The 11 best smartphones you can buy in 2015

By: FAIZAN HASSAN

Manufacturers are continuously evolving to develop new smartphones. It is difficult to determine which smartphone is most comfortable for you. If you’re looking for the best smartphone on the planet then you’ve come to the right place, Read in this article about the best smartphones of the moment:

LG G3:

LG G3

The LG G3 is an Android smartphone with excellent specifications, which can compete with the other top smartphones from Sony, Apple, HTC and Samsung. The device has a Snapdragon 801 quad-core processor that clocks a speed of 2.5 GHz and 2 GB of RAM. That’s about the same as the Galaxy S5, HTC One and Xperia Z2.

The device is made of plastic, but at first glance the frame of polished metal by the finish. The plastic casing allows the unit seem slightly cheaper than its competitors with metal housing. The build quality is fine and further advantage is that the back can be removed to replace the battery and insert the memory and SIM card.

LG G3

The camera application is very minimal, with a tap on the screen to create a picture.

HUAWEI ASCEND P8:

The Ascend P8 is more than just the successor to the stylish P7 from 2014. The new flagship of Huawei should namely to compete with top models like the Samsung Galaxy S6 and Apple’s iPhone 6.

Huawei Ascend P8

The Ascend P8 is without doubt the most attractive smartphone from Huawei to date. The phone combines very decent performance with a stunning 5.2-inch Full HD display, 13-megapixel camera, with 3GB RAM/32GB ROM.

HTC ONE M9:

The HTC One (M9) is a strikingly beautiful handset. The polished metal casing is made from a single piece of aluminum and the screen display looks sharp.

HTC One M9

SAMSUNG GALAXY S5:

At first glance, the Galaxy S5 looks quite like its predecessor from 2013. But with the Samsung Galaxy S5 put plenty on biometrics. But is this enough to cope with the fierce competition from HTC, Apple and Sony?

Samsung Galaxy S5

If you have the Galaxy S5 and puts Galaxy S4 side by side, you will see little difference initially. The format is pretty much the same, although the Galaxy S5 slightly bigger, thicker and heavier.

If you owned the unit have, you notice that the stiff plastic back makes the smartphone perfectly in the hand. Crazy difference from the Galaxy S4 is that the built-in thermometer just missing again on the Galaxy S5. Yet you do not feel you have a unit of about 700 euro in hands. This is mainly because the plastic finish that particularly in the silver edge kitschy happens. Quite a difference with the HTC One M8, which is made ​​entirely of metal and therefore comes across much more durable.

NOKIA LUMIA 1520:

Smartphones are getting bigger and bigger. The market for so-called ‘phablets’ picking up, and more and more manufacturers move to a screen larger than 5 inches. Similarly, Nokia. Namely they bring one of the largest smartphones currently on the market: the Lumia 1520.

The device has a screen of up to 6 inches. Fortunately, the Nokia Lumia 1520 modest, given thin edges. The rounded side edges are approximately six millimeters wide, the device still has a very slim appearance. The screen seems a little to lie on the device, making it protrudes slightly. Fortunately, the display features Gorilla Glass and you do not have to worry too much about scratches.

The new Lumia is nice slim: only 8.7 millimeters thick. This makes it easier to carry the device in your pocket. The weight can be somewhat limiting Nokia. It weighs 200 grams and a spacious leaving behind other phablets as the HTC One Max and Sony Xperia Z Ultra behind.

Nokia Lumia 1520

SONY XPERIA Z3:

If you have the Sony Xperia Z3 first gets into your hands, do you look twice the difference between this and the previous Z2 to discover. Sony has chosen to adapt little to the design. There is nothing wrong with that, the device is namely beautifully designed.

Sony Xperia Z3

Sony Xperia Z3 features like its predecessor, has a 5.2-inch full HD IPS display. The display is as good as identical to that of the Z2, Sony but nevertheless has a small difference to bring in to know. This is in the brightness. The Z3 contains according to Sony their brightest screen so far.

As you would expect from a device at the top end , he really runs like a charm. Each application opens quickly and run smoothly. Multi-tasking is obviously not a problem. The processor is the same as that in the Z2, but the clock rate is slightly stepped up from 2.3 to 2.5 GHz. Here you will otherwise continue not notice, because it is both very fast.

LG NEXUS 5:

LG Nexus 5

With the introduction of the new Android version Lollipop, was also released a new Nexus smartphone, the Nexus 5 comes with 5-inch display with a latest version of Android (5.1) and a price tag of 350 euros.. An affordable showcase from both Google and manufacturer LG, and a better deal than the new Nexus 6.

Of course the Nexus 5 comes with the latest version of Android (5.1). Big advantage of Nexus devices is that they get the updates directly from Google and therefore always run the latest version of Android.

The price tag of 400 euros makes the device a middle class, but the specifications can compete with the high-end devices of today. LG has used many components that are also in their G2 flagship smartphone which is more expensive 150 euros. The quad-core processor (2.2 Ghz), GPU (graphics chip) and memory are the same instance.

SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE 4:

Samsung Galaxy Note 4

The Galaxy Note 4 has all the ingredients that we know from the series. A huge screen of 5.7 inch diameter (14.48 cm), bestial specifications remarkably good battery life, excellent camera (literally and figuratively) and unfortunately also a hefty price.

The Galaxy Note 4 is one of the most powerful smartphones we’ve seen so far. In terms of hardware, there is no weak spot in Galaxy Note 4, with a fast processor, sufficient RAM, nice camera, 32GB of storage that also is expandable and an acceptable battery life.

APPLE IPHONE 6:

iPhone 6

During my first hours of testing with the Apple iPhone 6, it soon became clear that Touch ID is more than nifty a gimmick. The scanner takes the entire iPhone user experience to a higher level. By placing your finger on the home button, the device will be unlocked (in approximately one second). Also set Touch ID you are able to purchase in the App Store to confirm, so you do not always enter your password. Delicious!

Apple introduces the iPhone 6, as expected, its best smartphone to date. The iphone 6 is also 50x faster then the previous iphone 5s, The design is also stunningly beautiful, and new features like Touch ID, full 4G coverage and rapid A8 chip mean a big step forward. In addition, there are nice features added to the camera.

In addition, the Retina HD display belongs to the most beautiful displays of the time, the battery life is more than fine.

ONEPLUS ONE:

Ever since the first rumors about the OnePlus One I’m skeptical. This new brand is not known, and it looks like a phone that is meant for lovers of Android . OnePlus promises that it is a true “flagship killer”, but the unit can make this promise true?

OnePlus One

It is a phone without limitations of telephone companies, and it contains the latest hardware; it offers a lot of customization and is also extremely affordable, starting at 269 euros for the 16GB model, while most phones with similar hardware cost double!

If you’re looking for a powerful phone without restrictions of providers, and with a beautiful screen, much customization and software supported by a dedicated team of developers, it is certainly worth considering in relation to any other Android device , It is simply a wonderful device.

HTC DESIRE EYE:

HTC Desire Eye

Maybe it’s the name, but I expected that HTC’s Desire Eye would be less expensive. “Desire” is finally the name HTC normally used for its mid-range phones, and adjust the Desire Eye seems there with its plastic body.

Credit: http://newstactics.com/mobile/the-11-best-smartphones-you-can-buy-in-2015/2719/2015/04/07/

Samsung Galaxy S6 vs HTC One M9: Which handset should you choose?

By Chris Hall 

Mobile World Congress was about two things: HTC and Samsung. Both launched new flagship devices, with similar launch dates, looking to dominate 2015 with new devices.

We've now lived with both devices, so to help you decide which it worth your money we're pitching them head to head. Should you choose the HTC One M9 or is theSamsung Galaxy S6 that's going to be your handset for the next year or more?

Be sure to read our Samsung Galaxy S6 review or our HTC One M9 review if you want much more detail on both of these handsets.

Design: Samsung changes, HTC refines

HTC had a design hit with the HTC One M8 and has kept much of the looks for theHTC One M9. But it isn't the same, it's been refined to the nth degree. There's precision and a quality of finish that's rare, making this a luxury metal handset. 

Samsung knew it had to change, and it really did. A metal frame houses Gorilla Glass 4 front and rear panels. It's a big change for Samsung in terms of design, showing it's responding to criticism at this flagship level. 

Of the two, the change from Samsung is the more dramatic, the SGS6 is the device that brings a new look for the brand, where HTC could be accused of resting on its laurels. The Samsung feels new, the HTC feel familiar.

The Samsung Galaxy S6 measures 143.4 x 70.5 x 6.8mm and weighs 138g. The HTCOne M9 is larger and heavier, coming in at 144.6 x 69.7 x 9.61mm and weighing 157g. We'd hand this one to Samsung: it feels more original this time around, but there's no denying the quality and attention to details from HTC.

Core power: Samsung goes homebrew

Both HTC and Samsung offer octo-core 64-bit chipsets in the new handsets. HTC has used Qualcomm Snapdragon 810, with 3GB of RAM. 

Samsung has made the decision to make a departure from Qualcomm, instead using its own Exynos hardware for the processor. Exynos has been used in some markets, and some devices, previously with good results. Again, there's 3GB ofRAM. 

Of the two devices, the Samsung feels faster. HTC has some elements of it's user interface that are slicker, but when it comes to things like opening big games or just starting up the phone, Samsung takes the lead.

Battle of the battery

In a change from previous years, the Samsung Galaxy S6 is now a sealed unit, meaning you can no longer swap the battery out. The Samsung Galaxy S6 has a 2550mAh battery. The HTC One M9, however, has a larger 2840mAh battery. There's not a lot in it, but HTC has the higher capacity.

