Mike Dee
Ambassador
I think it's safe to say If we went by changes that made sense we'd have very few changes.The whole move to facial recognition never made sense to me.
1. The FPS is a secure, mature technology that adds negligible cost to a device, and has no downsides other than aesthetic. No issues with waterproofing.
2. FPS sensors have been known to be scratched up with no issue - good luck with that if the glass over the facial recognition sensors get scratched.
3. Twins and close family relations are not remotely likely to be able to be admitted use via FPS; same can't be said for facial recognition.
4. App culture has fully embraced FPS. As posted above, this will generate headaches for people till (and if) they fully embrace facial recognition.
5. Nobody is going to ever have a chance of tricking me into unwittingly unlocking my phone with my fingerprint. With facial recognition, all it would take is a "hey Jeremy" to get me to look their way, and someone had picked up my phone and pointed it towards me first...
6. With FPS one only has to be able to physically hold their phone to unlock it. Devices like the prior Pixels, with ergonomic rear placement, are so intuitive to unlock that most users will unlock them simply in the act of picking them up or pulling from a pocket unless they opt not to.
Facial recognition is cool, but it's a solution that didn't have a problem that wasn't already better solved. It's a shame they didn't retain the rear FPS alongside the facial recognition. Or, if they really wanted to clean up the back, integrate it into the power button as with the Slate.
I don't have any objection to facial recognition. I'm glad that they appear to have sought a more capable system approach with the addition of Soli sensors so that the sensors required solely to offer it have additional potential functionality to justify the space they take up. But dropping the FPS is definitely a step backwards.