Alleged 'iPhone 6' logic board claimed to include 802.11ac Wi-Fi, NFC chip

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 130
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    rcfa wrote: »
    Nope. Patent trolls are non-utilizing entities, just trying to make a quick buck out of patents they bought up for cheap.

    Patenting and preventing from being used an inferior but practicable approach such as to promote a superior implementation of a similar process is market strategy and the whole purpose of patents.

    One may not believe in the patent system, and there are many good reasons for doing so, but within the intended scope of the patent system as it exists this is an acceptable use, trolling is not.

    If Apple has a 98% solution and patents a bunch of 95% and a 92% solution such that el-cheapo droid manufacturers can't go that route and undermine/bypass Apple's 98% solution then that's not trolling, it's protecting one better patent with a bunch of inferior patents.

    Incredible how you wrote so much yet made little sense. Why bother coming up with solutions for a problem you don't have nor will ever have? So the competition doesn’t get it. That's called anticompetitive, and could be viewed as antitrust.
  • Reply 82 of 130
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't understand how what's explained in that article precludes putting the NFC antenna behind the logo? If the logo actually is, as rumoured, a plastic insert like it is on a Mac, wouldn't that provide a big enough break in the ground plane for NFC to work?

    If they made the logo big enough, perhaps, but the current logo size isn't even close.

    The "local loop" is not secure enough. It needs crypto to make it secure, the same sort of crypto that secures Bluetooth. Yes, the close proximity is a hurdle for eavesdroppers, but so is Bluetooth frequency hopping. Neither is enough.

    No one said that encryption wasn't needed, but you excluded the magnetic induction that NFC offers when you stated that BLE can do what NFC can do and do it better.
  • Reply 83 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by draugminaion View Post





    The "local loop" is not secure enough. It needs crypto to make it secure, the same sort of crypto that secures Bluetooth. Yes, the close proximity is a hurdle for eavesdroppers, but so is Bluetooth frequency hopping. Neither is enough.

     

    The "close proximity" argument is false. It's actually the opposite (as I explained in detail previously on AI).

     

    All a crook has to do is install a small NFC reader under the terminal. Every single transaction they record is going to be a financial transaction. This is a gold mine for criminals.

     

    Now think of BT. If a crook has a BT reader near the terminal it's going to be picking up a LOT of garbage. Not just transactions, but iBeacons, devices searching for others to pair with, the guy in front of the store using AirDrop with their buddy, people with BT headsets making phone calls - the airwaves are literally filled with garbage data. A device that records BT transmissions is going to store a huge amount of data, which the crooks will then have to sift through in order to try and extract the useful financial/personal data.

     

    Expand that to sniffing WiFi or LTE and it gets even worse - much more data, and an even smaller percentage of useful data. The worst one is your wired Internet connection (esp since the WiFi connection will also be using the wired Internet connection).

     

     

    The trick to security is not to rely on a particular connection (NFC, BT, WiFI, LTE or wired). The way to achieve better security is to avoid transmitting sensitive information in the first place.

     

    You can't "sniff" something that isn't there.

  • Reply 84 of 130
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    The "close proximity" argument is false. It's actually the opposite (as I explained in detail previously on AI).

    All a crook has to do is install a small NFC reader under the terminal. Every single transaction they record is going to be a financial transaction. This is a gold mine for criminals.

    Now think of BT. If a crook has a BT reader near the terminal it's going to be picking up a LOT of garbage. Not just transactions, but iBeacons, devices searching for others to pair with, the guy in front of the store using AirDrop with their buddy, people with BT headsets making phone calls - the airwaves are literally filled with garbage data. A device that records BT transmissions is going to store a huge amount of data, which the crooks will then have to sift through in order to try and extract the useful financial/personal data.

    Expand that to sniffing WiFi or LTE and it gets even worse - much more data, and an even smaller percentage of useful data. The worst one is your wired Internet connection (esp since the WiFi connection will also be using the wired Internet connection).


    The trick to security is not to rely on a particular connection (NFC, BT, WiFI, LTE or wired). The way to achieve better security is to avoid transmitting sensitive information in the first place.

    You can't "sniff" something that isn't there.

    That is all BS. You can filter wireless data and this "all you have to do" is as lame as saying as that bank vaults are inherently insecure because all you have to do is break into them not to mention that magnetic card readers have existed for many decades so "all you have to do" is install your own magnetic strip reader and yet we still use them today.
  • Reply 85 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    If they made the logo big enough, perhaps, but the current logo size isn't even close.

    No one said that encryption wasn't needed, but you excluded the magnetic induction that NFC offers when you stated that BLE can do what NFC can do and do it better.

     

    Why are you talking about magnetic induction? That's completely irrelevant to NFC in phones.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    That is all BS. You can filter wireless data and this "all you have to do" is as lame as saying as that bank vaults are inherently insecure because all you have to do is break into them not to mention that magnetic card readers have existed for many decades so "all you have to do" is install your own magnetic strip reader and yet we still use them today.

