After reluctantly switching to the Galaxy Z Fold 7 two months ago, I found that the decision was primarily driven by software, particularly Samsung’s One UI 8 which helped me curb my doomscrolling habits.
However, the expected compromises compared to traditional smartphones, such as the absence of an under-display fingerprint sensor, were not very appealing. The book-style foldable design of the Galaxy Z Fold 7 made it impractical to incorporate an under-display sensor, leading to the integration of a physical sensor into the power button.
Surprisingly, the physical fingerprint sensor turned out to be an upgrade rather than a downgrade. It made unlocking the phone, logging into apps, and authenticating payments a seamless experience, unlike the frustrating encounters I had with under-display sensors in the past.
Mattias Inghe
This experience raised a question about the persistence of under-display sensors when physical sensors offer better performance. In my opinion, it’s time to abandon under-display fingerprint scanners on all smartphones, not just foldable or budget models. Here are five key reasons why.
Under-display sensors are simply not good enough
If under-display fingerprint scanners were as fast and reliable as physical sensors, there would be no competition. The convenience of having it easily accessible is unmatched.
However, the reality is far from ideal. I have tested numerous Android phones with under-display scanners, and the reliability varies significantly. Some scanners unlock the phone less than half the time, while others are more reliable, but the overall trustworthiness is questionable.
…if your fingers are a bit sweaty, or god forbid, you spill water on your screen, you can basically forget about getting into your phone
Foundry | Alex Walker-Todd
In addition, under-display scanners often fail when fingers are sweaty or when the screen is wet, making it difficult to access the phone in such situations. Despite years of these issues, no company has effectively addressed them.
While ultrasonic scanners are faster and more reliable than optical ones, they also come with their own set of problems. The inability to depend on these scanners, especially in urgent situations, makes them a less favorable choice.
Moreover, these issues extend to the process of authenticating payments, logging into apps, or accessing passwords, creating a recurring inconvenience with Android phones. The subpar experience with under-display scanners seems to be a persistent issue with no immediate resolution in sight.
Apple’s snub speaks volumes
Considering the shortcomings of under-display sensors, it is not surprising that Apple has steered clear of incorporating them in their devices.
Since replacing the Touch ID physical fingerprint scanner with Face ID in 2017, Apple has stuck to this secure 3D face unlock method, which has proven successful over time.
Unlike other manufacturers who might introduce under-display sensors as an afterthought, Apple has never ventured into this territory, opting to rely on the efficiency of Face ID instead.
When Face ID provides a fast, secure alternative that works even in the dark, there’s little incentive to supplement it with a subpar alternative
Mahmoud Itani / Foundry
Apple’s avoidance of under-display sensors suggests that the technology has not reached the standards required for their devices. With Face ID offering a secure and efficient alternative, there is little need to compromise with an inferior option.
By integrating an updated version of Touch ID into select iPad models, Apple chose to incorporate it into the power button rather than under the display, aligning with their philosophy of providing seamless functionality.
While Apple may not always be infallible, the Android market could benefit from following their lead on this matter.
Secure face unlock is more popular than ever
The absence of under-display fingerprint sensors in iPhones highlights the effectiveness of modern face unlocking technologies.
Face ID surpasses basic face unlock methods by utilizing an infrared camera to project thousands of dots onto a user’s face, creating a secure and reliable facial map.
While Face ID was unique for a long time, Android manufacturers like Honor and Oppo are now incorporating similar 3D face unlock technologies in their devices. Google’s approach with the Pixel 8 also provides a secure alternative to fingerprint scanners for various authentication purposes.
Chris Hall / Foundry
With a proliferation of options, fingerprint scanners of all kinds could soon become obsolete on smartphones. In the meantime…
Physical scanners can be impressively discreet
A decade ago, fingerprint scanners on phones were easily noticeable, but advancements have allowed them to blend seamlessly into the design.
Many manufacturers have integrated fingerprint sensors into power buttons, making them almost invisible and conveniently located where users naturally place their fingers.
This discreet integration contrasts with the more prominent nature of under-display scanners, which can be harder to ignore.
There’s significant cost-saving potential
In the current market, pricing is a major concern for smartphone manufacturers, with the global RAM shortage driving up costs and putting pressure on production.
By opting for physical sensors over under-display ones, companies can save significantly on manufacturing costs, as research suggests physical sensors are 25-30% cheaper to produce.
This switch presents a clear opportunity for cost savings without compromising the overall user experience, making it a logical choice for manufacturers.
The sunk-cost fallacy
Despite being introduced eight years ago, under-display fingerprint sensors continue to fall short of expectations. While they offer a sleek experience when functioning correctly, the reliability issues often lead users to seek alternative methods.
With reliable alternatives like physical sensors and secure face unlocking available, there is no need to persist with a technology that is costlier and less dependable.
While the appeal of under-display sensors was understandable during the experimentation phase, it is evident that the technology has not progressed significantly. It may be time to
