Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

iPhone X

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: iPhone X

#711

Post by einrealist »

anthonybsd wrote: post #687
einrealist wrote: post #304

I cannot get around the missing headphone jack. My headphones cost more than this new iPhone :(

I'm sorry, but if you have headphones of such grade why are you sticking them into phones in the first place? As opposed to something like Astell and Kern offerings?

External DACs are inconvenient when I just walk around. Also the iPhone DACs are good enough when I am mobile. There is almost always noise around me anyway, even if the IEMs are good at isolation.

The reason to buy these expensive headphones is not only sound quality, but build quality. Before I bought better IEMs, normal / cheap in-ear headphones lasted like 3 to 6 months.

Re: iPhone X

#712

Post by johnward »

As an Android user I'm still kind of interested in this phone. One thing that bothers me on most phones is the camera sticking out the back. It ends up being the point of contact to every surface you sit it on and sometimes the camera glass breaks.

Re: iPhone X

#713

Post by chorsestudios »

sneak wrote: post #591
chorsestudios wrote: post #571

I am surprised they didn't change the included lighting USB cable to USB C. Out of the box still incompatible with the MacBook Pro, and forced to use dongles/adapters.

Why do you ever need to plug your iPhone into your mac?

To program iPhone apps. AFAIK, Until the recent Xcode beta you couldn't push code wirelessly to your iPhone, and even now the feature in the Xcode beta is pretty slow. Also I enjoy charging my iPhone with my macs. For a company that takes pride in seamless connectivity within their ecosystem I find it surprising that you cannot buy an iPhone + MacBook Pro and connect them without adapters.

Re: iPhone X

#714

Post by mrmondo »

I very much appreciate the OLED high contrast, wide colour display.

I have yet not watched the release and read the technical details but I am more than slightly concerned about “Your face becomes your password”, while it’s obviously optional so security conscious people by no means have to use it, I’m not confident that it’s a sensible idea to promote the widespread use of what is known not to be a secure, private piece of information that you can change or choose not to use.

However, in my opinion Apple is by far one of, it not the most security conscious large corporate manufacturer of hardware and software and generally tries to know as little about your personal data and promote encryption (FileVault, forced phone encryption etc) as much as possible while maintaining practical use for general public. So I am very interested to see what makes this so different from Samsung/Google’s failed and easily bypassed face unlocking they were very vocal about but ultimately was an embarrassing security and PR failure.

Re: iPhone X

#715

Post by __david__ »

dmd wrote: post #676
capkutay wrote: post #4

I have a suspicion that removing the home button and relying on swipe-interactions might be a step back in usability for the non-tech savvy people who have made up a large share of iPhone users.

Don't most people (other than in the USA) already use an on-screen home button instead of the physical one?

I hadn't heard that. Why would they?

Re: iPhone X

#716

Post by ballenf »

audunw wrote: post #642
leeoniya wrote: post #592

> Your face is now your password no, it isnt. and neither are your fingerprints. none of this publicly available data is a password. a password is something i can change if it gets compromised. a password is secure from others. biometric data is a username/id . why do companies insist on getting this shit backwards?

> biometric data is a username/id. > why do companies insist on getting this shit backwards? They don't have it backwards, but they're also simplifying when they say it's your password. In the presentation they actually say specifically that there's a chance that someone else can unlock your phone (1 in 50'000 for fingerprint, and supposedly 1 in 1'000'000 for Face ID, given that you don't have a twin). Reality is th…

Watching someone key in a PIN and recording it, then swiping the phone is easier than building a 3D printed color model of someone's face. Not to mention that having the biometric unlock sitting on top of a PIN means that there are many fewer chances for the PIN to be observed.

Whether biometric access is a password or username is trying to force the wrong paradigm. Going back to first concepts, we had keys and we tried to make them hard to copy but not too inconvenient. The face is the key. No, there's no practical way to re-key this lock, but it's still a lock and key. But the door also has a deadbolt (PIN code) which has to be disengaged for the "face key" to function.

The username concept applies when you have multiple people using the same resource (and don't want to know or reveal whether any 2 people use the same password) -- which again doesn't apply to a single-user device.

Finally, all this combined with the quick "hard lock" of the device (5 taps of power button) gives me the impression of a very thorough approach to security.

Re: iPhone X

#717

Post by mmahemoff »

AaronFriel wrote: post #166

I wonder if the tech team involved with Face ID factored the birthday paradox into their security factor. They touted a "1 in 1,000,000" chance that someone else's face unlocks one's iPhone X. Well, with the birthday paradox, let's say there were, say, exactly 1179 people in the Steve Jobs Auditorium and they all had iPhone Xs. That's 694,431 unique pairs of people, and there would be roughly a 50% chance of two of t…

It's interesting you're modelling the pairs as being unordered.

If person A's face unlocks person B's phone, does the reverse hold? I'd guess it's moderately likely, but not certain (e.g. the chance in the other direction becomes 1 in 1000 instead of the magical 1 in a million).

Re: iPhone X

#718

Post by amelius »

> Our vision has always been to create an iPhone that is entirely screen. (...) Say hello to the future.

Haven't we seen such phones from other companies already a thousand times over?

Re: iPhone X

#719

Post by edflsafoiewq »

acconrad wrote: post #358

My god that is the longest product advertising page I have ever seen, and that includes those long form ads selling those gimmicky products.

Its detection of how far I'd scrolled down was also off; the images kept "popping in" at higher and higher levels on the screen until by half-way down the page they were presumably entirely off-screen because I couldn't see anything else at all. Extremely unpleasant reading experience.

Re: iPhone X

#720

Post by VeejayRampay »

I don't understand why the website keeps repeating "it's all screen" even though the phone is not all screen. I own a entry-level Motorola G5S, never owned a Samsung before so not fanboying here, but their phones strike me more as "all screen" than this iPhone X. Am I missing something?
Post reply on HN