iPhone 6 PCB leak points to NFC and 802.11ac

It’s another week and we have yet another leak for the upcoming iPhone 6. Just when you think that it might be another leak of the outer casing, we get a surprise in the form of a PCB board. Although not the most exciting component, we get to take a look at the purported innards of the 4.7” model of the iPhone 6. 

Apple has been rumored to be working on NFC for the iPhone and other products for quite some time. Each iteration of the device, has been surrounded by rumors, but Apple has consistently omitted the technology upon final release. 

According to Nowhereelse.fr, the new board reveals that it will have NFC (near field communication) and a faster Wi-Fi component that will support 802.11ac. This cannot be verified by looking directly at the supplied images, but reliable sources close to the site say that these features will be onboard for the handset. 

To lend a bit more credibility to the PCB board images, the site compared the image of the board, to pictures of the overly leaked casing from the iPhone 6. In this instance, we can see that the screw holes for the board match up fairly well to those on the case. Currently, the leaked boards do not have any of the processing chips, which will allow the board to function.

The iPhone 6 will have be available in two sizes. One is rumored to have a 4.7” screen and the other a 5.5” screen; The device is scheduled to launch sometime in Fall 2014. 

Source: Nowhereelse.fr | Image via Nowhereelse.fr

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft has found the perfect way to blend Halo's old and new with The Master Chief Collection

Next Story

Apple may release 4K iMac, 12in Macbook Air with Retina Display in October

68 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Good stuff. I want to get one of the NFC chip implants and not much point if come September/October I have a phone with no NFC support..... Will see how this plays out :)

I'm guessing (if this is even true) NFC will just be integrated with Passbook. I highly doubt Apple will allow any sort of sharing with other phones/devices using it (since AirDrop already works very well, albeit only with iOS devices), plus Apple doesn't like playing nice with other phone/device makers anyway (since they cannot control them).

I've had 2 NFC enabled devices and still waiting for it to have a use (here in Australia), some banks are coming onboard with being able to use your phone as a credit card but still not very wide spread. Since this is Apple, I full expect NFC to explode in usage and popularity soon as an Apple device releases with the technology. Apple may be late to the party but with their "watch and wait approach", it allows them to come in with all guns blazing and usually take the market by storm. My 2 cents anyway...

derekaw said,
If any company can make NFC useful and mainstream it is Apple.

We don't need Apple to make it useful. It's already useful. We just need them to help make it mainstream, even if they only hold a fraction of the smartphone market. In mindshare, they dominate.

Few were going to take advantage of NFC until Apple supported it.

Hilarious scenes at Neowin once again... it was only a year ago we were having countless debates about NFC and other worthless features in new phones except iPhones, once again the iPhone was left behind... now that NFC may have some better uses Apple are including it in their phone, now it's the most useless thing ever.

goodbytes said,
Hilarious scenes at Neowin once again... it was only a year ago we were having countless debates about NFC and other worthless features in new phones except iPhones, once again the iPhone was left behind... now that NFC may have some better uses Apple are including it in their phone, now it's the most useless thing ever.

If Apple is including NFC they will make it useful and meaningful.

derekaw said,

If Apple is including NFC they will make it useful and meaningful.

All hail Apple, for they give purpose and meaning to whatever they touch.

Enron said,

All hail Apple, for they give purpose and meaning to whatever they touch.


Warning! Sarcasm detected!

"PCB board"
Sooo.. Printed Circuit Board boards? Yo, I heard yo like boards, so I put a board on yo board, so yo board can compute while it computes.

Brian Miller said,
Why doesn't it actually have an FM & AM radio?

Because Apple decided you don't want it.

Brian Miller said,
Why doesn't it actually have an FM & AM radio?

They're often the first to throw out 'older' techs like floppy drives and optical drives. And apparently the last to add newer standards, unless they are trying to push said standards (such as Firewire and Thunderbolt).

You guys need to over the who-did-this-first mentality, and see that it's really about who'll perfect it first. Think China and gunpowder and how the Europe conquered the world with it. But what can I expect really. This is a Microsoft fanboy site, and with just 3% market share in the smartphone world, you must find any faults you can think of to offset your jealousy of Apple's success. Hey, whatever makes you feel better, right?

