Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Networking Apple Hardware

Apple Adopts Bluetooth 4.0. Could It Reject NFC? 250

Posted by timothy
from the shifting-sands-of-time dept.
siliconbits writes "Two months after Apple joined the Bluetooth special interest group board, the company launched the world's first truly mainstream Bluetooth 4.0 devices, namely the new Macbook Air & Mac Mini 2011 editions. The products came only one year after the official core specifications of Bluetooth 4.0 were adopted and it looks likely that Apple fast-tracked Bluetooth 4.0's adoption so that the forthcoming iPhone 5 can use this technology with at least one Apple product. This could mean that the manufacturer is considering giving up on NFC altogether, a technology embraced by all of its rivals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Adopts Bluetooth 4.0. Could It Reject NFC?

Comments Filter:
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:38PM (#36836396)

    It's the first device that supports BT4. That does by no means mean that it will be a success, neither does it mean that manufacturers will instantly jump the bandwagon.

    Despite all Apple success and the increase in market share, they're still a far cry from the "other" desktop computers. We should probably start talking when the iPhone supports it.

    • Despite all Apple success...

      Haters gonna hate. :\ The only false logic I see here is saying "they've been successful in the past. It doesn't mean they'll be successful this time." While that's true, the fact is that Apple has a track record of strong consumer support. The standards their devices use have a strong bearing on what other manufacturers integrate into their own devices. No, I think talking now is exactly what's needed; NFC has yet to see a deployment by any major consumer hardware manufacturer. BT4 just signed its first c

      • I don't have any opinion about Apple either way, I just say that we should maybe not take the "Apple does it, it's gotta be successful!" too literal. While everything they do in the handheld market is an instant success, from iPod to iPhone to iPad, the same does not automatically apply to desktop computers. And while I'd applaud the development of ONE standard and being able to rely on it being future-proof (I sure as hell don't need another BluRay vs. HDDVD battle that kept people who wanted to adopt from

        • I don't have any opinion about Apple either way, I just say that we should maybe not take the "Apple does it, it's gotta be successful!" too literal.

          Exactly. Why should we take something too literal that you imagine was said or written somewhere.

    • by beelsebob (529313)

      Actually, they're the third biggest computer manufacturer in terms of shipments (behind Dell and HP) and the biggest in terms of revenue and profits.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I never understood why Apple fans brag that "their" company makes the highest profit off of them.

        • by jo_ham (604554)

          Why do you think he's bragging? He's directly answering a post from the GP that Apple is "still a far cry from the "other" desktop computers" (direct quote). He's pointing out that, in fact, they are the third biggest.

          I'm not sure what "a far cry" means in your world, but generally not "third biggest", unless there are only three participants I suppose.

          • Thats a strange way of looking at things.

            What if there's 5 companies. Company A sells 100 computers a year, Company B sells 70. Company C sells 2. Companies D and E both sell 1.

            Would you say Company C is a "far cry" from A and B?

    • That does by no means mean that it will be a success, neither does it mean that manufacturers will instantly jump the bandwagon.

      Well, Apple does have some leverage over device makers--namely the vaunted "Made for iPhone" program.

      If you want that logo, you have to follow Apple's rules. If Apple says, "You want the logo, you have to support Bluetooth 4.0," you'll need to support Apple's rules. If you don't have the logo, your iPhone gives you snarky messages when you attach the device.

    • by geekmux (1040042)

      It's the first device that supports BT4. That does by no means mean that it will be a success, neither does it mean that manufacturers will instantly jump the bandwagon.

      Funny how vendors seem to adopt rather quickly to new standards, especially when it results in putting their product in Apple stores for a slice of that lucrative revenue stream.

      Despite all Apple success and the increase in market share, they're still a far cry from the "other" desktop computers. We should probably start talking when the iPhone supports it.

      Uh, "other" computers? You call that "Windows" abomination that has justified a million+ support jobs some kind of success? The only "far cry" here was the expectation that Microsoft will make anything stable or secure out of the box, or easy to use.(and yeah, that's coming from a Windows SysAdmin)

      And chances are the iPhone 5 will

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:40PM (#36836428)

    When the Jobs Reality Distortion Field is turned off, usually Apple is found to be selling overpriced, underspec'd hardware. But the one time they get it right, we jump on them?

    Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.
    Bluetooth has a higher bitrate.
    Bluetooth has longer range.
    The power consumption is similar ... in fact, the only thing NFC seems to do better is that it takes less time to setup because (ta-da!) it has no security built into it.

    So tell me guys, given how much data is sitting on your iphone, android, blackberry, blueberry, and walla-walla-ding-dong phones, do you really want a transciever built into it that has no security capability at all... and one of its main functions is point-of-sale integration?

    Sorry guys, but this time at least, Apple did good.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      When the Jobs Reality Distortion Field is turned off, usually Apple is found to be selling overpriced, underspec'd hardware.

      Not really. In the computer market Apple mostly sells a slick proprietary Unix operating system, bundled with large, computer-shaped anti-copying dongles.

    • So tell me guys, given how much data is sitting on your iphone, android, blackberry, blueberry, and walla-walla-ding-dong phones, do you really want a transciever built into it that has no security capability at all...

      The problem isn't that bluetooth has security capability. It's that it forces security.

      With bluetooth, there is no way to just connect without figuring out the target device's preprogrammed pairing code (usually 0000 or 1111), or typing the same code into both devices. This acts as another step that gets in the way of Joe Schmoe doing what he wants. In the case of some phones, they ask for confirmation every time for every file/contact that's going to be transferred -- with no way to permanently authorize a

      • by profplump (309017) <zach-slashjunk@kotlarek.com> on Thursday July 21, 2011 @02:21PM (#36836878)

        First, BlueTooth 2.1 and up supports Secure Simple Pairing, which has several security modes from "no-config encryption only" to "hardware authentication dongles":
        1. Just works. A fully automatic encryption-only system that sacrifices protection against MitM attacks for the convenience of not requiring any user input. Think self-signed SSL certificates -- it's easy to use and secure against eavesdropping but vulnerable to active attacks.
        2. Numeric comparison. Adds authentication to the "Just Works" method by displaying a passkey on both devices and asking the user to ensure they match. The only input required from the user is their acknowledgement that the displayed codes match.
        3. Passkey entry. Like legacy pairing, but the passkey is 6 digits and is generated by one of the hosts and typed into the other (as opposed to the old 4-digit passkeys that may be user-selected and entered on both hosts).
        4. Out-of-band. Bluetooth allows the exchange of authentication data entirely outside the BT data stream, allowing integration with other authentication and communications mechanisms. This allows for integration with hardware dongles or SSL certificates or whatever other sort trust system you'd like to establish for authentication.

        Second, even for legacy pairing, isn't it easy enough to just try "0000" and "1234" when attempting to connect to a new device, and only prompt for user input of neither of those codes work?

        • by Microlith (54737)

          But nonetheless all of those methods require point to point pairing. NFC has no concept of pairing, you wave it past a sensor and something happens.

          Having to stop and pair your device with a coke machine is a large amount of effort for such a tiny transaction.

    • I was going to mod you up but I think a reply is probably better. I absolutely love that Apple is pushing Bluetooth 4, and think it has so many advantages*, (many of which you state) over NFC for local communications. However, NFC is not without merit. While it's being sold on the merits of being contactless payment system, the really cool part of NFC is the auto-configuration and app launching abilities it will open up. The possibilities for how to use that are quite vast and cool. In fact, it could (i

    • Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.

      The Internet (v4) does not support cryptography either... However, if two machines both equipped with support for either unencrypted protocol (Internet or NFC) wish to exchange encrypted data, what's stopping them from doing so?

      Hint: TLS exists as a layer atop an unencrypted channel; Thus, HTTPS (part of the "World Wide Web") supports crypto...
      (Also: I'd take upgradeable / patch-able software encryption protocols over hardware crypto implementations any day.)

    • by tknd (979052)

      This article is just more worthless speculation. Bluetooth and NFC serve totally different purposes. The primary purpose of Bluetooth is tethering of devices wirelessly. The primary purpose of NFC is a "wireless key".

      Probably some of the best implementations of NFC are already available. One example is hotel room card keys. Instead of a physical key, you get a card. The card conveniently unlocks your hotel room door.

