One of the very first phones with an under-screen fingerprint reader was the Oneplus 6T at the end of 2018. We can’t think of any other example where a manufacturer has been as willing to ruin the user experience at the expense of customers just to be first with new technology – for the reader was deplorable and an outright downgrade.

Not only was the scanner slow with lousy accuracy; the screen shone so brightly to scan the fingerprint that the phone’s light sensor became confused and pulled up the general brightness of the screen in dark rooms, further blinding the user. Since then, the optical fingerprint readers under the screen have fortunately become very better.

Why don39t more manufacturers use ultrasonic fingerprint readers

1707643780 783 Why don39t more manufacturers use ultrasonic fingerprint readers

They are now faster, more precise and don’t light up the screen as brightly. However, optical readers under the screen are still slower and less secure than classic, capacitive fingerprint readers. The optical readers capture a 2D image of the print much like a camera.

And the optical readers are also technically inferior to ultrasound-based scanners. So why don’t more manufacturers use ultrasound? The technology is safer and doesn’t require the screen to illuminate the print, so users don’t risk being dazzled in dark rooms. Another advantage is that the ultrasound readers are not as easily confused by wet or oil stains on the screen. So far, almost only Samsung uses ultrasonic fingerprint readers and almost only in the top models.

1707643780 708 Why don39t more manufacturers use ultrasonic fingerprint readers

1707643780 963 Why don39t more manufacturers use ultrasonic fingerprint readers

Qualcomm announced an ultrasonic fingerprint reader – Sense ID – already nine years ago. A couple of years later, the chip maker presented an ultrasound-based fingerprint reader that can sit under the screen. So why aren’t they more common? The only answer we can come up with is that the manufacturers are skimping, because the optical readers are cheaper. But why skimp on flagships that cost over SEK 10,000? Is there something we are missing?

Ultrasound-based readers have not been entirely without problems by any means; for example, some of Samsung’s early models with ultrasound could be confused by screen protectors. The speed can also vary. However, the technology appears to be a more attractive alternative than optics, today.

Those of you who have or have had access to an ultrasound-based fingerprint reader, how do you think the technology works and how do you think the scanner compares to optical or capacitive readers?

Post
Filter
Apply Filters