Apple Adopts Bluetooth 4.0. Could It Reject NFC?

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."

Comments

How so?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some incompatibility between bluetooth 4 and NFC?

Re:How so?

[gomiam]

There doesn't seem to be. But Bluetooth 4.0 Low Energy and NFC seem to overlap in functionality.

Re:How so?

[mrxak]

Let's not forget the basis of this story is that Apple didn't include NFC in a desktop computer and laptop. It doesn't make any sense to include NFC in a desktop computer, or even a laptop.

As for speculation about Apple's plans for NFC in their phones, it's simply that. Pure, unadulterated, unfounded speculation based on the fallacy that wireless technologies implemented in a desktop computer are the only ones allowed on a mobile phone. That's never been true because phones necessarily have different technologies built into them that would make no earthly sense on any desktop computer. In case it's not clear, I'm referring to the radios used to make phone calls. Something like NFC that's clearly only intended for mobile devices would fall under that same category of things computers don't need, and thus there is no reason whatsoever to think Apple wouldn't someday include NFC on their phones.

False logic

[Opportunist]

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.

Re:False logic

[girlintraining]

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 contract, as it were. In IT especially, first to market usually wins.

Re:False logic

[Opportunist]

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 doing so, fearing the other format would win), and I don't really care either way, whether it's BT4 or NFC, I also do not see how this is going to decide this. I would not jump on the BT train because Apple computers now supports it, and I doubt that many hardware manufacturers will.

If this was an iP$handheld instead of a desktop, we'd have a very different situation. So, I'll wait for them to support it before I make a decision either way. 'cause one thing is sure, the technology is vastly more interesting for handhelds and mobile devices than it is for desktops. If Apple decides to use it in its mobiles, we have a winner. No matter what MS et al are going to do.

But 'til then, I won't consider this decided.

Re:False logic

[beelsebob]

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:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Firewire - enough said....

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:False logic

[R3d M3rcury]

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.

Re:False logic

[Tim12s]

Apple does not need other vendors to be successful with BLE.

All apple needs is to streamline the effectiveness of cooperation between users within the Apple ecosystem. They control the entire ecosystem - head to toe -, unlike google, hp, sony, etc.

Its success should be measured against Firewire. While Firewire might have been a great technology, it was just a peripheral technology. BLE has the opportunity to streamline interaction between different _people_.

I'd guess they'll launch something like paypal and then enable person-person transactions and become one of the biggest single banks in history.

Minor uses in Access Control, sharing documents, playlists and music.

Re:False logic

[Tim12s]

Oh yeah, enter patent lawsuits from visa, mastercard and paypal.

Re:False logic

[jo_ham]

Firewire was a huge success (and still is), just not in the consumer space. Even FW400 (the slowest speed in a non-prototype product) is still faster and more robust than USB2.

If you needed fast, reliable, low resource using external bus, then Firewire was excellent and is the de-facto standard for consumer DV cameras, pro-sumer stuff (before you start looking at things like SDI and so on), and used for things like external sound cards, hard drives, high-bandwidth scanners and cameras and so on.

It only lost out in the consumer space because it was more expensive to implement than USB2 (and the fact that Intel essentially put 22" rims and a huge engine into a Toyota Tercel and called it a sports car - USB was never designed for high throughput, and it suffers as a result at USB2 speeds, to the point that a FW400 bus [400Mb/s] almost always outperforms a USB2 bus [theoretically 480Mb/s but good luck] in real world use).

Re:False logic

[jo_ham]

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.

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because with each sale they make $500-$1800 in pure profit + apple care if applicable. HP and Dell barely make much per sale but they sale a hell of a lot more. Quantity is more important in this case.

Re:False logic

[geekmux]

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 support it, but in the meantime, better/faster mice and keyboards will likely prevail, from Apple and other vendors who want to sell a ton of stuff in Apple stores.

Re:False logic

[repapetilto]

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?

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the article was about the iPhone 5 using Blue Tooth NOT DESKTOP COMPUTERS. Perhaps you should have spent a little more time reading the article.

Re:False logic

[Old97]

Quantity is more important? How? To whom? Investors care about profitability. GM used to have the largest market share. Toyota broke their own rules in order to surpass GM in quantity and it's severely damaged their reputation for quality as well as resulted in huge losses for the company. Smaller, more focused auto companies in the meantime were making money while maintaining or improving quality.

Apple's influence is huge across IT and the industry. It's market share is now just under 11% of PCs in the US, but if you subtract out the no-margin corporate market, Apple has a much larger share of the individual and education markets. Also, it's individual consumers have more disposable income and better education then those of their rivals. Apple has dramatically changed the industry first with the iPhone and then the iPad. Their influence on Microsoft has is huge as well. Where did Windows come from? (Apple code licensed by Microsoft.) The point is that Apple's reputation for correctly predicting consumer demand and being the first to ship hugely successful products has been noticed by all of its competitors as well as consumers. Smartphones took off after the iPhone, not before. Their rivals are all investing heavily in trying to compete with the iPad.

Quantity is not the size that matters here.,

Re:False logic

[beelsebob]

This is not the situation being discussed, more like A sells 100, B sells 80 and C sells 70.

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

So it's both false and true? Is this what what they call quantum computing?

Re:False logic

[node 3]

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

It's a measure of success. And is particularly useful in countering the whole "Apple is beleaguered" (from a decade ago) or "Apple has lost the PC war to MS, and is losing the handheld war to Google" (from today).

Re:False logic

[trunicated]

Uhhhhh, iPad numbers don't count when we're talking about PCs. I don't care what Jobs says about making the PC "just another device"... the iPad isn't up there with PCs yet, and thus shouldn't be counted in your calculations for third place.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

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.

Re:False logic

[jo_ham]

iPads are not included in those figures. Macs (as in, specifically *not* iOS devices) make up 10% of new PC sales in the US, and Apple is one of the few individual vendors who are actually growing their business (in an overall decline in market growth compared to previous years).

Re:False logic

[Excelsior]

NFC has yet to see a deployment by any major consumer hardware manufacturer.

Sort of. The difference is, NFC is in wide circulation with MasterCard PayPass and Visa Paywaive.

People seem to be ignoring the massive difficulty and investment in bringing the point-of-sale in alignment with the mobile device. Google has solved this by partnering with MasterCard to allow their wallet to work via NFC with PayPass POS devices which were already deployed at many merchants. It is difficult to imagine that BT4 could compete with that built-in install base. Apple would be smart to integrate NFC rather than attempting to blaze their own trail. It certainly is not impossible, but it doesn't make much sense.

Re:False logic

[BlackSnake112]

Your forgetting one thing (well maybe not) http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/firewire.html

Apple owns the rights to the name firewire. Which would explain why so many companies call the port IEEE1394 or IEEE 1394b. They did not want to abide by apple's terms to use the term firewire.

Re:False logic

[jo_ham]

That just explains why pc manufacturers and peripheral makers tended to use the official IEEE number to refer to the port rather than firewire, with some exceptions. The port certainly wasn't unheard of in the PC arena (especially in the 4 pin form on laptops), but it never got the consumer penetration that it should have due to the cost of implementation (which wasn't all down to licensing and patent fees - the chipsets were more expensive than the same stuff needed to do USB2, since that palmed off all that work on the host computer and had various other compromises that made it worse than firewire).

Re:False logic

[AvitarX]

Honestly, I'd rather see BT4 than NFC.

Bluetooth, as a standard, has a trackrecord of support and working devices. NFC doesn't appear to have universal supprt even in Android smartphones, BT does.

Re:False logic

[Kalriath]

Um, I'm pretty sure Samsung doesn't want the "Made for iPhone" logo on their Galaxy S mobile phones. And HTC doesn't want "Made for iPhone" on their Desire HD.

We're talking about phone manufacturers here, and they explicitly would not want the logo you speak of.

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

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.

Can you say Firewire? Yes, some manufacturers support ot buy a much greater proportion support USB.

Re:False logic

[molnarcs]

Don't forget another Apple factor: Apple likes being first. They don't like entering markets, they like creating new ones. That no longer may seem possible. What else is there now that they opened up the tablets market? (I personally would like to see them try something with watches ;) Anyway, people underestimate this Apple sentiment, but it is at the core of what they communicate to customers and what they believe in. This sense of exclusivity is responsible for generating the kind of deep emotional bond you see in Apple fanboys online, or people sleeping in front of their stores on launch date, waiting in lines for 6-8 hours to get their hands on the latest. No other company is successful in generating that kind of devotion. At a very strong component of that is that... they are special. They are different. They are first. Look at their patent lawsuits recently. The message is clear: we were first. They are copying us. Only geeks know that this is not true - innovation depends on the free flow of information.

I'm personally glad that iOS finally got a good notification system by copying Android. Of course, no fanboy would ever admit that Apple copied anything, another evidence how genetic being first is to Apple. There is a problem with NFC. Android was first. Not only that, but it was the Nexus S - THE Google phone. I know this sounds a bit of a stretch, but then, people (especially geeks) always underestimate the role of emotions in our choices. See Simon Sinek's video on the subject.