      Another good use for NFC is public transit ticket readers. Instead of purchasing a ticke

    • by Dcnjoe60 (682885)

      When the Jobs Reality Distortion Field is turned off, usually Apple is found to be selling overpriced, underspec'd hardware. But the one time they get it right, we jump on them?

      Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.
      Bluetooth has a higher bitrate.
      Bluetooth has longer range.
      The power consumption is similar ... in fact, the only thing NFC seems to do better is that it takes less time to setup because (ta-da!) it has no security built into it.

      So tell me guys, given how much data is sitting on your iphone, android, blackberry, blueberry, and walla-walla-ding-dong phones, do you really want a transciever built into it that has no security capability at all... and one of its main functions is point-of-sale integration?

      Sorry guys, but this time at least, Apple did good.

      I don't know, firewire was pretty much superior in every way to bluetooth, but the market went bluetooth anyway. BT4 may be superior to NFC, but from a consumer perspective it will come down to price and convenience. People on slashdot might worry about the things you mention, but the majority of phone buyers don't.

    • Hence NFC's "security" is range (i.e. tapping).

      We have terms like security by obscurity, which does work in situations, though not in many others.

      NFC brings to the table security by proximity--the island method (you're technically secure if you're on a stranded island miles away from the next person... and they can't hear you).

      Increase NFC's range (which application engineers will *want*) and BT4.0 will be the superior tech. NFC should be a replacement for RFID, not BT...

      • by gbjbaanb (229885)

        the other aspect of NFC that no-one seems to notice is that it'll be off all the time until you want to use it. You can't just click your phone against the reader to transfer money, you have to unlock the phone (at least) first. They say the only way to get security is to unplug from the network - this does that.

        Incidentally I've heard of using NFC for pairing, followed by Bluetooth for data transfer. No more typing in codes to your bluetooth device, connect via NFC to enter the codes automatically.

    • by repetty (260322)

      When the Jobs Reality Distortion Field is turned off, usually Apple is found to be selling overpriced, underspec'd hardware. But the one time they get it right, we jump on them?

      Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.
      Bluetooth has a higher bitrate.
      Bluetooth has longer range.
      The power consumption is similar

      I can't believe that you want to muddy the issue with facts.

      This is SUPPOSED to be about APPLE!

    • by swillden (191260)

      Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.

      This is false. NFC's ISO 14443 mode is a smart card protocol which supported cryptography before Bluetooth existed.

  • Bluetooth sucks (Score:4, Insightful)

    by spire3661 (1038968) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:42PM (#36836446) Journal
    There is no other way to describe it. I prefer buying devices with proprietary radios (mouse/keybaords etc) rather then HOPE BT will work. Does anyone know why Bluetooth sucks so bad and is so hard for it to be consistent? My PS3 handles its controllers over bluetooth like a dream, why cant all bluetooth work that smoothly?
    • by klubar (591384)

      I've tried bluetooth keyboards and mice and I agree they don't work well. Moderate priced keyboards and mice from companies like logitech which include both a proprietary receiver and transmitter (they call it unifying receiver) just seem to work. Plug them in and they pair without any difficulty. Bluetooth is just a PIA...

      About the only bluetooth items that have been easy to use are the silly-looking BT headsets.

      The technology never met its hype.

      • I had a lot of trouble with BT keyboard pairing, and I had pretty much given up trying until I borrowed a Apple BT keyboard. That thing worked perfectly! First time, and has worked since! Only quips with it is that there is no "off" switch, so when I put it into my bag I have to pull out the batteries lest it drain them constantly as I carry it around. All the other BT keyboards just didn't work! Additionally the Apple keyboard feel really nice to the touch! If you're having trouble with BT keyboards, try t

    • And sometimes works easily with non-Apple Bluetooth devices.

      • BULLSHIT. My Apple BT keyboard WILL NOT pair with my Ipad. That incident is the latest BT failure that spurred my original comment. It can see the device, it can even see the keyboards' personally assigned name, but will not pair. This is exactly the shit im talking about. PS3 is the only well handled bluetooth system Ive seen so far. Since i set it up FIVE YEARS AGO, i have never had to think about its bluetooth connections again
        • by Quila (201335)

          Don't know about your incident, but pairing an Apple BT keyboard with an iMac is brain-dead. It's the same process as pairing a BT PS3 remote or headset with a PS3. However, I do have a problem with my headset losing its pairing.

