ByteLight Unveils NFC Alternative Called Light Field Communication 75
IndoorGPSguy writes "Gigaom is reporting Boston-based startup ByteLight has launched a new product called LFC (Light Field Communication). This technology is a new alternative to NFC. It works by transmitting data through an LFC terminal, which is then picked up by the camera on any smartphone. Customers can tap their phones for mobile loyalty programs and mobile payments. It works on any smartphone with a camera, unlike NFC, which doesn't work on iPhones. Gigaom writes: "According to ByteLight, the advantage in using LFC over NFC isn't just accessibility (nearly all smartphones have cameras while NFC chips are harder to come by), but also expense and flexibility.""
Hello? Security? (Score:2)
If it is light flashes, what's to prevent someone from snooping it from afar? Convenient technology often means insecure technology. Weird to develop a product just because one of the major phone vendors don't support a protocol. Seems like that vendor should add that feature to their phones, rather than re-invent a new protocol.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Snooping is not so much the issue; rather it's the fact you need a $500 piece of paper to display the equivalent of a lit up QR code.
And in turn, a QR code needs a multi-megapixel camera to achieve what usually could have been accomplished by tapping five characters into a URL shortening service.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to burst your bubble, but back here in reality, a VGA (about 0.3 MPx) is quite adequate to resolve QR codes of reasonable size.
These days, VGA resolution camera is even harder to find than a mulit-megapixel camera.
But at any rate, you missed my point completely.
Re: (Score:2)
If your protocol can't cope with someone snooping on the traffic without beeing compromised, it should probably not be used...
Is a snoop-proof protocol even possible in theory if you only have a simplex connection to work with? According to their obnoxious and buzzword-heavy site, this communication method of theirs is one-way only. The blinkenlight blinks, the phone camera decodes. That rules out most, possibly all, of the actually-secure mechanisms for providing a safe channel over an insecure link.
Re: (Score:1)
You could add a camera to the terminal, and just display codes on the phone's screen to send data in the other direction.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's basically what threema [threema.ch] is doing. They could also do a data-plan key exchange, but there are many merchants who operate in areas with no cell coverage, and WiFi is too difficult to use opportunistically on most phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Only with a key sent over a different communications channel.
Re: (Score:2)
If history teaches anything it is that just because an insecure protocol should not be used does not mean it will not be used.
If anything since "insecure ~= simpler than a secure protocol" it almost insures it will be used.
Re: (Score:2)
If your protocol can't cope with someone snooping on the traffic without beeing compromised, it should probably not be used...
It took Wi-Fi a long long _long_ time to come to this rather obvious conclusion, so excuse me if i have trouble putting my faith in a new, monolithic, patent-encumbered system just because it doesn't suffer from the exact same vulnerabilities NFC does. Dollars to donuts there will be many nefarious uses for those flashes of light. (maybe involving dollars *and* donuts? hmmm)
Re: (Score:2)
It's finger-linkin' good!
Re: (Score:1)
There's also a dubbed version where they put the Leeroy Jenkins version [youtube.com] over it.
Re: (Score:1)
NFC has the same problem. You just can't see it with your own eyes.
Re: (Score:3)
"NFC has the same problem. You just can't see it with your own eyes."
NFC has a far bigger problem, because (A) its security was broken before it was even widely available, and (B) researchers showed they could snarf NFC credentials from smartphones from several feet away, using very cheap equipment (on the order of a few hundred $). And that's when the NFC wasn't even actively in use... just turned on.
Add to that the fact that if you had a large enough antenna array, you could put it behind a wall TENS of feet away, and catch all the NFC transactions going through the che
Re: (Score:3)
If it is light flashes, what's to prevent someone from snooping it from afar? Convenient technology often means insecure technology. Weird to develop a product just because one of the major phone vendors don't support a protocol. Seems like that vendor should add that feature to their phones, rather than re-invent a new protocol.
They don't seem to be too concerned with the other limitation: the communication is strictly one-way, from the POS to the handset, and the handset then has to find it's way back to the payment system (via wifi or mobile). This is the reverse of how NFC payments typically work and will require a much different architecture. Stores already have barcode scanners at every POS, and with a little software they can easily interact with non-NFC smartphones that display loyalty info on the screen. This is the big
Re: (Score:1)
It's the modern CueCat.
