I had two Samsung flagship phones, one (S20FE) had an optical fingerprint reader and the other (S22) had an ultrasonic one. Both of them somewhat regularly failed to read my finger, were slower than a fingerprint reader on the power button and are more expensive/complex to build. They won’t work with cheap 3rd party screen replacements and some screen protectors as well.

Meanwhile my $90 Android phone has a fingerprint reader on the power button. It never fails and I never have to perfectly place my finger on the sensor area to get it to work. It just seems like the perfect place to put a fingerprint sensor, so why do phone manufacturers keep using in-display fingerprint readers over the cheaper alternative?

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    12·
    2 months ago

    Remember kids, don’t use fingerprint to unlock your phone. Use a passcode. Cops can force your fingerprint if they want to look through your device, but they can’t force you to reveal a password

    • tiny@midwest.socialEnglish
      10·
      2 months ago

      Android can be configured to require a pin after a reboot which is an ok compromise if you want to invoke the fifth amendment

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        5·
        2 months ago

        Every android phone I’ve had that had a fingerprint reader required a pin/pattern on reboot by default

    • Ech@lemm.eeEnglish
      6·
      2 months ago

      Most phones have an emergency lockdown that will require a passcode, fwiw.