I guess you did not read my post carefully. Or, if you did, understand what I am getting at. I am saying that convenience, not security, is what it has going for it (as currently implemented).
I definitely didn't get that from "make a lame 'convenience' argument for TouchID."
[@]dasanman69[/@] pushed to count the options and I get 222 characters for the full, standard keyboard in iOS 8 for the US market. That's 589,616,700,000,000,000 options for an 8 character password, which I think is probably pretty standard. Of course, that includes all the special characters which are slower to access and therefore probably not utilized much. For 4 characters it's 2,428,912,656.
Great… One more who doesn't understand what a patent troll is. (or perhaps someone who just does;t understand what a patent is for; period?_
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob
HAHAHA! "The definition you found"?? Oooh "good job" using that internet thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobSchlob
Holy crap! Do you mean to tell us you can't even google "apple nfc patent" ?
Typing those three little words into your web browser is too much for you to handle??
Good luck in life.
@BobSchlob, it would make my reading experience more enjoyable if you would make your point without the insults and mocking, please.
Aside from bringing down the mood of the room, it actually diminishes how seriously people take your comments since it comes across like a guy sitting in the bleachers sucking on his ninth beer and being belligerent. A less denigrating tone would go a long way toward fixing that.
I'm not hung ho about NFC. No one can say for certain what Apple's plans are if any for NFC. The same people that say it sucks, and Apple will never use it will be on here saying it's suddenly a great idea. I don't know about you, but in my book that's hypocrisy.
That is precisely what happens every single time Apple adds something that has been around for years and years, whether it was on Android, or in this case, in use around the world by billions of people for a ton of things to include purchases, train passes, passing data between devices, etc.
It's like clockwork though. One month after release, the iHypocrisy will be in full swing.
Then why all the NFC patents? Why spend R&D dollars on a technology that they're not going to use at all?
Those patents use "Near Field Communication" as a generic term, not necessarily referring to the thing branded as NFC. Bluetooth LE could do near field communication. I used to be in the "no way, not ever" camp for Apple doing (the thing branded as) NFC, I'm more 50/50 now, the banks continue to push for NFC, and NFC will eventually everywhere where you can swipe or enter a PIN to pay. So if Apple wants to go into mobile payments NFC might be unavoidable. But NFC rollout outside japan and Korea is glacially slow and if Apple were to include NFC a year later they could easily still be in time. PayPal and Square want to go into mobile payments but see no value in NFC, Apple could think so too, and just skip it, like BlueRay. Also NFC is technically really old junk, some bits of old RFID standards glued together into an ugly lump, feels out of character for Apple to do it.
That is precisely what happens every single time Apple adds something that has been around for years and years, whether it was on Android, or in this case, in use around the world by billions of people for a ton of things to include purchases, train passes, passing data between devices, etc.
It's like clockwork though. One month after release, the iHypocrisy will be in full swing.
Often, Apple is the one to take something that "has been around for years and years" and "do it right".
This happened with MP3 players, music downloads, smartphones, app stores, and tablets.
That Apple fans turn out to be wrong about which things are so far beyond help that even Apple is not willing or able to "do it right" is not hypocrisy.
It's lack of faith, people like this don't deserve the Fanboi title!
I've read somewhere that NFC could be used too speed up recognizing and connecting to BLE and WiFi devices. If true, then it could certainly improve the shopping and checkout experiences involving iBeacons and WiFi.
No. The BLE part of Bluetooth 4, was designed for just that. Most of what NFC can do BLE can do better. NFC is left with 2 things BLE cannot do. 1: Mobile payments, for political and historical reasons, and because banks are technologically timid, NFC is (probably, eventually) going to be the ubiquitous standard for mobile payments. 2: Applications where the beacon cannot be powered.
No. The BLE part of Bluetooth 4, was designed for just that. Most of what NFC can do BLE can do better. NFC is left with 2 things BLE cannot do. 1: Mobile payments, for political and historical reasons, and because banks are technologically timid, NFC is (probably, eventually) going to be the ubiquitous standard for mobile payments. 2: Applications where the beacon cannot be powered.
BLE can create a secure local loop with single reader authentication with a range of just a few inches?
I don't see Apple enabling "NFC pairing" or "NFC devices" as alternatives to bluetooth, though there may be some pressure to do so if it has NFC capability. For all we know, NFC might just be a standard part of the radio chip, and Apple will only enable it as a way to integrate with PayPass/PayWave/Transit systems using their own payment system, or enable "Square/Paypal" to use it to accept payments without needing the expensive contactless readers.
Though if you think about it, that is a stealth way to do the same thing they did with iMessage and SMS. Get people to use their payment gateway, so other Apple users bypass the merchant fee costs if both are Apple devices.
Still, the major payment sinkhole is how the US payment system relies exclusively on Mastercard and Visa systems, while the rest of the world has other choices. Chip and Pin and Contactless cards are everywhere, and this is why I see Apple eventually putting NFC support into the phone for this reason. They could only ignore it so long as the US payment card systems were ignoring it.
That's not a shortcoming of NFC but of the transit system design. Any payment system will not be card-based, but will be centralized using the same systems that iTS and other payment systems use to authentic a purchase. It shouldn't be put there but the same could be done with a magnetic strip, BT, WiFi, USB, or any other form of networking if the transit system was designed to use those protocols with their insecure system.
BLE can create a secure local loop with single reader authentication with a range of just a few inches?
Sure. Using the signal strength to reliably enforce close proximity might need some work though. Do we really need proximity though? Enforcing close proximity helps make the transaction be a purposeful action that is hard to fake without the legitimate user noticing. There are other ways to achieve security.
