Why Samsung Ditched On-Screen Fingerprint Scanning For Galaxy S8 (theinvestor.co.kr)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Samsung Ditched On-Screen Fingerprint Scanning For Galaxy S8 (theinvestor.co.kr)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday March 14, 2017 @06:00AM from the note-from-the-future dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Samsung Electronics' upcoming Galaxy S8 is unlikely to feature on-screen fingerprint scanning after its touch sensor partner Synaptics ran out of time for developing the related technology, industry sources told The Investor earlier this month. On-screen fingerprint was a highly anticipated function for the new phone with a larger-than-ever display screen. "Samsung poured resources into Synaptics' fledgling technology last year but the results were frustrating," a source briefed on the matter on condition of anonymity. "With the production imminent, the company had to decide to relocate the fingerprint scanning home button to the back of the device at the last minute." A larger screen that covers almost the entire front body is a key feature for the S8. Since last year, Samsung had made all-out efforts to embed a fingerprint scanner under the display to allow users to unlock the phone by placing their finger on the screen, not the physical home button on the bottom.

71 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

rear is better by bhcompy · 2017-03-14 06:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Rear fingerprint scanning is the better option for large format phones anyways. This is one thing that LG has managed to get right recently.
1. Re:rear is better by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:07 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The "larger than ever" screen is a requirement for some of us to use penisprint scanning functionality.
2. Re: rear is better by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:17 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I imagine the facial recognition will take care of that for you.
3. Re:rear is better by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2017-03-14 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Rear fingerprint scanning is the better option for large format phones anyways.
  This does not make sense to me, given both the way people hold phones and how their hands are generally configured.
  
  --
  #DeleteChrome
4. Re:rear is better by bhcompy · 2017-03-14 07:30 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Grip around sides.. index finger rests right in middle, where the scanner is. The only time that doesn't apply is when holding landscape style.
  
  When gripping the phone to activate frontal fingerprint readers you actually need to let the phone hang loose a bit to get the thumb onto the reader, which is problematic on large format phones. I have an iPhone 7 and an LG V20. The V20 is more natural to hold and activate.
5. Re:rear is better by Vince+Ferg · 2017-03-14 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  I agree, my first phone to have fingerprint was the Note 7 and although I absolutely loved everything about the phone after trading it in for the Pixel (which I absolutely hated) I must say the fingerprint in the back was 1 of the very few things I found worked better over the Note 7. You always have a finger in the back of the phone so you don't have to move a finger at all to unlock the phone and although it seemed like a small thing it really did help tremendously. Again I hated the Pixel, but I couldn't agree more with the sensor placement. Also I don't know about anyone else but after trying out 2 Samsung phones with fingerprint I have to say it has a serious issue with sensitivity as well which results in a lot more misses when trying to unlock than the Pixel. Hopefully they worked on fixing that at least with the S8...?
6. Re:rear is better by Gr8Apes · 2017-03-14 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  Grip around sides.. index finger rests right in middle, where the scanner is. The only time that doesn't apply is when holding landscape style. When gripping the phone to activate frontal fingerprint readers you actually need to let the phone hang loose a bit to get the thumb onto the reader, which is problematic on large format phones. I have an iPhone 7 and an LG V20. The V20 is more natural to hold and activate.
  This likely may apply to you and those who happen to have hands and fingers similar to yours and prefer to hold their phones like you do. Otherwise, it'll be a little off or even in the way. Kind of like how the volume toggle is on the wrong side of an ipad/iphone as far as I'm concerned, especially when in landscape mode.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
7. Re:rear is better by Rob+Y. · 2017-03-14 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Because for the most part, the only time you use the fingerprint scanner is to unlock your phone. And if you keep your phone in your pocket, it's pretty easy with a rear fps, to learn how to unlock it by touch so that when you pull the phone out, it's already unlocked. You probably don't want to be trying to maneuver your fingers to activate a front-bottom FPS while you're pulling it from your pocket - unless you really trust your gorilla glass. Yes, for those times when you want to unlock your phone while it's sitting flat on a table, it sucks. Then again, I'm glad to free up the front bezel space for other things (front-facing speakers, in the case of my phone).
  Presumably the Samsung 'sensor in the screen' won't be raised so that you can find and activate it by touch - so that's a disadvantage right there. And unless it's always enabled for whenever you touch that part of your screen, you might have to do something to activate it, which would make it less useful for those quick unlocks with the phone lying on a table. Then again, maybe it is always active. Still...
  