          Pairing PS3 controllers uses a bit of a cheat since plugging it in USB circumvents all the normal BT pairing procedures.

        • There is a reason why HID Bluetooth devices are blocked. Apple sells an overpriced "iPad Keyboard Dock". Mr. Jobs says buy that and make him more money.
          • Did you miss the part where i said it was an APPLE keyboard?
          • by itsdapead (734413)

            There is a reason why HID Bluetooth devices are blocked. Apple sells an overpriced "iPad Keyboard Dock". Mr. Jobs says buy that and make him more money.

            Nice theory - except my clunky old Belkin Bluetooth keyboard pairs with my iPad in a jiffy, and my cheap'n'nasty Packard Bell USB mini-keyboard works via the USB adaptor that comes with the $30 iPad camera connection kit (you get a "USB device not supported" message, but it still works).

            Back under the bridge and wait for the next billygoat, mate.

            The GP's problem is probably that he forgot to hold his nose and hum the star spangled banner while standing on one leg and holding the power button on the keyboa

          • by jo_ham (604554)

            Where's the "-1 totally, utterly spouting bullshit" moderation option.

            Any old bluetooth keyboard works with the iPad. You can also hook up usb keyboards via the USB adapter and they work too. No need to buy the iPad accessory one.

    • Re:Bluetooth sucks (Score:4, Informative)

      by beelsebob (529313) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @02:07PM (#36836712)

      Luckily, apple's bluetooth stack is one of the absolute best out there – I've never actually had a device fail to work with my macs.

    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      Because Sony performs some not-quite-standard tricks with the Bluetooth implementation of its controllers/the PS3. They also do extensive testing to make absolutely sure those two units interop.

      Which is why things work. Have you noticed that there are NO other Bluetooth wireless controllers for the PS3? All other wireless controllers plug into a USB port because there's some Sony "special sauce". Also, to my knowledge, few if any people have ever gotten a PS3 controller to pair with a non-PS3 host. (US

    • I had no problem pairing Microsoft Bluetooth Mobile Keyboard 6000 ($42 USD) and their [amazon.com] Microsoft Bluetooth Mobile Mouse 5000 [amazon.com] ($39 USD) with an HP Laptop with Bluetooth built in and a desktop both running Windows 7 and also with Ubuntu 10.04 and 11.04 using the default Bluetooth stacks in both OSes using a Bluetooth Class 1 (1 mW = 100-meter distance) dongle ($15 - 30 USD) [amazon.com].

      I use the keyboard which is always on sitting under my coffee table to occasionally type into XBMC Media Center running on Ubuntu 11.04 an

    • by itsdapead (734413)

      Does anyone know why Bluetooth sucks so bad

      Because it is overkill for keyboards and mice, more expensive and power hungry than proprietary radios, so people don't buy bluetooth keyboards and mice so the drivers don't get debugged etc... The only real attraction for mice/keyboards is if you have a laptop with built in BT, but now that the proprietary wireless dongles tend to be those low profile jobs that you can leave in a laptop USB port without getting snapped off, that's less of a consideration.

    • by Nimey (114278)

      I tend to get my users keyboards & mice with proprietary radios because the Bluetooth equivalents are so goddamn expensive. Many tens of dollars more expensive, and I don't know why.

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:44PM (#36836476) Homepage

    This from a company that's been pushing wired headphones for years? Maybe Apple will finally get stereo Bluetooth support to work right.

  • NFC is unrelated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kagetsuki (1620613) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:47PM (#36836500)

    NFC is an almost entirely unrelated technology. Granted BlueTooth and NFC share some common features, but NFC is for other things. We use it for digital payment here in Japan for example - that's something you don't want going over BlueTooth. NFC is also good for various physical hot-spot applications. NFC also allows for physical queuing - something some fast food restaurants use for example. BlueTooth on the other-hand handles headsets and other peripherals, as well as a variety of inter-device communications. My phone has both BlueTooth and NFC, as do most phones here in Japan. To have both makes perfect sense.

    • by beelsebob (529313)

      We use it for digital payment here in Japan for example - that's something you don't want going over BlueTooth.

