Two months ago, I made a hesitant switch to the Galaxy Z Fold 7.
The primary reason for this change was the software, as Samsung’s One UI 8 provided features that helped manage my tendency to doomscroll.
However, the trade-offs compared to traditional smartphones were not enticing, particularly the absence of an under-display fingerprint sensor.
The dual-screen design of book-style foldables like the Galaxy Z Fold 7 makes an under-display sensor impractical, so a physical sensor is integrated into the power button instead.
Contrary to my initial concerns, this fingerprint sensor has simplified the process of unlocking my phone, accessing apps, and authorizing payments. It has been a refreshing contrast to the frustrating experience with some under-display versions.
Mattias Inghe
This experience raises a broader question: why do we continue using under-display sensors when physical ones are superior? In the eight years since under-display sensors were introduced, little progress has been made.
After using the Galaxy Z Fold 7 for a few months, I believe it’s time to abandon under-display fingerprint scanners on all phones—not just foldables and budget-friendly models. Here are five compelling reasons why.
Under-display sensors are simply not good enough
If under-display fingerprint scanners matched the speed and reliability of physical ones, there would be no contest. The convenience of having it readily accessible is unparalleled.
However, this is far from the reality. Â
As someone who has reviewed numerous Android phones over the years, I’ve tested many scanners. The reliability varies significantly, with some unlocking the phone less than half the time and others achieving nearly 90% success. My conclusion is clear: they can’t be trusted.
…if your fingers are a bit sweaty, or god forbid, you spill water on your screen, you can basically forget about getting into your phone
Foundry | Alex Walker-Todd
Moreover, if your fingers are sweaty or your screen gets wet, accessing your phone becomes nearly impossible. These issues have persisted for years, and no company has adequately addressed them.
While ultrasonic scanners are generally faster and more reliable than optical ones, I’ve encountered numerous issues with them as well. They are not dependable, especially when quick access to my phone is essential.
This unreliable experience becomes a significant frustration when authenticating payments, logging into apps, or accessing passwords. It’s a recurring annoyance whenever I use an Android phone, and I don’t foresee this changing anytime soon.
Apple’s snub speaks volumes
Given these challenges, it’s no wonder Apple has completely steered clear of under-display fingerprint sensors.
When Apple eliminated the physical Touch ID fingerprint scanner from the iPhone’s front in 2017, it introduced a secure 3D face unlock method called Face ID. The rest is history.
Instead of introducing a superior under-display fingerprint sensor later on, Apple has chosen never to adopt one.
When Face ID provides a fast, secure alternative that works even in the dark, there’s little incentive to supplement it with a subpar alternative
Mahmoud Itani / Foundry
It’s evident that these sensors haven’t met Apple’s standards. With Face ID providing a fast, secure alternative that functions even in low-light conditions, there’s little reason to introduce an inferior option.
When Apple updated Touch ID for some iPad models, it opted to incorporate it into the power button rather than placing it under the display. This decision aligns with Apple’s long-standing ‘it just works’ philosophy, which in-screen scanners do not consistently achieve.
While Apple isn’t infallible, I believe the Android phone market should consider following its example in this regard.
Secure face unlock is more popular than ever
The absence of an under-display fingerprint sensor on iPhones highlights the effectiveness of modern facial recognition technology. Â
Face ID surpasses basic face unlock, which can be tricked by photos or people with similar appearances, such as twins. It uses an infrared camera to project thousands of dots onto a face, creating a detailed map that enhances security and reliability.
For a long time, this was the only secure face unlock on smartphones, but Android manufacturers are now catching up.
Chris Hall / Foundry
Devices like the Honor Magic 8 Pro and Oppo Find X9 Pro use technology similar to Apple’s. Google’s approach with the Pixel 8 is slightly different but secure enough to replace fingerprint scanners for accessing banking apps and authorizing payments.
With an increasing number of options available, fingerprint scanners of all types could soon become obsolete on phones. Meanwhile…
Physical scanners can be impressively discreet
A decade ago, if a phone had a fingerprint scanner, it was highly visible. The iPhone’s Touch ID was prominently displayed below the screen, while brands like LG, Motorola, and Samsung experimented with various positions on the back.
This noticeable design was understandably controversial, clashing with a minimalist aesthetic. However, such prominence is no longer necessary.
Foundry
For years, companies have been integrating fingerprint sensors into power buttons, allowing them to seamlessly blend with phone designs. This placement often coincides with where you naturally rest your finger, avoiding awkward maneuvers to reach it.
There’s no expectation that the power button will be eliminated anytime soon, making it a sustainable option that becomes unobtrusive when not needed. In contrast, under-display scanners can be more conspicuous.
There’s significant cost-saving potential
In 2026, phone pricing is a hot topic. The ongoing global RAM shortage, driven by high demand from AI data centers, is pushing prices up and putting significant pressure on manufacturers.
As a consequence, many phones have debuted with higher prices, minimal upgrades, or both. For Samsung, this might even lead to price increases on existing models.
Dominik Tomaszewski / Foundry
Manufacturers are eager to cut manufacturing costs where possible. Opting for physical sensors over under-display counterparts is a straightforward way to achieve this, with Intel Market Research indicating a 25-30% cost reduction.
Implementing this change would allow companies to save money while enhancing the user experience. It’s an obvious choice.
The sunk-cost fallacy
Eight years after their introduction, under-display fingerprint sensors still fail to deliver consistently. While impressive when functional, they are frequently plagued with reliability issues that compel users to seek alternatives.
Considering the availability of excellent alternatives like physical sensors and secure face unlock methods, there’s no justification for persisting with a technology that’s both costlier and less reliable.
The initial appeal of experimenting with under-display fingerprint sensors was understandable, but it’s clear the technology isn’t advancing. Now is the time to move on.
If under-display fingerprint sensors are eventually phased out, I won’t be lamenting their disappearance, as the alternatives are far more sensible.
