iPhone 18 tipped to hide Face ID below the screen — what we know
We've been hearing a lot about Apple's plans for the iPhone 18, and the state of Face ID once the phone actually goes on sale. Now another rumor has repeated a lot of what we've already heard, promising that Face ID hardware will all go under the display in 2026 for the first time in an iPhone.
This news comes from Digital Chat Station over on Weibo, citing sources in the supply chain. The leaker claims that the first big change is to the rear of the iPhone 17, which we've already seen in renders and dummy models. So expect the extended camera bar on the iPhone 17 Pro, Pro max and Air models.
The leaker goes on to claim Face ID will be heading under the screen next year, leaving a single hole-punch camera on the display. And then 2027 may then see the camera follow suit, leaving the iPhone 19 (or 20) with a totally uninterrupted display.
DCS doesn't go into any more details about which iPhone models in the 18 family will get these changes. My guess is that, at the very least, the Pro models will be first in line with the non-Pros waiting another year.
This year's iPhone 17 redesigns are all over the internet at this point, and it seems as though those changes are locked in — for better or worse.
We've also heard plenty of rumors about the 20th anniversary iPhone, and how it's going to change. Recent rumors have tipped the phone to get a totally uninterrupted display with the selfie camera disappearing under the screen.
Apple has also been slowly hiding Face ID hardware under the screen over the past few years, reducing the size of the notch and the screen cutout in the process. So pushing the final traces of hardware under the screen is the next logical step, and it's been rumored for quite some time now.
Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips.
Whether it happens next year or 2027 doesn't really matter, assuming Apple is aiming for the true-full-screen display by the 20th anniversary launch.
We won't know for sure until much closer to the time, but in the meantime we still have this year's iPhone releases to look forward to. Be sure to check out our iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Air, iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max hubs for all the latest news and rumors on the upcoming phones.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Tom's Guide
2 hours ago
- Tom's Guide
I walked 8,000 steps with the Apple Watch 10 vs Garmin Forerunner 570 — and one was more accurate
These days, the best fitness trackers on the market do a hell of a lot more than just count your steps. Both the Garmin Forerunner 570 and Apple Watch 10 are designed to be worn 24/7, and can track everything from your heart rate variability to your menstrual cycle. But if you've wondered which is more accurate when it comes to step-counting, you've come to the right place. In my latest step-counting challenge, I strapped the Garmin Forerunner 570 to one wrist, my Apple Watch Series 10 to the other, and manually counted my steps to compare. Read on to find out which came out on top. Both watches count your steps by using an internal accelerometer, which measures the swing of your arm. Each swing counts for two steps. It doesn't matter whether you wear your watch on your dominant or non-dominant hand, or whether you're walking with your hands in your pockets, or holding something, the accelerometer should still measure your body's movement. I've used both devices for tracking my workouts in the past, although the Garmin Forerunner 570 is a newer device, only launching a month ago. If you've followed Tom's Guide for a while, you'll know this isn't my first step-count comparison. In fact, you can read what happened when I did the same test with the Garmin Forerunner 570's predecessor in my Garmin Forerunner 265 vs Apple Watch 10 face-off here. For all of these challenges, I use my trusty clicker counter. Every step I took, I clicked. When I got home, I downloaded all the data. If you own an Apple Watch, you'll also know that Apple doesn't include step count data in its workout summaries. You can see your overall steps for the entire day, but not how many steps you took on a particular walk (probably because steps aren't actually that useful a metric, but annoying for me when writing these articles.) Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. This challenge was originally 10,000 steps, but I lost the beginning of my walk as the StepsApp on my Apple Watch decided to stop working. I switched to the Pedometer+ app and started again. Here are the results: Manual: 8,000 steps Garmin Forerunner 570: 8,100 steps Apple Watch 10 7,700 steps As you can see from the results, the Garmin Forerunner 570 was pretty much spot on, counting 100 steps more than I did. The Apple Watch 10, on the other hand, missed 300 steps. Of course, to truly test the accuracy of the two watches, you'd need to do a lot more testing on a much bigger scale. I'm also not saying that the Apple Watch 10 isn't accurate. The average person takes 2,000 steps in a mile, so missing 300 steps isn't a lot in the grand scheme of things. Interestingly, for the walk, my Apple Watch recorded the distance as 3.79 miles, whereas my Garmin recorded 3.85 miles. Again, we're talking about very small differences here. Without getting into the smartwatch vs sportswatch debate, it seems important to also point out that these watches do a lot more than just count steps. Without getting into the smartwatch vs sportswatch debate, it seems important to also point out that these watches do a lot more than just count steps. The Apple Watch 10 is the best smartwatch on the market and is like having your iPhone on your wrist. The Garmin Forerunner 570, by comparison, doesn't have as many smartwatch features but is Garmin's mid-tier Forerunner, designed to accurately track your marathon training. It's one of the best Garmin watches I've ever tested, and the bright screen is truly beautiful. Whichever device you choose to strap to your wrist, know that they're both counting your steps, so, unlike me, you don't have to. While counting steps isn't always the best metric to focus on when it comes to getting in shape and losing weight, it's a good place to start. A review of 32 studies, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity found that '10,000 steps/day is a reasonable target for healthy adults.' If you're looking for more inspiration, you've come to the right place — read what happened when I tried this Japanese walking method, as well as this 5-4-5 walking technique.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Bono: Stories of Surrender' Is Now Streaming Online: How to Watch the Music Documentary for Free
All products and services featured are independently chosen by editors. However, Billboard may receive a commission on orders placed through its retail links, and the retailer may receive certain auditable data for accounting purposes. There's a new documentary, which is based on his one-man stage show, that takes a closer look at the life and music of U2's Bono. Starting on Friday (May 30), Bono: Stories of Surrender drops on Apple TV+. It's available to stream for subscribers only. More from Billboard Speed Into Summer With Racing-Inspired Pieces From A$AP Rocky & Puma Capsule Collection Dallas Wings vs. Seattle Storm: How to Watch the WNBA Commissioner's Cup With Hulu + Live TV Face Masks, Eye Patches & More Beauty Essentials to Upgrade Your Skincare This Summer watch 'Bono: Stories of Surrender' on Apple TV+ A subscription to Apple TV+ can give you access to stream Bono: Stories of Surrender online. Apple TV+ is ad-free and goes for $9.99 per month. You can watch everything the streamer has to offer, including original titles, such as The Morning Show, For All Mankind, Severance, Long Way Home and Long Way Up, Servant, Silo, Invasion, Foundation, Lessons in Chemistry, Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, Masters of the Air and more. The service also includes music documentaries and programming, like 1971: The Year That Music Changed Everything, Watch the Sound with Mark Ronson, K-Pop Idols, Carpool Karaoke and others. Apple TV+ has access to live sports, including Friday Night Baseball. Not a subscriber? Sign up for a seven-day free trial to watch Bono: Stories of Surrender. Directed by Andrew Dominik, Bono: Stories of Surrender is a reimagining of Stories of Surrender: An Evening of Words, Music and Some Mischief…, the U2 frontman's one-man stage show. The documentary follows Bono's relationships with his family, friends, faith and career in music. It features never-before-seen footage of life on the road with U2, as well as performances of U2 songs. Meanwhile, if you're an Apple Vision Pro owner, then you can watch the film in an immersive experience with Bono: Stories of Surrender (Immersive). You can watch Bono: Stories of Surrender on Apple TV+ starting on Friday, May 20. You can watch for free with a seven-day free trial. In the meantime, watch the trailer below. watch 'Bono: Stories of Surrender' on Apple TV+ Want more? For more product recommendations, check out our roundups of the best Xbox deals, studio headphones and Nintendo Switch accessories.
