Google Quietly Discontinues NFC Smart Unlock Without Explanation (betanews.com) 81
Mark Wilson writes: Android users have been slowly discovering that Google has killed off NFC Smart Unlock. The feature, which makes it possible to unlock a phone with an NFC device such as a ring or bracelet, has been discontinued without explanation. Earlier in the month, Android users started to post messages on Google's Issue Tracker website, indicating that the feature was no longer available to them. Three weeks later, Google has finally responded, indicating that NFC Smart Unlock has been deprecated.
Just not worth supporting any longer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just not worth supporting any longer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Just not worth supporting any longer (Score:1)
Someday, Google is going to inform us that the Internet has been deprecated.
Re:Just not worth supporting any longer (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe, maybe not, but it is certainly yet another case of something being shut down without useful notice to the users. Why should I consider using their new features when they might just get disabled? It seems to me at that point I'd rather side-load a free software app that can do the same thing, so that I can't have the rug pulled out from under me.
Re:Just not worth supporting any longer (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to me at that point I'd rather side-load a free software app that can do the same thing, so that I can't have the rug pulled out from under me.
100% this. If I have to rely on the whims of a company to continue using a product, I won't use that product for anything that is actually important to me. And yes, I keep copies of the apks I use on my phone, just in case.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to side-load an app to replace this feature. There are already apps in the Play Store that do this. Has been for years. The API that allows it has been around since Android 4.0.3
Re: (Score:1)
Damn man, same here. Just bought a $4000 solid gold NFC ring and now it's going to be made useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Your software freedom is worth very little.
Mine is worth more.
Re: (Score:3)
Plus the most likely reality, they found it was way too insecure, when combined with phone payment systems. Probably wouldn't have affected smart secure users but your typical mug punter, running as insecurely as possible for convenience, likely a major security issue. The more you can spend with a phone the greater the security risk it becomes, especially in conjunction with wireless access. Really all payment system should require a physical connection with the payment authorisation device. Likely the bes
Re: (Score:2)
> Likely the best bet, a secured usb device, that you can attach to your body, maybe a ring or watch or pendant,
> that contains biometric data, that can be compared with your presence or your password.
Or a chip-and-pin card, protected with a pin number.
Re: (Score:3)
Google has a trend of trying everything... and then just giving up on anything that doesn't immediately take off.
They're the Fox channel equivalent of technology. ::sigh::
Re: (Score:2)
If Google can't make advertising money off of it or use it to collect data, it's not in their interests.
In Corporate American, Google beta tests you?
Re: (Score:2)
Selling the phone is important to achieve those other missions. So, the phone has to have features that users desire. NFC unlock is a pretty nerdy feature, and the vast majority of the user community probably don't know that it exists or care.
Google marketing was more enthusiastic about NFC when they first deployed it than its user community ever was. Eventually, Google got the message.
What about Bluetooth LE? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Bluetooth LE obsolete NFC?
It doesn't, really. The two technologies have rather different use cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a Bluetooth LE crypto token that's not much larger than a Yubikey. But your point about NFC supporting powering the device from the receiver is valid. I find NFC rather difficult to use, though. There is a specific point on the phone that you need to hit, and a specific point on the card, and some card-phone combinations are picky.
Re: (Score:2)
NFC will be in new phones, Bluetooth LE doesn't obsolete NFC at all. Android Pay doesn't work without NFC.
NFC and Bluetooth LE are different at a hardware level. You can't just upgrade millions of payment terminals to support BLE.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It's also obscure as heck, and insecure in the face of "cops can force you to biometrically unlock your phone" type legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
NFC Smart, location, the sound of your voice, a look at your face, the bluetooth MAC ID in your car
one of those uses crypto and is not spoofable, guess which one
Re: (Score:1)
No explanation needed (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not every application has the same need for security. This could be used for things like a kiosk that only offers services to people with the key. I wouldn't implement it that way, but that is the type of use case where it makes sense.
For example, maybe the NFC key that allows access to the kiosk is just a cheap thing given out for free to all the customers who bought a sandwich during the Thursday Special, and now when they come in they can use the kiosk to play a game and win coupons. And then suddenly yo
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty stupid example there.
So your kiosk is presenting an Android unlock screen to the public, and anyone with a an NFC tag gets full access to it to do as they please?
They're not removing NFC from Android, they're removing the SmartLock option of registering an NFC tag to unlock your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know what the default access gives you access to?
And how do you know that the storage is even writable to change anything?
Making random assumptions to imagine a situation where my example wouldn't work is not exactly attempting in good faith to think about it. The task in thinking about something is first to consider cases where it might be true, and work out from there.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlock by NFC doesn't mean that's the only way to unlock your phone. I would think having an NFC chip tied to certain devices (like your car mount or your office desk or your bedside table) so that it's always unlocked in those locations......that would be how I would probably use it.
Or maybe put an NFC chip in your safe / bank deposit box so that in the event of your death, your heirs could access your phone.
And, yes, I know Google supports location based unlock, but I hate that implementation bec
POLL (Score:2)
Show of hands: Does anyone here know anyone who uses this feature?
I'm not doubting that some exist, but I'm curious about how many are out there.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't. I do use bluetooth beacons to accomplish a rather similar thing (but not for things that require security).
Re: (Score:3)
I didn't even know this feature existed. If I did I wouldn't have used it. The way I see it, it kind of defeats the purpose of security if a simple device such as a ring can disable it.