Now they just have to get Wired to bundle one with every copy of the magazine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the type of scanner. Laser scanners are widespread and don't work well with phone screens.
Re: (Score:1)
If it is light flashes, what's to prevent someone from snooping it from afar? Convenient technology often means insecure technology. Weird to develop a product just because one of the major phone vendors don't support a protocol. Seems like that vendor should add that feature to their phones, rather than re-invent a new protocol.
They're for different use cases, I'd have thought. I can have an NFC smartcard which has processing capabilty on the chip, take a Mifare Ultralight for instance and I have a hard to get at private key and a bunch of other symmetric keys for different uses *and* the ability to computation operations on the card. I can also stick the card in my wallet. If I just want an NFC tag which is a glorified barcode with more data storage or a way of doing some simple data transfer then I can see the parallels to ot
Re: (Score:1)
You're new to the whole Apple thing, aren't you? Why use tech the plebs use when you can use something else entirely and try to force everyone else to make the switch too?
Much safer, too. (Score:1)
You actually have to point your activated camera at the terminal, so you can't be hijacked by some rogue transmitter using a zero day flaw to root your phone via the NFC chip when you happen to pass within range.
Re: (Score:1)
You actually have to point your activated camera at the terminal, so you can't be hijacked by some rogue transmitter using a zero day flaw to root your phone via the NFC chip when you happen to pass within range.
Indeed. It seems to me that NFC is inherently insecure, which is why I don't trust it enough to use it. A transaction involving the camera should be safer, unless there's some God-like hacker out there sending encoded lightning flashes from the sky.
Infrared Anyone? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like going back to the days of infrared communications on phones. I'm not sure how this is better or worse than QR codes, except perhaps that you can cram more data into the stream.
Worse. From their site:
"ByteLight’s software provides a low-cost way for pushing hyper-targeted digital content to shoppers and associates within a retail store. With sub-meter accuracy and sub-second latency – ByteLight redefines mobile marketing and workflow management. "
Whatever its technical merits or faults, this concept is an abominable spawn of data-mining marketing scum. At least IR was a (painfully limited) data transport layer that was nominally in the user's service.
Re: (Score:1)
Well. (Score:2)
I guess the National Football Conference will have to step up its game now that it has competition.
All phones had light communications a decade ago (Score:1)
The infamous infrared returns?
Bluetooth 4 BLE (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is taking off now in bank cards, phones and tags. Most of the phones make after GNex have NFC onboard. So I wouldn't burry the standart yet. Especially in favor of some obscure standard, that could as well be an animated GIF with QR codes.
NFC rocks with it's simplicity - you touch something - it starts working (an URL is opened, phones are paired and file transfer is initiated and so on).
Re: (Score:1)
No, bank cards are not NFC. They're ISO 14443, which NFC emulates. There's nothing NFC-specific about those applications.
NFC, by contrast, isn't going anywhere and Google has even started dropping the secure element from its devices. The new Nexus 7 doesn't support Google Wallet.
Technobabble? (Score:1)
Re:LevelUp (Score:4, Informative)
Let me describe for you most people's experience with QR codes:
1) Launch a special app because QR doesn't seem to be a built in feature of any phone. ...
2) Hold the phone in the right way ensuring there is enough light on the QR code, or to ensure the LED doesn't wash the QR code completely white. Wait for the image to stabilize and focus because phone cameras suck at close range.
3) Hit a button to scan, watch a green or red line move across the QR code.
4) Watch the phone fail to register the QR code
5) Move the phone in or out to make the QR code more centered in the view box.
6) Push the button again to scan, watch it fail again
7) Move the Phone
8) Push the button
9) Watch it fail
10) Move the Phone
11) Push the button
12) Watch it fail
13) Move the Phone
14) Push the button
15) Watch it fail
1001) Move the phone
1002) Push the button
1003) Fuck it and walk away.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you from the past?
All the QR scanners I've seen process the video stream from the camera, so you hold the camera in front of the qr code and as soon as it is detected it is processed, without you having to do steps 3-n as you describe. Also, they tend to show helps on the video screen, so they display a square so the user can center the qr there, or flash instructions when something was incorrectly detected or the angle was bad.
Really, go out of your basements and look at the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Parent poster's snarky remark aside, the post deserves being modded up. If your experience with QR codes is anything like GP's, you may be using an app that simply fails at scanning.
