.png)
Those who do not understand technology deeply can look at Apple's breakthroughs and wipe their hands, "Oh copy from another place." The truth is not so simple.
When Apple debuted a Face ID and when Craig Federighi demonstrated its facial facial expressions at the iPhone event yesterday, I anticipated a little: there are few who value the features. present. The reason is simple: facial authentication is not new technology, facial effects are sure to have ever played the app once.
But that does not mean Apple's performance is not admirable. I would like to say that, perhaps we must know more about technology to see why we should not give such neat suggestions as "This is a copy of Samsung, of LG, of ...." .
First, Apple was not exactly the first company to offer facial recognition. But, at the time of the Face ID announcement yesterday, no tech giant could reach as high a level of accuracy as Apple is: the Face ID ability to identify the wrong person to someone is just 1 / 1,000,000, that is more accurate than fingerprint (Touch ID has a false probability is 1 / 50,000). No company has reached such high levels of precision.
The nature of Face ID is a 3D scanner rather than a regular camera. To reach 1/10 ^ 6, Apple engineers actually had to "train" their AI algorithms - even the Hollywood-style masks did not get through the Face ID. Face ID processing speed is less than 1 second. All done on Apple's mobile hardware.
Those who have made machine learning in general and image recognition in particular understand that to achieve the achievement of apples is not easy. KGI Securities even commented that Qualcomm lost to Apple for two years. That is, Android-powered Qualcomm chips will not catch up with Face ID the following year.
Even the stage performance of Craig Federighi software president is an amazing achievement. Applying facial expressions is not a new proposition, but to apply the effect exactly like that, no company can do it. The Snapchat or Facebook effects are essentially applying a large pattern to the face. Apple's Face ID can apply the "virtual paint" layer to Craig Federighi's face. Clearly speaking, Apple has brought the iPhone closer to Hollywood's full face-sensing technology.
Một lần nữa, tôi dám khẳng định với bạn rằng các chuyên gia AI từng làm nhận diện hình ảnh chắc chắn sẽ không đánh giá thấp năng lực của Apple. Nhất là khi năng lực đó lại được thực hiện trên phần cứng của một chiếc điện thoại.
Còn Samsung thì có công nghệ quét mắt có thể qua mặt bằng những vật dụng thông thường.
Again, I daresay you that AI professionals who do image recognition will certainly not underestimate Apple's ability. Especially when that power is made on the hardware of a phone.
And Samsung has eye-scanning technology that surpasses conventional items.
The way Apple uses technology (and virtual / virtual intelligence) to apply to simple to silly cases is not new. A few years ago, the Touch ID came out and I also remembered the antifan said that Apple was eating the laptop makers. Right now, I'm sitting on a Lenovo ThinkPad notebook "a few years ago". To scan fingerprints on this ThinkPad, I had to scan one-way to several times. With Touch ID, scanning while holding the handle, holding the machine is not a problem. As long as my hands are not too wet, Touch ID often works correctly.
And of course, to prevent the two little grandchildren can arbitrarily open my machine.
A similar example: nothing but the touch screen of the iPhone. There is no one so silly to know that the iPhone is not the first smartphone, not the first touch phone - not even the first capacitive touch phone (that honor belongs to LG). But to create the iPhone, Steve Jobs and his team spent years researching capacious technology completely foreign to a company that specializes in making Macs and iPods.
Next, Apple also has to tweak its "Mac configurations" (according to BlackBerry CEO Mike Lazaridis) into the lightweight iPhone to run optimized touch-optimized software from macOS. Even this stage is not simple: iPhone OS is the first operating system to have optimal interface for finger touch. From Mac OS X, Apple has created a completely different platform but still light enough to run on ARM.
And LG, even launched the first capacitive touch technology, chose to follow Windows Mobile to ... 2001. When LG actually launched the first quality Android product Optimus G, everyone has It can be seen that Optimus G is more like the iPhone than the LG Prada.
The unfairness of Apple is that. Anyone who understands the technology must admirable before Apple's hi-tech ability. But Apple is rarely at the forefront, instead adopting the latter just to ensure it can launch an "acceptable" user experience when it launches new technology. Thanks to the transcendent technology, the "acceptable" level of apples is thousands of times higher than that of competitors - but, by late, people will rush to label Apple as one-sided comparisons. To prove that the apple is really poor.
