AnonD-909757, 05 Sep 2020Part 2 :
1. If you perfectly realize that what you say have a negative impact and can prev... more"For peoples who don't want front camera, which are WAY MORE NUMEROUS than you think to believe"
Still an irrelevant amount on the global scale. Period. While the poll you linked does indeed have over a 1000 people participating in it which is significant, it's still a low sample size and the only thing it represents is the thoughts of the people visiting that particular site. Also, you're linking an article from a website where tech enthusiasts gather and those are a minority in the overall picture too.
"And you can keep dreaming, but 99% RAW quality won't be achievable, the picture can be software enhanced, but not the RAW image, which is exactly what biometric sensors need, meaning underdisplay camera = no/poor face biometric"
What do biometrics have to do with it? AFAIK we've been talking about under the display front facing cameras, not scanners for facial recognition. All the fuss about UD cameras is not about face unlocking at all but the possibility of not having a hole in your screen while retaining the same functionality. For proper face unlocking there are limitations obviously like you pointed out, which is why Apple still sticks to its fat notch.
A phone with and without a hole are similar BUT still 2 different products. The panels require different production methods. If there are internal changes for some reasons then that also requires changes in production. On top of it, you're producing small amounts since there is no large market for such a niche device which means your initial production costs are higher. The longer the production goes, smaller the costs are. There's a reason why the Iphone SE sells for 400$. Then you'll have to either choose whether you're going to lower the profit margins on such device or increase its price. Cut off the cost of the camera and eventually slash the price by 50€ just for the end user to hop for the version with a cam cause why would he lose it for a slightly reduction in price. If he's dropping a grand on a flagship phone he'll want with it everything and the kitchen sink included. If it's mid range phones that we're talking about then the margins are even thinner there and there's not much room for wiggling. The amount of people that are gonna buy the cam-less phone because they want one like that will be negligible.
Companies that create gold plated luxury phones didn't design the phones or manufacture them. They just gold plated it, that's their entire expense. Luxury cars are sold on thin margins and they're luxury products, not essential like a phone for example. There's a reason those cost from 100k up to tens of millions, also luxury cars are sold in thousands, phones are sold by millions upon millions monthly.
Yes, the majority does act like sheep and they'll buy what you throw at them. That's also what the industry needs to make profit. The few % that are different are once again, irrelevant. And while we certainly can't be sure what the % is, it sure ain't high since the industry wouldn't lose an opportunity to expand their market if it was that huge.
"If you perfectly realize that what you say have a negative impact"
What's the deal? If something is bad should we just keep or mouth shut to avoid "negative impact"? I'll say whatever I want about whatever I want and whether you like it or not is your problem. If I want to criticise something, I will. If I'd like to praise something, I will and there's nothing you can do about it.
"MY ideas and solutions"
"MY solutions and ideas"
"Those ideas and solutions"
Dude why don't you then present those ideas and solutions to someone who has the capabilities to make them truly happen? Why are you constantly here explaining that stuff to a community that obviously doesn't care and seems to be way below your levels of comprehension and creativity?
Also stop using the phrase 'many people' to support your claims. No, there's not many people. 1000 people from a website poll is not many people. 10,000 who think alike is not many people. Heck, on the grand scale 100,000 is NOT many people when we're talking about tech giants like Apple/Huawei/Samsung and they couldn't care less about them since they're NOT worth the effort.
PotatoHead, 04 Sep 2020"What the point of thinking about someone who "can't turn the phone around"... morePart 2 :
1. If you perfectly realize that what you say have a negative impact and can prevent products that many peoples want from emerging, but still choose to speak up while it give you not a single advantage, benefit, nor not doing so would cause you any negative effect, and you do it just "because you can", sorry but, this is the most egoistical, egocentric and arsehole reason ever that is on the same level as pure sadistic behavior.
2. MY ideas and solutions here only represent potential ways of justifying something that shouldn't have to be justified in the first place, when devices without front camera will emerge, peoples who don't need any solutions will be the first to buy it, and IF for ANY reason, someone who want to still use camera + display at the same time want this particular device, MY solutions and ideas are exactly what would enabled him to take it while experiencing no drawback caused by the missing solution.
Those ideas and solutions are an answer to peoples talking about "selfies" and "video call" that won't take "we don't care about those, we want to buy a phone like that because we don't do it" for an answer and show them that even there it is still possible.
It is NOT about removing the front camera from ALL devices, meaning that except for those specific devices, no one would have to be forced to use those ideas and solutions, clearly meaning they CAN'T be wrong as they are clearly an even better solution than simply no front camera without alternatives, for the rare usecases where someone would need or want camera + display despite typically normally not using those.
3. Simply because when you are expressing an idea opposed to the general consensus, you meet resistance, and when we see all the resistance that simply letting the world know we desire one product type cause, no wonder they don't speak up.
