As iOS7 was released separately (and discussed here), I guess there's not much else to add? Or is there? I reckon Apple should've followed the Nexus line and introduced iOS7 on the new devies only for a little while at least (although I'm not sure the new Fisher Price look to iOS is universally popular, so that may have been risky).
Aside from a better camera, 64-bit A7 processor (hardware geeks only territory) and seemingly flawed Touch ID fingerprint sensor, what else is there to discuss when comparing to the previous one? My bet would be you may get some camera-related discussions going but that's about it.
I didn't realise the Touch ID was flawed - pretty much every review I've read suggests it works pretty much flawlessly.
From my experience, it works pretty much flawlessly.
Or is the flaw the one involving someone getting a perfect fingerprint from someone, taking a 2400 DPI photo of the fingerprint, cleaning the image up, inverting and laser printing it with 1200 DPI onto a transparent sheet, and smearing pink latex milk or white wood glue into the pattern created by the toner onto the transparent sheet?
I didn't realise the Touch ID was flawed - pretty much every review I've read suggests it works pretty much flawlessly.
From my experience, it works pretty much flawlessly.
Or is the flaw the one involving someone getting a perfect fingerprint from someone, taking a 2400 DPI photo of the fingerprint, cleaning the image up, inverting and laser printing it with 1200 DPI onto a transparent sheet, and smearing pink latex milk or white wood glue into the pattern created by the toner onto the transparent sheet?
If it is, I'll take my chances.
hehehe nice one
yep that's the one that is considered 'the flaw' :rolleyes:
I didn't realise the Touch ID was flawed - pretty much every review I've read suggests it works pretty much flawlessly.
From my experience, it works pretty much flawlessly.
Or is the flaw the one involving someone getting a perfect fingerprint from someone, taking a 2400 DPI photo of the fingerprint, cleaning the image up, inverting and laser printing it with 1200 DPI onto a transparent sheet, and smearing pink latex milk or white wood glue into the pattern created by the toner onto the transparent sheet?
If it is, I'll take my chances.
It is flawed by definition. It is on an Apple device and is therefore inferior.
I didn't realise the Touch ID was flawed - pretty much every review I've read suggests it works pretty much flawlessly.
From my experience, it works pretty much flawlessly.
Or is the flaw the one involving someone getting a perfect fingerprint from someone, taking a 2400 DPI photo of the fingerprint, cleaning the image up, inverting and laser printing it with 1200 DPI onto a transparent sheet, and smearing pink latex milk or white wood glue into the pattern created by the toner onto the transparent sheet?
If it is, I'll take my chances.
It's a security feature. However convoluted you think the hack is (and once set up I suspect it isn't), the fact it's circumventable makes it a bit redundant and more of a gimmick (like Android's face recognition attempt).
I certainly wouldn't see this feature as a key selling point unless it was completely flawless, which was my point really.
Given it's a £550/£710 device, I'm sure the marketability of stolen devices will soon see enterprising types taking the effort to setup this workaround.
It's a security feature. However convoluted you think the hack is (and once set up I suspect it isn't), the fact it's circumventable makes it a bit redundant and more of a gimmick (like Android's face recognition attempt).
I certainly wouldn't see this feature as a key selling point unless it was completely flawless, which was my point really.
Given it's a £550/£710 device, I'm sure the marketability of stolen devices will soon see enterprising types taking the effort to setup this workaround.
I've never bother locking my phones, too much hassle. This just removed the hassle factor and prevents my family or work colleagues from accessing my phone. It's a cool feature.
Will it prevent theft ? no but the more hassle it is for the thief then this can only be a good thing. Car theft is down massively from the 90's because of improved technology.
It's a security feature. However convoluted you think the hack is (and once set up I suspect it isn't), the fact it's circumventable makes it a bit redundant and more of a gimmick (like Android's face recognition attempt).
I certainly wouldn't see this feature as a key selling point unless it was completely flawless, which was my point really.
Given it's a £550/£710 device, I'm sure the marketability of stolen devices will soon see enterprising types taking the effort to setup this workaround.
Not much security is flawless. It more often a deterrent.
Whilst I am sure there will be some who will set up this workaround they will be few and far between the average phone thief won't.
It's a security feature. However convoluted you think the hack is (and once set up I suspect it isn't), the fact it's circumventable makes it a bit redundant and more of a gimmick (like Android's face recognition attempt).
I certainly wouldn't see this feature as a key selling point unless it was completely flawless, which was my point really.
Given it's a £550/£710 device, I'm sure the marketability of stolen devices will soon see enterprising types taking the effort to setup this workaround.
I don't think its designed to guard Fort Knox.
But as a way of locking your phone sufficiently securely to prevent casual access to its data, and importantly being able to unlock with as little effort as possible, it works pretty much perfectly.
And it would probably be easier and quicker for me to wipe the phone's data than a thief to make a workable copy of my fingerprint.
I completely disagree that its a gimmick. Gimmicks tend to be the sort of things you use once, think is quite cool, but then never actually bother to use again. The Touch ID on the other hand is something that, once set up, gets used all the time.
You do realise that any security system has flaws? Somebody could far more easily look over your shoulder as you're typing in your passcode. You do also realise that IOS7 does not allow phones to be wiped/reused without the users' Apple ID and pass?
The fact is this 'flaw' with Touch ID requires the person to have access to a perfect copy of the fingerprint used to unlocked your phone (you can only have four), have access to the technology to photograph, clean up, and reproduce the print, and have access to your phone; and the moment you notice your phone is missing you can remotely track/block it within seconds.
I've never heard such a ridiculous argument before in my life.