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

Apple is the only source computers that run OSX. Considering the hundreds of computer manufacturers that make Windows based computers, Apple is still a small player in the computer market. OSX and iOS combined only have a 10% share of computers that use browsers. As a manufacturer they are a big player in their own small yard, but the people who make the other 85% of computers probably drive the industry more.

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

Try this analogy.
Company A sells 100 company, B sells 75, C sells 50, D sells 40 , E sells 10, F sells10 , ... Z sells 1
All companies sell a total of 5000, All companies except C sell computers that use the same software. If one is a hardware manufacturer would one target the 10% or the 90%? Apple is big in their own playground because they won't let anyone else in.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Try this analogy. Company A sells 100 company, B sells 75, C sells 50, D sells 40 , E sells 10, F sells10 , ... Z sells 1 All companies sell a total of 5000, All companies except C sell computers that use the same software. If one is a hardware manufacturer would one target the 10% or the 90%? Apple is big in their own playground because they won't let anyone else in.

Only that company C sells >500 of the 5000, and is one of very few actually selling more each quarter, for over 20 quarters in a row now.

Re:False logic

[exomondo]

Firewire was a huge success (and still is), just not in the consumer space.

I think that's the point he's trying to make, Firewire eventually failed in the consumer market because there was a widely adopted alternative (technologically not as good, but we've seen that countless times before) and they are trying to do the same thing again with BT4 vs NFC.

Re:False logic

[dwightk]

we all know 'literally' now means 'figuratively' so

nah, that doesn't make sense either.

Re:False logic

[exomondo]

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.

Of course Apple are the biggest manufacturer of Apple computers, but the 'other desktop computers' means Windows and Linux computers, not a specific brand so it's Dell, HP, etc... combined.

Re:False logic

[wesleyjconnor]

My pc is about 2 years old and is in the HP line of 'dev' machines, it has 10 usb 2 ports at the back with another 4 usb 1 ports at the front and 0 firewire.

Re:False logic

[exomondo]

My pc is about 2 years old and is in the HP line of 'dev' machines, it has 10 usb 2 ports at the back with another 4 usb 1 ports at the front and 0 firewire.

When i said it failed in the consumer space i didn't mean it succeeded in every other market.

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

The Apple watch would only be set to Cupertino time. You can't change it or the batteries. The alarm can only be updated through iTunes. It'll come out in black first, then people will fall over themselves in droves to re-buy it in white.

Re:False logic

[ckaminski]

I think you fail to underestimate the contribution that Blackberry made to that space.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

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.

Of course Apple are the biggest manufacturer of Apple computers, but the 'other desktop computers' means Windows and Linux computers, not a specific brand so it's Dell, HP, etc... combined.

Are you telling us that computers made by Apple can't run Windows or Linux? And since when do Windows and Linux get counted as one OS anyway? Are you that desperate to show that Apple isn't successful at selling computers? Does that challenge your masculinity or something?

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

Try this chart. Yes, Apple is the fourth largest manufacturer of personal computers yet they only shipped 9.5% of the total. Yes they have tripled their market share in a year by 3X3 is still only 9. Those figures even include iPads which is debatable. To me, anything without a real keyboard is not a personal computer and should be in its own class.

Re:False logic

[exomondo]

Are you telling us that computers made by Apple can't run Windows or Linux?

No, i'm quite obviously telling you that non-Apple computers can't (legitimately) run Apple's OS.

And since when do Windows and Linux get counted as one OS anyway?

They don't, if you bothered to read what was written you would know they were counted as 'other computers'.

Are you that desperate to show that Apple isn't successful at selling computers?

Why would i try and do that? That is patently false, only an idiot would try to do that because it obviously isn't the case at all, the fact that you even posted that question means you didn't read (or were incapable of comprehending) what was written. What i'm saying is the OP was comparing 'types' of computers (Apple computers with BT4) as opposed to 'brands' of computers.

Does that challenge your masculinity or something?

I don't correlate the success of a company selling computers to my masculinity but that fact that you wrote that certainly says something about how you view yourself.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

To me, anything without a real keyboard is not a personal computer and should be in its own class.

There go the netbooks.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Oh, sorry, I thought your post actually had a point. Go back to posting pointless blather.

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's a measure of competency. Apple are successful because they make decent products. The rest of the industry has still yet to learn from Apple, it seems. I don't mind paying extra if I think the company deserves it.

Re:False logic

[exomondo]

Oh, sorry, I thought your post actually had a point. Go back to posting pointless blather.

I'm sorry you had such difficulty and ultimately failed to comprehend it, the point is pretty damned obvious but I'll try and dumb it down some more for you next time.

Re:False logic

[Old97]

RIM's Blackberry and Nokia's internet phones had their fans, but neither took off with the general population. These were devices with some computer like capabilities. The iPhone along with the Palm and Android phones are computers with phone capabilities. Very few Blackberry users accessed the internet and they bought few apps if any. Most weren't even aware that they could. The users of Nokia's internet phones didn't buy a lot of apps or have any major impact on the industry as a whole. They were (are) good devices according to what their users say about them. Microsoft's efforts were not inspiring. What Apple did however changed everything around the world. Now RIM is trying to copy Apple and they aren't very good at it so they are withering away. The better Android manufacturers are doing very well and there is hope for Palm now it has access to HP's credit cards. Even Microsoft is tagging along hoping for some success. (I've seen Win 7 for Phones and it's pretty nice.)

RIM's value proposition was always their secure messaging. A secondary proposition was their enterprise management. There weren't good alternatives for a long time. What changed was the wider availability of 2 and 3G internet access and the availability of internet technologies that could duplicate RIM's secure messaging functionality without proprietary infrastructure. Apple capitalized on that. It was there and it was coming, but Apple was the first to recognize its potential and deliver something that would use it and excite a lot of consumers by providing a strong supporting ecosystem and the best in class marketing. So, my point is that investors and corporations around the world play very close attention to what Apple does. Their track record is too strong to ignore. Quantity doesn't matter in this case.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Oh, sorry, I thought your post actually had a point. Go back to posting pointless blather.

I'm sorry you had such difficulty and ultimately failed to comprehend it, the point is pretty damned obvious but I'll try and dumb it down some more for you next time.

Ohh, I got it alright - you have penis envy.

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

I guess I should have been clearer. I define a real keyboard as one that does not involve a touch screen and disappear when not in use.

To those who think that I think Blackberries are personal computers, "real keyboard" is only one criteria. A personal computer would not fit in the average pants pocket. Just trying to cut down on the responses that deliberately misunderstand statements.

Re:False logic

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

No, you define stuff as you go.

Re:False logic

[exomondo]

Ohh, I got it alright

Obviously not.

you have penis envy.

No i'm a dude, not a girl.

Re:False logic

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh, I got it alright - you have penis envy.

lol...fanboy fail

Re:False logic

[mjwx]

iPads are not included in those figures.

Except that they are.

Now we all know you're tragic fanboy and have trouble admitting this but Apple and Jobs himself are experts at lying through statistics. I know every company does it to a degree, it's called PR but Apple turn it up to 11.

The statistic that "Apple is 10% in the US" is including Ipads and ignores the fact that the US is a very small market. It also disguises the fact that Apple isn't doing so well in the rest of the world. Now the US PC market is shrinking whilst the PC market in Asia is growing but Apple's share in the Asian market is practically non-existent.

Lying through statistics is easy when you cherry pick what statistics to show. 78% of people know that.

Re:False logic

[tehcyder]

we all know 'literally' now means 'figuratively'

Only to fucktards or people with a poor grasp of English as a second language and no recourse to a dictionary.

Re:False logic

[tehcyder]

This is not the situation being discussed, more like A sells 100, B sells 80 and C sells 70.

The point is that D + E + ...when added to A and B still make up a fuckload more than C

A, B, D, E...are selling the same product.

Re:False logic

[tehcyder]

To me, anything without a real keyboard is not a personal computer and should be in its own class.

There go the netbooks.

WTF?

All the netbooks I've ever seen have real (i.e. physical) keyboards. But, of course, you knew that, and were trying to blur the difference between computers and tablets by pretending that a slightly smaller form factor somehow stops it being an actual keyboard.

Must try harder, you need to go back to Insane Mac Fanboy school.

Re:False logic

[tehcyder]

Is it just me or are there more than the normal number of rabid Apple fanbois around at the moment? Has high school just finished in the US or something?

