Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller on NFC, Wireless Charging and the Lightning Connector

[charlituna]

I thought they are - in Australia the same terminal accepts both paypass/paywave...

Some places have terminals that have several receivers to accept both as well as other cards.

But until it stream lines to say only 3-4 standard forms or some kind of flexible chip that can broadcast any style based on you picking something off your phone screen, it isn't likely to be something Apple will jump to support over pushing for universal systems for making phone calls. Perhaps once they get the LTE etc game down to one chip for the world then they might use that now empty space for 8 different NFC chips.

Personally I much more prefer the Starbucks method with the scanner especially since its off a preload system that only works at Starbucks. The notion that Apple one day might let folks IAP off your iTunes account scares the heck out of me.

 

[charlituna]

I see NFC payments accepted almost everywhere I shop.

And where exactly is that. Because that is a key detail.

I live in Los Angeles and the whole tap and go game is limited to the gas stations, metro card, a couple of fast food places and maybe one grocery store. Which leaves a lot more places that don't have it.

----------

Was the commercial that ran during the Olympics showing runners passing the torch from phone to phone via NFC an Apple commercial? If so, I wonder if eliminating NFC was a last minute decision. Just asking.....

Apple would never leak a feature in such a way.

So either it was someone else or not NFC

----------

Apple will put NFC once the technology and people are adapted to it, they never just put anything on their devices unless they know it's worth it....

And they can't come up with something better. Like leveraging Bluetooth tech to the same end somehow

 

[charlituna]

Schiller is wrong on NFC, no use? PAYING for stuff is about the biggest use one could imagine. Freeing of us more unnecessary paraphernalia (coins, cards etc) in our pockets is part of what the iPhone has always done. .

And there may be a way to do that with the iPhone without NFC

----------

This guy needs to be fired. I really couldn't care less if the phone is thinner and lighter... thats not innovation.

Wireless charging, NFC, or feeling the screen are the only ways I will buy a new phone.

Personal opinion and likely far from universal.

----------

How about touching your phone to a movie poster on the wall to find out where the closest theater is playing the movie.

How about touching your phone to the hotel registration desk so you don't have to fill out their paperwork

How about touching your phone to a box of cereal to instantly get a coupon when you check out

How about an NFC tag in your wallet so you immediately know it was pick-pocketed

How about the ability to turn on lights or adjust other devices based on proximity.

NFC is not just about payments. And these are just a few of millions of ways NFC or NFC tagging could be utilized.

QR/barcode scanning via the phone camera. Creating a barcode for the hotel to scan etc will do many of these things without NFC. Bluetooth can achieve others

And pray tell exactly how would an NFC chip, which requires you to tap it against something tell you that your phone was jacked.

----------

Sure - but that doesn’t change with Passbook. They need to scan the screen so you have to wave it in front of somebody anyway for them to read the barcode/QR code - this time with the part of the phone I don’t always want people to see.
.

You don't want folks to see your bezel? Cause that's about all they would see. The screen is full of your barcode and it's background.

 

[hchung]

(edited your post just for brevity)

I agree with most of your post.

p.s. maybe I'm missing something but according to this (http://www.google.com/wallet/faq.html) You can actually register any credit card but that the exchange itself is done via a virtual MC. Meaning you can still use any card tied to your wallet. No?

Yes, that's something that was new since when I had looked into it. So I had not noticed it before.

For those reading, it's a Google/Bancorp-issued MasterCard placed in Google Wallet, where any transaction charged to the card will then be issued against other cards in your Google Wallet by Google. It's a proxy.

Some Citi Mastercards are exempt from this and actually get the transaction done as if you were using that card instead of the phone.

 

[3282868]

So, are you saying that you've bought every previous iPhone model because you've the generational changes compelling? And that stretch of upgrading every year ends for you with the iPhone 5 because it's not innovative enough??

Is that right?

Put the pipe down, baaaack aaaawwwaaayyyy from the keyboard, and chill out. Seriously.

 

[Irishman]

Put the pipe down, baaaack aaaawwwaaayyyy from the keyboard, and chill out. Seriously.

Don't patronize me.

It's not my fault if you can't express what you want to say in words!

Say what you mean, man.