Some quiet community are often way bigger than we think, some community that peoples don't even though about possibly possible have already proven to be a huge part of the population.
How often do you see someone saying he is non hetero sexual ? Do you think it is representative of their number ?
And well, I've proven enough in this comment that it is actually totally viable and faisable, and not only that it CAN happen, but that it also WILL happen.
And I usually am really rarely wrong on my predictions, I am not seeing the future or stuff like that, but my logical analysis make me often see what seem totally improbable for others, hell I was about to create the first proper VR headset before Oculus, which is also a market that media often consider as dying or extremely small despite being millions of users and it growing every months, sure it wasn't the onmipresent tech of the future everyone thought (which, unlike Oculus, I never though would be), but those media constant claims are totally wrong and certainly not helping.
The day the first brand streamline his update process so he only have to account for small, easy to integrate, difference between devices, and since there, from a single body, create many sub-variants of the same phone with many various feature set aimed at many user profiles, rather than taking the approach of just making the same thing again and again like everybody else, he will disrupt the market and might even establish dominance in few months if he do good enough phones and that he have customer friendly enough practices.
Throwing out of the windows the "current market" that is only the result of a mix between shady practices and a total lack of interest for the community, like OnePlus that was pretending all along proved.
PotatoHead, 04 Sep 2020"What the point of thinking about someone who "can't turn the phone around"... morePart 1 :
For peoples who don't want front camera, which are WAY MORE NUMEROUS than you think to believe, it could be a no brained if the rest of the phone is decent enough, it is easy to do as any existing phone could simply get a complete display + simply not putting the front camera, there is no software or hardware difference other than that, having 3D face recognition on the back is a plus, because it is already rare anyway.
And that's stupid because many peoples simply UTTERLY IGNORE that they CAN have issues like that, even more, the way more serious issues that lack of privacy or its encouragement can cause are way worse than that, and many users don't care about their device security, does it mean brands just should stop pushing updates ?
Irrelevant, many peoples still consider 3D or 2D facial recognition as an useless gimmick regardless.
Everything is a potential comparison, peoples constantly lift glasses or bottles way heavier than smartphones to drinks, I've yet to meet anyone complaining about having to do that, hell even Trump didn't complained. 🤣
And what about a 100% INCREASE in quality by using the rear camera ?
And you can keep dreaming, but 99% RAW quality won't be achievable, the picture can be software enhanced, but not the RAW image, which is exactly what biometric sensors need, meaning underdisplay camera = no/poor face biometric.
I said "some peoples" in regard of BOTH cameras, there are MANY peoples who want no front camera but will happily take a monstrous main camera setup on the same device, look :
Almost 40% in favor of removing it and over 22% could like it, opposed to little over 26% prefering underdisplay and less than 15% against the idea.
This isn't just 40 peoples like many polls, it is over 1000 peoples, which for a single article is quite good actually, and clearly show a tendency as most votes were done a short period of time after the post was created.
It IS about diversity, and why do releasing the SAME model you already made but simply putting another, identical panel simply without hole(s) and just not putting the camera would cost any money ?
Hell it doesn't even cost any R&D, if anything, it is easier and cheaper to make.
And if that was true, gold plated luxury phones wouldn't exist, same for extremely exotic cars that cost over 10 millions €, some being made in only few unique models despite having to cover R&D (which is way more complicated and expensive on a car), and overall luxury cars like the regular 300k € Lamborghini sold in millions of models.
The original Tesla Roadster, crazy or ugly looking cars like the Multipla, and many other niche cars are the perfect proof that a market even for a small planned sell volume is totally possible, but even profitable and already done.
Feedback from peoples criticizing things that doesn't exist ? Sure...
Go criticize Israel and Jews in general or Abrahamic religions, we would see if you have the right to express your thoughts on everything.
There is a HUGE difference between pointing flaws or problems at something (which is constructive criticism by the way) and complaining at someone's suggestion for something he and other would like, or all the totally false allegations against the pop up which are unfounded and actually far from the reality, which killed it, that's how and why people's criticisms have CONSEQUENCES, which everyone should consider before acting.
Removing something many peoples use, own expensive equipments to enjoy it, have usecase for it that can't be compensated for, ONLY to sell additional and expensive things that despite the trending and frequent appearance on media, many don't use or care about (I've yet to see ANY earbuds in real life, and I can't even recall how many months ago since I saw the last wireless earphones in use, I've seen more often wired earphones and headphones), it IS a dick move that have NOT A SINGLE justification beside draining peoples from additional money for something that could simply be totally useless for them.
The only excuse for removing the jack would be that it is obsolete, which can't be further from the truth, with headsets like the Sennheiser HD 660S or fresh new ones like the Sennheiser GSP 601 and 602 and many audiophile ones, that have level of quality that the Bluetooth can't dream to reach.
THAT's lack of diversity right here, and you are encouraging it, BOTH in front camera lack of alternative AND removal of a useful and WISHED thing that add NOT A SINGLE advantage by removing it.