Sure. Using the signal strength to reliably enforce close proximity might need some work though. Do we really need proximity though? Enforcing close proximity helps make the transaction be a purposeful action that is hard to fake without the legitimate user noticing. There are other ways to achieve security.
How exactly is the secure loop created with omni-directional BT from two devices? You do know that NFC uses magnetic induction between two loop antennas located within each other's near field, effectively forming an air-core transformer, right?
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?
How exactly is the secure loop created with omni-directional BT from two devices? You do know that NFC uses magnetic induction between two loop antennas located within each other's near field, effectively forming an air-core transformer, right?
Maybe the Bluetooth signal strength can enforce proximity, maybe it's too unreliable to bother, but that is not the point. What does this air-core transformer setup get you? It's not secure enough by itself, it can still be eavesdropped on, or activated fraudulently. To make it secure you have to add crypto, the same sort of crypto that secures Bluetooth and internet communications. The advantage of NFC is psychological, a transaction involves a physical action, just like real money. If people are going to trust the system with their money the psychology is going to be important.
1. Defensive posturing. Prevent others from using methods that Apple has identified as being good.
2. Due diligence of the technical variety. You can't really be sure which approach is best without trying them all. Maybe Apple researched the hell out of NFC and the result was that they think Bluetooth is a better bet.
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.
Companies patent things invented through R&D all the time. Not everything they work on in the lab gets into an actual device, but they still patent it. If you invented it, and spent money inventing it, then you need some protection even if you don't use it.
I can understand patenting it for licensing reasons, but protecting it so that no one else can use it is greedy, and the epitome of being a patent troll.
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.
BLE can create a secure local loop with single reader authentication with a range of just a few inches?
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.
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
Comments
I definitely didn't get that from "make a lame 'convenience' argument for TouchID."
Great… One more who doesn't understand what a patent troll is. (or perhaps someone who just does;t understand what a patent is for; period?_
HAHAHA! "The definition you found"?? Oooh "good job" using that internet thing.
Holy crap! Do you mean to tell us you can't even google "apple nfc patent" ?
Typing those three little words into your web browser is too much for you to handle??
Good luck in life.
@BobSchlob, it would make my reading experience more enjoyable if you would make your point without the insults and mocking, please.
Aside from bringing down the mood of the room, it actually diminishes how seriously people take your comments since it comes across like a guy sitting in the bleachers sucking on his ninth beer and being belligerent. A less denigrating tone would go a long way toward fixing that.
Thanks!
Yeah, or you could just go blow yourself.
Buuuuurp!
I'm not hung ho about NFC. No one can say for certain what Apple's plans are if any for NFC. The same people that say it sucks, and Apple will never use it will be on here saying it's suddenly a great idea. I don't know about you, but in my book that's hypocrisy.
That is precisely what happens every single time Apple adds something that has been around for years and years, whether it was on Android, or in this case, in use around the world by billions of people for a ton of things to include purchases, train passes, passing data between devices, etc.
It's like clockwork though. One month after release, the iHypocrisy will be in full swing.
This happened with MP3 players, music downloads, smartphones, app stores, and tablets.
That Apple fans turn out to be wrong about which things are so far beyond help that even Apple is not willing or able to "do it right" is not hypocrisy.
It's lack of faith, people like this don't deserve the Fanboi title!
BLE can create a secure local loop with single reader authentication with a range of just a few inches?
Apple will have to support NFC "for payments" at some point because MasterCard/Visa/Amex already does so, and likewise most transit systems are switching to NFC as well
And then you have this:
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/09/24/android-nfc-hack-lets-subway-riders-evade-fares/
I don't see Apple enabling "NFC pairing" or "NFC devices" as alternatives to bluetooth, though there may be some pressure to do so if it has NFC capability. For all we know, NFC might just be a standard part of the radio chip, and Apple will only enable it as a way to integrate with PayPass/PayWave/Transit systems using their own payment system, or enable "Square/Paypal" to use it to accept payments without needing the expensive contactless readers.
Though if you think about it, that is a stealth way to do the same thing they did with iMessage and SMS. Get people to use their payment gateway, so other Apple users bypass the merchant fee costs if both are Apple devices.
Still, the major payment sinkhole is how the US payment system relies exclusively on Mastercard and Visa systems, while the rest of the world has other choices. Chip and Pin and Contactless cards are everywhere, and this is why I see Apple eventually putting NFC support into the phone for this reason. They could only ignore it so long as the US payment card systems were ignoring it.
In Japan this one reason why someone might pick an Android device over an iPhone.
https://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/service/convenience/osaifu/
That's not a shortcoming of NFC but of the transit system design. Any payment system will not be card-based, but will be centralized using the same systems that iTS and other payment systems use to authentic a purchase. It shouldn't be put there but the same could be done with a magnetic strip, BT, WiFi, USB, or any other form of networking if the transit system was designed to use those protocols with their insecure system.
How exactly is the secure loop created with omni-directional BT from two devices? You do know that NFC uses magnetic induction between two loop antennas located within each other's near field, effectively forming an air-core transformer, right?
NFC would be one reasonable explanation to those very wide bands breaking up the metal pieces on the back of the rumoured casing.
Why it can't be placed behind the Apple logo...
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?
Possible reasons:
1. Defensive posturing. Prevent others from using methods that Apple has identified as being good.
2. Due diligence of the technical variety. You can't really be sure which approach is best without trying them all. Maybe Apple researched the hell out of NFC and the result was that they think Bluetooth is a better bet.
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.
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.