 

[Zunjine]

Anything that makes every day mundane tasks such as charging my devices easier is not gimmicky. Bring on the day I can walk in my home from work, throw my phone on the coffee table and see it start charging.

Having to bend over, fumble with cables and then get back up is a daily, often bi-daily problem. A trivial one of course, but it's one that can be solved.

Why not just buy a charging dock? It's quicker than wireless and does away with fumbling for cables. This is a problem that's already been solved without the need for additional hardware in the handset adding complexity, weight and cost.

 

[tbrinkma]

Both Wifi and Bluetooth requiring pairing. It also uses less power.

So no - it's not better at everything and anything. And because it doesn't have pairing - it not necc faster in every instance either.

Just asking - sincerely - how much or how little you know about NFC and/or it's potential use cases?

The alternate uses offered (file transfers, etc) are better served by WiFi and Bluetooth *precisely because* they require 'pairing', or would require similar measures using NFC to avoid someone simply 'injecting' files onto your phone by standing near you.

I put 'pairing' in 'scare quotes' above because WiFi doesn't require pairing. It simply requires being connected to the same network. (The necessary configuration may be functionally equivalent to Bluetooth pairing in some circumstances, but not in all.)

Hell, if a file is small enough that I can theoretically transfer it to someone faster over NFC than over Bluetooth or WiFi (due to the additional time it might take to 'pair' them), then I can do one better and *e-mail* it to them so they can fetch it whenever they want, all without the overhead of even being on the same network at the same time.

None of the NFC implementations I'm familiar with are high-bandwidth. In fact, NFC is less than half the speed of Bluetooth Low Energy, which has shorter set-up times (better by more than an order of magnitude). [See Wikipedia for details.]

 

[rjohnstone]

The alternate uses offered (file transfers, etc) are better served by WiFi and Bluetooth *precisely because* they require 'pairing', or would require similar measures using NFC to avoid someone simply 'injecting' files onto your phone by standing near you.

Not possible.
NFC has a range measured in millimeters.
The person trying to inject a file would have to physically touch their phone to yours before that could happen, your phone also has to be awake "screen on" before any transaction could occur.
And of course you still have to accept the transfer.

Using BT or WiFi to maliciously inject a file on a phone would be far more viable than using NFC.

 

[subsonix]

Not possible.

Titanic is unsinkable!

The NFC tag itself can be exploited.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/26/3188098/android-beam-nfc-flaw-charlie-miller-exploit-black-hat

 

[kdarling]

Titanic is unsinkable!

Wrong context. More like Chicken Little and "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!".

I've already explained that the NFC "hijack" isn't really such, which is why the article you linked to put the phrase in quotes.

The NFC tag itself can be exploited.

It's not about tags. It's just a phone-to-phone web link exchange. Not too much different from sending a link in IMs and emails, except you don't need their email to send the link.

Basically, it's all about social engineering: getting someone to ignore the fact that a new website just popped up on their phone a half second after someone bumped into their phone with another phone, then click on a malicious link in that mysterious new website, then perhaps continue to download and install malicous software.

The few people it would catch are probably the same ones who open "joke" emails from unknown sources.

 

[subsonix]

Wrong context. More like Chicken Little and "The sky is falling! The sky is falling!".

Not really! But saying that something is impossible in a security context is almost always wrong. That is my entire point.

It's not about tags. It's just a phone-to-phone web link exchange.

Your wrong.

Miller designed an NFC tag that would be able to execute malicious code on the device. The tag could be placed on a point-of-sale terminal or in other public places, exploiting users that are looking to use their device for NFC payment.

A lot (most?) security flaws are exploited in the same manner, in that it takes the user to a website that is delivering the final blow. I'm not declaring that the sky is falling, or spreading FUD, but saying "not possible" when some one asks about a potential risk is ignorant.

 

[kdarling]

Not really! But saying that something is impossible in a security context is almost always wrong. That is my entire point.

Okay, I see your point about never saying "impossible"

I hope you can see my point as well:

Bloggers are making it sound like a thief can steal someone's NFC information with a malicious tag or tap.

In reality, it's quite the opposite. It's not TAKING any info, it's simply SENDING a website link that the phone opens.... assuming it was turned on and unlocked, of course.

I and my son-in-law do this quite often, btw, when we're sitting near each other on vacation. We'll tap phones to send over the webpage we're looking at. It's easy and fun.