      You don't want it going over the encrypted-by-default standard, but you do want it going over the 100% unencrypted no matter what standard?

      • by Microlith (54737)

        I expect the information being sent over NFC to be encrypted. There's nothing that requires data transmitted via NFC be unencrypted.

        Unless you want to try and pair with every wireless payment device you come across?

      • by amorsen (7485)

        You don't want it going over the encrypted-by-default standard

        You can't realistically do a bluetooth pairing every time you need to pay for something. Encryption is nothing without authentication, and the authentication problem cannot be solved.

        For payments you need end-to-end encryption, and then it doesn't matter whether the wireless link itself is encrypted.

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          Actually, I would prefer my payments not happen without some input from me. Thanks anyway though.

          • by Microlith (54737)

            Surely NFC systems will be available that can be set to prompt for transactions over a given amount.

            Of course, current transaction systems could lie to you just as well today.

      • by smelch (1988698)
        Unencrypted no matter what? That's garbage. An omission of cryptography standards just means its cryptographically agnostic. Do you consider TCP/IP to be 100% unencrypted no matter what? Do you consider ethernet to be 100% unencrypted no matter what? Even written English can be encrypted in any of it's transport protocols (writing, speaking). What about just RAM storage? Can nothing be encrypted in RAM? Bits are bits, you can transform them any way you want, and send them over a dumb wire or dumb air where
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      "that's something you don't want going over BlueTooth."

      If you read the article (or the summary even), that's precisely what it's though Apple may be planning. Why wouldn't you want digital payment information going over Bluetooth? Unlike NFC, it can actually be encrypted.

      • by Microlith (54737)

        So NFC will somehow break if I encrypt data and transmit THAT?

        How does AES-128 break NFC?

  • by v1 (525388) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:47PM (#36836504) Homepage Journal

    [Apple] is considering giving up on NFC altogether, a technology embraced by all of its rivals

    Apple isn't known for giving a crap what their competition is embracing. (that's MS's gig) I think the basic ideas is "why have a feature that everyone else has, giving the consumer a choice between our product and a dozen competitors, when we can offer an appealing feature that we have a large portion of the market on"?

    Makes perfect sense really. Hype something that you, and everyone else, is offering, or hype something that they can only buy from you? That's just smart business.

    Now of course this relies on the market adopting it if it's a compatibility thing, but then if you've already established yourself as the representative for the feature, you've accomplished your goal and it's ok for the competition to run up into the back of the pack with support too and their support for "your feature" just works to your advantage then.

    • The iMac was the first computer to ship with USB standard. It's dropping of legacy ports wasn't copied in the PC world for years.

      • Only when PC laptops got small enough did they start dropping legacy ports, and that's just due to lack of space.

        Some new PCs still ship with PS/2 keyboards, for crying out loud.

      • by v1 (525388)

        also look at how quickly apple dropped serial ports. small appliances (high end routers etc) still come with serial ports instead of usb, they need to get with the picture.

      • by Rich0 (548339)

        Yup, and that's why business don't buy Macs for the most part. Suppose you had a fancy $50k lathe that interfaced with its controller via an RS232 port? Sure, today USB->RS232 dongles cost $1.99 and the drivers are ubiquitous, but if the controller ran DOS v4 chances are that wouldn't have been a viable option. At work we still have odd machines running NT4 for this sort of reason, and I'm sure somebody has something running software written in COBOL on CSIS. Legacy support gives you a more gradual u

        • We were running a RIP (raster image processor for a printer) off of Windows 95 and SCSI. Windows 98 wouldn't work, nor any flavor of NT.

          But for most people, the loss of the older connectors was a good thing.

  • by phatphoton (2099888) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:50PM (#36836534)
    'And on the cable these words appear --
    "My name is Apple (tm)(c)Inc., king of kings:
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"'
  • by Baloroth (2370816) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:51PM (#36836538)

    After a quick glance at NFC, it seems like Bluetooth and NFC don't even fulfill the same roles. NFC only has a working range of 20cm or less, while Bluetooth can reach for something like 20-30 meters (in extreme cases). That seems like it would make NFC useless for headsets, as a phone in the pocket is going to be more than 20cm away from your ear. Same thing for laptops. Also, NFC has an extremely low data rate compared to Bluetooth, so your not going to use it for file transfers. Seems like NFC is mostly useful for things like credit cards/ID badges/ etc. which Bluetooth would be useless for, since it needs pairing, while Bluetooth is used for voice/video communication, file transfers, and the like.

