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?
Optimal fingerprint reader placement is on the back of the phone. You can just pick it up slide your finger on it and boom on to the home screen. Just want to see the time? Just press the power button and see the lockscreen.
I’m mixed on this. I have had the S9 for 6ish years, since launch. I love that it’s on the back. except having to pick it up to unlock it lol. so 80% of the time it’s amazing, which I guess is good enough.
also, pro tip, add multiple finger prints, both thumbs, and index, etc. so you can unlock it in multiple grips and don’t need a single finger available to get in.
Agreed completely. I have an S23 rn, but my previous phone was a mid-tier android with a fingerprint reader on the back. My natural resting grip on my phone would just unlock the thing. It was amazing. My current phone is a clear upgrade in every way except the fingerprint reader. My new one has it in the screen and I fuckin hate it.
My under the screen fingerprint sensor allows me to take out my phone from my pocket already unlocked. No button presses, no fiddling with finger placement on the back, it just works and is fastest.
I deduce that your phone never randomly locks while you’re using it as a satnav. Lucky you.