The recessed Motorola logo was originally slated to be a fingerprint sensor
When Apple bought AuthenTec back in 2012, it did more than grab the best fingerprint technology available for itself – it also stopped Google including a fingerprint sensor in the Nexus 6, revealed former Motorola CEO Dennis Woodside. Speaking to the Telegraph, Woodside said that the dimple on the back of the handset was originally intended to be a fingerprint reader.
Indeed, the 6-inch Nexus 6, he can now admit, was stymied by just one of those big players. A dimple on the back that helps users hold the device should, in fact, have been rather more sophisticated. “The secret behind that is that it was supposed to be fingerprint recognition, and Apple bought the best supplier. So the second best supplier was the only one available to everyone else in the industry and they weren’t there yet,” says Woodside.
A fingerprint scanner had been widely rumored prior to the launch of the Android smartphone originally code-named Shamu, and it’s believed one was included in internal prototypes, before it was abandoned. Woodside’s comments provide the explanation, Motorola originally intending to buy or license the sensor from AuthenTec.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Finally, Google on a stomp…
Stump (my dumb)
It seems to be a standard tactic for Apple. Don’t just buy the magic ingrediant to include in the latest device, but buy enough so that the competitors can’t add it to theirs.
Brilliant business tactics for sure. These companies are competitors, not friends or partners, so one cannot blame Apple for making smart moves. Google or Motorola could have bought Authentec, $356 million is not a huge amount of money for Google given all the other nonsense they waste money on (cough-project Ara-cough).
People are forgetting that Authentec was putting finger print sensor into devices before Apple bought them and even though they were the best at the time the results sucked. Apple saw the potential and not only bought them but sunk millions more into perfecting the technology. So had Nexus put this in their phone it probably would have sucked also.
Is the back of a phone the best place for a fingerprint scanner, regardless of the technology behind it? I keep my iPhone next to my computer and find a front mounted button/scanner very convenient. It doesn’t limit my choice of cases or docks and is hard to ignore as it’s also the home button.
I can see not wanting to be accused of copying Apple, but is it worth the ergonomic and practical inconveniences?
I am thinking the same, however heard multiple people not using TouchID because it was not as quick as they thought it would be, has it been positioned on the back: pick up the phone->unlocked
I find the Touch ID to be significantly quicker than typing any code in (regardless of how fast you can type it in).
Not as quick?! Touch ID usually gets me into my 5s in a small fraction of a second. I suspect the people complaining didn’t shift their finger position enough while recording their fingerprints.
Serves Google right after they copied the iPhone as a ‘trusted’ partner. None of the rub-a-strip finger scanners are worth using. Touch ID is so fast, it unlocks almost instantly–like not even having a password.
Apple’s purchase of AuthenTec was probably also the reason it was even considered for the Nexus 6….5s was released a year prior. Nice try Dennis!
You don’t really think that companies aren’t prototyping phones and technologies years before they release right? A nexus 6 with a fingerprint scanner of some sort obviously exists in a lab somewhere, but it was determined that the tech wasn’t there yet. Just because apple released it earlier does’t mean it wasn’t being tested and prepared for implementation by anyone else. I’m sure apple was testing it internally for some time before they decided to release it as well.
Good point. As iPhone users we tend to clump Android manufacturers together. The fact that Samsung popped up with a skanky swipe reader six months after TouchID doesn’t necessarily mean that other manufacturers were being so sloppy.
Agree. Maybe the difference was that Apple was not just testing it and evaluating where it was, but determined where it could be by way of improvement, which tipped their decision to acquire the technology outright and iterate it in-house.