Yeah, like they "perfected" 3G and LTE. Oh, wait, I remember 3G was working pretty well on my phone before the original iPhone was even announced (without 3G). And LTE was working great for me before Apple offered any phone that supported it. I really can't say I've had any issues with NFC or 802.11ac on my phones either, so I'm not sure how well Apple can "perfect" them.

Pluribus said,
You guys need to over the who-did-this-first mentality, and see that it's really about who'll perfect it first. Think China and gunpowder and how the Europe conquered the world with it. But what can I expect really. This is a Microsoft fanboy site, and with just 3% market share in the smartphone world, you must find any faults you can think of to offset your jealousy of Apple's success. Hey, whatever makes you feel better, right?

Companies who are innovative say, "We did it first!" Companies who aren't innovating say, "We perfect it before we implement it." It just depends on what you want really =). Do you want new technology that you can play with and see its future unfold or do you want something that just works but isnt as fun as the other stuff?

Scabrat said,

Companies who are innovative say, "We did it first!" Companies who aren't innovating say, "We perfect it before we implement it." It just depends on what you want really =). Do you want new technology that you can play with and see its future unfold or do you want something that just works but isnt as fun as the other stuff?

Innovation isn't just limited to developing something new, it can also mean an improvement to an existing idea or technology. So if Apple somehow "innovates" the NFC feature, and makes it more appealing to the consumer more than it is now, then I'd say it's good progress.

This issue is like a kid in a classroom that rushes out to complete a project and gets recognition, while another kid takes his time to carefully consider the idea before him, adds that finishing touch and not only gets recognition, but high praises for the refinement of an already revolutionary idea.

Pluribus said,

Innovation isn't just limited to developing something new, it can also mean an improvement to an existing idea or technology. So if Apple somehow "innovates" the NFC feature, and makes it more appealing to the consumer more than it is now, then I'd say it's good progress.

This issue is like a kid in a classroom that rushes out to complete a project and gets recognition, while another kid takes his time to carefully consider the idea before him, adds that finishing touch and not only gets recognition, but high praises for the refinement of an already revolutionary idea.

Right. But when you arent creating those new ideas then you arent innovating. You might be improving, polishing, refining. But not innovating. Apple rarely innovates. They take existing tech from other people and refine it. I am not saying its bad. Its good and fits Apples model and customers. But what I am saying is its not innovation.

Scabrat said,

Right. But when you arent creating those new ideas then you arent innovating. You might be improving, polishing, refining. But not innovating. Apple rarely innovates. They take existing tech from other people and refine it. I am not saying its bad. Its good and fits Apples model and customers. But what I am saying is its not innovation.

Maybe you should look up the word innovation :)

innovation noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
In technology, an improvement to something already existing....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

Pluribus said,

Maybe you should look up the word innovation :)

innovation noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
In technology, an improvement to something already existing....

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innovation

I did =). I think you missed the part where it said,
1) a new idea, device, or method
2) the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices, or methods

As well as, "Distinguishing an element of novelty in an invention" AND "The Renaissance was a period of unusual innovation: Leonardo da Vinci produced ingenious designs for submarines, airplanes, and helicopters and drawings of elaborate trains of gears and of the patterns of flow in liquids. Technology provided science with instruments that greatly enhanced its powers, such as Galileo's telescope. New sciences have also contributed to technology, as in the theoretical preparation for the invention of the steam engine. In the 20th century, innovations in semiconductor technology increased the performance and decreased the cost of electronic materials and devices by a factor of a million, an achievement unparalleled in the history of any technology."

Notice, all are very broad topics like steam engine and semiconductor. Not lighter, faster, smaller. =)

Scabrat said,

I did =). I think you missed the part where it said,
1) a new idea, device, or method
2) the act or process of introducing new ideas, devices, or methods

As well as, "Distinguishing an element of novelty in an invention" AND "The Renaissance was a period of unusual innovation: Leonardo da Vinci produced ingenious designs for submarines, airplanes, and helicopters and drawings of elaborate trains of gears and of the patterns of flow in liquids. Technology provided science with instruments that greatly enhanced its powers, such as Galileo's telescope. New sciences have also contributed to technology, as in the theoretical preparation for the invention of the steam engine. In the 20th century, innovations in semiconductor technology increased the performance and decreased the cost of electronic materials and devices by a factor of a million, an achievement unparalleled in the history of any technology."

