5 ms·

> I'm trying to answer why I don't see this happen, because I worked in this industry for more than 20 years. And despite that experience, you do not see the u

by Topfi 16d ago

> I'm trying to answer why I don't see this happen, because I worked in this industry for more than 20 years. And despite that experience, you do not see the universal value in reliable, verifiable image attestation for any user? You cannot imagine why that may not just be very useful, but quickly become required, what the "end-user demand", "business-value" or "industry-requirements" could be?

rickdeckard 16d ago
This is not what I wrote and a very bad-faith statement of yours. There is universal value in many features, yet they didn't become a commodity in all smartphone-tiers. I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones, which you keep insisting on without apparently comprehending the industry and market aspects I am trying to explain. Peace.
- deleted 16d ago
  [deleted]
- Topfi 16d ago
  What? Those three sentences are not really compatible with each other?! Like, they are mutually exclusive and each appears to hold a different position. How is what I wrote (that you seem to not see universal benefit) in bad-faith/not what you wrote (honestly trying to understand what you mean) if you then add: > I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones [...] So, do you see universal value or not? Cause you again said you do not and that was precisely what I wrote, that you do not seem to despite it being obvious to anyone who thinks about why phones of any price have cameras. Should I honestly start writing a list why private as well as business users of smartphones may want, even need this? Is that really required? Consider every use case of a camera on a phone, please, before I feel the need to do that.
  - rickdeckard 16d ago
    You fail to understand the difference between a feature having perceived "universal value" and that same feature being applied universally in all price-segments of a device. These are, and I cannot overemphasize this, two different things! You stated that you "struggle to see how cost could be a factor here", so in good faith I was trying to give you an insight. There is universal value in OIS, as everyone takes pictures while holding the device in his hands, yet OIS is not applied universally in all price-tiers of devices. The reason is COST. So you wanted to shift the conversation, claiming that it's not a "serious, honest and accurate" comparison, without providing any reasons for that. Again, I walk with you, I respond to what you're stating. Now it ends with you starting the straw-man argument of how obviously great this feature is and asking how despite all experience I am not capable to see that. See, it doesn't matter if _I_ see universal value in this feature or not, the topic was why I consider it unlikely to become a commodity. You tried to move the conversation to this straw-man argument, and doing so in bad-faith. That's why our talk ends here. I give you my side of this conversation so you may read and grow from it, but this is entirely up to you. P.S.: You also seem to misunderstand what this feature is. It's NOT picture attestation as you put it. Picture attestation means an entity confirms the connection of a picture to something else (some "metadata"), e.g. a picture of a person to an identity (Name, ID,...) or a place. This attestation party can either be a person (self-attested) or an official entity (e.g. a government). Nothing in this process changes with this Apple feature, because all it can do is confirm that the picture was taken by the camera as-is, but the attestation to the external metadata (WHO this is, WHAT this is, WHERE this is) still needs to be done by someone else. A party trusted enough to vouch for this. But let's end this here. Have a good day.
    - Topfi 16d ago
      > See, it doesn't matter if _I_ see universal value in this feature or not, the topic was why I consider it unlikely to become a commodity. > You tried to move the conversation to this straw-man argument, and doing so in bad-faith [...] What? This entire conversation started with the assumption being made that this was going to be iPhone exclusive. I stated doubt and then you (re-read to verify cause you seem to have forgotten that) out of left field and for no discernible reason felt the need to move the conversation to the only massive straw man in this interaction, the 99usd phone market. I personally still believe that this is going to be a universal feature soon enough (wait to hear from Omnivision, etc.) and stand by that. This is my personal assessment due to the objective need for such features in the world we live in today. I may be wrong on this, we will see. Maybe it will be restricted to the higher end Android phones, but that would still be compatible with what I started out saying. I shouldn't have engaged with someone so serious that they must drag "why couldn't Android OEMs in general do the same" (a purely technical question) down to "99 USD Smartphone" and "premium" on those (an odd and empty pivot). Anyone who does such a shift, well, they must have a well founded, serious point to make.

by Topfi 16d ago

rickdeckard 16d ago

This is not what I wrote and a very bad-faith statement of yours. There is universal value in many features, yet they didn't become a commodity in all smartphone-tiers. I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones, which you keep insisting on without apparently comprehending the industry and market aspects I am trying to explain. Peace.

deleted 16d ago
[deleted]
Topfi 16d ago
What? Those three sentences are not really compatible with each other?! Like, they are mutually exclusive and each appears to hold a different position. How is what I wrote (that you seem to not see universal benefit) in bad-faith/not what you wrote (honestly trying to understand what you mean) if you then add: > I don't see how and why this feature should become a default in all smartphones [...] So, do you see universal value or not? Cause you again said you do not and that was precisely what I wrote, that you do not seem to despite it being obvious to anyone who thinks about why phones of any price have cameras. Should I honestly start writing a list why private as well as business users of smartphones may want, even need this? Is that really required? Consider every use case of a camera on a phone, please, before I feel the need to do that.
- rickdeckard 16d ago
  You fail to understand the difference between a feature having perceived "universal value" and that same feature being applied universally in all price-segments of a device. These are, and I cannot overemphasize this, two different things! You stated that you "struggle to see how cost could be a factor here", so in good faith I was trying to give you an insight. There is universal value in OIS, as everyone takes pictures while holding the device in his hands, yet OIS is not applied universally in all price-tiers of devices. The reason is COST. So you wanted to shift the conversation, claiming that it's not a "serious, honest and accurate" comparison, without providing any reasons for that. Again, I walk with you, I respond to what you're stating. Now it ends with you starting the straw-man argument of how obviously great this feature is and asking how despite all experience I am not capable to see that. See, it doesn't matter if _I_ see universal value in this feature or not, the topic was why I consider it unlikely to become a commodity. You tried to move the conversation to this straw-man argument, and doing so in bad-faith. That's why our talk ends here. I give you my side of this conversation so you may read and grow from it, but this is entirely up to you. P.S.: You also seem to misunderstand what this feature is. It's NOT picture attestation as you put it. Picture attestation means an entity confirms the connection of a picture to something else (some "metadata"), e.g. a picture of a person to an identity (Name, ID,...) or a place. This attestation party can either be a person (self-attested) or an official entity (e.g. a government). Nothing in this process changes with this Apple feature, because all it can do is confirm that the picture was taken by the camera as-is, but the attestation to the external metadata (WHO this is, WHAT this is, WHERE this is) still needs to be done by someone else. A party trusted enough to vouch for this. But let's end this here. Have a good day.
  - Topfi 16d ago
    > See, it doesn't matter if _I_ see universal value in this feature or not, the topic was why I consider it unlikely to become a commodity. > You tried to move the conversation to this straw-man argument, and doing so in bad-faith [...] What? This entire conversation started with the assumption being made that this was going to be iPhone exclusive. I stated doubt and then you (re-read to verify cause you seem to have forgotten that) out of left field and for no discernible reason felt the need to move the conversation to the only massive straw man in this interaction, the 99usd phone market. I personally still believe that this is going to be a universal feature soon enough (wait to hear from Omnivision, etc.) and stand by that. This is my personal assessment due to the objective need for such features in the world we live in today. I may be wrong on this, we will see. Maybe it will be restricted to the higher end Android phones, but that would still be compatible with what I started out saying. I shouldn't have engaged with someone so serious that they must drag "why couldn't Android OEMs in general do the same" (a purely technical question) down to "99 USD Smartphone" and "premium" on those (an odd and empty pivot). Anyone who does such a shift, well, they must have a well founded, serious point to make.