When Apple debuted a Face ID and when Craig Federighi demonstrated its facial facial expressions at the iPhone event yesterday, I anticipated a little: there are few who value the features. present. The reason is simple: facial authentication is not new technology, facial effects are sure to have ever played the app once.
But that does not mean Apple's performance is not admirable. I would like to say that, perhaps we must know more about technology to see why we should not give such neat suggestions as "This is a copy of Samsung, of LG, of ...." .
First, Apple was not exactly the first company to offer facial recognition. But, at the time of the Face ID announcement yesterday, no tech giant could reach as high a level of accuracy as Apple is: the Face ID ability to identify the wrong person to someone is just 1 / 1,000,000, that is more accurate than fingerprint (Touch ID has a false probability is 1 / 50,000). No company has reached such high levels of precision.
The nature of Face ID is a 3D scanner rather than a regular camera. To reach 1/10 ^ 6, Apple engineers actually had to "train" their AI algorithms - even the Hollywood-style masks did not get through the Face ID. Face ID processing speed is less than 1 second. All done on Apple's mobile hardware.
Those who have made machine learning in general and image recognition in particular understand that to achieve the achievement of apples is not easy. KGI Securities even commented that Qualcomm lost to Apple for two years. That is, Android-powered Qualcomm chips will not catch up with Face ID the following year.
Even the stage performance of Craig Federighi software president is an amazing achievement. Applying facial expressions is not a new proposition, but to apply the effect exactly like that, no company can do it. The Snapchat or Facebook effects are essentially applying a large pattern to the face. Apple's Face ID can apply the "virtual paint" layer to Craig Federighi's face. Clearly speaking, Apple has brought the iPhone closer to Hollywood's full face-sensing technology.
Một lần nữa, tôi dám khẳng định với bạn rằng các chuyên gia AI từng làm nhận diện hình ảnh chắc chắn sẽ không đánh giá thấp năng lực của Apple. Nhất là khi năng lực đó lại được thực hiện trên phần cứng của một chiếc điện thoại.
Còn Samsung thì có công nghệ quét mắt có thể qua mặt bằng những vật dụng thông thường.
Again, I daresay you that AI professionals who do image recognition will certainly not underestimate Apple's ability. Especially when that power is made on the hardware of a phone.
And Samsung has eye-scanning technology that surpasses conventional items.
The way Apple uses technology (and virtual / virtual intelligence) to apply to simple to silly cases is not new. A few years ago, the Touch ID came out and I also remembered the antifan said that Apple was eating the laptop makers. Right now, I'm sitting on a Lenovo ThinkPad notebook "a few years ago". To scan fingerprints on this ThinkPad, I had to scan one-way to several times. With Touch ID, scanning while holding the handle, holding the machine is not a problem. As long as my hands are not too wet, Touch ID often works correctly.
And of course, to prevent the two little grandchildren can arbitrarily open my machine.
A similar example: nothing but the touch screen of the iPhone. There is no one so silly to know that the iPhone is not the first smartphone, not the first touch phone - not even the first capacitive touch phone (that honor belongs to LG). But to create the iPhone, Steve Jobs and his team spent years researching capacious technology completely foreign to a company that specializes in making Macs and iPods.
Next, Apple also has to tweak its "Mac configurations" (according to BlackBerry CEO Mike Lazaridis) into the lightweight iPhone to run optimized touch-optimized software from macOS. Even this stage is not simple: iPhone OS is the first operating system to have optimal interface for finger touch. From Mac OS X, Apple has created a completely different platform but still light enough to run on ARM.
And LG, even launched the first capacitive touch technology, chose to follow Windows Mobile to ... 2001. When LG actually launched the first quality Android product Optimus G, everyone has It can be seen that Optimus G is more like the iPhone than the LG Prada.
The unfairness of Apple is that. Anyone who understands the technology must admirable before Apple's hi-tech ability. But Apple is rarely at the forefront, instead adopting the latter just to ensure it can launch an "acceptable" user experience when it launches new technology. Thanks to the transcendent technology, the "acceptable" level of apples is thousands of times higher than that of competitors - but, by late, people will rush to label Apple as one-sided comparisons. To prove that the apple is really poor.
No comments:
Post a Comment