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?

  • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    But wouldn’t that let water and dirt inside the case, just like the camera cutouts? I already hate those

    • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Unless you got a really cheap, or really old phone, it’s rated to handle that water and dirt exposure.

    • morphballganon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      No more than the cutout for the camera does. Similar construction.

      My case fits pretty snugly and neither hole is an issue.

      • kraftpudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        For me, dirt and especially water getting into the case through the camera holes is definitely an issue, and my case also is tight.