While I haven't seen a QR code worth scanning in a while, last time I did (as part of trying to scan a bar code resulting from a bar code font, printed on custom forms before standardized ones with proper bar codes were made available - had to try 5 different apps on an iPad 2 before one of them finally decided to read it where
Re: (Score:1)
1003) Fuck it and walk away.
This is about ByteLight, not Fleshlight
Re: (Score:2)
What are you scanning the barcode with? A calculator?
I've never seen a QR code fail to scan except in a dimly lit room where the camera was unable to focus on it and even then I got that working after my 3rd attempt at manually moving the camera around.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me describe for you most people's experience with QR codes:
1) Launch a special app because QR doesn't seem to be a built in feature of any phone.
No phones implement the described standard either. The point was why we should adopt one over the other.
2) Hold the phone in the right way ensuring there is enough light on the QR code, or to ensure the LED doesn't wash the QR code completely white. Wait for the image to stabilize and focus because phone cameras suck at close range.
Modern phones have autofocus. It's never taken me over a second to scan a QR code. And it doesn't matter if I rotate my phone 45 (or any amount, for that matter).
3) Hit a button to scan, watch a green or red line move across the QR code.
Modern phones have autofocus. I don't press anything on my almost two year old Nokia N9. Just open the app (two touches at most), and point the phone. No rotation, no button-pressing.
4) Watch the phone fail to register the QR code
Can't reproduce that, sorry. Get something from 2011 or later.
Y
Here are the links that are broken in the article: (Score:2)
Payment Platforms? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
LFC (Score:1)
Pretty obvious ways of doing this (Score:1)
For un-encrypted communication just flash the lights or display an image using any common one-way protocol.
For encrypted communication, have a camera on the terminal and have the user put his phone up to the terminal and display a picture or pictures that represent an encryption algorithm and a key, then aim the phone's camera at the terminal to receive the encrypted message using any common one-way protocol.
Sounds familiar... (Score:3)
ByteLight, ByteLight, turn on the magical flashing lights...
Not even thinking about LFC (Score:2)
I'm more concerned with whether or not NFC is better than AFC. I suppose we'll find out in February.
Bitrate (Score:2)
With the abysmal data throughput of most cellphone cameras (~10bps assuming a 30fps video sensor) this can only send the ID of the nearby LED light. This is not equivalent to NFC, which transmits encrypted data directly with the device. As they describe on their site, it is just indoor GPS... your phone uses network traffic, queries the ByteLight server to ask what data is relevant to your physical location (the business pays ByteLight to store this), and sends it to you.
NFC: Method for securely transmittin
Really? (Score:2)
Someone had half a good idea (I can add full duplex with just a few seconds of thought), then surrounded it with a bunch of marketing woo of dubious value and named it ByteLight.
It'll never run at more than 15 bps since they cannot assume more than 30 fps progressive from the camera and it's inevitably asynchronous. So 1 byte per second with error correction.
I can think of a few ways to make it suck less, but they'll have to pay me first and I won't be held responsible if it provokes a Fringe event or summo
Re: (Score:2)
This is really just a more refined version of the Timex Datalink [wikipedia.org] system. There was even a serial port driven LED accessory for use on notebooks and platforms where the screen flickering CRT video driver wasn't an option.
I'm sure they got a shiny new patent out of it any way since they've made the huge innovation of using a camera rather than a photocell.
Re: (Score:2)
It is closely related, though the datalink could go much faster in theory (I don't know how fast the link actually was) since it could present several high to low transitions per video frame and they could freely choose the reciever's sample rate.
Not a light field! (Score:2)
When I saw the title, I thought it might actually be a communication protocol based on light fields, which could be pretty neat. Kind of a beamed data hologram. Such a system might have a potential for high data density as the amount of data in a light field is pretty crazy. The reality of this just being a blinking LED was quite the let down.
Prior Art (Score:2)
Wow! What a great idea! Light field communication!
Didn't this used to be called "posting a sign?"
NFC is cheap (Score:2)
NFC ICs cost $1 in large quantities. Apple is just being lazy.
Yet another protocol (Score:2)
Yet another protocol I have to manually disable and opt out of...
My Nokia 3310 had this feature (Score:2)
It was called an IR port. I think I just stepped back in time.