thank you for sharing your thoughts. -> Fingerprints are just more convenient. Apple, for example, argued the false positive rate way too high. For me, as a us

thank you for sharing your thoughts. -> Fingerprints are just more convenient. Apple, for example, argued the false positive rate way too high. For me, as a user, I'm more concerned about the false-negative rate. I think Apple just wanted more screen real estate. They could've easily put the sensor on the back (eg like the Samsung Galaxy S8). I agree, a matter of fact fingerprint sensor on the back of a phone is arguably the most efficient way to unlock a phone. With desktops, it varies quite significantly. -> - Masks! for what its worth, one user told us that they have successfully logged in while having a green mint facial care mask on..:) -//- By no means Entry is the best tool out there, nor we claim it to be so. Here are a few known flaws: - if someone has two or three monitors and it is unclear where the camera is, it requires some time to get used to, which may be annoying - to your point, Entry will not work in a pitch-black room - Entry is by no means "fingerprints-fast": as a factor, Entry competes with the time it takes to reach a phone and click on push notification. For example, mean time to verify using Okta Verify (default mfa solution for okta sso) is ~21 seconds. For Entry it's 30 seconds. We still need to work on that (although our users still choose Entry over Verify, we ask to have both factors set up :) )