Notice, all are very broad topics like steam engine and semiconductor. Not lighter, faster, smaller. =)

Oh come on :p

We can discuss this all day and get lost in the details, but I think "an improvement to something already existing" meets all the major criteria of innovation - that is of course, if Apple truly refined it, and not just utilized an existing technology.

But what if Apple "refines" in a way that may improve or make friendly the UI, therefore causing consumers to be use it more? In that case, it may not be something earth-shattering, but it's enough of an "improvement" to call it "innovation." This, of course, assumes certain things are true. Why don't we wait and see first :)

Pluribus said,

Oh come on :p

We can discuss this all day and get lost in the details, but I think "an improvement to something already existing" meets all the major criteria of innovation - that is of course, if Apple truly refined it, and not just utilized an existing technology.

But what if Apple "refines" in a way that may improve or make friendly the UI, therefore causing consumers to be use it more? In that case, it may not be something earth-shattering, but it's enough of an "improvement" to call it "innovation." This, of course, assumes certain things are true. Why don't we wait and see first :)

Oh, I am waiting and seeing =). I just think if we lower innovation to just an improvement then we should just throw it out all together =). Its like saying the game flappy bird is an innovation. It added nothing new or relevant to game mechanics except "improved" the game with ripped off mario graphics and became a huge hit. Or even, I would say, apple moving to LTE phones also is not innovation but is certainly an improvement. If all that is innovation then in high school/college my body was really innovative because I could run faster than ever before, was better looking than I am now, and thinner for certain =). Now, I am filled with a little more bloat-ware I guess.

Innovation needs to have a real impact. If we consider anything and everything innovation because a mouse changed colors from white to neon green then we take away from the innovation of steam engines, or Amazons online business model, or touch screen displays.

If innovation is just an improvement then anytime anyone uses it its meaningless.

But I do wonder, what do you consider "enough" of an improvement to be called innovation? Can something improve without being a innovation? And can you give an example of that?

But I still stand by apple not being an innovative company. Very polished and user (experience) focused. But not innovative. But why should it matter if they arent innovative anyways?

Scabrat said,

Oh, I am waiting and seeing =). I just think if we lower innovation to just an improvement then we should just throw it out all together =). Its like saying the game flappy bird is an innovation. It added nothing new or relevant to game mechanics except "improved" the game with ripped off mario graphics and became a huge hit. Or even, I would say, apple moving to LTE phones also is not innovation but is certainly an improvement. If all that is innovation then in high school/college my body was really innovative because I could run faster than ever before, was better looking than I am now, and thinner for certain =). Now, I am filled with a little more bloat-ware I guess.

Innovation needs to have a real impact. If we consider anything and everything innovation because a mouse changed colors from white to neon green then we take away from the innovation of steam engines, or Amazons online business model, or touch screen displays.

If innovation is just an improvement then anytime anyone uses it its meaningless.

But I do wonder, what do you consider "enough" of an improvement to be called innovation? Can something improve without being a innovation? And can you give an example of that?

But I still stand by apple not being an innovative company. Very polished and user (experience) focused. But not innovative. But why should it matter if they arent innovative anyways?

Well, since the Webster Dictionary is content to use "improvement" of an existing idea, maybe you should lobby to have that changed.

As for Apple innovating, how about the iPod, iPhone, iPad? Just to name a few things. And since companies like Microsoft have tried desperately to "innovate" but hasn't had the kind of success, what does that say about "innovation"? You can innovate all you want, but if no one wants to use it, then it's pretty much useless, isn't it? And yes, I'm aware that Microsoft attempted to lure in consumers with the tablet and the mobile computing device.

But again, it did not catch on in any meaningful way until Apple brought it on to the scene. Now you see it in whatever way you want, but it doesn't mean that Apple doesn't "innovate."

Just for the sake of discussion, let me just throw out Windows 8, for example, yeah it was "different" and you could say it was "innovative" but it never took off. This is an example, in my opinion of innovation that wasn't needed or just way ahead of its time. I don't think innovation has to be so drastic that people would care not to use as in the case of Windows 8. Innovation should just be that - an improvement over something however small it may be, as long as it is an improvement.

Pluribus said,

Well, since the Webster Dictionary is content to use "improvement" of an existing idea, maybe you should lobby to have that changed.