Re:False logic

[intheshelter]

Thankfully you were here to set the record straight. I was under the impression that Apple was doing very well, outpacing the PC industry in growth, leading in customer satisfaction surveys, watched and emulated by other vendors in the same markets, I bought into it all, the headlines, the great products, the resurgence of Apple over the last 5 years, etc. Now that you've pointed out that Apple is on it's deathbed and all of this has been a ruse I can throw away my 3 macs, 2 iphones, 2 ipads, and 4 ipods, shut down my video production business which uses Final Cut Studio, and tell all my family who've bought Apple computers and love them, to throw out theirs too. Thanks so much, I don't know how you are the only one to know the truth, you must have been given a vision by God.

Re:False logic

[intheshelter]

You probably should have been clearer, you should have said "I'm going to define a real computer as one that does something differently than an Apple computer because I hate Apple".

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

I don't think an Samsung Galaxy is a personal computer either. It has nothing to do with the manufacturer. It has to do with the fact that I do not think a device with just a touchscreen as standard is a personal computer; it is a tablet and therefore a different class. Tablets can do things that personal computers can not and vice versa. By considering them the same class sales figures are muddled.

I can also point out that I didn't say anything about "real computer" just "personal computer". Servers, smart phones, mini computers and mainframes are all "real computers" but they are not "personal computers". In my opinion sales figures for personal computers and tablets should be separate as they are different classes of devices. Acer shouldn't have sales of their Iconia Tab A500 added to their personal computer sales any more than Apple should do the same with iPad sales.

I do have issues with many things Apple does just as I have issues with many things Microsoft does. In this instance I am calling Apple on the inflation of their personal computer sales figures by including tablets in them.

Re:False logic

[jklovanc]

Sorry math mistake. I should have said "All companies sell a total of 500" since Apple had a 10% share of personal computer sales. As a single manufacturer Apple is very big but as an operating system OSX is still quite small when compared to Windows.

Re:False logic

[jo_ham]

iPads are not included in those figures.

Except that they are.

Now we all know you're tragic fanboy and have trouble admitting this but Apple and Jobs himself are experts at lying through statistics. I know every company does it to a degree, it's called PR but Apple turn it up to 11.

The statistic that "Apple is 10% in the US" is including Ipads and ignores the fact that the US is a very small market. It also disguises the fact that Apple isn't doing so well in the rest of the world. Now the US PC market is shrinking whilst the PC market in Asia is growing but Apple's share in the Asian market is practically non-existent.

Lying through statistics is easy when you cherry pick what statistics to show. 78% of people know that.

We know hater trolls love to hate, and you're like stuck records, but repeating it often enough with your face all scrunched up and *really wishing hard* will not make it true.

http://macdailynews.com/2011/01/12/gartner_apple_mac_posts_24_yoy_growth_to_grab_9-7_u-s-_market_share/

Check table two - it shows Apple's 9.7% share, and then specifically mentions this quote right underneath. It's hard to miss.

Note: Data includes desk-based PCs, mobile PCs, including mini-notebooks but not media tablet such as the iPad. Source: Gartner (January 2010)

Next time you want to troll, stick to facts - you won't look so foolish.

Re:False logic

[AmiMoJo]

Apple don't seem to be any better or any worse than average for supporting things that eventually get abandoned. AAC format music and Firewire spring to mind. Certainly they are no-where near Sony levels.

The biggest difference with Apple is that they go all-out to support new tech. Most manufacturers will start offering USB3 and Light Peak on their high end models, then filter it down to the lower end as the cost of the hardware falls. Apple just stick it on everything, meaning that people who buy the cheaper models and who would ordinarily be shielded from bleeding edge tech that fails to catch on are exposed. Not sure if that is good or bad, you probably have to decide on a case-by-case basis.

Re:False logic

[Old97]

He can also check this link: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/13/apples_share_of_u_s_pc_market_rises_to_nearly_11_on_strong_growth.html which shows Apple with a 10.7% share. The article explicitly says the iPad's are not included. I wonder if the GP is a paid Dell troll.

This is a bad thing?

[girlintraining]

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:This is a bad thing?

[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.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[jojoba_oil]

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 paired device. (This happened on an old Samsung phone that I bought while abroad, I forget which model.)

I see it similar to WiFi security. People who are aware of the risks of wireless communication between devices will want security. The standard user just wants the software/protocol/whatever to get out of her way.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[afidel]

Because most slashdot users still have their first computer in a corner or in the attic. I know until recently my 486 SX25 was still at my parents house and I still have my first Athlon based system in the basement where it gets occasional use.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Because most slashdot users still have their first computer in a corner or in the attic

hey! ... someday I'm going to resurrect that thing.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You might get more support if you don't start off your post with douchey lies having nothing to do with topic at hand. ...

then you proceed to type two paragraphs of douchey lies that have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[alostpacket]

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 (in theory) be a great way to make Bluetooth pairing easier. Or, it could be a nice way to let a guest or relative visiting your house configure Wi-Fi on their device simply by waving their device next to an NFC sticker. There is much more too, but these are just ideas to get the mind thinking about the possibilities. (Also from what I understand cyrptography is certainly possible with NFC, but may not be built in).

So while you're right, Bluetooth is far superior as a connectivity technology, NFC fills a different need and it's not without advantages.

*(Admittedly I'm a bit biased because I have developed two apps that make heavy use of Bluetooth).

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are delusional. I think you should think about what you said. Its one thing to allow users to fuck up their PC at home (average MS users) its another to allow idiots to walk around spewing personal data all over the meatspace. There are ways to enforce security with minimal invasion. Your OLD *Samsung* case is nothing like how Bluetooth is implemented in premium devices today. I have never entered my pair code more than once and I LIKE that a 2 year old can't hijack my Bluetooth devices with zero effort. I understand it can be hacked, but at least it can't be done by every walmart checker.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has no real idea of what NFC payment is suppose to be about.

>Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.
So how many crypto keys are you going to generate? You want to make both parties search for each other's device and pair and then exchange data? That will never fly with consumers. If you make automatic handshaking and key exchange, it defeats the purpose of having keys.
>Bluetooth has a higher bitrate.
How much data are you going to use on that to make it really worthwhile? It's for short burst of data, not long term data exchange.
>Bluetooth has longer range.
The point is to have a closer range so you need to almost have physical contact with the device. Having a longer range means someone sitting a few feet away or further can access the information and use that to hack any encryption key you may have.

If Apple is going to use BT4 as payment data exchange and reply on it's encryption for security, it's not going to be secure. That's a fail. But hey, your apple overlord has issue the edict and you must comply to live in his kingdom.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[bill_mcgonigle]

*It's interesting how so many on /. only talked about iphone costs in terms of the cost of the phone + plans, but no one on slashdot ever mentions Apple's high resale value when doing comparing prices of other brands vs. Apple.

You sure? I see the $599 iPhone selling for $50. I guess it depends on how long you hold onto your gear.

Hrm, that's a reasonable price for an iPod.

Macs are different because you can't go get a Mac for $50 down with a $2800 ISP contract obligation.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[jojoba_oil]

You might get more support if you don't start off your post with douchey lies having nothing to do with topic at hand.

Um. There is plenty that relates a very real perception of Apple products to a news article about Apple products. It has very much to do with the topic at hand, and is not a douchey lie.

*It's interesting how so many on /. only talked about iphone costs in terms of the cost of the phone + plans, but no one on slashdot ever mentions Apple's high resale value when doing comparing prices of other brands vs. Apple

Any positive for resale value is completely nullified by the fact that standard accessories are outrageously priced... Want a wall-charger? $30. Charge/sync cord wear out? $30. Earphones fell apart? $30. Hell, let's assume you get an iPad and want a keyboard: $70. Bluetooth keyboards for a real computer don't even cost that much.

I had an iPod Touch once, and I treated it well. I never yanked it off the charging cord and always kept my earphones well. It wasn't even like I was always using the thing very often. They both started coming apart about 6 months in. When I wanted to get an AC->USB adapter, I looked to see if Apple had an official one: $30... Needless to say, I didn't buy it. Instead, I bought a universal electrical outlet adapter (not transformer) that included USB ports for $15. That's served me a lot better and--unlike the Apple accessories that came with the iPod Touch--has not had any quality issues for years.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[profplump]

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?

Re:This is a bad thing?

[grimmjeeper]

Because most slashdot users still have their first computer in a corner or in the attic.

That must make me somewhat unique. My TRS-80 and PC/XT are long gone. I gave up on the dream of using them again a very long time ago. My single core Athlon is my oldest computer now that I pitched my Pentium III, and all it does is run a disk array I use for bulk storage.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[VortexCortex]

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.)

Re:This is a bad thing?

[jojoba_oil]

You are delusional. I think you should think about what you said. Its one thing to allow users to fuck up their PC at home (average MS users) its another to allow idiots to walk around spewing personal data all over the meatspace. There are ways to enforce security with minimal invasion. Your OLD *Samsung* case is nothing like how Bluetooth is implemented in premium devices today. I have never entered my pair code more than once and I LIKE that a 2 year old can't hijack my Bluetooth devices with zero effort. I understand it can be hacked, but at least it can't be done by every walmart checker.