But your arguments is also flawed, as the tech required to reproduce the hack is commonly available, therefore its a reasonable concern.
Fingerprint technology has never been applied as serious security due to the very fact we leave "perfect" prints all over the place. It does not take a genius (no pun intended) to gain access in this manner
But your arguments is also flawed, as the tech required to reproduce the hack is commonly available, therefore its a reasonable concern.
Fingerprint technology has never been applied as serious security due to the very fact we leave "perfect" prints all over the place. It does not take a genius (no pun intended) to gain access in this manner
What tech is commonly available to reproduce someones fingerprint?
Fingerprints can be reproduced with a number of substances e.g. plasticine, latex, tape, it depends on the quality you require.
It's been proven the quality required to copy someones fingerprint on the iPhone 5s is very hard to obtain and only specialists would know how to do it correctly as it's very technical and time consuming.
Just because you've seen some other methods used on CSI or Marvels Agents of Shield, doesn't mean it's true or actually works.
It's been proven the quality required to copy someones fingerprint on the iPhone 5s is very hard to obtain and only specialists would know how to do it correctly as it's very technical and time consuming.
Just because you've seen some other methods used on CSI or Marvels Agents of Shield, doesn't mean it's true or actually works.
Lol - just because you accumulate knowledge in that way doesnt mean I do :rolleyes: You asked I answered.
Lol - just because you accumulate knowledge in that way doesnt mean I do :rolleyes: You asked I answered.
Where did you accumulate yours regarding plasticine, latex and tape being able to reproduce someones fingerprint which is good enough to access an iPhone 5s?
You do realise that any security system has flaws? Somebody could far more easily look over your shoulder as you're typing in your passcode. You do also realise that IOS7 does not allow phones to be wiped/reused without the users' Apple ID and pass?
The fact is this 'flaw' with Touch ID requires the person to have access to a perfect copy of the fingerprint used to unlocked your phone (you can only have four), have access to the technology to photograph, clean up, and reproduce the print, and have access to your phone; and the moment you notice your phone is missing you can remotely track/block it within seconds.
I've never heard such a ridiculous argument before in my life.
Comments
Yep. My 5s was two degrees out on a flat surface, compared with my iPhone 5. Now it's fine.
Except you don't like iOS 7
I didn't realise the Touch ID was flawed - pretty much every review I've read suggests it works pretty much flawlessly.
From my experience, it works pretty much flawlessly.
Or is the flaw the one involving someone getting a perfect fingerprint from someone, taking a 2400 DPI photo of the fingerprint, cleaning the image up, inverting and laser printing it with 1200 DPI onto a transparent sheet, and smearing pink latex milk or white wood glue into the pattern created by the toner onto the transparent sheet?
If it is, I'll take my chances.
hehehe nice one
yep that's the one that is considered 'the flaw' :rolleyes:
It is flawed by definition. It is on an Apple device and is therefore inferior.
It's a security feature. However convoluted you think the hack is (and once set up I suspect it isn't), the fact it's circumventable makes it a bit redundant and more of a gimmick (like Android's face recognition attempt).
I certainly wouldn't see this feature as a key selling point unless it was completely flawless, which was my point really.
Given it's a £550/£710 device, I'm sure the marketability of stolen devices will soon see enterprising types taking the effort to setup this workaround.
I've never bother locking my phones, too much hassle. This just removed the hassle factor and prevents my family or work colleagues from accessing my phone. It's a cool feature.
Will it prevent theft ? no but the more hassle it is for the thief then this can only be a good thing. Car theft is down massively from the 90's because of improved technology.
Not much security is flawless. It more often a deterrent.
Whilst I am sure there will be some who will set up this workaround they will be few and far between the average phone thief won't.
He's in troll mode just now.
He does this every so often. Berates apple then screams from the rooftop about how superb they are!!
Its very amusing
I don't think its designed to guard Fort Knox.
But as a way of locking your phone sufficiently securely to prevent casual access to its data, and importantly being able to unlock with as little effort as possible, it works pretty much perfectly.
And it would probably be easier and quicker for me to wipe the phone's data than a thief to make a workable copy of my fingerprint.
I completely disagree that its a gimmick. Gimmicks tend to be the sort of things you use once, think is quite cool, but then never actually bother to use again. The Touch ID on the other hand is something that, once set up, gets used all the time.
He's got a Doro handset I'd wager...
Yes. You can have up to 8 (I think) fingerprints.
But your arguments is also flawed, as the tech required to reproduce the hack is commonly available, therefore its a reasonable concern.
Fingerprint technology has never been applied as serious security due to the very fact we leave "perfect" prints all over the place. It does not take a genius (no pun intended) to gain access in this manner
What tech is commonly available to reproduce someones fingerprint?
We dont require hypotheticals the exploit has been verified.
Fingerprints can be reproduced with a number of substances e.g. plasticine, latex, tape, it depends on the quality you require.
It's been proven the quality required to copy someones fingerprint on the iPhone 5s is very hard to obtain and only specialists would know how to do it correctly as it's very technical and time consuming.
Just because you've seen some other methods used on CSI or Marvels Agents of Shield, doesn't mean it's true or actually works.
Lol - just because you accumulate knowledge in that way doesnt mean I do :rolleyes: You asked I answered.
Where did you accumulate yours regarding plasticine, latex and tape being able to reproduce someones fingerprint which is good enough to access an iPhone 5s?
stick around, they'll be lots more on the way.
The only hypothetical was you having my phone. I didn't want to suggest you would steal it after all.
But now that you hypothetically have my phone, talk me through how you would actually go about gaining access to it.
What with it being so straightforward and all....