3 ms·

I'm also one of those who could never get the Apple fingerprint reader to work well--for me it was 50/50 whether it worked or not. Like the parent I ended up sw

I'm also one of those who could never get the Apple fingerprint reader to work well--for me it was 50/50 whether it worked or not. Like the parent I ended up switching back to code entry which was usually quicker anyway. So when I moved over to Android I was very suspicious whether the Android implementation would be any better--and in fact it is miles better. My Samsung S21 recognises my fingerprint around 9 times out of 10. It works even in situations (e.g. sweaty fingers) where the Apple implementation would not work at all. What makes me even more impressed is that the S21 has the fingerprint reader embedded into the screen, whereas Apple had the advantage of a dedicated space for the fingerprint reader without a screen getting in the way. YMMV of course but now I understand how nice it is just to press your fingerprint and it just works. Wonder if there are people who have unusual features in their fingerprint that causes Apple's implementation to struggle?

brimble 5y ago
IIRC my touchID phone was one of the early ones to have it (a 7+, maybe? I don't recall for sure). I've used I think three different Apple laptops with touchID, and they've all worked fine. It could be that early versions of the hardware didn't like something about my skin, but later versions (by the time they started putting them in laptops) were fine. I hold on to phones quite a while, so my next upgrade after that had faceID. In fairness to Apple, I didn't try any of their later touchID-equipped models of phones.
- extra88 5y ago
  There have only been two generations of Touch IDs on iPhones. The 5s and SE gen 1 have the first generation Touch ID and the rest have the second. The second gen was noticeably faster, I don’t know if it was more reliable.
  - kiwijamo 5y ago
    I recall that Touch ID on both the 5s and the 7 was equally poor for me so it doesn't seem that the second generation has improved things for me at least.
Someone 5y ago
> it is miles better. My Samsung S21 recognises my fingerprint around 9 times out of 10 That second sentence doesn’t imply the first one. The Samsung could have a lower false positive rate (letting the registered fingerprint unlock the phone more often) at the cost of a higher false negative rate (letting unregistered fingerprints unlock the phone more often) In the limit, if it rolled a ten sided die for any press of its button, and unlocked the phone unless it rolled a one, that would give users the impression that it recognizes their fingerprint 90% of the time. (Of course, “doesn’t imply” doesn’t mean the first sentence isn’t true, either. It may be genuinely better, or Samsung might have chosen a different cut-off, sacrificing security for a gain in usability. I wouldn’t know. Do any phone reviews test these things at all?)

brimble 5y ago

IIRC my touchID phone was one of the early ones to have it (a 7+, maybe? I don't recall for sure). I've used I think three different Apple laptops with touchID, and they've all worked fine. It could be that early versions of the hardware didn't like something about my skin, but later versions (by the time they started putting them in laptops) were fine. I hold on to phones quite a while, so my next upgrade after that had faceID. In fairness to Apple, I didn't try any of their later touchID-equipped models of phones.

extra88 5y ago
There have only been two generations of Touch IDs on iPhones. The 5s and SE gen 1 have the first generation Touch ID and the rest have the second. The second gen was noticeably faster, I don’t know if it was more reliable.
- kiwijamo 5y ago
  I recall that Touch ID on both the 5s and the 7 was equally poor for me so it doesn't seem that the second generation has improved things for me at least.

Someone 5y ago

> it is miles better. My Samsung S21 recognises my fingerprint around 9 times out of 10 That second sentence doesn’t imply the first one. The Samsung could have a lower false positive rate (letting the registered fingerprint unlock the phone more often) at the cost of a higher false negative rate (letting unregistered fingerprints unlock the phone more often) In the limit, if it rolled a ten sided die for any press of its button, and unlocked the phone unless it rolled a one, that would give users the impression that it recognizes their fingerprint 90% of the time. (Of course, “doesn’t imply” doesn’t mean the first sentence isn’t true, either. It may be genuinely better, or Samsung might have chosen a different cut-off, sacrificing security for a gain in usability. I wouldn’t know. Do any phone reviews test these things at all?)