4 ms·

I imagine that it's more nuanced - people expect biometric security from their phone today. The Pixel 4 removed the fingerprint sensor, relying on the face rec

I imagine that it's more nuanced - people expect biometric security from their phone today. The Pixel 4 removed the fingerprint sensor, relying on the face recognition. I imagine that what happened is that the full functionality wasn't ready for launch, and they had to decide between shipping a partial implementation or postponing the phone's launch date.

OnlineGladiator 7y ago
If they had reason to believe it wouldn't be ready, why did they choose to remove the fingerprint scanner? If both options were available there'd be an order of magnitude fewer complaints.
- Skunkleton 7y ago
  Because the hardware for the fingerprint scanner was removed long before it was obvious that they weren't "done" with the face scanning software. Its likely that they decided to trim back the functionality of the face scan well after the drop dead date for getting the hardware on time.
  - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
    That's kind of my point. It was probably poor planning, although it's possible something very unlikely went wrong. But it's not really that cutting edge of technology anymore so either the engineering team was underwhelming (a little hard to believe at Google) or the project was poorly managed (very easy to believe at Google).
    - Skunkleton 7y ago
      I see your point, but I don't agree. It wasn't poor planning, it was a calculated risk. Their options as I see it: 1) Delay - yet another year where the pixel doesn't have good facial recognition. During this period all of the OEMs will probably implement some crappy FaceID knock off which will damage Androids image. 2) Bank on in-development facial recognition - Google has lots of talent, they can probably get it done. Risk, they don't get it done. 3) Include both - hardware costs go up, internal size goes up, and people will expect both the next year. 4) Skip facial recognition entirely - Get "left behind". AFAICT people expect facial recognition for unknown reasons. Further, there are several applications of facial scanning that enable non-biometric-security features (anti-features?). Its easy to see how they chose option two. Sucks it didn't work out.
      - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
        I'm looking at option 3 as the logical choice. I admit I don't know, but you really think the added cost of the fingerprint sensor is significant on an $800 phone that's really meant as a flagship device to help keep Android relevant against iOS? Also while HN is certainly not the market at large, there's been more pushback for thicker phones with larger batteries, so the added thickness could be seen as a benefit. I don't know how Google weighed it or how they chose their priorities so I can't say whether or not they made the right call at the time (hindsight is 20/20). But based on your list, option 3 is the obvious choice to me. There's also the question of how long they had from the hardware cutoff date to the software cutoff date - I'd guess many months. Why not allocate more resources to help with the facial recognition software? That project by itself for a company at Google's scale should not take that long. Like I said, this is no longer cutting-edge tech. I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I think Google really fucked up the Pixel 4 and I bet it was a Product Manager who is responsible.
saagarjha 7y ago
They should have done the second.
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  Never gonna happen. I worked in consumer electronics before. Your release date is set in stone as you have millions or even billions of € tied in marketing, ads and promotion prepared months in advance to go live on that one date. You already booked air time on TV and rented billboards worldwide months in advance, you can't delay it on a short notice as airtime would be fully booked and you can't have ads for a product the consumers can't immediately buy.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    Right, so their other ethical option is to not launch with the feature.
    - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
      If the marketing material prepared months in advance onto which you have preorders made from consumers to retail chains, specified product would have said flawed function then you have no choice than to put in the overtime and try to get it working till the release date, even if it's half baked, otherwise you're in trouble as your product doesn't match the ads. That's why I left this industry. Everything was run by marketing people who had no idea of engineering resources and would just promise clients everything to get the sale done and once the ink was dry on the sales contract they'd get a bonus and we'd get the overtime hours to try to implement whatever magical features they promised.
      - andrekandre 7y ago
        > Everything was run by marketing people who had no idea of engineering resources and would just promise clients everything to get the sale done and once the ink was dry on the sales contract they'd get a bonus and we'd get the overtime hours to try to implement whatever magical features they promised. it’s not just electronics, consumer software is like this too…

OnlineGladiator 7y ago

If they had reason to believe it wouldn't be ready, why did they choose to remove the fingerprint scanner? If both options were available there'd be an order of magnitude fewer complaints.

Skunkleton 7y ago
Because the hardware for the fingerprint scanner was removed long before it was obvious that they weren't "done" with the face scanning software. Its likely that they decided to trim back the functionality of the face scan well after the drop dead date for getting the hardware on time.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  That's kind of my point. It was probably poor planning, although it's possible something very unlikely went wrong. But it's not really that cutting edge of technology anymore so either the engineering team was underwhelming (a little hard to believe at Google) or the project was poorly managed (very easy to believe at Google).
  - Skunkleton 7y ago
    I see your point, but I don't agree. It wasn't poor planning, it was a calculated risk. Their options as I see it: 1) Delay - yet another year where the pixel doesn't have good facial recognition. During this period all of the OEMs will probably implement some crappy FaceID knock off which will damage Androids image. 2) Bank on in-development facial recognition - Google has lots of talent, they can probably get it done. Risk, they don't get it done. 3) Include both - hardware costs go up, internal size goes up, and people will expect both the next year. 4) Skip facial recognition entirely - Get "left behind". AFAICT people expect facial recognition for unknown reasons. Further, there are several applications of facial scanning that enable non-biometric-security features (anti-features?). Its easy to see how they chose option two. Sucks it didn't work out.
    - OnlineGladiator 7y ago
      I'm looking at option 3 as the logical choice. I admit I don't know, but you really think the added cost of the fingerprint sensor is significant on an $800 phone that's really meant as a flagship device to help keep Android relevant against iOS? Also while HN is certainly not the market at large, there's been more pushback for thicker phones with larger batteries, so the added thickness could be seen as a benefit. I don't know how Google weighed it or how they chose their priorities so I can't say whether or not they made the right call at the time (hindsight is 20/20). But based on your list, option 3 is the obvious choice to me. There's also the question of how long they had from the hardware cutoff date to the software cutoff date - I'd guess many months. Why not allocate more resources to help with the facial recognition software? That project by itself for a company at Google's scale should not take that long. Like I said, this is no longer cutting-edge tech. I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I think Google really fucked up the Pixel 4 and I bet it was a Product Manager who is responsible.

saagarjha 7y ago

They should have done the second.

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
Never gonna happen. I worked in consumer electronics before. Your release date is set in stone as you have millions or even billions of € tied in marketing, ads and promotion prepared months in advance to go live on that one date. You already booked air time on TV and rented billboards worldwide months in advance, you can't delay it on a short notice as airtime would be fully booked and you can't have ads for a product the consumers can't immediately buy.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Right, so their other ethical option is to not launch with the feature.
  - ChuckNorris89 7y ago
    If the marketing material prepared months in advance onto which you have preorders made from consumers to retail chains, specified product would have said flawed function then you have no choice than to put in the overtime and try to get it working till the release date, even if it's half baked, otherwise you're in trouble as your product doesn't match the ads. That's why I left this industry. Everything was run by marketing people who had no idea of engineering resources and would just promise clients everything to get the sale done and once the ink was dry on the sales contract they'd get a bonus and we'd get the overtime hours to try to implement whatever magical features they promised.
    - andrekandre 7y ago
      > Everything was run by marketing people who had no idea of engineering resources and would just promise clients everything to get the sale done and once the ink was dry on the sales contract they'd get a bonus and we'd get the overtime hours to try to implement whatever magical features they promised. it’s not just electronics, consumer software is like this too…