They are not targeting the majority because the majority want it, they are targeting the majority because A peoples are sheep and buy WHATEVER you sell them, and B because they sell the post profitable possible model at the utter upper limit of what peoples would accept, not because there are needs or desires, because go justify your expensive wireless gimmick if you include the Jack, if they removed it, it is BECAUSE they knew it was already so heavily used that it wouldn't allow their thing to sell.
And don't mix up peoples passively accepting something that annoy them and still using the proposed solution and peoples WANTING to use those wireless things.
I am NOT talking about removing the front camera from ALL devices, I am talking about making SOME devices without from camera, which, guess what :
Is targeted at peoples who DOESN'T want or won't care about the front camera, why would anyone complain, except, like you, peoples clearly impeding other's choices ?
How do you know that ?
Have you ever measured that ? Or have you any certification that except from peoples sharing the same taste as you, peoples does really care about the front camera to begin with ?
This is a FACT that there are peoples wanting no front camera, and this is also a FACT that you and I don't know how many peoples it represent, it could be 1% or 99% for all we know.
Removing components DO save money and CAN be done on EXISTING things, I am not talking about removing the display, I am talking about removing a thing that many peoples doesn't use nor want and can be done without modifying further the device than not punching a hole in the display and just not putting the camera.
And as I said earlier, you don't know what you talk about, there are clear exemples of products for minorities, you'd find even more specialized things than a smartphone without front camera, hell if it wasn't for issue at mass manufacturing it, the Xiaomi Mi Mix Alpha would sell like pancakes despite being a "niche" device.
And this is because you care SO MUCH about the front camera and don't see any use of the Jack that you can't understand that actually, for someone wanting BOTH, it would still be more practical to use compensating method for the selfie camera than for the Jack.
AnonD-909757, 04 Sep 2020Well, there are other solutions that allow no/hidden front camera, like pop up, sliders and se... more"What the point of thinking about someone who "can't turn the phone around" for the sake of everyone while not taking privacy, which is a global concern, into consideration?"
Because putting an extra step in a process that's simple as it is right now won't boost the sales further but quite the opposite. Privacy sadly is not a major concern until someone gets caught with his pants down like we've seen in the past couple of years.
"You clearly haven't been defending 3D facial recognition..."
Neither did I criticise its existence.
"I don't think opening a foldable phone is easier than turning a phone around, which you aren't forced to perform in 1 Planck Time by the way, nor you do it a bazillion time per day."
Foldable phones are an entire new category of devices and thus comparing it to a regular phone is IMO kind of wrong.
"Looking through a >0% opacity surface regardless of the technology will never allow 100% clear quality, regardless how many time you gave it to improve."
Alright, what about a 99% clear image quality? I mean, my S10 already has garbage front camera post processing. I wouldn't mind a 1% reduction at this point.
"That one is quite funny, because as I commented on the Galaxy Fold 2 news, peoples are against pop ups because of "wear" and "moving parts", and are against a second display on the back for "insert any unjustified reason here", but they praise phones like that who have BOTH moving parts and inevitable wear (which, unlike a front camera which if it were to fail would simply be unpractical against a display that if it break render the device useless) and is clearly moving (and bending) parts, but who also have a second display."
Can't disagree there.
"I perfectly understand that some peoples would be fine with no camera at all (nor front nor back) in their phones, which only diversity can allow for such things to exist, but they don't care about diversity, also, everytime someone have a suggestion, someone need to criticize it, making way less probably said thing to be ever considered."
Sadly 'some people' are a huge minority. Nobody is going to invest millions in a phone to cater just some people. It's not even about a lack of diversity at this point, but the fact that such a financial movement is unprofitable. Also, people have every right to criticise whatever they want for whatever reason they might see. That's how you get feedback on certain things at last, isn't it? If they see something wrong with a certain thing, they should be free to express their thoughts as they might notice things that went below the radar earlier or might be a problem. For example the Fold1. All those experienced engineers working together to create a complex hinge and display that folds, yet they failed to secure beneath the bezels the top plastic layer of the display, which is an integral part of the display. The average person just used common sense and figured out it might be a screen protector and thus went on to peel the thing off.
"Which require an adapter, USB to Jack adapters aren't even compatible between all smartphones, they have many drawbacks, and you can't charge your device while using your Jack headset, which for peoples doing long regular commutes is really common to do.
And as a matter of fact, there are USB and Jack camera for smartphones, jack camera being more rare but still existing."
Which is a dick move from Apple. Courage, I guess?
But the average user will get sucked into buying Airpods or something instead. That's who they're targeting. They're the majority. If you bought 500 EUR headphones, well tough luck I suppose. Yeah it's sh*tty I gotta agree, but between removing the jack and front cam, I'm kinda sure removing the camera will have a much bigger outburst.