  --
  Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
8. Re:rear is better by thisisauniqueid · 2017-03-14 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I hate having the fingerprint scanner on the back, I think it's one of the most stupid of recent phone "innovations". It's way too easy to accidentally unlock the phone when you're putting it into your pocket (as has happened numerous times for me). It's also easy to accidentally slide down the notification bar by moving your finger on the back while holding the unlocked phone (I know you can disable this feature). I'd much rather have the front surface touch-sensitive, and the back surface and sides completely non-touch-sensitive.
9. Re:rear is better by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 19:37 · Score: 0
  
  Mod comment above overrated. You choose which finger's print unlocks the phone. If you find the positioning of your index finger problematic on large format phones you can set your thumb print to unlock the phone and you won't have that problem that you describe.
10. Re:rear is better by pthisis · 2017-03-15 17:29 · Score: 1
  
  Whether you keep your fingers on the rear or the sides of your phone, you definitely don't hold it with your fingers on the front. They'd block the screen. The rear may not be absolutely ideal for everyone, but it's at least a reasonable choice (from personal experience, the top placement like the old Motorola Atrix had was fine, as is the rear placement on the Nexus 5x; you adjust pretty quickly to either).
  But the front screen is the one place that people--for good reason--actively avoid having their fingers rest when holding the phone, and thus the worst possible location for a fingerprint sensor.
  
  --
  rage, rage against the dying of the light
11. Re:rear is better by Gr8Apes · 2017-03-20 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  But the front screen is the one place that people--for good reason--actively avoid having their fingers rest when holding the phone, and thus the worst possible location for a fingerprint sensor.
  Which is why that's the best place to put a scanner, you'll only scan when you explicitly want to scan, and not inadvertently.
  
  --
  The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Personal Preference by backslashdot · 2017-03-14 06:11 · Score: 5, Funny

That's just your preference, but remember not everyone likes it in the rear.
1. Re:Personal Preference by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:41 · Score: 0
  
  How do you know if you don't try it?
2. Re:Personal Preference by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  Well, how do you know that eating shit doesn't taste good, especially with ketchup, without trying it? And if ketchup didn't make it good try mustard, or Sriracha sauce, etc.
3. Re:Personal Preference by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  Every phone seems to have a back door, so it's not like you have a choice.
4. Re:Personal Preference by SuperKendall · 2017-03-14 06:59 · Score: 2
  
  How do you know if you don't try it?
  Well it's one thing to try it for free, quite another to pay someone $800 for the experience which may give you something you do not enjoy that will be with you for many years.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
5. Re: Personal Preference by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  samsung has a lot of stores worldwide where you can test the latest flagship. either that, or find a verizon/telekom/whatever telephony provider and test the phone there.
6. Re:Personal Preference by colin_faber · 2017-03-14 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  OP3 FTW!
LG by hackwrench · 2017-03-14 06:13 · Score: 1

Yeah, but LG put the power button on the back, too, so you gotta be careful setting them down. Volume buttons there too. It also seems to be more of an issue in a pocket.
1. Re:LG by bhcompy · 2017-03-14 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to be careful. The volume and power buttons are recessed into the rear casing.
2. Re: LG by hackwrench · 2017-03-14 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well I encountered âproblems with it, however I managed it.
3. Re: LG by bhcompy · 2017-03-14 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  Which phone? The G4, G5, V10, and V20 all have raised camera apertures that are next to the power buttons(which are all flush or recessed compared to the body), and on the G3 the camera aperture is flush but the power button is recessed. There is no way to set the device down on a flat surface and push the power button without bending the phone enough to crack the screen.
4. Re: LG by hackwrench · 2017-03-14 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  https://www.bing.com/search?q=...
Saved for S9 by crow · 2017-03-14 06:14 · Score: 1

Well, anything they wanted to do in the S8 that didn't make it into the final product is something they have another year to work on to get it in the S9. So if you don't like the S8 design, stick with an older phone for one more year. And remember that you can get an S7 at a steep discount now, and that will only get better.
Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords by davecb · 2017-03-14 06:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you use your username as a password, don't be surprised if you open yourself up to a police- or borderguard-ordered search. And of course, next week crooks will get your print and 3d-print a thumb.