I'm sorry, I must have crossed an Apple fanboi. But okay, I'll bite. Obviously, *Samsung* doesn't have any "premium devices", and only "MS users" ever leave their wireless router unprotected.

As far as spewing personal data all over, Facebook should be a good enough example that people don't care about their personal data... They walk around posting location updates now too.

Funny thing is that I actually think it's good for Apple to support this standard that forces the standard user to think about security.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[tknd]

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 ticket, you just recharge a card. The card works just like the hotel key card except you tap it on subway ticket gates. The gate connects to a database and updates your card balance.

In both of these instances security requirements are low because (connection) speed is more important. For example say you lose your hotel key card. The back up security in this instance is to deactivate the existing key card and assign a new one. This is actually much more convenient than hiring someone to walk up to the physical lock and replace it with a new one.

Bluetooth is totally different. You DON'T want your phone to be syncing with every potential bluetooth device within 10 meters. You only want bluetooth to sync with trusted devices.

But of course this article will generate lots of comment traffic and lots of misleading comments that automatically get modded up just because it's about Apple.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Pope]

FireWire and Bluetooth address two completely different use cases. I don't think anyone's clamouring for a Bluetooth hard drive.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[cp.tar]

This holds true while you only consider the internals: the CPU, graphics chipset, RAM, etc.

As soon as you consider other factors, Apple turns out to be fairly priced.
For instance, four years ago, when I suddenly got enough money to buy a good laptop, I was considering a ThinkPad. T40p, if my memory serves me right. An excellent laptop at the time, with an excellent screen, a ThinkPad keyboard and all the other nifty details that made it worth the price difference over similarly specced, yet cheaper laptops. It turned out it was sold out, and I could only get a significantly more expensive Windows version of the machine, which I was not ready to pay for; I’d intended to make it a Linux machine.
When I asked around for a good laptop in the same price range, the very first suggestion was a MacBook Pro. Roughly the same price, roughly the same specs, and I haven’t regretted it. Actually, I’m typing this on the very same laptop. I plan to replace it sometime next year, and I’ll buy an Apple machine again. You really do get what you pay for, though I admit not everyone is willing to pay extra for good design, a superb keyboard, quiet cooling system, and other things not shown in the specs list.

Apple does not do low-end devices. Thus it is wrong to compare their devices with their low-end competitors.
Compare them like for like, and Apple won’t seem so expensive. (Note, I’m talking about computers. I have no clue about mobile phones.)

Re:This is a bad thing?

[cp.tar]

My wired, USB keyboard cost $70. Plus shipping from the US to Europe, plus customs and tax, which pretty much doubled the price.
Indeed, it is a Model M-lookalike, with the same key mechanism, and I love it and hug it and call it George. And it wasn’t even made by Apple.

Good peripherals cost good money. They are very often worth it, too.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[recharged95]

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...

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Superb keyboard isn't exactly something many agree on. Touch typists in particular. Solid touchpad yeah, keyboard is pretty damn bad though (in my opinion).

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Americano]

And the extra you're paying is exactly for the shiny:
-- Generally better battery life than its contemporaries - sometimes significantly longer;
-- Generally lighter/thinner than its contemporaries - sometimes significantly smaller/lighter;
-- A whole bunch of fairly good consumer software to power your shiny new toy;

None of this comes without additional cost. Apple offers less choice in terms of customizability & models - but if you limit your search to similar sizes, weights, battery life, screen quality, and software (not just X Ram, X CPU, X HD capacity), the prices are fairly competitive.

Yes, you can get a laptop that will do "everything a Macbook does" for less money. But it will, almost invariably, be a heavier, bulkier model with lower battery life, and a shitload of preloaded crapware (including, for some people, Windows itself) that you'll want to delete almost immediately.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[gbjbaanb]

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.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. Taking a protocol that was never designed (or even had a glimmer in their minds) for secure financial data transaction should be forced to do so.

You want your packets sniffed by more people BECAUSE of it's longer range? (Encryption will fail eventually -- they all fall eventually, especially a 128bit key length). NFC requires you to practically be touching the sensor.

Incidentally, NFC readers are just now exploding onto the merchants. I can't imagine them immediately moving to BT4 EVEN IF your arguments were sound. So, enjoy your lack-of-payment, while everyone else enjoys their current-working NFC. Even if BT4 catches on, *YAWN* everyone will eventually implement it in the future anyway. The Samsung Galaxy S was the first major phone to support BT3.0 and did you see anyone care? (Maybe, since it's one of the top selling Android phones. Can't really say that was a popular must-have feature tho.) Just like Adobe Flash: we'll have legacy support for viewing older content, while pushing forward to HTML5. Congratulations on your lack of choice though, and your boneheaded insistence that what everything big red does is "the best".

Good job, you - once again(?) - were so happy to jump on the bandwagon that you didn't consider anything else.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[repetty]

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!

Re:This is a bad thing?

[TheRaven64]

Apple vs similar laptop spec-wise

These comparisons are difficult. For example, how much is something like the illuminated keyboard worth? Are you comparing machines with the same battery life and size / weight? What about things like FireWire 800? I actually use that quite often for a couple of daisy-chained external disks. How about screen quality? I wouldn't buy an Apple laptop without the antiglare screen option - are the other laptops you're looking at including displays of a similar quality? Do they have switchable GPUs and automatically switch between the low-power and high-performance one? Do they have Thunderbolt?

Of course, you may not care about any of these things, and Apple generally doesn't supply computers that are competitive for people who don't.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[trum4n]

Apple hardware has been a joke since they dropped Intel chips in them. It's just a dell, but at a drastically higher price. PPC chips were the only reason i ever used a mac, and the lack there of, is why i will never use one again. Same ram as dell, same chipset, same hard drive, same CPU, same GPU. Why is that ugly piece of plastic and soft, easy to scratch aluminum worth more, again? I await your enlightening answer.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[m.ducharme]

You sure? I see the $599 iPhone selling for $50. I guess it depends on how long you hold onto your gear.

That's a first generation iPhone you've linked to. I'd bet money that other hardware companies can't even give away, brand new, the phones they made that were contemporaneous with the iPhone 1st Gen.

The surprise with Apple gear isn't that it has a higher resale value than the competition; it's that unlike the competition, Apple products have a resale value at all.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[swillden]

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.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they do, if you factor in the software that's provided

A $1,300 Sony Viao purchased about 1.5 years ago included: (I'm not including common things like wifi in this list)
Hardware: BD burner, Memory stick, HDMI. 16.5" 1080p widescreen. 250GB HD.
Software: Media Center capabilities. ISO and DVD / BD authoring and burning. Photo management with facial recognition. BD/DVD player. Office. Webcam offered facial tracking, avatars, etc.

No shovelware

What did you get?

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

PPC chips were the only reason i ever used a mac, and the lack there of, is why i will never use one again.

Thanks for letting everyone know you're stupid and have no opinions worth paying attention to.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Microlith]

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.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[AngryDeuce]

Because most slashdot users still have their first computer in a corner or in the attic.

QFT. It takes an unbelievable amount of begging, pleading, and cajoling to get me to dump old computer components, especially when said computer components still function. My garage looks like a late 90's-era Fry's exploded all over it, but dammit, at least the crap isn't rotting in a landfill, and there's still uses for it.

Hell, Just recently I donated a bunch of stuff to a friend doing an art project in her summer daycare class. The kids had a blast making little transformer-esque crap out of it...

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Dcnjoe60]

FireWire and Bluetooth address two completely different use cases. I don't think anyone's clamouring for a Bluetooth hard drive.

Never said they were. The point was that not every superior technology adopted by Apple has been an industry success.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[jojoba_oil]

Good peripherals cost good money. They are very often worth it, too.

I never said that they didn't. I was simply stating that good money doesn't always signify good peripherals.

For the cheap cube-shaped, white plastic AC->USB converter, they wanted $30. Nothing about it was quality. The Apple store "genius" even stated that it was only rated to work with 100-120 volts and wouldn't work in countries that used a 220 volt standard. I later learned that "genius" was wrong, but have run into people whose adapter stopped working completely under both 110v and 220v.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Karlt1]

Any positive for resale value is completely nullified by the fact that standard accessories are outrageously priced... Want a wall-charger? $30. Charge/sync cord wear out?

http://www.amazon.com/Wall-Charger-Apple-iPod-Nano/dp/B000F7JYJQ/

$2.68

http://www.amazon.com/White-Cable-iPhone-Touch-Classic/dp/B002CCUWKM/

$1.12

Earphones fell apart? $30.

So now you require "special" earphones for the iPhone?

Hell, let's assume you get an iPad and want a keyboard: $70. Bluetooth keyboards for a real computer don't even cost that much.

The iPad can use any BT keyboard.....

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Luckyo]

The point here is that "bluetooth has a longer range" is what essentially disqualifies it from the discussed application - mobile payment.

