turn it off and throw it in the freezer before you have any sensitive in-person conversations. Also have all of your sensitive in-person conversations right next to a loud white noise generator (i.e. on the seashore). And memorize all of your confidential information. And always carry a highly reliable suicide method in case you get captured and interrogated.
I'm not being funny here, these are literally the precautions that people take against state-level espionage.
I think the OP is signaling they were already aware of the threat model point before your comment.
[1]: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/hackers-trick-apple-iphone-x...
With therapy.
Here's a contemporary article doubting it: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/11/hacke...
Given how sensitive FaceID is I don't think this is a realistic bypass approach. Not that it was even confirmed anyway.
However, I recognize this is an edge case.
But in situations where it fails I find that it fails harder and repeatedly, which makes you want to choose a simple password (perhaps that's why Apple tucks away the alphanumeric option). When a phone is laying flat on a desk, you can lean your face over the phone. When your head is on a pillow, you can lift your head off the pillow. When the lighting conditions aren't good, you can just turn on the lights and position the phone at that "magic distance" until it unlocks. But if you don't it'll just fail again and again.
As a minor point, I'm surprised that you prefer to double press while looking at your phone, versus having a fingerprint reader on the back so you can unlock your phone in one gesture of hand toward the payment system.
Huh? Face ID uses infrared. It doesn't need external light.
You're right about the pillow thing, but the way I see it, if you can't lift your head off a pillow you probably shouldn't be using your phone!
The double-press for Apple Pay? In many situations you don't actually have to do this. Just place the phone up against the store's reader, then look directly at the phone and Apple Pay will activate without further interaction.
On London Underground and Buses, though, that's awkward and might hold up the queue, so I do double-tap to activate Apple Pay in advance before getting to the reader. But that's certainly no more difficult than with Touch ID, when you had to double-tap the home button.
(Also, you don't have to double-press and look simultaneously. The double-press will activate Apple Pay, then a quick glance at the phone will unlock it for payment. You then have a minute or so to actually touch it on the card reader).
Apple did not need to introduce FaceID... seems to me a non-inventing landlord would have just ridden TouchID as long as possible.
that's easy to do if you're driving a car and you get pulled over, but what if a cop stops you on the street? reaching into your pocket is asking to get shot.
The one that does is to rapidly press the power button 5 times.
considering a random scribble on a receipt or check is enough to authorize/authenticate a transaction, that bar is pretty low.
Somewhat like Windows Hello, that also existed, based on technology from the Xbox Kinect?
> Two months ago, Apple announced an ECG sensor for your wrist.
Okay, so this is cool. But, putting on my paramedic hat for a moment, there is _SO_ much disinformation about what this does and what it is capable of detecting, what the difference is between FDA _clearance_ and _approval_, etc.
It can detect A-fib. This is a common, but usually not life threatening medical condition. It's good to have it diagnosed, but even undiagnosed, many people live happy lives blisfully unaware of it. Another way you can potentially recognize A-fib? It's not quite as fancy as the Apple Watch, though: put your fingers on your radial pulse by your wrist. Feel yourself skipping every fourth beat? That _could_ be a problem (though there are other diagnoses).
The Apple Watch does not and _cannot_ (despite ill-informed articles by Cnet and others) take the place of a "12 lead" ECG (random detail, in the medical field, ECG usually refers to an echocardiogram, an ultrasound imaging, and EKG, for electrocardiogram, is most commonly used for what the Apple Watch and other devices are doing).
From Cnet[1]: "Traditional EKG machines have 12 leads with electrodes that are attached all over your body to measure the electrical signals. Apple compares what the Apple Watch Series 4 does to a single-lead EKG, which research shows is just as effective at measuring the heart's electrical signals as a 12-lead machine."
This is flat out and factually wrong. The linked research shows nothing of the sort, and tries to walk someone through using a single lead system multiple times (up to 10), to get the full results of a 12 lead (if you've ever wondered why a 12 lead EKG only requires 10 physical leads, think of them more as 'axes', measured multiple ways, i.e. from lead 1 to lead 4, lead 1 to 5, etc), and then being able to aggregate them manually. For one, this requires moving the end points of the leads multiple times, something you could not do with the Apple Watch (or, to be clear and fair, any other watch), unless you're planning on holding it in many different spots in sequence (which then has issues of being more a time lapse, than a snapshot).
What does that mean? It can't diagnose impending heart attacks, nor heart disease, valve problems, circulatory disorders, and it likely never will, especially with current hardware.
This is also why it's obtained FDA clearance, not approval. To use a metaphor, it's more like a fitness device on steroids, so to speak, with some minor overlap into general health. But not that much more.
[1]: https://www.cnet.com/how-to/apple-watch-ekg-what-is-ekg/
The criticism always comes back to how impactful the original iPhone and iPod were. Apple has failed to live up to that standard ever since, but to be honest it's an impossible standard to be held to.