    Am I wrong about this? Anyone know more about NFC compared to Bluetooth? I do see that Bluetooth 4.0 is low energy, so it could fill some of the roles of NFC, but it can't do passive RFID like NFC can, so again, different technologies for different uses. Seems like the story (at least the summary) is just sensationalist speculation. Seems like not using NFC would be quite stupid on Apple's part in any case, since nearly everyone else is. Having the iPhone/ MacBook not work with actually deployed technology seems like it would be a huge mistake for Apple.

    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      Yup - BT4.0 and NFC address completely different problem spaces.

      And not including NFC will potentially cripple Apple, since in this particular case it's not just about what their competitors support - it's what retailers/other point-of-sale venues support. "I support NFC already - you want me to add something else that only works with YOUR devices?"

      • by Microlith (54737)

        And not including NFC will potentially cripple Apple

        I imagine that Apple is relying on their pull to cripple NFC, rather than lack of NFC crippling Apple.

    • by robmv (855035)

      NFC works with passive devices too, one active device generates a signal to power the other one. I do not see Bluetooth replacing that

    • Bluetooth 4.0 competes with ANT [thisisant.com]. One reason Apple wants this is the Nike+ device communicates with the iPhone/iPod via ANT. That means, in the iPhone and iPod touch at least, yet another radio stuck in the device. If Apple can run it through Bluetooth 4.0 and get the same battery life, they can drop the ANT stuff.

    • Until recently there's been arguably no overlap between Bluetooth and NFC, but the Bluetooth 4.0 spec includes the Bluetooth low energy [wikipedia.org] feature, which can be used over shorter ranges and use far less power, even less power than NFC when communicating with active RFID devices. Given that mobile devices are already expected to have Bluetooth, it makes some sense if Apple's goal is to push for a combined "NFC" payment and Bluetooth device solution. The question is whether payment processing equipment manufact
    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Read the article. Apple doesn't want to replace what Bluetooth does with NFC, they (might) want to do what NFC does with Bluetooth. Less chips, cheaper design, cheaper device. About the only thing NFC offers over BT is passive communication, which I think most of us would prefer our phones don't do anyway.

      If you were a merchant and you could buy an NFC payment system and get the Android people, or you could buy a BT one and get the Android people (Android phones have BT already) AND the iPhone people, wh

  • by gaspyy (514539) on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:54PM (#36836568)

    If bluetooth transfer is available only between two Apple devices, it won't mean much.
    I actually hate this attitude.

    Why can't I take a photo with my Blackberry and transfer it to my iPad? Why can't I download a pdf on the iPad and transfer it to my Playbook via bluetooth?
    There's no technical reason why I could not transfer files and settings (such as calendar and address book entries between an Apple device and any other phone). This is old tech.

    I managed to find a way to transfer files via ftp, making the iPad an ftp server and connecting with the playbook/torch as a client but this obviously requires a wifi connection and of course I can't transfer photos or music from the ipad this way.

  • It could just mean that we have an opportunity to speculate wildly on basis of limited information.

    • by Americano (920576)

      Yeah... "Two new computers were released without NFC support, and support for the newest version of Bluetooth, older versions of which Apple's computers have supported for years now. We can then conclude from this that the iPhone 5 will definitely not support NFC, and instead will simply support BT4."

      FTA:

      we suspect that it could even be used to rival NFC (Near Field Communication).

      So they don't know, they're pulling a wild guess out of their collective asses. Using that same logic, I suspect that my urine

  • there was a story not long ago talking about apple getting back up to 10% of the pc market, course that number was bullshitted up by the sales of Ipads

  • by Pop69 (700500) <billy@@@benarty...co...uk> on Thursday July 21, 2011 @04:39PM (#36838378) Homepage
    If Paypal want to be involved with NFC then I want absolutely nothing to do with it, BT here I come

You can measure a programmer's perspective by noting his attitude on the continuing viability of FORTRAN. -- Alan Perlis

Working...