NFC has "security by not working other then in close proximity", which in most of payment applications where it's used is vastly better then anything bluetooth cryptography could even theoretically offer.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

Hell, let's assume you get an iPad and want a keyboard: $70. Bluetooth keyboards for a real computer don't even cost that much.

You mean the "Bluetooth keyboards for a real computer" that will work with the iPad? Do you have any clue about Apple products?

Re:This is a bad thing?

[BlackSnake112]

The mac mini is not a low end device?

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Kalriath]

FireWire isn't wireless, hence it's not superior to Bluetooth. It's not inferior either, because they have nothing to do with each other and do not occupy the same space - so no comparison is possible.

The market didn't pick Bluetooth instead of FireWire. That's like saying the military picked F16 Fighter Jets instead of Toyota Camrys, despite the Toyota Camry being far superior to an F16 Fighter Jet.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[profplump]

No, they don't all require pairing, at least not in any way that would concern the user -- the "just works" method requires no user interaction and can be re-established every time the devices come within range of each other without a huge amount of overhead (compared to the transmission speed in typical BT 2.1+ devices).

There are other issues with BlueTooth, like the fact that you can scan for hosts OR send data OR listen for scanning hosts. But pairing to begin BT communication is not an issue any more than your laptop needing to do ARP lookups before beginning Ethernet-IP communication is a pairing issue.

And I'd suggest that you (or at least I) *want* to require at the very least pairing if not fully manual activation for most things like door locks -- I don't want every random hacker I pass on the street scanning all the keys in my pocket and stealing their secrets, I want the keys to only send their secrets to the locks they're paired with, and I want them to only send the secret when I push a button (unless I specifically set a low-security mode) so that replay/range-extension attacks aren't plausible.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[thetoadwarrior]

Sorry but even Dell hardware when you compare something that is actually the same isn't that far off. I want to see how you found a 'similar' laptop that was £1,000 cheaper than the Apple equivalent.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Drgnkght]

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.

Maybe, but I don't want to have to worry about possibly walking too close to vending machines and getting "mugged". Not to mention the various scams that will eventually start popping up (like the card readers that crooks attach to ATMs). If it is going to cost me money I want to be able to say "No" on the hardware I control.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[jojoba_oil]

You mean the "Bluetooth keyboards for a real computer" that will work with the iPad? Do you have any clue about Apple products?

I was writing with the presumption that you are only going to buy an Apple product, but thank you for making my point for me: There's no reason to buy the Apple-branded products, when there are much-less-expensive options with full-functionality and a level of quality that matches is or greater than that of the Apple product.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[cp.tar]

I haven’t tried the new keyboard extensively, though it didn’t seem bad. My MacBook Pro is four years old; it still has the old-style keys.
But even so, there is more to a keyboard than keys -- for instance, their placement and overall layout design. All of which I consider to be done superbly.

And yes, I am a touch typist. I’ve had a blank Model M-style keyboard since before Das Keyboard was invented.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.

100% false.
NFC is a generic term for a technology. Several implementations support cryptology:
Essentially all of the MIFARE range support encryption - MIFARE SAM AV2 has the following options:

Supports MIFARE, 3DES and AES cryptography
Key diversification
Secure download and storage of keys
128 key entries
X-mode functionality

Bluetooth has a higher bitrate.

Again, depends on the implementation. Some NFC chips support up to baud rate up to 1.5 Mbit/s - which is faster than the BT 1.2 specifications.

NFC provides functionality that bluetooth can't. All the negative points you provided are arguable NFC strengths.
  - Less range: NFC stands for Near Field Communication. It's meant to be close - it was designed as a swipe system.
  - More importantly: much cheaper to implement. NFC tags start at around 2 - 5c per tag - allowing usage in 'disposable' situations - metro tickets / concert tickets / swipe cards, etc etc.

In fact - this is what they're already being used for - most mass transport systems operate on NFC (London / Hong Kong / Australia / Moscow tube, etc).

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Dcnjoe60]

FireWire isn't wireless, hence it's not superior to Bluetooth. It's not inferior either, because they have nothing to do with each other and do not occupy the same space - so no comparison is possible.

The market didn't pick Bluetooth instead of FireWire. That's like saying the military picked F16 Fighter Jets instead of Toyota Camrys, despite the Toyota Camry being far superior to an F16 Fighter Jet.

I know, I said bluetooth, I meant usb. The post should have been about firewire and usb. Unfortunately, just because there is a preview button does not mean one actually previews before hitting post.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a first generation iPhone you've linked to. I'd bet money that other hardware companies can't even give away, brand new, the phones they made that were contemporaneous with the iPhone 1st Gen.

How much? I see BB 8330s of that ilk going for the same price.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[ktappe]

*It's interesting how so many on /. only talked about iphone costs in terms of the cost of the phone + plans, but no one on slashdot ever mentions Apple's high resale value when doing comparing prices of other brands vs. Apple.

You sure? I see the $599 iPhone selling for $50.

Shenanigans. The iPhone 3Gs still goes for over $300 on eBay. No other phone holds that type of value over 2 years after its introduction. Thus the original claim holds true: Apple hardware is amazingly ahead of any competitor at resale value.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing the two is like comparing the tried and tested apples against its apparent rival the oranges.

These technologies offer completely different environmental uses. As NFC suggests it is NEAR FIELD and has a theoretical maximum which far deceeds BT max distance and very close to the eye when it comes to "is it secure?". It's this 20cm maxim that denotes the physically secure nature and usage of NFC as a quick to share medium (albeit as the size of the share size increases this holds inversely true to BT which will smash the speeds at a turning point, so sharing a contact card is kinda pointless with BT if NFC can do it in no time flat leaving me to get on with my life).

Re:This is a bad thing?

[bill_mcgonigle]

The iPhone 3Gs still goes for over $300 on eBay.

It looks like market support is about $250 right now. I wonder, when Apple starts selling the no-contract ones for $350, what the market will prefer.

No other phone holds that type of value over 2 years after its introduction. Thus the original claim holds true: Apple hardware is amazingly ahead of any competitor at resale value.

How are you figuring the original value? It's not what you paid to AT&T for it - they subsidized Apple about $300 per phone for those (or so I read). Something like a Nokia n900 started out at $649, and now sells used for $250, but that's a real, unsubsidized price.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

To expand a bit,(and I left the Apple fold back in the mid-00s) the have gotten a lot of stuff right:
1) the mouse
2) the desktop (although i personally prefer gnome 3 now, it was amazing at the time)
3) the death of that floppy drive thing ('98 the first blue and white iMac: without a floppy drive! they had to be crazy)
4) MacBook air without a CD drive: they must be crazy, how can you install programs without one?

On the other side there are some equally wrong ideas, but they do take risks about things that they think are right, that is still a virtue.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.

wait, all these guys using NFC for payment systems, there's no cryptography?!?!

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

nfc's entire point is low range.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[trum4n]

Why am I stupid? Because i recognize that there are things other than profit margin that might make a chip useful? What makes an Intel chip better than a PPC chip other than volume of production, and thus pricing?

Re:This is a bad thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, it could (in theory) be a great way to make Bluetooth pairing easier.

Not could, already is, Nokia has developed and will be selling soon (if it isn't already) a Bluetooth speaker that uses NFC for paring and unpairing, you just need to tap your compatible phone on the speaker and it automatically pairs and switches audio to the speaker, tap the phone against the speaker again to unpair. I can't be bothered to give a link, but googling "nokia bluetooth speaker nfc" will get you a number of links to pick from.

Re:This is a bad thing?

[stephanruby]

Bluetooth supports cryptography. NFC does not.

NFC does support cryptography. It just doesn't support a back and forth handshake.

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.

I've got news for you. Less time to set up, and a smaller range it can transmit on, does mean that it's going to use less energy overall.

Besides, you're giving us a false dichotomy. It's not whether Bluetooth is a better choice over NFC. In many cases, it is a better choice. It is really whether NFC combined with Bluetooth is a better choice than using Bluetooth alone. And in that sense, the combined solution can become even more secure and less energy intensive, in at least some use cases, because at least with NFC, you don't need to broadcast your Bluetooth id to the world, and you don't even need to power on your Bluetooth antenna until it's turned on through the NFC connection.

Of course they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Same reason why they're pushing Thunderbolt. That way they can force their clients to buy peripherals only from Apple or its authorized partners, and lock them in a bit more.

Remember when Apple made high-end tools for artists instead of crippled plastic toys to lock in sheep consumers? Oh, Wozniak, how we miss you...

Re:Of course they are

[JBMcB]

Remember when Apple made high-end tools for artists instead of crippled plastic toys to lock in sheep consumers? Oh, Wozniak, how we miss you...

By high end tools for artists you mean the Apple II? Woz had little to do with the Mac.

Re:Of course they are

[im_thatoneguy]

Remember when Apple made high-end tools for artists instead of crippled plastic toys to lock in sheep consumers?