As for Apple innovating, how about the iPod, iPhone, iPad? Just to name a few things. And since companies like Microsoft have tried desperately to "innovate" but hasn't had the kind of success, what does that say about "innovation"? You can innovate all you want, but if no one wants to use it, then it's pretty much useless, isn't it? And yes, I'm aware that Microsoft attempted to lure in consumers with the tablet and the mobile computing device.

But again, it did not catch on in any meaningful way until Apple brought it on to the scene. Now you see it in whatever way you want, but it doesn't mean that Apple doesn't "innovate."

Just for the sake of discussion, let me just throw out Windows 8, for example, yeah it was "different" and you could say it was "innovative" but it never took off. This is an example, in my opinion of innovation that wasn't needed or just way ahead of its time. I don't think innovation has to be so drastic that people would care not to use as in the case of Windows 8. Innovation should just be that - an improvement over something however small it may be, as long as it is an improvement.

As far as the dictionary goes, I dont think I am reading it wrong. It said an improvement, yes. But then it goes into more detail about that. Its not small, tiny improvements as you seem to suggest. Its big, wide sweeping improvements. If you only had that one sentence to go off of then yes, I would say you are assessing it fairly. But since we have more to go off of then its easier to get the correct view of what Webster meant. =)

I also agree that the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were innovations. But they havent dont much since then. In fact, one could argue that they innovated with the iPod and just improved that to make the iPhone and iPad.

Actually, Microsoft is very innovative but the problem is you dont hear about that much. They have some of the biggest R&D budget out there and come up with many many innovative and cool things. But, their execution on those can be poor, or they sell it off to another company who runs with it. But I didnt bring up Microsoft =). I feel like you are talking mainly in the smart phone tablet space so I would argue Google is the most innovative with success in that space. However, since the first iPhone/iPad/iPod that space hasnt changed much. Every device is pretty much the same style with different OSs. But, Microsoft did go flat design first (or metro) and both Apple and Google are copying that style as well so, if you consider that innovation (I dont) then Microsoft is very innovative =).

However, I think people lump in improvement, innovation, and success all together. And its true, they can happen all together. But something can be improved and be successful (Apple) but not innovate. Something can be improved and innovated but no successful (Microsoft for your examples you brought up). And of course innovate and be successful. Or, something can be independently improved or innovated or successful without the others. I would even argue that some of the most innovative ideas are not a success (until maybe years later) because they differ too far from the norm.

Scabrat said,

As far as the dictionary goes, I dont think I am reading it wrong. It said an improvement, yes. But then it goes into more detail about that. Its not small, tiny improvements as you seem to suggest. Its big, wide sweeping improvements. If you only had that one sentence to go off of then yes, I would say you are assessing it fairly. But since we have more to go off of then its easier to get the correct view of what Webster meant. =)

I also agree that the iPod, iPhone, and iPad were innovations. But they havent dont much since then. In fact, one could argue that they innovated with the iPod and just improved that to make the iPhone and iPad.

Actually, Microsoft is very innovative but the problem is you dont hear about that much. They have some of the biggest R&D budget out there and come up with many many innovative and cool things. But, their execution on those can be poor, or they sell it off to another company who runs with it. But I didnt bring up Microsoft =). I feel like you are talking mainly in the smart phone tablet space so I would argue Google is the most innovative with success in that space. However, since the first iPhone/iPad/iPod that space hasnt changed much. Every device is pretty much the same style with different OSs. But, Microsoft did go flat design first (or metro) and both Apple and Google are copying that style as well so, if you consider that innovation (I dont) then Microsoft is very innovative =).

However, I think people lump in improvement, innovation, and success all together. And its true, they can happen all together. But something can be improved and be successful (Apple) but not innovate. Something can be improved and innovated but no successful (Microsoft for your examples you brought up). And of course innovate and be successful. Or, something can be independently improved or innovated or successful without the others. I would even argue that some of the most innovative ideas are not a success (until maybe years later) because they differ too far from the norm.

We can certainly agree to disagree :)

However, at the end of the day, If I could get away with smaller increments of "innovations" and still rake in the money, that'd be brilliant in business terms. In doing so, I could milk that cash cow for much longer. Apple may "copy" or not "innovate" as much as other companies, but they are among the best in building up their brand image.

It's a shame Microsoft struggles to do the same with such a massive R&D and Marketing budget.