"Nope, you will find a lot of peoples, either random peoples who are the regular non techie customers or peoples commenting on many news articles and forum posts who would love to see the front camera disappearing."
And still, all those people put together won't make a dent into the market share that the OEM's are targeting.
"If anything it is saving money, and I see more logic behind the removal of the front camera and selling bluetooth front camera accessories than doing it with the Jack, both in term of usability and user respect.
Ideally, phones without front camera should exist alongside those who have them AND most should keep the jack, only removing it occasionally for those who, for some strange reasons they are never able to justify, don't want it."
Removing a component does save money indeed, but components are not the only things that cost money. There's a hundred of other things that you gotta factor in and they add all together on top of it. Ideally yes, a phone without a front camera could exist. However, like I said earlier, creating a phone that's targeted to a minority won't generate a profit and thus won't ever happen.
As for the 'selling camera accessories instead of jack" I fail to see your logic.
"So now, give me a single reason why YOU have to contradict me and bash the possibility for other peoples to get what they want ?
What is your point here ?"
I'll give you more than a single reason:
1. I'm free to say whatever I want or think as long as it follows the posting rules.
2. I disagree with some of your ideas and solutions, some being completely wrong so I'm pointing them out and expressing my thoughts about it.
3. You =/= other people. Lemme know if I'm wrong but I don't see anyone so hardly justifying certain things like you do. Congrats on your level of commitment and imagination since it's quite amazing, but some of your proposals wont be viable because of n reasons that I've already pointed out. They're not necessarily bad, just simply won't work in the current market.
PotatoHead, 03 Sep 2020"Just grab your phone and try it, you are saying that 200g is too heavy?"
Yes, fo... moreWell, there are other solutions that allow no/hidden front camera, like pop up, sliders and second display on the back.
What the point of thinking about someone who "can't turn the phone around" for the sake of everyone while not taking privacy, which is a global concern, into consideration ?
You clearly haven't been defending 3D facial recognition, because many would have had told you that this is a gimmick, or that pattern is better/more secure, that it is useless, that no one use it anyway, and many other.
True that the last slider phone was released mid 2019, which is a while ago in a fast market like Smartphones, but there always were rare anyway, so maybe a new one could be on the way, also, I don't think opening a foldable phone is easier than turning a phone around, which you aren't forced to perform in 1 Planck Time by the way, nor you do it a bazillion time per day.
Looking through a >0% opacity surface regardless of the technology will never allow 100% clear quality, regardless how many time you gave it to improve.
That one is quite funny, because as I commented on the Galaxy Fold 2 news, peoples are against pop ups because of "wear" and "moving parts", and are against a second display on the back for "insert any unjustified reason here", but they praise phones like that who have BOTH moving parts and inevitable wear (which, unlike a front camera which if it were to fail would simply be unpractical against a display that if it break render the device useless) and is clearly moving (and bending) parts, but who also have a second display.
By the way, I never put my phone on my pocket, I learned it the hard way and I am glad I had tempered glass protection, pockets aren't reliable for the size smartphones are, so I have a shoulder bag, which is handy as I can put many things in, and if I wanted to carry around a tablet, I could, without the cons of a pocket which are totally unfit for modern tech.
It isn't about X or Y feature, it is about diversity, I love photography, and I take pictures for myself, I have tons of unpublished sky, scenery and pets pics in my phone, and I would actually like better camera setups, and I perfectly understand that some peoples would be fine with no camera at all (nor front nor back) in their phones, which only diversity can allow for such things to exist, but they don't care about diversity, also, everytime someone have a suggestion, someone need to criticize it, making way less probably said thing to be ever considered.
Which require an adapter, USB to Jack adapters aren't even compatible between all smartphones, they have many drawbacks, and you can't charge your device while using your Jack headset, which for peoples doing long regular commutes is really common to do.
And as a matter of fact, there are USB and Jack camera for smartphones, jack camera being more rare but still existing.
Turning the phone around doesn't cost a penny, peoples having 500€+ headphones who use 3.5mm Jack would like to have a talk with you about the removal of the Jack and would love for an alternative being as simple as turning the phone around.
Nope, you will find a lot of peoples, either random peoples who are the regular non techie customers or peoples commenting on many news articles and forum posts who would love to see the front camera disappearing.
And no, it won't happen because everytime peoples ask for something, regardless if it is stupid or genius, there have to be someone ruining everything by complaining or trying to bash it, which have a HUGE impact, not only there are marketing practices to read opinions, but also there are many investors who rely heavily on new articles to know on which brand investing or to keep his investment, and they have more decision potential than the brand itself, and they DO read comments to see opinion about each news, which is a lower scale representation of the general opinion.
But EVERYTIME they find someone who need to add his negativity to any request, which obviously won't make them want to support anything else than what already exist, regardless how many times it is requested.