     

    No, what's BS is stating that NFC is somehow more secure than other wireless technologies because of the small distance.

     

    Speaking of reading stripes, that actually happened here in Vancouver. Years ago people learned to swipe their own cards and not let your card out of sight (so an employee could skim your card in a separate reader). To get around that, POS terminals in stores were replaced with modified versions that skimmed every card that was swiped. But that's a very sophisticated type of scam that requires a high level of technical ability (modifying a POS terminal without the stores knowledge).

     

    Placing a tiny "sticker" tag on a POS terminal that does the same thing for NFC is much easier and opens up the possibility of capturing transactions to less sophisticated criminals.

     

    Filter wireless data? Do you have such a device? Or do you know of one? Something than can decrypt data in real time to decide what is and isn't a transaction?

  • Reply 86 of 130
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Why are you talking about magnetic induction? That's completely irrelevant to NFC in phones.

    That's what NFC is. It's magnetic induction between 2 loop antennas.
    No, what's BS is stating that NFC is somehow more secure than other wireless technologies because of the small distance.

    For the same reason that having a CC swiped is inherently more secure than standing a fair distance away and yelling out your CC number with a megaphone.
  • Reply 87 of 130
    shompashompa Posts: 343member
    "The inclusion of 802.11ac Wi-Fi would bring the next iPhone up to speed with Apple's current Mac "

    To bad that the NAND Flash in Apples iOS products are so slow. People harp about AC, USB3 and other stuff. Wont help syncing since you are lucky to get 10meg/sec on the NAND used today.

    This is one area that Apple should fix. I thought Apple would use ANOBIT controllers in their SoCs.
  • Reply 88 of 130
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    That's what NFC is. It's magnetic induction between 2 loop antennas.
    For the same reason that having a CC swiped is inherently more secure than standing a fair distance away and yelling out your CC number with a megaphone.
    Placing a tiny "sticker" tag on a POS terminal that does the same thing for NFC is much easier and opens up the possibility of capturing transactions to less sophisticated criminals.

    NFC isn't "a tiny sticker." You may be thinking of simply RFID.
    Filter wireless data? Do you have such a device? Or do you know of one? Something than can decrypt data in real time to decide what is and isn't a transaction?

    Yes! Real time isn't a concern.
  • Reply 89 of 130
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    That's what NFC is. It's magnetic induction between 2 loop antennas.


    For the same reason that having a CC swiped is inherently more secure than standing a fair distance away and yelling out your CC number with a megaphone.

     

    There are still two aspects to the magnetic induction. One is the data transfer and the other is the using the energy from the induction to power a non-powered device (like a fare card on trains). A phone doesn't need the ability to power external NFC devices for making payments (the phone and the POS terminal are already powered - so they're just transferring data).

     

    It may be useful for some people to have a phone that can read non-powered tags (like for doing inventory in a warehouse), but it's not required where payments are concerned.

     

    Your mehaphone example is a poor analogy. A better one would be this:

     

    Have your credit card whispered from one person to the other hoping that someone next to you doesn't overhear you vs 50 people on megaphones all talking at the same time and you trying to carefully pick out what only one of them said.

     

    And the person you whispered your credit card to has a hearing aid that also records what it hears.

     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    NFC isn't "a tiny sticker." You may be thinking of simply RFID.

    Yes! Real time isn't a concern.

     

    There are NFC antennas/processors inside packages that are less than 5mm square and 1mm thick. I think you're getting the larger devices that can provide power through induction confused with devices that are designed to be powered (like from a phone) and can get by with very small antennas.

  • Reply 90 of 130
    bushman4bushman4 Posts: 835member
    Bottom Line: We will see 802.11ac. However NFC won't be In This model
  • Reply 91 of 130
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Incredible how you wrote so much yet made little sense. Why bother coming up with solutions for a problem you don't have nor will ever have? So the competition doesn’t get it. That's called anticompetitive, and could be viewed as antitrust.

    Still derailing threads by throwing out nonsense. Yesterday patent trolling, day before profits hoarding, today "antitrust" —i think you mean "monopolist," but never mind being rational.

    And accusations in advance of hypocrisy if Apple fans approve of Apple using NFC.

    There could be some good discussion in this thread about the relative merits of NFC, but wading through all the totally useless distractions you throw up is too depressing.
  • Reply 92 of 130
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,278member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Brent McAnulty View Post

     

    Well done.  Someone who thinks.  

     

    Years ago, with the first significant rumors of Apple and NFC, I recall I got a little excited about NFC in the iPhone, not because I wanted NFC, precisely, but because I felt that Apple could make it actually work.  Later on, when it seemed that Apple had abandoned NFC for Bluetooth and local Wifi solutions, I was not really disappointed, because my faith was in Apple rather than the technology.  Currently, the mobile payments platform technology is still up for grabs, as no technology has been universally accepted.  As such, a company with the influence of Apple could literally define what gets adopted, as long as they do it right, and they will.  As such, they would only pursue NFC for e-payments in their phones if it made sense as a leading solution.