That era ended along with the GPU. Apple has never delivered a comparable 3D acceleration offering to PC/Linux/Solaris.

Re:Of course they are

[0100010001010011]

Yeah, dang that Apple invented proprietary thunderbolt. You'd NEVER see a company like Intel trying to create something like that just to lock in the users.

Same with Display port. Apple should stick to plugs designed by a standards organization instead of inventing their own stuff.

And don't even get me started on that proprietary USB only iMac.

Re:Of course they are

[beelsebob]

You're right, they're pushing thunderbolt because of lock in, not because it's an intel defined spec that intel have already said they'll be building into all their next generation of chipsets. And not because it's a fast bus that integrates PCIe and allows them to do things like ship monitors that act like docking stations (see the new cinema display that has gigabit ethernet, firewire, usb, audio and video all running off the same standard intel connector).

Of course, it's apple, and therefore it's all about lock in... not actually just being better at the job.

Re:Of course they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has a preferential deal with Intel (they pay 20% of what anyone else would have to pay for the TB chips). You won't see any Thunderbolt peripherals that aren't "Apple-approved" (i.e., made by companies that pay Apple a fee) for a long time. It is very much about lock-in. DisplayPort and PCIe are existing standards, there was no need for yet another interface that merely combines them (what's next, Thunderbolt Pro, which also includes SATA? or maybe Tunderbolt Pro Ultra, which adds HyperTransport? Or SDI?).

Steve Jobs has always said his role-model was Sony, and this is exactly the same kind of crap Sony kept trying to pull in the 80s and 90s.

Re:Of course they are

[UnknowingFool]

Except for the fact that both BT and ThunderBolt are not owned nor controlled by Apple. Otherwise you might have had a point.

Re:Of course they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Woz had little to do with the Mac.

So little that every original Macintosh has his signature molded on the inside of the case...

Re:Of course they are

[Anonymous Coward]

Woz had little to do with the Mac.

So little that every original Macintosh has his signature molded on the inside of the case...

Signature does not equal deep involvement.

http://folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=US_Festival.txt

Read the first few paragraphs. Although it doesn't say so in that story, Woz never returned to serious engineering work after the accident. In other contexts Woz has said his brain injury changed his life a lot. So, he ended up not being significantly involved in the development of the Mac, either hardware or software (though in some cases, e.g. the floppy controller, there was indirect influence due to reuse of Wozniak's previous designs for Apple II).

It would be interesting to know how the Mac might have been different if Woz hadn't crashed his plane, but we don't get to live in alternate history novels. ;)

Re:Of course they are

[rthille]

Apple's new monitor is the reason for Thunderbolt. I can 'dock' my laptop by connecting the Magsafe power connector and the 'data' connector (Thunderbolt), and all the other cords run into my monitor, including FW800, 1000Base-T Ethernet, USB, and possibly another monitor.

Bluetooth sucks

[spire3661]

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?

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[girlintraining]

My PS3 handles its controllers over bluetooth like a dream, why cant all bluetooth work that smoothly?

Same reason Wifi "sucks". Making products interoperable with each other using unlicensed spectrum is hard enough when you do have absolute control over the development of both the transmitter and receiver. Without it, the devices are only as good as the certification... which is to say, "not very".

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[klubar]

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.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[beelsebob]

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.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Andy Dodd]

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. (USB is a whole other story for PS3 controllers.)

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[spire3661]

Non-Sony, dongle-less PS3 controller
http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/accessories/gioteck-ps3-hf-2-bluetooth-wireless-controller/90929?affid=9797&cid=ppc_60000001

PS3 controler on PC via bluetooth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJnuekAp7Fk

PS keypad on PC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQoqreZ8cw

Just sayin...

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

huh, every bluetooth device I use in OS X works perfectly fine.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Ogi_UnixNut]

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 the Apple ones. I'm really impressed with it.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[alen]

SOny keeps the password secret. it's why there is no iOS or android app to act as a remote for a PS3 since it should be trivial to do

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Except for the "next track" & "previous track" buttons... I don't know why they refuse to support those features. I hate having to spend 10 seconds using Voice Control to skip or replay a track when my BT headset has buttons for those functions...

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'm not sure where the above facts came from. I've been using an app from this guy in order to use my Sony official PS3 bluetooth remote with XBMC on my PC for quite a while now, and it's always performed like a champ.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[itsdapead]

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.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Nimey]

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.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Wii controllers are also Bluetooth and work fine with devices other than the Wii.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[gmon750]

Apple's Bluetooth keyboard does indeed have an on/off swtich. It's the silver disk located on the right-side of the keyboard. You have to hold down the button for a couple seconds to turn on/off the keyboard. There is a (very) tiny green LED light on the top-right of the keyboard which which tells you when it's on or off after pushing the button.

Apple's bluetooth keyboard and mouse work great. Never had a problem with pairing. They did their development right. I can only assume that they will continue that movement with the new Bluetooth standard.

I had a logitech BT mouse before this and never had problems with that either. It was amazing with battery life.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

it's incredibly easy to pair the ps3 controller to a non-ps3 host, at least on linux machines. Sony's extension in this case is actually kinda nice, it allows you to pair automatically with a device it's connected to via the USB cable, so it's basically plug it in once, pair while plugged in, and it works.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[King_TJ]

Yeah, when I last looked into this, I believe I found that Sony's implementation for their bluetooth controllers requires an additional step of the controller being "initialized" by the PS3 via USB port before it will allow pairing up over BT with it. Once a controller is initialized, it remembers it, so PS3 owners aren't stuck having to attach their controllers via USB cable before disconnecting them again, every time they turn on the PS3 and want to play a game. But you'll notice that if you let the battery in a controller run down all the way, it forgets that USB initialization info and requires it be re-inserted into the PS3 again, for at least a moment, before it'll start working again.

(I know this because I have one of those AC power adapters that lets me charge up to 2 PS3 controllers directly from it. If I have a controller with a totally dead battery and I recharge it with the AC adapter? It won't work with the PS3 at all after it's charged up, until I attach it via USB first and press the PS button to make it re-initialize.)

They did succeed in writing drivers for computers to connect PS3 game controllers via USB. I remember seeing a project for OS X to do this, in fact. But the project author talked about having to write special code to get around the initialization problem. (It may even be that they require you briefly attach the PS3 controller to the Mac or PC via USB so the driver can pretend it's a PS3 and do the initialization step.)

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Amouth]

well simply .. the standard was made as a group and reference.. and the profile specs where decided on and put into the spec..

then they for some reason ran off and made all the implementation stacks the responsibly of the vendor.. AND didn't require the vendors to support all the profiles in the spec..

this is why we have a crapy mix of consistency.. and simply put the more you pay for your blue tooth adapter the better the device support is.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I'ts not really an init step, it's that the ps3 controllers do their pairing over the USB cables only (most bluetooth devices use some sort of scan + code to pair), the code is pretty simple actually, if you want to see it, here it is https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Sixaxis?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=sixpair.c

Once it's paired it works like any other bluetooth device, if the battery runs out it loses connection because it loses the pairing (many bluetooth devices do this too)

I admit, i haven't used my ps3 in ages, but the sixaxis controllers I use daily, they're easily the best controllers i've ever used on pc.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

But I thought macs were overpriced. You're telling me Apple's bluetooth works better than most cheap PCs? Holy cow, maybe you DO get what you pay for!

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[jrumney]

I think what you really mean to say is that Windows (and Linux, in my experience) Bluetooth stacks suck. Like you observe, the PS3 is able to handle Bluetooth smoothly, as are other devices and operating systems.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[Just Some Guy]

Sony performs some not-quite-standard tricks

As far as I can tell, that sentence is always true regardless of the subject.

Re:Bluetooth sucks

[stephanruby]

May be because your PS3 doesn't really need to be that secure, so it doesn't do encryption (have you ever heard of a PS3 logger yet? on the other hand, key loggers, even wireless key loggers are common enough), and perhaps because it doesn't need to skimp on power since at least the console part of your PS3 is plugged into the wall outlet (instead of being fed power through a usb port, which has its own power output limitation).

What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[Animats]

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

Re:What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[Brett Buck]

Want to hang AAA batteries from each ear, do you?

Re:What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[Farmer Tim]

Why not? They're stylish and functional.

Re:What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever used a bluetooth headset? They weigh almost nothing, and some are so small that you wonder where they put the battery (and I've never seen one that uses AAA).

Re:What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[ceoyoyo]

Stereo Bluetooth has worked on iPhones for a couple of years now, and on Macs forever. I've never had a problem with it.

You did get a couple of Apple anti-fanboy mods though. Congrats.

Re:What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[Anonymous Coward]

The new iBuds will actually have a biological-electrical inner surface assembly that pushes electrons down a wire from eating your ear-wax. Also, they will worship you as Kay, bringer of the Earwax.