The Smartphone industry is probably the most homogeneous industry while actually being the one with one of the biggest potential for diversity, it is also one of the only industry where constant bashing of people's idea occur, just do the maths.
Also, how saving the cost of a component be spending ?
If anything it is saving money, and I see more logic behind the removal of the front camera and selling bluetooth front camera accessories than doing it with the Jack, both in term of usability and user respect.
Ideally, phones without front camera should exist alongside those who have them AND most should keep the jack, only removing it occasionally for those who, for some strange reasons they are never able to justify, don't want it.
But again, diversity won't happen anytime soon as everytime someone have a suggestion which could be heard, there need to be those peoples who waste it.
Which, by the way, is exactly I exclusively criticize extremely hyped or almost exclusive techs, I don't like side mounted fingerprint scanner, but if anything, I will defend it, because it is quite rare.
And the underdisplay camera which will clearly be at least as invasive to the market as the punch hole, I do criticize it, which is why I go as far as saying why it shouldn't exist, in reality, I want it to exist, as many other tech, I just don't want it to be as invasive as other and take up to 95% or more of all available devices, both for diversity, but also because in the case of this particular tech, it is dangerous for privacy as it further normalize front camera with no way to hide the user from the camera, if anything, as I already explained, it do the opposite.
So now, give me a single reason why YOU have to contradict me and bash the possibility for other peoples to get what they want ?
What is your point here ?
Even you who say all that would get the pros of a more diverse market, which could include a more streamline and combined way to make security and Android version updates, allowing more frequent and faster security updates and longer support for devices while costing less.
Or more innovations which could lead to the emergence of a great tech we were all needing without knowing it.
AnonD-909757, 01 Sep 2020You have weak arms or what ?
Just grab your phone and try it, you are saying that 200g is too... more"Just grab your phone and try it, you are saying that 200g is too heavy?"
Yes, for some people 200g is too much. You know, people can at times be... umm.. different?
"...we are in a time where many would happily tell you that face recognition is useless and a gimmick..."
You're the first person I heard this from.
"...and you are telling me that having to rotate your phone is a burden to use it ? Despite slider phones requiring to be manually opened and iPhone's Face ID requiring to lift the phone ? Really?"
Yes, really. Slider phones are a thing of the past as far as I remember and pointing your phone towards your face is way easier than turning that brick around for unlocking.
"UD cameras, REGARDLESS of their performance are still having the same issues..."
Dude they haven't even come out properly, give it time.
"Folding displays, yeah, no thanks, super expensive totally useless thing..."
If the ability of keeping a tablet sized device in your pocket is useless then yeah sure, whatever floats your boat.
"and you are insinuating that the smartphone industry care about what customers want, sorry to break it to you but if it was the case, smartphones would be radically different today, and we would have at least some diversity, not an overly dominant single design based on stupid concepts."
Well, they kinda do to some degree? If it weren't for all those social media zombies wanting the best pictures and stuff then I'm sure the industry wouldn't focus so much on cameras for example. You and the other ~0,5% of people wanting radical changes doesn't mean the industry doesn't listen what people want, they just don't care what the 0,5% want since it's a waste of time and money for them.
"The headphone Jack would like to disagree with this..."
Except removing the jack and front cam is not the same thing. You can still plug earphones in the USB port. Can you plug in a camera in there too perhaps? Removing something is viable only if you give a working alternative. Turning your phone around sure isn't that.
"Mainly considering that a lot of peoples are actually desiring the removal of the front camera and that it have more pros than cons..."
You're simply wrong there.
"Also, this isn't as if ALL PHONES should get no front camera, just a big enough number that there is a kind of small diversity in their feature sets, so why are you even against that anyway ?"
I'm not saying I'm against it, I'm just saying it won't happen for one simple reason. The industry won't bother spending millions just to satisfy the ~1% that request it. From a financial standpoint, that's a stupid idea to even suggest.
PotatoHead, 01 Sep 2020Except you're not looking at a watch but turning around a phone that often exceeds 200g~.... moreYou have weak arms or what ?
Just grab your phone and try it, you are saying that 200g is too heavy ?
Not only with a fulldisplay FPS you don't NEED to do it, it is just an option, as a proper biometric implementation should allow for both fingerprint + 3D facial recognition at the same time, but it should also allow to unlock the phone with either and keep the combined one for the most secure things, we are in a time where many would happily tell you that face recognition is useless and a gimmick, and you are telling me that having to rotate your phone is a burden to use it ? Despite slider phones requiring to be manually opened and iPhone's Face ID requiring to lift the phone ? Really ?
UD cameras, REGARDLESS of their performance are still having the same issues, I don't care what quality they have, all the troubles they will cause I mentioned will still be there even in a billion year.
Folding displays, yeah, no thanks, super expensive totally useless thing, buy it if you want, but I can't consider this as a good example.
Because the average Joe doesn't know how much of its personal data are collected, nor how they are used, nor how back it can become is we let this thing going.