Miami Herald
2 hours ago
- Miami Herald
Google search judge scrutinizes AI power in trial resolution
The federal judge who will decide how to limit Google's monopoly in search is considering its advantage in artificial intelligence too, and aiming to limit harm to the other players in the market with any resolution. On Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington, attorneys for Alphabet Inc.'s Google and the Justice Department answered Judge Amit Mehta's final questions in the government's monopoly case against the search giant. It will be up to Mehta to decide whether to break up the company and reshape the internet or impose more limited penalties. Mehta's first questions to the government focused on whether curbing Google's position in generative AI was a fitting way to address the company's dominance in search, He also mulled the possibility of Google being forced to share key data with rivals and banning it from paying to make its search engine the default on other devices. "Does the government believe that there is a market for a new search engine to emerge as we think of it today?" he asked. "Do you think somebody is going to come off the sidelines and build a new general search engine in light of what we are now seeing happen in the AI space?" "The short answer is yes, your honor," Justice Department lawyer David Dahlquist responded. "We do believe that these remedies that will be proposed will allow that opportunity to occur. The reason we are so focused on gen AI, and the reason you heard a lot of evidence about it, is because that is the new search access point." The questions focused on the Justice Department's proposal for forward-looking, long-term measures to resolve Google's conduct in the market, which Mehta ruled last year was an illegal monopoly of the online search market. Antitrust regulators have argued that Google's dominance in traditional search could extend to generative AI, which is becoming a key gateway for how users access information online. Exclusive agreements Central to the case are agreements with Apple Inc. and others in which Google pays billions of dollars annually to be the default search engine on the iPhone maker's devices. The DOJ is seeking a bar on those payments, which would also apply to Google's artificial intelligence products, including its flagship AI model, Gemini. Google's counterproposal would still allow for the company to split revenue with competing browsers. The company's lawyers have said that banning Google from competing for search distribution contracts only serves to help large rivals like Microsoft at the expense of consumers, browser companies and device makers. Mehta told the DOJ that if he were to cut off Google's payments to Apple, Mozilla and others to distribute its search engine, it would cause widespread market harm. "Every single distribution partner said, 'This would harm us.' Some have gone so far to suggest this would put them out of business," Mehta said. "Is that an acceptable outcome, to fix one market and harm others?" he asked, referring to the browser and device maker industries. "That's a fair question," Dahlquist replied. But "that is asking the court to put private interests ahead of the public interest." He added that the government does not "dispute the possibility of some private impact." Mehta asked if it would work to create any exceptions to the payment ban, a possibility Dahlquist rejected, saying that even Apple's Eddy Cue wasn't fully opposed to the government's proposals. Apple stands to lose tens of billions of dollars in annual payments from Google if the DOJ's proposals are to be adopted and revenue sharing is paused for the next 10 years. "I think you're right that Mr. Cue wants more choice and he may be willing to be paid less money" for more choice, Mehta responded. "I just don't know whether he wants to live in a world where he can't get paid anything for no choice." The company's lead lawyer John Schmidtlein objected to any payment ban. "Banning the payments here would not be addressing the unlawful conduct," he said. "It would not be connected to the violation in this case." Existential threat AI chatbots are already seen as an existential threat to traditional search engines, as they can address users' questions directly with AI-drafted responses - replacing the need to present people with a long list of search results pointing across the web. Google has argued that the government's proposals are too extreme, saying they would hurt American consumers and the economy, as well as weaken U.S. technological leadership. Google argues that it is the market leader in search because of more than 20 years of innovation. It says people use its service because it is the best. Schmidtlein asserted on Friday that the court should focus on addressing the specific conduct found to be illegal, rather than imposing extensive remedies - including on Google's generative AI products - that he said could fundamentally restructure the market. But Mehta also appeared skeptical of the tech giant's argument for more limited remedies, indicating he is seriously considering including AI-related measures in his decision. "It seems to me that to simply say, 'look, just open up the avenues of distribution,' without providing any further remedies that are forward-looking and that would allow competitors to actually be rivals here, sells the remedy portion of this short," Mehta commented. Schmidtlein countered that gen AI products are not in the relevant market for search. "There is no evidence that gen AI products have been harmed by any of the conduct issue in this case," he said. "They couldn't have been, they weren't around, right?" Perplexity, OpenAI As the trial unfolded in April and May, some representatives from AI companies told the court they are already being stymied by Google. Perplexity's Dmitry Shevelenko testified that Google's contract with Lenovo Group Ltd.'s Motorola blocked the smartphone maker from setting Perplexity as the default assistant on its new devices. Motorola "can't get out of their Google obligations and so they are unable to change the default assistant on the device," the Perplexity executive said. Representatives of two prominent AI startups - OpenAI and Perplexity AI - also testified their companies would be interested in buying Chrome if Google were forced to divest it. Much of the discussion in the first part of the day focused on what data, and how much of it Google would be forced to syndicate to rivals so they can build their own search engines. Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testified in April that the Justice Department's proposal to share search data with rivals constituted a "de facto" divestiture of the company's search engine. On Friday, Mehta told government lawyer Dahlquist that he is "not looking to kneecap Google" but to instead bolster potential competitors. "We are trying to kickstart competitors, we are not trying to put them on equal footing on day one." ___ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
