LG Superfan, 16 Sep 2020Software cost too you know the more the difficult the development the higher the cost and no w... moreCost doesn't appear from nowhere, sometime software cost can be as little as the salary of the employee coding it, which is exactly why I said, by making a security expert particularly oriented on biometric and a sound imaging expert mainly from the medical instrument field, with only those two you can get a great job done, and it won't cost much.
Underdisplay camera is a great exemple of how the industry can spend on a worthless tech, and the very existence of optical FPS is a proof that there is a market, what you forgot is that ultrasonic FPS have the capability to scale up to fulldisplay FPS, which actually, for the added comfort, many peoples would want.
And from one that can be fooled with a single picture and another which require almost cloning your finger, lets say that, for FPS users, the security difference between the two can be a huge selling point.
The average person, once exposed with numbers and exemples, do care, a little too much as it is how the useless IP rating is so popular despite changing nothing except adding on cost, or that phones with 16 bazillions RAM despite being almost no one requiring such amount sell well, same with 108Mp sensors despite not being really superior to the amazings IMX689, IMX700, GN1 or many of the 12Mp sensors on Apple, Sony and Google phones.
Also smartphone security isn't about what user want, it is like privacy, it affect everyone, who care that many won't see a difference or that some don't want it if it is actually better for everyone ?
Anything increasing privacy, security, reliability and other important key points should be done, period.
AnonD-909757, 16 Sep 2020What ? Do you realize that it is mostly software implementation right ?
The sensor doesn'... moreSoftware cost too you know the more the difficult the development the higher the cost and no way OEM would spend a little more for something which average user won't even care about
Literally an average person won't care if their FPS is optical or ultrasonic
And yes I agree UD camera are just worthless IMO flip up like Asus are best
LG Superfan, 16 Sep 2020Yeah if it is properly implemented the cost would be so high no one would buy the phone and ev... moreWhat ? Do you realize that it is mostly software implementation right ?
The sensor doesn't need to be any different, Samsung is just being stupid and using an extremely powerful sensor that can do a lot as a regular limited sensor, it won't be expensive.
If you want something expensive, look at underdisplay camera, which are a totally stupid idea that cost a lot in both hardware and software.
And if no one else implement it, of course peoples will still thing it is the same as Samsung implementation.
Smartphones company don't care what customers think, and for putting something that have no drawback over previous methods and provide a massive upgrade in security they shouldn't anyway.
Peoples are always complaining about every imaginable tech in smartphones, which, from an outside observer, your very comment have the same effect as it clearly is being against ultrasonic FPS tech, and brands won't spend millions trying to find out who don't want this tech from who complain for no reasons, which is exactly why smartphones are all crappy and all the same, as because of all those BS attitude people have, it is impossible to tell what configuration would have success.
AnonD-909757, 15 Sep 2020Indeed it isn't easy, but once it is done, the result is more than worth it, but we need ... moreYeah if it is properly implemented the cost would be so high no one would buy the phone and even if OEM market it extensively not many people are aware of such tech and would think it is USFPS from Samsung phones like you must have seen people complaining that when Apple unveiled FaceID saying that face detection has been in Android for years now and it can be fooled by picture etc (same are still complaining)
Hello, 15 Sep 2020765GAnd Pixel 4a 5G also uses the same chip I believe. How does that makes sense?
LG Superfan, 15 Sep 2020The only reason I see Ultrasonic not being properly implemented is probably the difficulty in ... moreIndeed it isn't easy, but once it is done, the result is more than worth it, but we need more implementation of this tech for that.
No phone use the 3D Sonic Max yet, but all the S10, S20 (including the FE), Note10 and Note20 use the first gen 3D Sonic, which was actually a big disappointment when the S20 was released and the 3D Sonic was there rather than the newer and already available 3D Sonic Max, same for the Note20, it probably is because Qualcomm refused to give to Samsung the exclusivity over the 3D Sonic Max that in turn, regardless if it mean not having the better sensor for the customers, they took revenge by not choosing the latest one.
Had any brand decided to use the 3D Sonic Max and call a security expert who know biometric really well and making him work with a sound imaging specialist (like one who work on Medical ultrasound equipment), the result would be insane, almost no one would be able to fool this sensor, it would take a deep analysis of the person's finger and an extremely costly and complex process to generate a fake finger able to crack it, while optical one can literally be fooled by an image...
If an ultrasonic FPS is fooled by 3D printed finger or other cheap screen protectors, it only mean the implementation doesn't use anywhere near a third of the capabilities of the sensor, which unlike face or fingerprint who have a 1 to XXX chances someone else share the same as you and are able to unlock the phone, using real scanning of veins and flesh density would probably make it literally virtually impossible for anyone else or any non human flesh based + blood flowing reproduction to unlock your phone.
And this isn't even taking the massive jump in capabilities the two fingers at once allow.