As usual, peoples lack education in the matter, also lack of privacy isn't just something that impact the user, it impact EVERYBODY, which is why there should be no choosing, and you are insinuating that the smartphone industry care about what customers want, sorry to break it to you but if it was the case, smartphones would be radically different today, and we would have at least some diversity, not an overly dominant single design based on stupid concepts.
"were here for the past 10 years and they won't be going anywhere anytime soon"
The headphone Jack would like to disagree with this, and of course it is an option, removing a chunk of the display and user privacy was an option that many take, why wouldn't now the same peoples that had no choices but to accept what the other forced upon them be this time around the one who will decide ?
Mainly considering that a lot of peoples are actually desiring the removal of the front camera and that it have more pros than cons...
Also, this isn't as if ALL PHONES should get no front camera, just a big enough number that there is a kind of small diversity in their feature sets, so why are you even against that anyway ?
AnonD-909757, 31 Aug 2020Slow down boy, you are the one trying to make "looking at a watch" seem like an Olym... moreExcept you're not looking at a watch but turning around a phone that often exceeds 200g~. Checking time on a watch every now and then is no issue, but in a world where people check their phones every other second that simply sounds like a burden.
UD cameras are still in their infancy, with time it'll get better. Folding displays were fantasy a couple of years ago yet here we are.
While I agree that privacy is important, the average Joe isn't concerned about it. The average Joe is also the type of person of which the majority of the market consists of. Had the average Joe complained about his lack of privacy we'd surely see some changes in the current situation but as we can see, front cameras were here for the past 10 years and they won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Removing it is not an option.
PotatoHead, 31 Aug 2020Well, your solution is indeed better, in a world where fingerprint scanners are "old and ... moreSlow down boy, you are the one trying to make "looking at a watch" seem like an Olympic level of difficulty task that is extremely annoying and tiring.
That's a simple motion that is naturally done and it is way less involving than actually aiming at precise spot with a finger.
And you said it yourself, if the phone is on the table, a big area sensor like the Qualcomm 3D Sonic Max, or future equivalent with even larger area would allow you to unlock without having to lift the device, which is exactly the reason why I wanted underdisplay FPS in the first place, which in reality aren't currently good enough for that, and my OnePlus 6t FPS is actually slow enough to match what I talked about when I said "old and slow" FPS.
The future is fulldisplay FPS, any front camera will go in the way of that, and since underdisplay optical FPS can also be used to spy, ultrasonic FPS are the best way forward (and that's without even talking about the advantages of the larger ultrasonic FPS).
2D facial recognition is insecure and inconvenient as it depend on light conditions, 3D facial recognition based on IR sensors, ToF or Structured light LiDAR is way better, not only it is more secured, but it also work well in low/no light conditions.
Underdisplay camera, as the sample images show have tons of artifacts consistant with software compensation, as the RAW quality, regardless of the transparency of the display tech used, will always keep a certain percentage of opacity, making it quite bad for sensors used for 3D facial recognition who rely on excellent RAW data and can't work securely or reliably with software enhanced images.
Same with punch holes and notches who can't allow additional sensors except while being too large.
And anyway a good set of sensor would include : Two IR camera working in 3 3D mode being Structured light (Face ID/Kinect dots), ToF and stereoscopy 3D, while also having an UV camera as UV reveal unique skin details that would exponentially increase the security, combined with a close portrait optimized camera and a wide angle, that is all we need to have in front, and except pop up, like with my fictional concept phone :
You can't really have all that in any other place than a bezel, who, like other solutions, can't do anything for privacy, which, I repeat again, is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT !
Having all those sensor in double make no senses anyway, so better having all of them in the back and simply use them there, and use any solution, my mirror idea or a second display on the back (that of course, only turn ON when needed).
I also imagined a pop up like system where rather than having sensors, it would have periscope using the main cameras, which would be more compact and make use of the same sensors without requiring a complexe flip mechanism, and as my electromagnetic pop up, it can be isolated from the main body, with only a "see through" part to make it work.
Regardless which way you put it, keeping the front camera is prone to more issues than removing it anyway.
AnonD-909757, 31 Aug 2020Oh yeah, because drawing a pattern, or using an old and slow fingerprint scanner, or manually ... moreWell, your solution is indeed better, in a world where fingerprint scanners are "old and slow", sliderphones still exist and hitting a button sounds like sniping a target at a 1,000 meters. Yeah, I agree, but that's not a world we're currently living in. Literally every option is better than turning your phone around simply for the reason you're considering just the ideal conditions.
What if you're sitting your phone on a table while using? Are you telling me that picking it up to turn it around for unlocking is simpler and more logical than having a FP scanner or face unlock at the front? People using a phone with a capacitive FP are able to unlock their phones before they even take it out of the pocket and the same will be possible once ultrasonic FP's start having a larger scanning area, which is something that already exists yet the idiots at Samsung decided not to use. In the case of frontal face unlocking you literally just have to take your phone out and look at it, which is what you're about to do anyways. How is THAT harder than turning it around?
