3 ms·
> That just indicates that the value of a modular component isn’t high enough to make it worth building for now. This is the dilemma. The value is low _now_ be
by mrkurt 5y ago
> That just indicates that the value of a modular component isn’t high enough to make it worth building for now.
This is the dilemma. The value is low _now_ because Apple bought the vendor, rather than purchasing from a vendor. In a healthy marketplace, Apple's scale would fund development of technology that other people could buy and run with. Instead, the market "developed" touch ID and Apple got to keep everyone else from using it for the low, low price of $365mm.
- zepto 5y agoThat’s completely wrong. Touch ID is not a sensor. Touch ID is an integrated system that was developed by Apple for phones. Touch ID doesn’t do anything for door locks. It’s the fact that it’s a tailored for their phones that makes it work better. The market didn’t develop Touch ID. Apple did. Fingerprint sensors are widely available in the marketplace and they are better than what was available when Apple bought a sensor company. In a healthy market, someone else would look at what Apple did, and work out how to apply any relevant concepts to use outside of phones. This is work that hasn’t been done yet, and is open for someone to do. It’s normal for a general solution to follow a specific one. The idea that Apple should have developed a door lock solution makes no sense.
- kasey_junk 5y agoPresumably he’s talking about the acquisition of authentec.
- zepto 5y agoSure - but that doesn’t negate anything I said. Authentec didn’t make Touch ID, and wouldn’t have been able to make it as a standalone company and Touch ID isn’t a general solution that others can use. That means there is still room for someone else to do what Authentec was doing.