AnonD-909757, 15 Sep 2020I am sure it only come down to the problem the first generation (3D Sonic) that was actually a... moreThe only reason I see Ultrasonic not being properly implemented is probably the difficulty in tuning
Still would be nice if phones use 3D Max properly
And I'm not sure if Samsung even uses Qualcomm fps
AnonD-836132, 15 Sep 2020Still not clear what chipset will the Pixel 5 use?765G
LG Superfan, 15 Sep 2020TBH I would prefer optical fps than ultrasonic one which Samsung uses (why doesn't anyone... moreI am sure it only come down to the problem the first generation (3D Sonic) that was actually a good sensor but poorly implemented by Samsung get it a bad initial reputation and it can't get rid of, even now that it work really well.
Ultrasonic FPS are superior in every possible aspects, but they also are the most difficult to implement :
A regular capacitive FPS work like your touch screen, but with a resolution so high it basically tell individual fingerprint ridges appart, the result is a nice and easy to use map already giving you the shape of the fingerprint.
Optical literally take a picture, with a minimum of image treatment, it is quite easy to get the fingerprint shape.
Ultrasonic though, they require sound imaging methods, which aren't the typical things smartphones manufacturers are used to deal with, the data are way more complex as it isn't just bouncing back from the finger, but do get inside, you need to handle the sound waves and transform those informations into a 3D data that isn't just "there is something"/"there is nothing" like capacitive, but rather have a full density related data treatment requirement.
The advantages of ultrasonic FPS, when properly implemented, is that, a little like capacitive, they can tell relief, except that as long as there is contact, capacitive don't care about the shape, whereas ultrasonic see in full 3D, making them way better, but they can also gather data from inside the finger, like seeing veins, they can identify you with the pattern of your veins on top of the fingerprint, but also check the density to make sure it is seeing something similar to flesh, blood in the veins, it can see the blood pulses making it able to be used as a heart beat monitor, but also checking the finger is from a person who have a blood flowing normally (hard to fake) and since they get as far as 5mm, which is close to half the fingertip thickness, it can see your distal phalanx, both measuring its density and checking its shape.
Combining all that already make it way superior to any other fingerprint implementation by a huge margin, ultra difficult to fool and extremely reliable (providing it is properly implemented, as the sensor itself is really great but the software need to be really good too, and obviously Samsung doesn't use near a third of the sensor capabilities).
But also it can be scaled up by a huge margin, as unlike a camera it is easily scalable, allowing for fulldisplay FPS, it can also be placed and work on the side or the back of a device, and optical FPS can actually be used to spy on the users :
Note that for spying, the quality isn't the N°1 priority anyway.
And the newer version of the Qualcomm sensor is way better than the one Samsung use, despite having similar name to the 3D Sonic, the new one, the 3D Sonic Max, is next gen :
As for why ? Well, it's just one of the many illogical choice smartphone makers do...
Still not clear what chipset will the Pixel 5 use?
Why google phones are not available in KSA?
In the last Pixel 4 launch they revealed astrography. Lets see what they come up with now. Hopefully it would be something more useful
If Pixel 5 indeed comes with a metal back, it will be my dream phone; not so large, oled, mid-range, good software support, good camera, larger battery than my current phone (op6), METAL back.
If they go the boring glass path, i'll probably go for 4a5G. All in all - google phones this year seem like a good fit for me, even though they will be expensive
if its under 450$ it's still a great deal apart from rear fingerprint
record for google is 4000mah battery
Keep them under $350 ... I might go back to Pixel phones.
AnonD-909757, 15 Sep 2020If as the images suggest, not only it have a stupid punch hole, but on top of that it doesn... moreTBH I would prefer optical fps than ultrasonic one which Samsung uses (why doesn't anyone uses Qualcomm one?) and rumors say Pixel 5 might use a capacitive fps on the back
My experience with the 3 has and is awesome. Great software experience that's delightfully uncomplicated, great size and always seems new. I like where alphabet is going. 2021 will likely see Google's own 5nm processor to compliment there existing proprietor chips.
If as the images suggest, not only it have a stupid punch hole, but on top of that it doesn't have the 3D Facial recognition anymore (that rather than just dropping the problematic Soli Chip, they stupidly removed everything), coupled with probably no 3.5mm Jack.
And being Google, that is being stupid, no way they would be smart enough to be the one aside from Samsung to use ultrasonic FPS, nor to use any specific, advanced or special tech anywhere.
This phone will be the perfect example of the lack of diversity I often talk about and that all smartphones are basically the same, with the same design, features, general lack or presences of things like any other smartphones without any significant difference except with just some numbers that are slightly different (like battery capacity, size, resolution, number/type of camera and their resolutions).
We don't need ANOTHER smartphone exactly like all the rest, we need variety, diversity, choice, like the Pixel 4, despite all the Google poor choices, was at least different.
There are already a bazillion phones with more or less the same characteristics, features, design, etc.
Hell, apparently there isn't even any real different from the Pixel 4a, wouldn't just a Pixel 4a Plus be better and making a different phone for the Pixel 5 ?
The quoted differences aren't even worthy in my eyes of making a "Plus" variant rather than a sub variant, like many phones have different RAM quantities for the same model variant, so another model for so little chances ? Really Google ?
We really need a new OS from someone really far from Google with a way better philosophy for what types of smartphones would be made, a true open source one with manufacturers encouraged to make variety and a proper ecosystem so that you don't need a bloody new version of the OS for just changing a camera...