--
davecb@spamcop.net
1. Re:Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords by JaredOfEuropa · 2017-03-14 07:13 · Score: 2
  
  Still more secure than that swipey pattern thing which one can shoulder-surf from three desks over. And wasn't there a recent ruling that being ordered to unlock a phone with a fingerprint amounted to self-incrimination?
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-03-14 07:20 · Score: 2
  
  And wasn't there a recent ruling that being ordered to unlock a phone with a fingerprint amounted to self-incrimination?
  No. There was a recent ruling, but it was very much the opposite of what you just said.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
3. Re:Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords by GuB-42 · 2017-03-14 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  Fingerprints are neither username nor passwords. They are a "what you are" authentication factor and a very good way to secure a physical device like a phone.
  A variety of techniques can be used to defeat fingerprint scanners in the same way that locks are pickable. Still, it requires dedication : first steal the phone, then pick up fingerprints, make the fake finger and unlock. It is also common to require a password in addition to the fingerprint if the phone hasn't been used for some time. For most people, it is a more than adequate level of security.
DNA? by DogDude · 2017-03-14 06:18 · Score: 1, Insightful

So people are already giving Google (and their customers) all of their personal data. This would allow people to give Google (and Google's customers) their fingerprints. Why stop there? Why not just give away DNA, as well?

--
I don't respond to AC's.
1. Re:DNA? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  My phone gets a healthy load of my DNA several times per day, on average.
2. Re:DNA? by ilsaloving · 2017-03-14 06:48 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  My phone gets a healthy load of my DNA several times per day, on average.
  I hope that you at least wipe the screen with a disinfectant cloth after each... um... use.
3. Re:DNA? by Gravis+Zero · 2017-03-14 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  This would allow people to give Google (and Google's customers) their fingerprints. Why stop there? Why not just give away DNA, as well?
  I tried doing that and all I got was a restraining order in return. ;)
  
  --
  Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
4. Re:DNA? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-03-14 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  Why not just give away DNA, as well?
  Google owns 23andme.com People aren't giving away their DNA, they are paying for the privilege of it being stored.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
5. Re:DNA? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Why not just give away DNA, as well?
  [tinfoil_hat_on]
  If only a Google founders ex-wife was running a company that collects DNA......
  [/tinfoil_hat_on]
6. Re:DNA? by Ksevio · 2017-03-14 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, people provide their fingerprints because it provides an easy way to secure your device against the average person that might try to break in while still being quick and convenient to unlock. They aren't doing it because they love providing their personal data to a large corporation. If giving Google DNA led to some other convenience, you can be sure that people (Google's primary customers) would be doing that too.
7. Re:DNA? by thegarbz · 2017-03-14 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  This would allow people to give Google (and Google's customers) their fingerprints
  Yeah, no. Doesn't work like that.
8. Re:DNA? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 12:55 · Score: 0
  
  If giving Google DNA led to some other convenience, you can be sure that people (Google's primary customers) would be doing that too.
  People are the product, not the customer.
9. Re:DNA? by DogDude · 2017-03-14 13:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, no. Doesn't work like that.
  
  Why not? The EULA says that Google owns all the data in your Android phone.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
10. Re:DNA? by torkus · 2017-03-15 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that's not how fingerprint readers work, right?
  To over-simplify, they basically take a hash of your fingerprint and compare that with the stored hash. Yes, a full fingerprint (and 3d printing etc) can get you back to that hash, but you can't build a fingerprint FROM it.
  
  --
  You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
11. Re:DNA? by DogDude · 2017-03-15 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  I understand that's how they're supposed to work. I really doubt that Google would leave any data on the table, though.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
Put everything there then by backslashdot · 2017-03-14 06:19 · Score: 1

If they were going to put the fingerprint scanner in the back, they should have gotten rid of the front facing camera too and put a display on the back. With even a small rear display, the bezel on the front facing side can be eliminated entirely. Sure the phone might be slightly thicker but it would look awesome. As for the speaker grille .. I suppose you can have one that is nearly invisible, have it face a different way, or deal with not having one.
They tried but it was an explosive idea by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:30 · Score: 0

People were giving the idea a hand.
Potential for burnt fingertip lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 06:33 · Score: 0

it hurts.
Puzzling by OneHundredAndTen · 2017-03-14 06:38 · Score: 0

Without it, the S8 is far less hot. Maybe Samsung is not interested for the S8 to be a really explosive handset.
rectangular phones by backslashdot · 2017-03-14 06:44 · Score: 1

While I agree with eliminating bezels, I am not sure i like phones getting so rectangular. Get rid of the bezel but don't F up the aspect ratio.
I don't like this trend anyway by Ayanami_R · 2017-03-14 07:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I disable the fingerprint stuff as soon as the device arrives, I don't even power it on until that thing is not working. That data is being siphoned by someone, somewhere.