Re:What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

[Just Some Guy]

<rant class="off-topic">You mean the standard iPhone earbuds with control buttons that short out at the slightest hint of moisture so that songs start randomly skipping around and pausing while I'm mowing the yard because it's 110 freakin' degrees here and I sweat while working outside and you'd think something marketed with images of active people doing stuff outdoors would be able to handle a little perspiration but you'd be wrong because they can't?

Those ones?<rant>

NFC is unrelated

[Kagetsuki]

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.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[beelsebob]

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?

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Microlith]

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?

Re:NFC is unrelated

[amorsen]

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.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Anonymous Coward]

What's worse -

• (a) confidential data communicated over an encrypted & breakable protocol, advertised to everyone around you.
• (b) encrypted confidential data communicated over an unencrypted protocol, advertised to receiver chips within 4cm.

• Problem with the 1st method is that it encourages weak security, where developers rely on the "security" inherent in BlueTooth.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[smelch]

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 1s are defined and 0s are defined, to be translated in any fashion you want.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[ceoyoyo]

"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.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[ceoyoyo]

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

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Microlith]

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.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Microlith]

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

How does AES-128 break NFC?

Re:NFC is unrelated

[profplump]

It doesn't. But how does AES-128 provide encrypted, authenticated communications? And if we're relying on some higher layer to provide security, how can I tell if it's working? Or ensure that my device is compatible with other NFC hosts using other security layers?

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Em Adespoton]

To clarify, NFC is a transport layer used to transport cryptographic data, such as a smart card encrypted payment token. It doesn't really matter if something is able to snoop on this conversation, as the data stream is one-time only. You'd need to get the master signing key for the chips at both end of the conversation to do anything with the data beyond put it to music or wipe data from your hard drive.

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Kagetsuki]

Encryption has been an integrated part of NFC systems since their inception in the 80's...

EG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeliCa

Re:NFC is unrelated

[Kagetsuki]

Fully encrypted NFC has been available since well before BlueTooth.

EG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FeliCa

they do this all the time, and it works for them

[v1]

[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.

'Nothing beside remains. Round the decay...'

[phatphoton]

'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!"'

Re:'Nothing beside remains. Round the decay...'

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

'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!"'

Only Apple haters would invent Bluetooth Cables (TM) to attack Apple.

Re:'Nothing beside remains. Round the decay...'

[phatphoton]

It was a general statement, fanboi
s/cable/label/ if you want
Only an apple fanboi would be narrow minded enough read that specifically as Bluetooth cables.

Do they even fill the same role?

[Baloroth]

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.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[Andy Dodd]

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?"

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[robmv]

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

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[robmv]

oops wrong reply to Baloroth that already told this. FAIL

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[R3d M3rcury]

Bluetooth 4.0 competes with ANT. 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.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[seattle_coder]

Until recently there's been arguably no overlap between Bluetooth and NFC, but the Bluetooth 4.0 spec includes the Bluetooth low energy 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 manufacturers will go along.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[Microlith]

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.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[ceoyoyo]

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, which would you do?

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[CCarrot]

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.

Yeah. That attitude worked out so well for them when they yanked flash support too...oh, wait...

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[Kalriath]

No, the Nike+ device doesn't use ANT. If you read the ANT resources you'll notice two things. First, no Nike devices are listed at all in the product directory. Second, Nike is not even a member of the ANT Alliance.

It's proprietary (no surprise from Nike and Apple really).

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[humblelearner]

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, which would you do?

Bluetooth is ill-posed for touchless payment as the communication range is too large. Imagine if you can pay with your credit card from 100m away, would you do it? The nice thing about NFC is that it provides a similar interface as a face-to-face communication (the communication range is 10cm) so it is much more well-suited for payments. The fact that you pay through your NFC means that you're present at the payment station. The 2 technologies are different and they do different things. Data rate over NFC is very low, so it is used only to transmit small data (e.g. contacts) or set up other types of communication (e.g. Bluetooth, WiFi). I seriously doubt that Apple would forsake NFC, they probably would include both technologies, as Android is doing.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?"

Sadly enough, this already occurs with iPads/iPhones...

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[Celarent Darii]

Well they seem to be selling tons of devices without flash support.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[Anonymous Coward]

NFC generally isn't widely used yet (some countries like Japan might be an exception to this), I think Apple can leave it out of the next iPhone without much issue, then add to to the one after and hype it up ignoring that their competitors embraced it a year before they did.

Re:Do they even fill the same role?

[R3d M3rcury]

I'm not entirely sure. I can't find it, alas, but I remember that there was one of those "OMG! People Can Track You!" articles that mentioned that the iPhone and Nike+ used ANT, according to researchers. There's also been plenty of talk about it online. Of course, Apple does not publish the APIs so that you can actually access it.

Doesn't matter

[gaspyy]

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.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't I take a photo with my Blackberry and transfer it to my iPad?

This is why you want to visit www.jailbreakme.com and jailbreak your ipad, and then install Celeste through the Cydia application. This gives you full bluetooth capabilities to all devices from your iPad. Awesome stuff.

Re:Doesn't matter

[fbartho]

Blackberry? You mean the fruit I put in my yogurt? Why would you put pictures in your play-book, don't you need that for notes as to which plays to make? Plus, don't you think that torching your playbook would be a bad idea? How are you going to follow along?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't like Bluetooth is some super-secret technology.
You should be complaining to RIM that their products suck so much.

iPhone still can not send files over Bluetooth

[Anonymous Coward]

Did the iPhone skip previous Bluetooth versions?
Because iPhone still can not send files over Bluetooth
https://discussions.apple.com/message/13009289?messageID=13009289

Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[Quila]

And sometimes works easily with non-Apple Bluetooth devices.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[spire3661]

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

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[Quila]

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.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[NJRoadfan]

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.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[spire3661]

Did you miss the part where i said it was an APPLE keyboard?

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[itsdapead]

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 keyboard while counting to 3 (to 2 thou shalt not count, except that thou then proceedest to 3: 5 is right out!) to put it in pairing mode. Bluetooth devices can be a faff like that.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[jo_ham]

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:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[gmon750]

Nice attempt at slinging BS everywhere in the hopes something sticks. Apple haters will always hate, even if it means flat-out lying to suit their agenda. Non-Apple BT devices work fine. What happened? Did the housing inspector evict you from your bridge?

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[Anonymous Coward]

Could it be that your BT Keyboard is paired with another device (your computer), which is why it won't pair with your iPad?
My bluetooth keyboard pairs with my iPad and iPod Touch flawlessly.
It also pairs with my Mac flawlessly. But if the Mac "remembers" the keyboard at the time you turn it on, it automatically pairs with it, which prevents you from pairing with the iPad.

Remove the keyboard from the known bluetooth devices on your Mac, and it will pair with your iPad.

This is expected behaviour. Don't pair it with your computer if you want to pair it with your iPad.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Eh? I bought a cheapo bluetooth keyboard (irxon) for about $15 usd and paired it in with my iPad in under two minutes (girlfriend gave it to me as a gift). Bloody easy. Pairing bluetooth with shitty old phones and windows laptops can be a bitch, but with Apple I've never had an issue. They seem to have a clue when it comes to software...

FWIW, the keyboard sits in my bag unused most of the time now since I found the on screen keyboard is okay once you get use to it.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[spire3661]

Thanks. I turned off all the other computers in the house and it connected to the iPad perfectly.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[NJRoadfan]

I've spent my fair share of $$ for Apple products. Ironically, I never had a problem pairing all kinds of Bluetooth devices with my old Powerbook G4. I do recall having problems with a Logitech BT mouse with a MacBook however, it wouldn't maintain a connection.

Re:Apple to Apple Bluetooth works just as easily

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to UN-pair the keyboard from whatever device it was paired with before it will work.

Apple did it with USB

[Quila]

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.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[quacking duck]

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.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[v1]

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.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[Anonymous Coward]

Not by many years. It may have been the first to drop the other useful ports though.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[Anonymous Coward]

> The iMac was the first computer to ship with USB standard.
In 1997 I bought some whitebox/no-name (Quad it was called IIRC) thing with USB -- before the introduction of the iMac. It also sports a glorious AT keyboard connector (where my model M keyboard went).

PS: The motherboard of that box still serves me well: At 30W it makes a good DVR. If I don't let it do anything else it can juuuuust save a DVB-S2 stream to disk (JFS has very low CPU requirements).
The 5 1/4 inch harddisk still works.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[Rich0]

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 upgrade path - it isn't about failure to modernize - it is about being able to modernize at your own convenience.

If you have a modern PC motherboard with a floppy controller (like most still have), you can boot a DOS v2 floppy from it just fine. And I bet that if you could find calc.exe from windows 3.0 it would probably run fine on Windows 7 64-bit edition.

I'm typing this email on a USB keyboard that goes into a PS2 dongle for my ancient KVM. Sure, a USB KVM would work fine, but why spend $40 that I don't have to? That's the essence of the PC.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[dfghjk]

That is correct. Many PCs shipped with USB before the iMac, including large manufacturers. It was Intel and the PC companies, after all, and not Apple that developed USB.