     

    I do not see Apple including NFC just to have a little broader support for e-payments.  Doing so would dilute their own solution (assuming it is technology other than NFC), and would reinforce the half-hearted solutions by Android and other systems that use NFC.  However, where NFC e-payments have not been universally adopted, and remains largely a novelty, there are other applications for NFC, such as security (swiping your badge).  I could just almost (but not quite) see Apple supporting NFC for these kinds of applications, where you wave your phone at the security panel to open the door.  But I don't see them supporting NFC e-payments.


    Doesn't matter what Apple WANTS to do. Visa and MC control the payment system and nothing Apple want's to do will change that. It's all ready been mandated that every merchant will have to have new POS systems in place that can take NFC and EMV or face the consequence of paying for any fraud themselves. NFC will happen and is already happening. 

     

    "Beginning in October 2015, merchants who have not upgraded to EMV-compliant point-of-sale (POS) terminals, will be liable for the full amount of any fraud losses incurred at their stores. That requirement is, of course, a big part of the push towards adoption of EMV (also known as chip-and-PIN) cards that the credit card networks have undertaken. And there is a good reason for it: EMV cards are much more secure than the magnetic-stripe-based ones that we have here in the States." http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.c...aud-liability/

  • Reply 93 of 130
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    Back on the hardware topic, it's nice to see the screw holes match up between the PC board and the metal case back that is so mysteriously not machined, not stamped, seemingly, but maybe cast by a previously unknown process than leaves no rough edges.

    Story here: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/181468/rumor-rear-shell-for-4-7-iphone-6-shown-with-inlaid-apple-logo-in-new-photos
  • Reply 94 of 130

    "I'm right and you're wrong" seems to be an underlying theme...

  • Reply 95 of 130
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post





    Nope. Patent trolls are non-utilizing entities, just trying to make a quick buck out of patents they bought up for cheap.



    Patenting and preventing from being used an inferior but practicable approach such as to promote a superior implementation of a similar process is market strategy and the whole purpose of patents.

     

    The primary purpose of a patent is to *teach* the public a particular method for solving a problem that they would likely not discover independently. This teaching aspect is why patent disclosures are subject to stringent specificity standards; from reading the documentation one should learn how to produce a working model of the invention precisely as the inventor conceived. The rationale for the patent system is that the long-term social benefit from educating the public will compensate for the economic inefficiencies of a temporary government-enforced monopoly (if you consider 20 years "temporary"). 

  • Reply 96 of 130
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    miss priss wrote: »
    Perhaps NFC will be a way for the iWatch to communicate with the iPhone. NFC no power/low power communication might be a way to keep from having to charge up the iWatch twice a day

    That was my first thought, too ...

    But I did some research -- with NFC:
    • the maximum range is too small to be practical < 4- 8 inches
    • encryption is N/A
    • it takes 16 times longer to connect (setup)
    • it uses the same amount of power as BLE
    • it uses more power than BLE when the target is turned off

    When NFC works with an unpowered device (e.g., on a phone that may be turned off, a contactless smart credit card, a smart poster), however, the NFC power consumption is greater than that of Bluetooth V4.0 Low Energy, since illuminating the passive tag needs extra power.

    In [presumed] normal operation, the iWatch would receive a notification, then establish a connection with (wake up) the iPhone in your purse or pocket.

    This would only work with NFC, if the iWatch and iPhone were within < 4-8 inches of each other -- and it would put a greater burden on the iWatch battery.


    1000


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Field_Communication
  • Reply 97 of 130
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    flaneur wrote: »
    Still derailing threads by throwing out nonsense. Yesterday patent trolling, day before profits hoarding, today "antitrust" —i think you mean "monopolist," but never mind being rational.

    And accusations in advance of hypocrisy if Apple fans approve of Apple using NFC.

    There could be some good discussion in this thread about the relative merits of NFC, but wading through all the totally useless distractions you throw up is too depressing.

    There weren't any good discussions in the thread about NFC until way after. Just a bunch of posters making baseless claims that Apple would never use it. I merely pointed out that Apple has quite a few patents pertaining to NFC, and seeing as how Apple isn't known as a patent licensor they just might have plans to put them to use.

    Btw I've seen plenty of people here describe a anyone that holds a patent but never intends to use it as a patent troll. I've never seen you once correct them. Is that because they're Apple ass kissers, and I'm not?
  • Reply 98 of 130
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Since some others are doing it, here's my OT post for this thread:


    [QUOTE]"The budget should be balanced,
    the Treasury should be refilled,
    public debt should be reduced,
    the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled,
    and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed,
    lest Rome become bankrupt.

    People must again learn to work instead of living on public assistance."

    - Cicero, 55 BC
    [/QUOTE]
  • Reply 99 of 130
    curtis hannahcurtis hannah Posts: 1,805member
    NFC is something apple has avoided, can't see it all of a sudden become.
  • Reply 100 of 130
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,001member
    NFC is something apple has avoided, can't see it all of a sudden become.

    Maybe they have grander plans for it. They also avoided LTE initially.
Sign In or Register to comment.