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

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.

Comments

rear is better

[bhcompy]

Rear fingerprint scanning is the better option for large format phones anyways. This is one thing that LG has managed to get right recently.

Re:rear is better

[Anonymous Coward]

The "larger than ever" screen is a requirement for some of us to use penisprint scanning functionality.

Re: rear is better

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine the facial recognition will take care of that for you.

Re:rear is better

[bhcompy]

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.

Personal Preference

[backslashdot]

That's just your preference, but remember not everyone likes it in the rear.

Re:Personal Preference

[SuperKendall]

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.

Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords

[davecb]

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.

Re:Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords

[JaredOfEuropa]

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?

Re:Fingerprints are usernames, not passwords

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.

Re:DNA?

[ilsaloving]

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.

I don't like this trend anyway

[Ayanami_R]

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.

Re:I don't like this trend anyway

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:DNA?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

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.