What if you're watching a movie or something and you're using a stand along with your phone so you don't have to keep it in your hands all the time. You're going to turn it around every time to unlock whenever you take a break? What about people with mobility impairments? You're gonna tell them that flipping their wrist every time they wanna use their phone is easier than just looking at it or tapping a FP scanner?
Your solution neither seems to be well thought nor a logical choice cause if it was, I'm pretty sure all those companies with millions upon millions of R&D would've been on it already.
PotatoHead, 29 Aug 2020Imagine telling someone that turning your phone around every time you want to unlock it is eas... moreOh yeah, because drawing a pattern, or using an old and slow fingerprint scanner, or manually opening a sliderphone, or even having to aim a button with your finger is SO MUCH BETTER?
Have you ever tried to just flip your wrist ? Easiest thing in the world, way less involving than anything else except the Apple lift to unlock feature.
Lets say that as long as peoples like you complain about solutions like that, it have less chances to happen, indeed.
But you don't even care, as long as YOU have the devices that suit you, you are free to say whatever you want about other ideas, because you don't care about the consequences of your comments, why would a self centered egoistic care about SOME devices that could be made for those who want them when he can have the entire market full of the EXACT SAME phones that he happen to like ?
Devices he like probably out of inability to choose by himself and the super strong attraction at following trends even when they make no senses rather than a logical choice well thought about what is actually good or not.
AnonD-909757, 28 Aug 2020Dude, literally over 50% of my comment was about explaining how 3 alternatives could let you s... moreImagine telling someone that turning your phone around every time you want to unlock it is easier than just keeping it straight on.
Not gonna happen, period.
JDK, 28 Aug 2020I agree with most of what you said, except that ditching the front camera altogether is a pret... moreDude, literally over 50% of my comment was about explaining how 3 alternatives could let you see what you look at through the main camera :
*A better, compact and retractable version of this :
*A second display on the back.
*And direct eye or brain projection of the image.
Akinaro, 27 Aug 2020how do you know its "worst gimmick" if you never used it? Because its still underdev... moreNo, you can do that with electromagnetic pop-up.
Water-resistance capable, zero moving parts, and full-screen while not having bad image quality(as of now, under-display camera quality will definitely be worse than a regular camera).
AnonD-909757, 27 Aug 2020Because :
1) The whole concept of looking through an opaque surface is totally stupid.
2) It... moreI agree with most of what you said, except that ditching the front camera altogether is a pretty bad idea.
Most social media rely on the selfie camera for good headshots; If they suddenly had to flip their phone around every time they wanted to take a selfie, they wouldn't know what they look like(with all the added filters, etc.).
Akinaro, 27 Aug 2020how do you know its "worst gimmick" if you never used it? Because its still underdev... moreBecause :
1) The whole concept of looking through an opaque surface is totally stupid.
2) It give an illusion of no camera/not being observed, while there is nothing to help having privacy, you can't even put your finger on it because of the tactile, and it will push peoples to do risky things they wouldn't do otherwise in front of what is basically a camera connected to the internet, running an OS from one of the biggest data collecter company who is known for illegally gathering some data, and filled with third party apps that have free access to the camera in the background and some having been caught capturing illegally the users.
3) It will be a hell of expensive, all that for a single camera.
4) It is a hell for biometric, see, the complexe part of underdisplay camera isn't to look through the display, we already knew since a while how to make transparent enough Oled, but there are limits to that, what is actually done here is to find the proper software/AI implementation to fix the poor RAW image quality, which is why on many engineering showcase prototype, the resulting pictures, if you look past the obvious pic itself, show many artifacts caused by what was not yet mastered reconstruction of the image.
This is good for pictures when it is properly mastered, but biometric require RAW quality, not rendered quality, so not only the biometric will be way less secure, harder to implement and would make a huge spet back compared to what already existed, but because of this, it might simply get ditched altogether, leading to the normalisation of less secured devices that punch holes already started.
5) The idea normalize the other idea that optical underdisplay FPS should stay, while they are the worse of the 3 type (capacitive, optical and ultrasonic) and ultrasonic one should replace them, as despite an initial poor implementation on Samsung Flagship, are superior in ALL ASPECTS over the two other types, and way more secure than optical one, again, looking through a X% opaque solid is a stupid idea, while sound waves travel quite well through them, hence why we use ultrasound to scan people's body rather than shining a powerful bright light against their skin.
The best solution is to ditch the front camera altogether and use the ToF on the back for both 3D facial recognition and additional data feed for pictures.