Pluribus said,

We can certainly agree to disagree :)

However, at the end of the day, If I could get away with smaller increments of "innovations" and still rake in the money, that'd be brilliant in business terms. In doing so, I could milk that cash cow for much longer. Apple may "copy" or not "innovate" as much as other companies, but they are among the best in building up their brand image.

It's a shame Microsoft struggles to do the same with such a massive R&D and Marketing budget.

I agree, we can disagree =).

And I agree Apples brand is very good and has a strong image. We just disagree on what is innovative or not.

And, I agree again, it would be nice if MS had better timing on their discoveries. If nothing else but increase competition for the consumer =).

Scabrat said,

As far as the dictionary goes, I dont think I am reading it wrong. It said an improvement, yes. But then it goes into more detail about that. Its not small, tiny improvements as you seem to suggest. Its big, wide sweeping improvements. If you only had that one sentence to go off of then yes, I would say you are assessing it fairly. But since we have more to go off of then its easier to get the correct view of what Webster meant. =)

But innovation doesn't have to be, "big, wide sweeping improvements," as you state. That's just you moving the goal post so it fits your personal definition of the word. The definition for innovate is very straight forward. Clear as day even. To introduce something new, or make an improvement on something that exists. End of. There's no mention about the size of the improvement. Pluribus has it 100% correct. S/He is assessing it fairly. You're really just arguing semantics.

Innovation happens at all levels and sizes. I believe that we've become so spoiled with what we have that we just expect things to get better without realizing what it took to get there. We tend to dismiss that stuff but only focus on the big sweeping improvements, and label that as actual innovation when everything leading up to that point was innovating as well. I've been guilty of it too. Like, think about it. Look at the phones we have now. All of the tech in them. The processor speeds. The amount of RAM. You name it. We could of had that in a phone six years ago, but those phones would have been big clunkers that consumed a lot of power, and put off a lot of heat. It took a bunch of smart people being, you know, innovative to scale all of that stuff down to what we have today. Stuff that fits in our pockets, and it doesn't burn our leg. That stuff blows my mind.

benthebear said,

But innovation doesn't have to be, "big, wide sweeping improvements," as you state. That's just you moving the goal post so it fits your personal definition of the word. The definition for innovate is very straight forward. Clear as day even. To introduce something new, or make an improvement on something that exists. End of. There's no mention about the size of the improvement. Pluribus has it 100% correct. S/He is assessing it fairly. You're really just arguing semantics.

Innovation happens at all levels and sizes. I believe that we've become so spoiled with what we have that we just expect things to get better without realizing what it took to get there. We tend to dismiss that stuff but only focus on the big sweeping improvements, and label that as actual innovation when everything leading up to that point was innovating as well. I've been guilty of it too. Like, think about it. Look at the phones we have now. All of the tech in them. The processor speeds. The amount of RAM. You name it. We could of had that in a phone six years ago, but those phones would have been big clunkers that consumed a lot of power, and put off a lot of heat. It took a bunch of smart people being, you know, innovative to scale all of that stuff down to what we have today. Stuff that fits in our pockets, and it doesn't burn our leg. That stuff blows my mind.

Did you even read the link? Just wondering...

The jump of computers running DDR RAM to DDR3 RAM isnt innovative. Its an improvement over time but its not innovation. Its just evolutionary. The processes to make GBs of RAM might have been innovative but I am not sure because I havent seen the process. But if you think evolutionary processes are innovative you are wrong.

You say we have become so spoiled that we dont realize what we have. Well I say we have been so marketed that we think EVERYTHING is innovative when its mainly evolutionary and part of the processes. The iPad was innovative. Going from a gig of ram to 2 gigs isnt. Making a processor half the size isnt. 32 bit to 64 bit was though. Innovation NEEDS to change the landscape of the market or technology for it to be truly innovative. If it doesnt its not.

You can take one sentence in a whole line of a dictionary's paragraph long explanation and then say anything that improves in innovative only if you ignore the rest of what it was explaining. But if you want to do that its ok because it wont keep me up at night =).

One of the definitions is "the introduction of something new" so, lkajial21kja is a word that now means cheese. And its new, and I introduced it so, lkajial21kja is cheese. Its an improvement because it has letters in it now. Revolutionary!