 

[subsonix]

I hope you can see my point as well:

Bloggers are making it sound like a thief can steal someone's NFC information with a malicious tag or tap.

In reality, it's quite the opposite. It's not TAKING any info, it's simply SENDING a website link that the phone opens.... assuming it was turned on and unlocked, of course.

I and my son-in-law do this quite often, btw, when we're sitting near each other on vacation. We'll tap phones to send over the webpage we're looking at. It's easy and fun.

Yes, agreed.

 

[rjohnstone]

Not really! But saying that something is impossible in a security context is almost always wrong. That is my entire point.

I never said impossible.
I was replying to the scenario tbrinkma had suggested.
His scenario is simply not possible via NFC.

Physical contact is required as well as the phone being in a state to even accept the NFC signal.

 

[McCool71]

Coming in 5s or 6

My take on the lack of and statements about NFC is that this is just the standard Apple practice of downplaying and belittling a feature that some of the competitors have - only to praise it as a revolution when Apple launches it themselves.

Just as screen resolution on a phone was unimportant - until the iPhone 4 was released. Or small tablets was totally useless unless you file down your fingers - until the iPad mini appears later this year. NFC will be a big deal for Apple - but not until it appears in a future iPhone.

 

[knemonic]

So, why not USB 3?

I am sure they will come out with a USB 3 to Lighting cable eventually, or thunderbolt.

 

[tbrinkma]

I never said impossible.
I was replying to the scenario tbrinkma had suggested.
His scenario is simply not possible via NFC.

FYI: The first sentence of your post is directly contradicted by the third sentence. And also by the first sentence in the post subsonix replied to.

Not possible.

(I suppose you didn't actually say "impossible", you just keep saying "not possible". It's a shame they mean the same thing.)

No, the scenario is not trivial. Yes, the scenario is still *possible*. So long as the NFC receiver is active, a signal can be received, which (as admitted in another reply) can cause the phone to do something without direct action on the owner's part. Remember, the range 'limit' of NFC is based on the presumption that both of the systems are designed within the antenna gain, and power restrictions expected. A device with a more powerful antenna, sending at higher power, can 'look' exactly like a 'normal' NFC terminal to your device even though it is several feet away.

Directing a browser to a hijacked (or otherwise malicious) web page is *often* the first part of a fully automated hack. If the NFC subsystem allows even that, then it is increasing the attack surface of the phone by providing an additional initial vector.

If it allows more, then it becomes significantly more dangerous. Think of the sheer number of security alerts we've seen over the past few years related to Flash, PDFs, image formats, and more. If an exploit of the NFC subsystem allows any of those to be loaded on the target device, it becomes an infection vector. (Here the fact that it is so much slower than Bluetooth and WiFi would be a plus, because it will take that much longer for any payload to be delivered.)

Because NFC 'tags' are (intentionally) so minimalistic and low-profile, it becomes easier to 'hide' one somewhere people will expect to use their device's NFC capability. (I seem to recall that that particular 'feature' has already been exploited sometime last year, but I can't seem to find the article.)

Physical contact is required as well as the phone being in a state to even accept the NFC signal.

So, you've still got to go through some process akin to 'pairing'. It's sounding more and more like WiFi and Bluetooth are still better options for file transfer and the other suggested uses for NFC that started this particular branch of the discussion. Hell, there's an iPhone app which does automatic 'pairing' for data transfers over WiFi or Bluetooth, called Bump. (That app only does contact info transfers, but they have an API available which can be used by other developers to transfer arbitrary data, using the 'bump' to match up the devices in question.)

 

[samcraig]

So, you've still got to go through some process akin to 'pairing'. It's sounding more and more like WiFi and Bluetooth are still better options for file transfer and the other suggested uses for NFC that started this particular branch of the discussion. Hell, there's an iPhone app which does automatic 'pairing' for data transfers over WiFi or Bluetooth, called Bump. (That app only does contact info transfers, but they have an API available which can be used by other developers to transfer arbitrary data, using the 'bump' to match up the devices in question.)

To summarize: tbrinkma doesn't believe NFC holds any value. Others do see value in NFC. tbrinkma isn't going to change other people's opinions anymore than any of us would be able to change his.

