Looknsee Photography wrote:
Senator concerned about Apple's fingerprint tech.

Possibly related to this thread:  Bounty Offered To Anyone Who Hacks iPhone Thumb ID.

Al Franken...smh...

Christopher Hartman wrote:

Al Franken...smh...

Of course hackers could also follow you to a bar, steal your beer mug when you're done with it and get your fingerprint from that just as easily.

But... no one ever claimed that Al Franken had more than one brain cell.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

Of course hackers could also follow you to a bar, steal your beer mug when you're done with it and get your fingerprint from that just as easily.

But... no one ever claimed that Al Franken had more than one brain cell.

In 2007 I bought a laptop with a finger print scanner.  And that system ran Windows.  Why didn't they make a stink about it then?

Christopher Hartman wrote:
In 2007 I bought a laptop with a finger print scanner.  And that system ran Windows.  Why didn't they make a stink about it then?

I bought a PocketPC with a fingerprint scanner back around 2003 or so.

Making things even worse, I had a beer in a bar in 2001, and left my fingerprints all over the beer mug.

What Fun Productions wrote:


http://appglimpse.com/blog/touchmarks-i … latencies/

Andialu wrote:

It's not very smart, is it?

What Fun Productions wrote:

It's not very smart, is it?

But hey, whatever floats your iBoat.

What Fun Productions wrote:


http://appglimpse.com/blog/touchmarks-i … latencies/

And this is important, why?

Andialu wrote:

Cute.. but you're barking up the wrong tree. That chart isn't for loading times.

It's the latencies for the touch screen.  50ms is a substantial difference.

Here's a video (from MS Research) showing the difference between 100ms and 50ms (and even lower) latencies for a touch screen.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4 

It's a *very* important metric for the "feel" of responsiveness of a touch screen device.  It's probably one of the big reasons that people feel iOS is "smoother" or "snappier" than Android.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

And this is important, why?

See my link above.  It's *extremely* important.

You should watch the video and also read the article WFP linked to.

Andialu wrote:

You can supply all the data you want. I'm speaking as a consumer that currently owns both products. I DON'T CARE. I can not see an appreciable difference between the two in regards to load times.

You didn't read what I wrote.. did you?

This has *nothing* (zero, zilch, nada, not a little bit, ningun) to do with load times.

This is (to repeat myself) all about how fast the touch screen responds to touch events.

(Did I mention it has nothing to do with load times?)

Wye wrote:

You didn't read what I wrote.. did you?

This has *nothing* (zero, zilch, nada, not a little bit, ningun) to do with load times.

This is (to repeat myself) all about how fast the touch screen responds to touch events.

(Did I mention it has nothing to do with load times?)

I just don't care. I have both products and they both work great. I feel bad for you guys. You sit here and bicker about such unimportant shit.

Andialu wrote:

I just don't care. I have both products and they both work great. I feel bad for you guys. You sit here and bicker about such unimportant shit.

It may not be important to you (and that's fine) but it's important to me.

I feel sad for you.. intentionally doing something (watching us bicker) which will make you feel bad.  Why would you do that to yourself?  Go sit in the sun or something.  We'll be fine.  You, however, should not do stuff that makes you feel bad.

Wye wrote:
It may not be important to you (and that's fine) but it's important to me.

I feel sad for you.. intentionally doing something (watching us bicker) which will make you feel bad.  Why would you do that to yourself?  Go sit in the sun or something.  We'll be fine.  You, however, should not do stuff that makes you feel bad.

Is it *really* important to you?

Andialu wrote:

Is it *really* important to you?

considering that the main interface I have to the device is the touch screen. Yes. It's important that the latency be as low as possible. It's not the most important thing. But it's on the list to be sure.

Andialu wrote:

Is it *really* important to you?

No reason to get snarky...

Here's something important:

Gold iPhone 5s vs 50 caliber
http://youtu.be/c_gEiU_FDxQ?t=3s

Andialu wrote:

Is it *really* important to you?

I get what he's saying and it comes from my gaming.

Do have a really good only gaming experience with certain games, 50ms or lower really is important.  Particularly with precision weapons.  Other less demanding games you might have a good time with something as high as 300ms.  You can still have a great time at 150ms.  But again, for precision weapons (think of sniper rifles), it's extremely important to have that value as low as possible...so that when you "pull the trigger" you hit your target.  With lag such as 300ms...you can just about forget it because the odds are increasing in that your target is not really where you think they are.  And they'll seemingly be invincible.

You may not think you notice it...but you do if the difference is great enough.  You laugh, but...would you be ok with 1 second of a delay?  it's just 1 second...really not that big a deal, right?

Looknsee Photography wrote:
And this is important, why?

Wye wrote:
See my link above.  It's *extremely* important.

You should watch the video and also read the article WFP linked to.

Yeah, but as a skeptic, it's hard to accept performance data so quickly after the product releases from a group that I've never heard about.

And I'm not sure a ~60 millisecond difference is all that significant.  It's just one measure -- performance is impacted by lots of measures, like processor speed, application optimization, IO speed, display speed, maybe Wifi network speed, and what have you.

So, why is it "extremely" important?

Still seems to me that we are comparing Tweedledee to Tweedledum, and none of these measures are all that significant.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Yeah, but as a skeptic, it's hard to accept performance data so quickly after the product releases from a group that I've never heard about.

The data is about a phone that has been out for over a year.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

Yeah, but as a skeptic, it's hard to accept performance data so quickly after the product releases from a group that I've never heard about.

And I'm not sure a ~60 millisecond difference is all that significant.  It's just one measure -- performance is impacted by lots of measures, like processor speed, application optimization, IO speed, display speed, maybe Wifi network speed, and what have you.

