I haven't seen the Gartner report (who wants to spend that kind of money?), but here are two possible reasons:
(1) Iris recognition differentiates between users probably better than any other biometric system.
(2) It is expensive, but it doesn't have to be. By 2002, Gartner is betting it will be cost-competitive.
Having given those reasons, I am not convinced. It's one thing to have a biometric that differentiates better than any other; it's another thing to have one that adds value to the application. As far as I can tell, fingerprints give you all the differentiation you might need for any given purpose. Second, no matter what the cost, there are a lot of places where cameras just aren't going to be as convenient as fingerscanning -- such as portable computers, many POS devices, and consumer items, including phones and cars. Finally, iris recognition appears to be later to the starting gate. By the time it gets there, it could be too late. Unless a major biometric firm wants to take over the technology. We've seen that before. |