 

[tbrinkma]

To summarize: tbrinkma doesn't believe NFC holds any value. Others do see value in NFC. tbrinkma isn't going to change other people's opinions anymore than any of us would be able to change his.

Good try at a straw man. I simply don't think NFC holds any innate value for the alternative tasks which were offered up as a reason to include it before it's actually widely implemented for payment systems. It's slower than the alternatives, and still requires similar 'pairing' measures to be used for those functions. If I can 'pair' by bumping for NFC or Bluetooth or WiFi for data transfers, why would I use the *much* slower NFC?

Once there's a single, *standard* NFC payment protocol agreed upon (rather than the multitude we currently have), it'll become more widely adopted by stores. Once that happens it will start to make sense to include it in phones. Until then, it's a feature which serves little purpose for *most* people.

 

[samcraig]

Good try at a straw man. I simply don't think NFC holds any innate value for the alternative tasks which were offered up as a reason to include it before it's actually widely implemented for payment systems. It's slower than the alternatives, and still requires similar 'pairing' measures to be used for those functions. If I can 'pair' by bumping for NFC or Bluetooth or WiFi for data transfers, why would I use the *much* slower NFC?

Once there's a single, *standard* NFC payment protocol agreed upon (rather than the multitude we currently have), it'll become more widely adopted by stores. Once that happens it will start to make sense to include it in phones. Until then, it's a feature which serves little purpose for *most* people.

How is what I posted a straw man - you've just stated how little value NFC holds in your opinion. I stated as such. I stated no one is going to change your opinion and I don't think you're going to change any others either. I imagine it's pretty factual.

 

[tbrinkma]

How is what I posted a straw man - you've just stated how little value NFC holds in your opinion. I stated as such. I stated no one is going to change your opinion and I don't think you're going to change any others either. I imagine it's pretty factual.

You stated, "tbrinkma doesn't believe NFC holds any value". That's a straw-man, since that's not the position I've been arguing. I've simply been arguing that NFC doesn't hold much value for file transfers, and the other, non-payment-services related functionality offered as reasons to use it before the payment-services opportunities are actually wide-spread enough to be useful to most people.

NFC *has* potential uses. I've never stated otherwise. I've simply stated that the suggested uses which started this sub-thread are better served by technologies which are already present in the iPhone, and have been since the 3G and/or 3Gs. (I don't remember exactly when the accelerometers were added, and can't be bothered to look it up.)

Specifically, since the file-transfer suggestion was the most concrete of the bunch, NFC is less than half the speed of Bluetooth low-energy, with a longer (but still sub-second setup time for the protocol), with much shorter range (barring exotic antenna choices which wouldn't be in a cell phone anyway), and the suggested method to prevent 'hijacking' is already available using *either* Bluetooth or WiFi. If your file is large enough, WiFi or 'standard' Bluetooth, with their *much* (multi-second) longer setup time will still be faster than NFC.

Given that, what purpose is there to using NFC for file transfers, other than the simple fact that it's *possible* to do so? People have demonstrated that it's possible to send TCP/IP, internet traffic via messenger pigeon. That doesn't make it a good, general purpose idea, even if in one (very specific) scenario it was actually more practical than installing a 'traditional' or even wireless data link.

 

[rjohnstone]

Once there's a single, *standard* NFC payment protocol agreed upon (rather than the multitude we currently have), it'll become more widely adopted by stores. Once that happens it will start to make sense to include it in phones. Until then, it's a feature which serves little purpose for *most* people.

There already is a single standard communication protocol for handling secure NFC communications.

So I'm going to assume you're mixing the term "payment protocol" with "payment processing".

The only difference between one NFC reader and another is software.
The readers have no problem reading any NFC tag presented because the protocol is already standardized.
It's a simple matter of programming to determine which tags are accepted.
This is why an Amex ExpressPay reader won't accept a MasterCard PayPass card. It's not the protocol... it's the tag signature.

Hell, I can read the NFC tag in my Amex card with my S2.

What *most* people want is something simple to use.
Google Wallet is simple enough, but still requires too many steps to use.
Nice for security, but it really saves nothing time wise vs. pulling your credit card out of your wallet.

It's easier for me to simply bump my wallet against the reader without taking it out of my pocket vs. using Google Wallet.