And before you or anyone else comment that it would be annoying to "reverse the phone" for face recognition, it can easily be done by flipping you wrist, literally, imagine you hold your phone in front of you, as to take a selfie, then you rotate your wrist as if you were looking at a watch, done, one simple motion that the phone accelerometers can detect easily which would trigger instantaneous face recognition, actually even before the movement is ended, the phone is already ready to scan your face, making the whole process even faster, and because psychologically the time you turn back the screen facing you doesn't feel like a waiting time, the phone have slightly more time to process the image, allowing for a better and therefor more secure 3D facial recognition, the motion itself could even be taken advantage of as the movement would expose different perspective of your face, allowing to gather additional data.
Not only with a simple retractable thing on the back that would have 2 mirrors like this :
(Remember, I didn't say THIS EXACT thing, I said a retractable variant of this, maybe spring loaded so that you just push a button on the back and it open, then by simply pushing it, it can be retracted with one finger).
It would make it really practical to use the main camera while still having the display available for any selfies, vblogging, video call and filters, but it would fix all privacy issues, all sensor space, make use of the superior main camera and cost next to nothing, and way more peoples than you imagine actually have no use of the front camera except in some really rare circumstances.
THIS is the best solution that is totally faisable now, alternatively, some phones could not even put this retractable mirror on the back of the phone, but rather on the provided case, allowing for the user to choose if he want or not to even have this, it is extremely cheap too, and even a selfie addict wouldn't find it impractical to use as it is one button press and one push to operate it.
And in top of its simplicity, since there is no more front camera, free space for better main camera is available.
And for the upcoming future with more advanced tech, the BEST invention will be a retinal eye projector virtual display, basically a projector which aim at your eyes to project the image, the effect are amazing, a great quality image that, thanks to an image per eye, appear in 3D, effectively giving you the illusion you see a 3D object or interface in front of you, which would look exactly like a mix of what Tony Stark have :
And Star Citizen's MobiGlass :
Now THAT is the best solution, one regular display in one side, and what would effectively be (at least in perceived result) an holographic projector, it will totally negate the need of any front camera and would be way better than any secondary screen type display, with ToF and the other camera working in triangulation mode, hand control for the interface would really allow amazing things, and when a non physically moving projector that is able to project at high framerate with no real limitation of how fast it can switch from one place to another, it can allow multiple other peoples at once to be "invited" with a simple gesture (like pointing at your eyes with your index and major, then pointing at the invited person, who would be free to also make a gesture (the opposite, pointing the phone then at his eyes) to accept the invitation (to avoid forcefully projection at someone), making possible to have multiple peoples viewing something while still allowing to avoiding other to see it if you don't want it, it can also be used as a video projector if you want.
THAT is the future and the best solution, as it is for way more than just a solution for front camera replacement, but still totally allow for its removal.
Alternatively, tomorrow Elon Musk is expected to show the first practical demonstration of Neuralink, proving brain computer interface are also coming, and they are another solution, though I am sure in the future a version without the requirement of implanting chips in someone's brain will be possible and will only be done for superior/more complex iterations.
That too is the future, and this is EXACTLY because brain reading tech are coming that EVERY efforts toward privacy should be made as soon as possible, including hiding yourself from that damn front camera or ditching it altogether and only keeping proximity and ambiant light sensors.
Privacy is already a BIG deal and is already on the disastrous side of the thin line separating responsible and totally unethical use :
OwnFix3, 27 Aug 2020Why don't you use Blender? I was mainly used to SketchUp, also Blender is good for making artistic models but not adapted for more technical models.
By the way, most tech models are often made on softwares like FreeCAD and other CAD softwares then exported, textured, animated and rendered in Blender.
But the alternative, which I'll use, is Autodesk Fusion 360, which is technically free for a year (but renewable), which is excellent for detailed technical modelling and have really good rendering capabilities, there are other things I've to finish first, but it is planned that I remodel my concept phone in Fusion 360 with all the many improvements I came up with since I initially made it (literally, I only planned to make a basic phone to showcase the pop up mechanism, which is why it is so much more detailed than the rest, then I let my imagination free and started making a phone with many tech, the design evolved a lot and the new version will be different in some regards), but once I'll do it again, I'll focus on the overall phone rather than a single aspect (the pop up) and detail more things, like the components (battery, special opening mechanism, chips etc) and make some video to showcase all that in a more pleasant way, some just showcasing the phone itself, other focused on specific parts, and other being technical descriptions.
Yee, 27 Aug 2020Clearly apple is starting to care about their customer needs instead of following S.Jobs strat... moreNobody is waiting for 120hz except iPhone Peasssssants.
We all have better screens with features that you'll get in year 2025.
We all know how Job's thermonuclear war on Android went downhill with them ending up copying and playing catchup like a dog.
Anonymous, 27 Aug 2020If all your looking for is the camera capabilities, why not buy a pixel. The pixel 5 obviously.Never Android phone. And pixel 5 would be around last in the list.
Clearly apple is starting to care about their customer needs instead of following S.Jobs strategy: "keep them hungry waiting".
120hz screen, good job apple!