--
"Science is the power of man"
1. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Consider what the NSA and CIA did with phones and smart TVs - get them to listen in even while turned "off". This is why you don't want a finger print scanner integrated in your screen. Even if you think you turned it off, what is the software really doing? Such as collecting all finger prints in the world.
2. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by ledow · 2017-03-14 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Worse than that.
  A bit of wood glue and carbon paper and you can take a snapshot of a fingerprint smudge on a screen, and turn it into an authenticatable fingerprint in about five minutes.
  All fingerprint readers suffer the same problem, to differing degrees, but a fingerprint is bog-useless for "securing" your phone. It's literally in the "prank on your friends" territory to unlock it.
  There's a reason that my Samsung shows several different lock screen methods (swipe, PIN, passcode, etc.), each with a security (High Security, Medium Security, Low Security, etc.) underneath and the fingerprint one? It says NOTHING underneath. Just a blank space where they should be saying "Waste of time"
3. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by tlhIngan · 2017-03-14 08:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Worse than that.
  A bit of wood glue and carbon paper and you can take a snapshot of a fingerprint smudge on a screen, and turn it into an authenticatable fingerprint in about five minutes.
  All fingerprint readers suffer the same problem, to differing degrees, but a fingerprint is bog-useless for "securing" your phone. It's literally in the "prank on your friends" territory to unlock it.
  There's a reason that my Samsung shows several different lock screen methods (swipe, PIN, passcode, etc.), each with a security (High Security, Medium Security, Low Security, etc.) underneath and the fingerprint one? It says NOTHING underneath. Just a blank space where they should be saying "Waste of time"
  The point of the fingerprint reader is not for security, but for convenience.
  Apple found a LOT of people did not put even a 4-digit PIN on their phones. Why? Because the users found it too inconvenient. And the average use case bears this out - a phone is interacted with hundreds to thousands of times a day, and each interaction lasts only a few seconds - either to glance at a message, check out information, etc. For these uses, entering a PIN takes a few MORE seconds, easily doubling the interaction time.
  Instead of grouping interactions together so one unlock you do many things, Apple discovered users were simply disabling the locks so they didn't have to bother with the PIN codes that delayed the interactions. Thus, it ended up with something like 75% of all phones, despite having the capability for locking access down, were left in the open state.
  Hence the fingerprint reader - it allowed the user to put on a lock on their phone, but also allow a quick unlock for interactions.
  A fingerprint is not secure - even Apple treats it as such, which is why the fingerprint is disabled after several invalid tries (use other authentication method, like PIN), after a reboot, or after 48 hours. It's there to provide the user with a convenient way to unlock their phone, as well as having it locked down so it's not so inconvenient.
4. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  do you wipe your fingerprints off public places or wear gloves all the time?
5. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by willy_me · 2017-03-14 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the fingerprint reader
  The fingerprint reader does solve the described problem, but I would suggest the real reason was to support Apple Pay. This allows for a new source of income thereby generating strong motivation for getting the hardware together. The improved user interface is an added bonus which otherwise might not have validated the additional cost associated with an early introduction.
  And Apple did a good job with the fingerprint reader - not perfect but it is secure. Not even the OS gets a chance to read your fingerprint due to the dedicated hardware. Overall an excellent design which others should aspire towards.
6. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by GuB-42 · 2017-03-14 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  If a government wants fingerprints, it just needs to ask.
  In many countries, fingerprints are required to get an ID card or a passport. They are also often taken as you cross a border. This is not secret data.
7. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 16:36 · Score: 0
  
  My phone is too old, so I don't have a finger print reader, but can PINs be used as overrides (on Android at least)? I don't trust a fingerprint reader to work 100% of the time, since there's a host of factors that might cause it to fail.
8. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by ledow · 2017-03-14 20:07 · Score: 1
  
  The Android fingerprint API is one way too. You can train, you can ask the hardware to recognise, but at no point do you get access to the raw fingerprint data.
  Also, the iPhone 5S is vulnerable to EXACTLY the attack I describe, as was the Galaxy S5. The newer models are also no different, in that respect.
  Apple Pay and the iTunes store also both allow use of fingerprints for purchases. Therefore it's not just "convenience", but security too.
9. Re:I don't like this trend anyway by Ayanami_R · 2017-03-15 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  And my point has nothing to do with all of this, merely that I simply do not trust that someone isn't siphoning this data. Every phone has a black box (the radio) that not even the OS really knows what it is doing.
  