The reason the PC world was delayed in officially rolling out USB was Microsoft's delays in shipping Win98. That opened the door for Apple to lie about it being first to market, and like all Apple's lies, it was bought into by many. Apple contributed next to nothing to USB.

Re:Apple did it with USB

[Anonymous Coward]

which was why they had to release a usb floppy drive so that imac users could actually interact wiht their peers. it cuts both ways..

What it means is that siliconbits needs new hat

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing this "article" clearly establishes is that the submitter needs a better-fitting tinfoil hat.

Level Up!

[VortexCortex]

What, no more iDweeb wires-into-ears look?

Actually, no, I upgraded from those a long time ago.
You people can call me a tool all you want -- I can explode your heads revealing the underlying talking anuses with my altered reality...

Yes. This is a very bad thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

We absolutely cannot abandon NFC.

Who is the AFC going to play in the Super Bowl?

Re:Yes. This is a very bad thing.

[Immerial]

"Know your audience"

Re:Yes. This is a very bad thing.

[narcc]

No one on Slashdot cares about baseball.

It could jsut mean...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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

Re:It could jsut mean...

[Americano]

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 could be a suitable replacement for a cold glass of lemonade on a hot day! After all, they're both liquid, and both have a yellowish hue!

Just like Thunderbolt, Apple could singlehandedly decide to pioneer that technology against all the odds,

So an industry standard developed by Intel, slated for inclusion in all their chipsets, and offering immense benefits for throughput and standardized connectivity is a technology that "Apple is singlehandedly pioneering against all odds"? Apple may have been an early adopter, but I'd say that, given Intel's commitment to supporting it on their chipsets, calling it a bold, contrarian move is a little much.

Apple may use only one

Translation: "I need to fill up a page with senseless ramblings so we have more ad impressions. I will now compare a new desktop and a new portable computer to some speculative vision of what may or may not be included in the iPhone 5 when it finally sees the light of day."

What the hell...

[Anonymous Coward]

The macbook air and the Macmini are not phones. I don't think they are reasonable targets for NFC. The iPhone and iPad are (and the iPad could be a Point of Sales system.)

NFC is designed for the Mastercard Paypass type of systems, we might not see it in the iPhone5/iPad3 if the parts aren't cheap enough. But you have to be fantastically stupid to thing NFC replaces Bluetooth.
Wifi = Long use high speed network connectivity.
Bluetooth = long use Wireless USB (BT is not good for network connectivity except where no WiFi is available)
NFC = short use touch/tap communications.

Apple might be waiting to incorporate a wireless charging system before implementing NFC to prevent interference between the two.

But more to the point if you've noticed, Apple carries the Square magstripe reader in their store, the intent might be to support using the iPhone/iPad as both a NFC originater (use the device as a e-wallet) and as a receiver (accept PayPass cards and other devices for payment, since magstripes are being phased out everywhere outside the US.)

Re:What the hell...

[UnknowingFool]

Indeed. Apple adopts $TECHNOLOGY_1 for their desktops. Rampant speculation on /. about whether they are ignoring somewhat related $TECHNOLOGY_2 for their iPhones. News at 11.

Re:What the hell...

[R3d M3rcury]

I could maybe see it in the MacBook Air, but you're right about the Mac mini...

Bluetooth Works Fine - If you buy GOOD products

[JakFrost]

I had no problem pairing Microsoft Bluetooth Mobile Keyboard 6000 ($42 USD) and their Microsoft Bluetooth Mobile Mouse 5000 ($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).

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 and my wife user the mouse with her laptop. The Bluetooth keyboard and the class 1 dongle work so well that I can type into the media center box from 20-feet and two rooms away with 4 walls in between. I also occasionally link my Motorola Bluetooth S9 headphones to listen to the audio in my desktop or laptop and haven't tried it yet with Ubuntu 11.04 and XBMC.

Biggest hurdle in Linux was learning to install the bluez-utils packages so that I can use the bluez- scripts to pair the devices since the straight Bluetooth hcitool connect commands wouldn't successfully pair the devices even though they would discover the devices, interrogate them, and go into discover mode on the dongle and start the pair mode. Just use bluez-* scripts to pair your Bluetooth and it works like a charm.

Buy good hardware from Microsoft or Logitech and use good OSes like Windows 7 or Linux with bluez Bluetooth stack and scripts to get your stuff working and you'll have universal Bluetooth hardware that won't become obsolete or be tied down to proprietary wireless standards and drivers from vendor who will abandon you on the next OS release (e.g. Logitech).

heh mainstream

[Osgeld]

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

Re:heh mainstream

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

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

Apple has more than 10% of the US PC market. Not counting iPads.

Re:heh mainstream

[Osgeld]

your right, it was in sales

Re:they do this all the time, and it works for the

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm. Most of your argument made sense, up until "or hype something that they can only buy from you".

You do realize Bluetooth is a license-able product that everyone can have (and at least one other will -if not by the time the i5 comes out, a few weeks after)? I mean, the Samsung Galaxy S had BT3.0 and nobody really cared because... there aren't any products out that needed 3.0.

Just like payment. Swipe-to-pay credit cards are already out there. It would be trivial to write a piece of software that interacts with the terminal to securely pay.

Heck, Paypal's on board already.
https://www.thepaypalblog.com/2011/07/paypal-uses-nfc-to-make-peer-to-peer-payments-easier-than-ever/

Legacy will always exist

[Quila]

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.

I saw a clincher for me

[Pop69]

If Paypal want to be involved with NFC then I want absolutely nothing to do with it, BT here I come

Re:they do this all the time, and it works for the

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, goddamn Apple for pushing their proprietary Bluetooth 4.0 standard. Oh, wait...

How ironic...

[Anonymous Coward]

That Apple would embrace Bluetooth 4.0 , given that till date none of the IPhone family (starting with the original IPhone in 2007) are fully compliant with the Bluetooth spec. Try using the skip, forward, rewind buttons on your bluetooth headset or car kit while mated to an IPhone.

For the life of me I can't understand why in 4 years and as many iterations of the IPhone, did Apple not enable bluetooth AD2P controls?

am i missing something?

[WillgasM]

Is there a reason why you can't have both? NFC is great for its simplicity. It makes perfect sense for quick transactions of small amounts of data (making payments, syncing devices, sending contacts, etc), but it's slow. Bluetooth, because of its speed and range, makes more sense for larger data transfers and pairing to devices like headsets or your car stereo. As for the hassle of pairing devices (though i don't see typing "1111" as much of a hassle), integrate the two and use NFC to set up pairing between bluetooth devices. Better yet, someone find a way to integrate both into a single transceiver and optimize power consumption.

But you're missing the point!

[mrxak]

Apple really screwed up including only Bluetooth in their computers, but maybe next time they'll figure out people's preferred method of transactions is to lug their Mac Minis to the store with them in order to pay for goods and services. This is just common sense, but it's good TFS outlines that clearly for anyone who didn't understand it.

Obviously there's no chance Apple might implement more than one wireless technology in their phones ever, too. I don't think this was necessary to say either, but I suppose there may be ignorant people who might believe Apple is capable of getting more than one antenna into a device, despite them never having done that before.

Luckily there are plenty of people here on slashdot who understand these facts and are willing to educate the rest of us who may not have understood.

Reject? More like embrace

[Anonymous Coward]

Two things going for both to coexist. NFC equipped products and cards WILL proliferate. All upcoming and many current contactless payment systems are based on NFC or NFC-esqe technology, so to cover that market a NFC reader/writer is a prerequisite. The other part is bluetooth pairing can accept out of band authentication data, and this can be readily supplied by rubbing two NFC devices together at their antennas, which is a physical motion much like contactless payment systems and easy to do from a UI/HCI perspective. Using NFC as a fundamental "greeting" mechanism for out of band auth makes loads of sense for all other wireless technologies, since it is intended to be exclusively short ranged.

The fact that the new macs themselves don't have NFC to enable that usage is odd though. Very easy to embed the antenna in the case and slip the chip in somewhere with serial connectivity to the motherboard. So that's points against the iPhone 5 having NFC if there is no ecosystem from Apple to support at the PC level.

Bitcoins

[Anonymous Coward]

Can Bluetooth 4.0 be used to transfer Bitcoins, or will I have to use NFC to transfer Bitcoins?

This could be the deciding factor on whether I go with Apple or a competitor that only uses NFC.

Who cares about NFC on a MacBook Air?

[indytx]

How often am I going to swipe my MacBook at the grocery store? Who cares if a LAPTOP or DESKTOP computer doesn't have NFC built-in? I can see someone complaining about phones, but a computer? Seriously? Anyone see a lot of Macs in retail stores being used to process credit card payments? This is a non-story. The article speculates that it "could" mean Apple is giving up on NFC for the iPhone. Geez.