Jaffo,
I wish your question could be answered with documented objective data, but I know of no side by side tests of FINX and IDX hardware. As I stated in an earlier message the primary difference between the two technologies lies in the performance when conditions are less than ideal. Dry skin, oily skin, and dirt on the platen all affect the accuracy of scans. An oily finger (natural skin oil, not SAE oil), will not only produce a bad scan, but it contaminates the platen so that it must be cleaned to avoid an error on subsequest scans. FINX claims to have solved that problem with the wet platen.
So why haven't they sold any? Their liquid platen products were just introduced late in the summer of last year. The ten-print scanner is just now going through FBI certification and can't be sold into law enforcement applications until that is complete. However, there has been a lot of interest in the hardware, and alliances with system integrators have been formed that should produce orders in the future.
Now you can dismiss all this as horse manure if you like. However, FINX pioneered electronic fingerprint scanning and abandoned the dry scan method to develop the current technology. They are a different company than they once were with new management, but that is a subject for discussion on the FINX forum. In fact, there is a question over there to Dick Dopkins that the response should provide much more insight into this company. Watch there for the response.
When it comes to investing there are no sure things, and FINX is no exception. In fact, I'll be the first to tell you it is still very high risk.
Dennis |
