4 ms·

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 tha

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.

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.