I would love it if I could simply tap my phone against a reader and be presented with a PIN screen on my phone without having to launch an app first.

 

[tbrinkma]

There already is a single standard communication protocol for handling secure NFC communications.

So I'm going to assume you're mixing the term "payment protocol" with "payment processing".

The only difference between one NFC reader and another is software.
The readers have no problem reading any NFC tag presented because the protocol is already standardized.
It's a simple matter of programming to determine which tags are accepted.
This is why an Amex ExpressPay reader won't accept a MasterCard PayPass card. It's not the protocol... it's the tag signature.

Hell, I can read the NFC tag in my Amex card with my S2.

What *most* people want is something simple to use.
Google Wallet is simple enough, but still requires too many steps to use.
Nice for security, but it really saves nothing time wise vs. pulling your credit card out of your wallet.

I was actually referring to the entire process involved in paying via a NFC-enabled device and terminal. Yes, there's a standard NFC communication standard. That's good, but it only goes so far. To argue otherwise is like claiming we don't need TCP/IP because we have Ethernet.

Do you remember back in the 'old days' when 'swiping a credit card' didn't involve reading a magnetic strip? Do you remember the slightly less 'old days' when you had to pay attention to whether or not a particular store even *accepted* credit cards? The days when you were as likely to need cash as you were to be able to use your credit card on a purchase?

That's the stage we're in with NFC, and it doesn't seem to be (visibly) progressing quickly. (At least not in the US.) Most of the stores I've seen that have NFC-capable hardware at the register either don't have it enabled, or only accept one of Visa or MasterCard using NFC.

As sad as it is, Apple's Passbook software will be *easier* for vendors to utilize than NFC because a lot of the NFC-enabled card readers are still only compatible with *either* Visa's or MasterCard's NFC payment processing protocol. Regardless of whether they can physically *read* the card, they can't accept payments with it, except by utilizing the magnetic strip. (Don't ask me why, it seems like a stupid design decision to me.) In contrast, the barcode scanners the vendors already have are (by and large) capable of reading dozens of standardized 1D barcode formats (and often 2D formats as well).

Personally, I hope NFC becomes a realistic possibility for card processing in the near future, but based on adoption rates I've seen, I don't think that will be the case in the US until roughly the iPhone 6 or 6S (2-3 years). When it *does* start to gain momentum, I don't doubt that we'll see NFC in the iPhone. Until then, it is (as Schiller said) a solution looking for a problem.

Passbook, as it stands, should let me get 7 of those annoying 'loyalty cards' off my key ring, and another 2 or 3 out of my wallet. That's a concrete benefit for me. (It certainly wouldn't be enough for me to upgrade to the 5 if it weren't supported on the 4s, but that's not the case, so I'm glad to see it.)

It's easier for me to simply bump my wallet against the reader without taking it out of my pocket vs. using Google Wallet.

I would love it if I could simply tap my phone against a reader and be presented with a PIN screen on my phone without having to launch an app first.

So, an honest question for you...
Since once the NFC terminals can accept more than one card type, you wouldn't be able to just 'bump your wallet' and know which card was being charged, what do you think the normal procedure is going to be? If you still have to pull out the card to bump it, you're not saving much of anything over the magnetic stripe.

I agree with you completely about the tap & PIN interface on the phone. Maybe tap, select card, and PIN though.

 

[rjohnstone]

So, an honest question for you...
Since once the NFC terminals can accept more than one card type, you wouldn't be able to just 'bump your wallet' and know which card was being charged, what do you think the normal procedure is going to be? If you still have to pull out the card to bump it, you're not saving much of anything over the magnetic stripe.

I agree with you completely about the tap & PIN interface on the phone. Maybe tap, select card, and PIN though.

There are many restaurants that I go to (McDonald's, Jack in the Box, etc) that have a single NFC reader that accepts all major cards.
The Verge has a pic of the units I see showing up lately.

The Jack in the Box by my house has these.
They were smart and located them at the edge of the counter.
No need for me to pull my wallet.
Just have to back that a** up to the reader.

Fortunately for me, my Amex is the only one with an NFC chip in it.
But I can see an issue arising if you have more than one NFC enabled card in your pocket.
I suspect the cashier may be given a list of cards read and ask which one you want it on.