So, why is it "extremely" important?

Still seems to me that we are comparing Tweedledee to Tweedledum, and none of these measures are all that significant.

Did you watch the video? The difference a 50ms change response time is dramatic.

Did you read the article about their methodology? They are testing not just bare displays but software directly on the device.  They wrote a tool on each device that would respond as fast as technically possible for the platform to a touch event and then shot high speed video to record the response times.  It's a reasonably real world test.  BTW.. they were testing an iPhone 5.. from last year.  Along with the Samsung GS4 from earlier this year, among others.

Don't you have a degree in user interfaces? If so you should understand that response times and latencies are integral to the user experience.  A lag of 50ms is big.. a lag of 100ms is *massive*.

Wye wrote:

Did you watch the video? The difference a 50ms change response time is dramatic.

Did you read the article about their methodology? They are testing not just bare displays but software directly on the device.  They wrote a tool on each device that would respond as fast as technically possible for the platform to a touch event and then shot high speed video to record the response times.  It's a reasonably real world test.  BTW.. they were testing an iPhone 5.. from last year.  Along with the Samsung GS4 from earlier this year, among others.

Don't you have a degree in user interfaces? If so you should understand that response times and latencies are integral to the user experience.  A lag of 50ms is big.. a lag of 100ms is *massive*.

But, the real test is to see if it can survive being run over by a freight train.

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

But, the real test is to see if it can survive being run over by a freight train.

Actually.. if it did survive being run over by a freight train then it's unlikely that the freight train would survive.  In the interest of fewer massive industrial accidents I'm happy to sacrifice my phone...

photoimager wrote:
Some people's indoctrination sunk to new depths by a spoof:

http://news.sky.com/story/1145439/water … ers-fooled

or maybe other peoples' indoctrination sunk to new levels by people pretending to be fooled by a spoof...

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Yeah, but as a skeptic, it's hard to accept performance data so quickly after the product releases from a group that I've never heard about.

And I'm not sure a ~60 millisecond difference is all that significant.  It's just one measure -- performance is impacted by lots of measures, like processor speed, application optimization, IO speed, display speed, maybe Wifi network speed, and what have you.

So, why is it "extremely" important?

Still seems to me that we are comparing Tweedledee to Tweedledum, and none of these measures are all that significant.

Wye wrote:
Did you watch the video? The difference a 50ms change response time is dramatic.

Especially when you slow the video down by 8x.

The video also makes the point that a 100 millisecond delay translates to 10 cm when you are moving your finger at 1 meter per second.  Call me when iPhones have 1 meter screens.

I also note that your video advocates a latency period of 1 millisecond, which is still 1-2 orders of magnitude faster than the best commercially available product.

Who interfaces with their smartphones with non-stop fast swipes of the finger across the screen?  Most often, we are stabbing our fingers on virtual keyboards or icons.  In normal usages, how important is latency?

Finally, to me, performance should be measured in more "real world" applications, like how fast does your smart phone take to show you where the nearest gas station is.  How fast does your smart phone zoom in to a document or map or load a picture or ...?

So, go ahead & make a big deal about it, but to me, it's still Tweedledee & Tweedledum.

Robb Mann wrote:
New 5s is definately evolutionary.

ROFLMAO not really, Finger print scanner is all and I wouldn't want that on my phone. Anther year another iphone playing catchup to the android market. Oh and the new iOS7 look reminds me of fisher price and windows 8

Robb Radford wrote:

ROFLMAO not really, Finger print scanner is all and I wouldn't want that on my phone. Anther year another iphone playing catchup to the android market. Oh and the new iOS7 look reminds me of fisher price and windows 8

But obviously the previous iPhones must have been pretty bad since so many of their owners felt compelled to rush right out and buy new ones as soon as possible. Perhaps they're all hoping to finally trade up to something they can be happy with for a while?

Lightcraft Studio wrote:

But obviously the previous iPhones must have been pretty bad since so many of their owners felt compelled to rush right out and buy new ones as soon as possible. Perhaps they're all hoping to finally trade up to something they can be happy with for a while?

you guys get more and more ridiculous with every post. Does this stuff you type actually make sense in your head before you type it or do you just close your eyes and hope for the best?

Wye wrote:

you guys get more and more ridiculous with every post. Does this stuff you type actually make sense in your head before you type it or do you just close your eyes and hope for the best?

I'm gonna have to agree with you. Wanting the latest and greatest is not the same as not being happy with what you had.

What Fun Productions wrote:

The data is about a phone that has been out for over a year.

iPhone 5S benchmarks vs. previous iPhones and Android phones from Macworld.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2049270 … -hype.html

Andialu wrote:
I'm gonna have to agree with you. Wanting the latest and greatest is not the same as not being happy with what you had.

I suppose. Some folks buy a new car every model year, and buy a new camera every time a new model comes out (less frequent than cars and phones though), a new computer, etc. I guess if one has money to burn, then upgrading one's phone every time they come out with an incremental upgrade makes sense.

Let There Be Light wrote:

iPhone 5S benchmarks vs. previous iPhones and Android phones from Macworld.

http://www.macworld.com/article/2049270 … -hype.html

Why would anyone buy an Android phone and then brag about it?

What Fun Productions wrote:

Why would anyone buy an Android phone and then brag about it?

Because I dig it, Mr. and or Mrs. snootypants.

Robb Radford wrote:

Robb Mann wrote:
New 5s is definately evolutionary.

ROFLMAO not really, Finger print scanner is all and I wouldn't want that on my phone. Anther year another iphone playing catchup to the android market.

Go back to the first page, and/or look up the word 'evolutionary'. (Go ahead. We'll wait.)

Your own words describe evolutionary.