With that being said what gripes me is when companies have a feature on a device I purchased decide that I no longer need that feature and disable it. Like when Microsoft "decided" that I didn't need gadgets in windows 7 any more.
Re: (Score:2)
it kind of defeats the purpose of security if a simple device such as a ring can disable it.
I know! I just found out that the lock on my house can be defeated by a simple device... a piece of metal with some notches carved into it! How did they overlook this?!?
Re: (Score:2)
On one side I have my vCard, on the other my emergency info, including blood group and donor status.
I use TapUnlock from the FDroid repos to unlock my phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your reply. I sincerely wanted to know if anyone here was using this. Do you know if the FDroid will keep the feature?
Re: (Score:2)
The Jakcom program has an unlock function; there are many similar on the GPlay shop.
I imagine it [f-droid.org] will though.
Damnit (Score:3)
Re: Damnit (Score:1)
Yes, it's unfortunate there is no chance it can ever be replaced with a wedding ring.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you built an app with NFC and Device Administrator permissions, you could make your own NFC unlock app!
Oh wait, the second result on google for "nfc ulock app" is an app in the Play store for unlocking your phone with an NFC tag.
Wave goodbye (Score:2)
Guess it rode a wave outta here.
Maybe lawyers involved? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an app for that! (Score:4)
Just because it's no longer core functionality, there are still apps that provide the feature.
They were around before NFC unlock was part of Android, and they're still around now.
It's not like another ecosystem that fights against apps that provide the same functionality as the OS.
Gone in a puff of smoke (Score:1)
The Cloud, where features disappear into The Fog.
Sub-dermal? (Score:3)
The linked article includes a comment by someone who apparently has a sub-dermal NFC tag implanted. Either he's one of the nerdiest people around, or he's just revealed that he's actually a dog. (Actually, though, are those commonly used by the disabled to make unlocks easier?)
Re: (Score:2)
The linked article includes a comment by someone who apparently has a sub-dermal NFC tag implanted. Either he's one of the nerdiest people around, or he's just revealed that he's actually a dog. (Actually, though, are those commonly used by the disabled to make unlocks easier?)
A large amount of cutting-edge technological innovation today helps the disabled. Self driving cars, AI virtual assistants, humanoid robots, snuggies, etc. I may have read somewhere that many products meant for the disabled are pitched to the mass market as a way to defray the cost of development.
80%+ of "As-seen-on-TV" products seem to fall into this category. "Has this ever happened to you"? is normally a "No, never" for most people, but it might happen multiple times a day for people with certain
Typical Google (Score:4, Insightful)
Google already has earned a reputation for taking things away without recourse. You are Google's bitch if you use their stuff. Like Apple, Google will decide what is useful to you, regardless of your input.
Half assed bets (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all that Google has been in recent years. Half assed blind bets with zero focus. They'll announce some big feature, big service, interesting tech application, and then instead of making it better and more accessible they'll just stay quiet for months and years, abandon it, and then "deprecate" it silently. Empty promises, premature ejaculation.
On the other hand, if there's some hype around some sort of functionality, instead of integrating it on their older services, they'll create new ones, like not only one or two but sometimes 4 or 5 different versions with different names for no good reason, and then screw up the entire ecossystem fracturing userbase towards multiple overlapping services. And then, when understandably none of the versions have good adoption because everyone is left confused at the prospect of trying multiple apps to do something they already use another app for, then the strategy falls back to the standard. Keep quiet, abandon it, and deprecate.
Google isn't evil anymore... it's just stupid. It became a victim of stretching itself out too thin, and creating an internal culture that lives in small bubbles. They cannot get their dev teams together to come up with a unified concept of anything anymore. The company cannot think big anymore. It doesn't seem to have unified concepts for whatever pure functionality, it's just a bunch of scattershot ideas. Most of the Google mainstays are all getting up to a full decade old. The search engine, maps, Gmail, Chrome, Android. What has Google produced internally in the past 5 years or so that is still going strong?
This has been proven by payment systems, by chat apps, by new stuff like Google Assistant not integrating well or making use of other Google services, by different apps that overlaps functions of others... it's like different parts of Google have absolutely no idea what other parts are making, and they keep churning out whatever, deciding what to do with what's left behind later on.
I'll just avoid new Google stuff as much as possible. You have no way of knowing what will survive, you can't rely on it, and channels of communication on development are as opaque as they can be. We are basically alpha testers. It's easier for me personally to invest on apps and services that have devs or a company focused on it, and dependant on it for the sake of their businesses.
The worst part of it all is that at least when the company was still young, it used that sort of strategy for new ideas. Now it only picks crap from the hype pile, re-hashes it, and see if it sticks. Crap like Allo and Duo. They don't even have a spine to risk completely eliminating Hangouts and several other chat platforms to consolidate into one thing and offer it as a single chat solution. It's all half assed and without focus.
Re: (Score:1)
You Sir,, Deserve a mod point, but they don't give them to me any more...
Re:Half assed bets (Score:5, Insightful)
You're comment is very good except for one thing: Google is still evil. They are more evil than ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Search (Score:1)
Google search is next...
Not just nfc (Score:2)
Look like my old phone that I have to re-connect with my old car radio that receive a update at my dealer, do not offer smart unlock this time... didn't think about it until now!