It sounds like some people don't use NFC at all, but I have several times now. I use the 'tap to send' feature quite a bit actually, so its been a useful feature for me at least.

Rosyna said,
iOS has Airdrop which allows transfers without bumping phones (it uses Wifi and Bluetooth)

Doesn't work cross-platform. I guess that's always Apple's way though.

Also is more complicated than simply tapping and uses battery by simply being on.

mrp04 said,

Doesn't work cross-platform. I guess that's always Apple's way though.

Also is more complicated than simply tapping and uses battery by simply being on.

Works beautifully though, and its uber fast. NFC takes a long time. THe only flaw really is that iOS and OSX devices cant airdrop together (until the fall when they close that gap)

Nogib said,

Not true at all. NFC is instant.


Indeed NFC does not transfer files it just initiates the connection, the actual transfer is trough Wi-Fi direct which is blazing fast (sharing movies in a second with this).

Superbeam is a app I highly suggest for this by the way.

mrp04 said,

Doesn't work cross-platform. I guess that's always Apple's way though.

Also is more complicated than simply tapping and uses battery by simply being on.

You're presuming that Apple's NFC implementation will work with other platforms?

Kushan said,

You're presuming that Apple's NFC implementation will work with other platforms?

URLs and contacts are standardized. I guess they could always use a non-standard implementation.

NFC file transfers on the other hand are not standardized. You'll have issues beaming files from Android to WP or even between different manufactures Android devices. WP has a standardized system (among WP) for file transfers.

My phone has NFC, have not used it even once. I think Apple is smart by waiting until the technology is useful before adding it.

I use it often enough to be thankful it's there. Just today I had a web page up on my phone and my friend asked me what the address was to pull it up. I just tapped my phone to his and sent it over. A couple weeks ago I shared a contact with my father by just tapping my phone to his.

Edited by mrp04, Jul 28 2014, 2:54am :

mrp04 said,
I use it often enough to be thankful it's there. Just today I had a web page up on my phone and my friend asked me what the address was to pull it up. I just tapped my phone to his and sent it over. A couple weeks ago I shared a contact with my father by just tapping my phone to his.

can't you do that with bluetooth?

boo_star said,

Or your mouth.


Oh yes, the classic line of "i'll just tell you the site now, it's haitch, tee, tee, pee, colon, slash, slash, double-u, double-u, double-u, dot,"... No thanks.

Raa said,

Oh yes, the classic line of "i'll just tell you the site now, it's haitch, tee, tee, pee, colon, slash, slash, double-u, double-u, double-u, dot,"... No thanks.

Who speaks like that?

Jaxkesa said,

Who speaks like that?


Every single person that rings the helpdesk at work. -_-

I quickly cut them off and ask to send an email instead.

No, the iPhone hasn't had it yet, therefore when it gets released it will be the latest and greatest technology advancement since the 5s was released...

Don't you know hot Technology development works?
/s

It only matters if they can get people using it. Otherwise, it'll be about as big of a waste of time as it is for Samsung to have it on their devices...

Enron said,
NFC? Isn't that a pretty old technology?

Nokia 6131 was apparently the first phone to have it back in 2006.

I have it in my S4 and I don't think I've ever used it.

Enron said,
NFC? Isn't that a pretty old technology?

Its not very commonly used. I personally have only used it a few times to transfer photos..Apple stated long ago why they didnt implement NFC earlier...

normally it is used for pairing. wireless speakers and headsets can be paired within a second by just taping your phone to it instead. also smartphones can be paired to send data via Bluetooth without the annoying Bluetooth pin exchange . it could also be used for wireless payments

virtorio said,
Yup, I've been trying to find something to use it with for years.

I have a pack of NFC tag stickers dotted around various places. I have each tag registered on my phone and linked to Tasker tasks (on Android). When I scan a tag, it will change the state of my phone to suit the environment.

- At work: Phone on silent, wifi on, sync off.
- At home: Phone off silent, wifi on, sync on.
- In car: Phone off silent, wifi on, GPS on, sync on, bluetooth on.
- In bed: Phone on vibrate, wifi off, sync off.

Works well for me, quite a cool use of NFC if you ask me :)

Have some stickers as well.. the only problem on WP is that you cant do all this things at once. I am already happy that finally you can "trust" nfc tags to not ask everytime you want something to be triggered