  --
  "Science is the power of man"
Everything I don't want in a phone by Bill+Hayden · 2017-03-14 07:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

Maybe I'm an exception, but the S8 seems to move Samsung in the direction of everything I don't want in a phone. I want physical buttons and a home button in the front -- I absolutely loathe the on-screen buttons that other Android phones use. And why exactly would I want the fingerprint reader in the back? Or any button on the back, for that matter? I fingerprint unlock my S6 all the time while it's sitting flat on my desk. Also, I much prefer the flat screens over the curved "edge" screens. The S8 will come only in "edge" models.
This seems like a redesign that moves away from the very things that made the Galaxy line popular.

--
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
1. Re:Everything I don't want in a phone by Guybrush_T · 2017-03-14 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm totally with you on physical buttons. However, I wouldn't be against a fingerprint scanner on the back, it's always hard to scan my finger while holding my phone.
  On the other hand, edge screens are stupid.
2. Re:Everything I don't want in a phone by Angeret · 2017-03-14 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  I found that by keeping both thumbs & index fingers on file in the phone I can unlock it flat on the desk with either finger or with either thumb while holding it one handed (screen on with home & unlock in a second either way). I have enough trouble getting my finger on the heart rate monitor next to the camera on the S7 without needing to clean the camera afterwards so having a fingerprint reader next to the camera...? Nope, not for me. I also found iris scanning a bit hit & miss too (on the Note 7) so if they can work some magic with a face unlock that can't be spoofed, then count me in on that instead and I won't mind not using fingerprints at all.
3. Re:Everything I don't want in a phone by thegarbz · 2017-03-14 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  I fingerprint unlock my S6 all the time while it's sitting flat on my desk.
  Why do that? Haven't you taught your phone not to bother you with passcodes when it identifies your voice, that you're holding it, what you look like etc. Having to touch it is soooo 2015.
  I joke but only half. There are two locations I have Smartlock enabled. Work and home. Passwords and fingerprints are not for when my phone is on my desk next to me.
  For the rest of your complaints, buttons, straight edges, fingerprint on the front. That sounds like something a bunch of Slashdot users want rather than something that made the Galaxy line popular. Or do you actually think they would release the S8 on an edge only model if their sales data didn't show that it was by far the most overwhelmingly popular choice for the S7?
4. Re:Everything I don't want in a phone by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  The physical buttons have been a differentiator for the Galaxy line for a long time. Without them, it's just another Android phone. May as well get an LG.
can't wait for eTip gloves by kiviQr · 2017-03-14 08:08 · Score: 1

how efficient are these scanners in 0F temperature anyway?
1. Re:can't wait for eTip gloves by Overzeetop · 2017-03-14 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  If it has iris unlock, you won't have to worry. The Note 7 (RIP) had both, and many people liked the iris functionality when gloved. Personally, I found you had to be uncomfortably close, and prefer the Windows (Intel) Hello facial recognition login for a more seamless experience.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The only reason for usernames... by Overzeetop · 2017-03-14 08:54 · Score: 1

If you could be certain that passwords were unique, there would be no need for a username. Your password is just a unique identifier, as is your username.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
1. Re:The only reason for usernames... by willoughby · 2017-03-14 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Oh come on, just think about that for a minute. I'm setting up a new account and the system asks me to choose a password. I type in CorrectHorseBatteryStaple and the system replies that I can't use that as it's already in use.
  With no usernames and the password as the only identifier, I now know someone's sign-on identifier. How well do you really think that would work?
What was missing? by russotto · 2017-03-14 09:25 · Score: 1

They couldn't figure out how to make it catch fire?
GREAT. This is BETTER security against the US Gov. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-03-14 10:47 · Score: 0

Given we had a story on here about how the police in some state/city received a warrant to force 'all users in the building to unlock their phones only IF they had a fingerprint scanner' this is actually BETTER security against the state. People would have to go back & look but my recollection is the warrant was issued under the basis that a 'fingerprint is NOT protected speech but a password IS protected speech' so until there is a Supreme Court ruling guaranteeing fingerprints as 'protected speech' I'll hang on to my password method instead thanks very much.
Yes, they could say that by Trogre · 2017-03-14 13:04 · Score: 1

Or they could just admit that nobody actually wanted it.

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Side is best by Shepanator · 2017-03-16 01:58 · Score: 1

If the scanner is on the side of the phone then it has the ergonomic benefit over the home button scanner, and the practical benefit of being usable while the phone is flat on a table. Plus on the side is likely where the lock button is anyway and is where your thumb will naturally fall while taking the phone out of your pocket, so it will be already unlocked when you bring it up to your face. Unfortunately Sony are the only company that do this that I know of
1. Re:Side is best by bhcompy · 2017-03-16 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately Sony are the only company that do this that I know of
  I like the placement of it and their phones look fantastic, but Sony's prices are ridiculous.