Did Apple Miss the Bus - The Display-Integrated Fingerprint Sensor Gives the Industry a Much-Needed Push

The last 18 months have not been particularly pleasant for fingerprint technology vendors as capacitive sensor prices have dropped lower than anticipated for consumer electronics (CE). Bolstered by Apple’s decision to forego its trademark sapphire sensor in iPhone X in lieu of face recognition (FaceID), certain technology circles were quick to note that, in combination, this created a perfect storm which might cause more smartphone original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to put fingerprint technology in the backseat. Realistically, this would mean that one single engineering design by a leading OEM would overshadow decades of fingerprint research and development (R&D) and replace a time-tested technology with another one almost overnight, with almost no consideration of consumer technological familiarity or current investments.

A couple of iris and face recognition (coupled with a substantial amount of behavioral and device data points) are indeed the future of biometrics in mobile payments. Furthermore, leading western fingerprint vendors do face increasing levels of competition by progressively aggressive APAC vendors. However, fingerprint sensors are still very relevant—at least for the time being. Apple’s decision has certainly sent ripples across the ecosystem and made its competitors think twice before featuring fingerprint sensor in their flagship models, but there is a fine line between “trend paranoia” and business strategy. While it is true that Apple almost single-handedly kick-started the CE biometric domino effect in early 2014 with the incorporation of Touch ID in Apple Pay, it is highly unlikely that the majority of smartphone OEMs would forsake fingerprint sensors (including their current patents, R&D investments, and partnerships) just so they could follow Apple once again.

ABI Research posits that while fingerprint sensors are not exactly the future of biometrics, they are not going to disappear altogether anytime soon. In addition, contrary to certain industry news sources, Apple may be forced to return back to fingerprints in the next iPhone model. This, however, will not be in its standard home-button sensor but rather in a new highly contested technology: the display-integrated fingerprint sensor (also referred to as “under-glass,” “under-display,” or “in-display” sensors). This rumor surfaced in 2015 after patents filed by Apple, and again resurfaced in early 2017. The technology was rumored to have been integrated in iPhone X, but never actually made it to the final specifications. While this is important, why should we refer to this as an indication that fingerprint sensors are still highly relevant? There are three primary reasons:

• First, and perhaps most important of all, other leading and emerging vendors like Synaptics, FPC, Qualcomm,and Goodixhave already developed similar technology, Synaptics being the first to have one already commercially available one (currently featured in Vivo smartphones), and Qualcomm integrating its ultrasonic sensor with the very same capability under organic light-emitting diode (OLED), glass, and metal. This means that other vendors are already investing further into a technology that Apple did not include in its newest model. The profit margins might be razor thin for certain implementations, but it is quite unlikely that they will forego this chance to remain competitive.
• Second, and as mentioned in ABI Research’s latest Competitive Assessment Report (CA-1243), it is expected there will be quite a few bumps on the road moving forward with Face ID, especially from the end users’ point of view, since it is more demanding than TouchID. This might force Apple to transition the technology as a means to enrich user experience rather than a more secure alternative to fingerprint recognition (which is statistically proven to be less effective and more challenging than fingerprint recognition).
• Third, there is nothing wrong with being a trendsetter, which is Apple’s strong point. However, taking aside a) the security considerations and the fact that face recognition is five times easier to spoof than fingerprint recognition, and b) the host of new banking, financial institutions, and payment service providers getting behind fingerprint technologies, there is one important element missing, which ABI Research refers to as the technological parallel principle. This refers to the phenomenon of “phasing out” certain technologies (in this case fingerprints) after pairing them first with an experimental, controversial or less secure one (in this case, face recognition). Apple would have an easier road ahead if TouchID and FaceID were present in the same device, allowing developers to not only sharpen algorithm design but also lessen any impact from foregoing an established technology. This principle is deeply rooted in biometrics’ core scientific principles. As a purely probabilistic science, biometrics depend upon accurate, resolution-rich measurements data points. The final pass/fail authentication outcome is greatly enhanced by use of multiple data sources. Concisely, face recognition with low false acceptance rate/false facial recognition rate (FAR/FRR) may not be highly accurate on its own, but when combined with another robust modality (like fingerprints) it can really shine.

As is customary, Apple chose to skip a step for the sake of innovation. Marketing and branding-wise, this decision was successful; the company did manage to attract its fair share of the spotlight. Conversely, there is a high probability that Apple may be forced to return to fingerprints with the incorporation of a display-integrated fingerprint sensor. As such, biometric players should not be so eager to discredit fingerprint technologies for the time being.

However, this does mean that players should pay attention. Revenues for standard fingerprint recognition technologies have already started to decline as newer modalities emerge. Higher tier vendors should brace themselves for a steady decline across the board in preparation for the future biometric landscape unless they manage to secure their place by sharpening their toolsets. Implementers or newer market entrants could definitely learn a thing or two from the evasive maneuvers of current fingerprint sensor leaders.

• Begin investing in other modalities: Unscathed by lower revenues over the last financial quarters, FPC is gracefully adapting to the changing demands by not only expanding its current portfolio for smartphones and tablets but also investing in iris recognition and Internet of things (IoT) applications, starting with the automotive segment.
• Invest in additional security: Armed with a brand new and highly innovative arsenal enabled by its Snapdragon 800 series, Qualcomm enters the fray with the new evolutionary step for fingerprint technologies: the ultrasound sensor. Qualcomm has also developed a sophisticated liveness detection system aided by heart-rate recognition, which can also perform under OLED, glass, and metal.
• Expand capabilities of capacitive sensors: Synaptics, the first company to successful apply the coveted display-integrated fingerprint sensor has greatly expanded upon sensor security and spoof-resistance with newer generation sensors (Natural ID) featured in high-end smartphone models equipped with anti-spoofing technology (called PurePrint) and coupled with SecureLink 256-bit advanced encryption standard (AES) encryption for transport layer security (TLS) 1.2 secure communication.
• If all else fails, adapt and hit sensor price: Finally, implementers could also learn from emerging APAC vendor Goodix which does a good job in trying to incorporate different features already found in its western competitors but with a lower price point. Its portfolio now includes the in-display sensor (referred to as Invisible Sensor); support for sapphire, glass, and ceramic sensors; hard coating with 360-degree readability; and heart-rate recognition for liveness detection.