The Samsung Galaxy S6 offers wireless charging built-in, which HTC doesn't, although both offer fast charging, with Samsung claiming to offer the fastest charging battery around. 

Neither device is a step forward over previous years, but it's HTC that the slightly better performance in the battery department. The Samsung will falter first on heavy days, but in lighter use, both will make it through the day.

Displays to dazzle

The Samsung Galaxy S6 features a 5.1-inch Quad HD display, meaning it packs in more pixels for an incredibly sharp 577ppi. As on previous devices it's a Super AMOLED panel.

The HTC One M9 sticks to a 5-inch 1920 x 1080 pixels, 440ppi. That's quite a difference, although visually, Samsung's increase in resolution doesn't result in extra detail that makes a difference.

The SGS6 has pop and punch that the HTC lacks, with more vibrancy to colours. Both have great viewing angles, but the HTC is better capable of producing brighter, cleaner whites thanks to its LCD panel.

One minor thing to remember is that HTC has on-screen controls. That means you get a little more space on the Samsung, because it has capacitive controls below the display.

Camera shootout

Where HTC has made some innovative camera options in the past, the M9 is more conventional, with a 20-megapixel rear camera and a 4-megapixel UltraPixel front camera.

That's a good pairing, as the UltraPixel sensor is well suited to low light conditions, making it ideal for taking selfies, although they often have a pink tinge to them. Therear camera on the HTC suffers badly from low light noise and is too aggressive in processing, often smearing away details. It also has a yellow cast to photos.

Samsung on the other hand is coming from a position of strength in cameras, with previous devices like the Note 4 being very good. A rear 16-megapixel and front 5-megapixel camera makes for a good pairing, with a newly overhauled camera app that's designed to be really simple.

The results are impressive. The Samsung Galaxy S6 delivers consistent, good quality results from its camera, also offering optical image stabilisation that are a step above the HTC One M9.

Samsung fingerprint scanner

Samsung's sencond attempt at fingerprint security has been pulled off really well. The HTC One M9 offers no such security measure so you'll have to tap in the password to unlock it, where the SGS6 just needs a touch.

It's well implemented, making it a natural action, rather than the unfortunate swipe it was before. It might seem like a small thing, but if you access your phone constantly throughout the day, it really does make a difference.

Summing up

These are both handsets that pack in plenty. Both offer the latest Android 5.0 Lollipop and come with additions and revisions through TouchWiz and Sense 7. Samsung has added the convenience of Samsung Pay, meaning mobile payments on the move, HTC offers plenty of refinement and maturity. Both have reduced the bloat in these latest iterations.

There's plenty of power to run the latest apps and games, but the SGS6 display is more capable. HTC might edge it out on battery, however, thanks to the more restrained use of pixels.

In the design department both handsets are now premium, with HTC's luxury metal, and Samsung's move away from plastic, to metal and glass. Many will see Samsung as making the biggest move here, a distinct change of direction, rather than the evolutionary refinement from HTC. 

These devices are closely matched. HTC offers slightly better endurance, we Samsung appeals with the camera and display and a new premium design.

You can find the best deals on the Samsung Galaxy S6 here, of if you prefer the HTCOne M9, you'll find the best deals right here.

Tags: Phones, Samsung, HTC, Samsung Galaxy S6, HTC One (M9)

Credit: http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/132978-samsung-galaxy-s6-vs-htc-one-m9-which-handset-should-you-choose

Dabbling in the future of payment: A week of Apple Pay and Google Wallet

By Nicole Lee

On Monday last week, Apple finally launched Apple Pay, the company's mobile-payment system that only works with the iPhone 6, 6 Plus and the latest iPads. (Though you can't use iPads for in-store payments.) Even though mobile payments have been around for several years now, Apple Pay is seen by many as a key step toward making paying-by-phone more mainstream due to all the increased attention. Seeing that I have an iPhone 6, I decided to use Apple Pay every day this past week to pay for everything from my groceries to a hot dog at AT&T Park during the World Series. Just to see how they would compare, I also tried using Google Wallet installed on a Samsung Galaxy S5 and a regular ol' credit card in the same locations.

The verdict? Well, the future of mobile payments is looking brighter than ever, but that doesn't mean I'm getting rid of my wallet. Let me tell you why.

Both Apple Pay and Google Wallet are very similar in a lot of ways. For starters, they both work in any store that accepts mobile payments. Apple made a big deal about partnering with certain stores like Whole Foods and McDonald's when it launched Apple Pay, but in reality any location that has an NFC-enabled point-of-sale system will work with Apple Pay. Google Wallet, of course, has worked with such systems for a little over three years.

Yet, Google Wallet doesn't seem to have caught on, most likely due to slow carrier adoption (many of them preferred to push Isis/Softcard, their own mobile wallet solution, instead) and the fact that many phones require that you download the Wallet app. Apple Pay, on the other hand, works with Passbook, an app that's preinstalled with every new iPhone. Google also recently mandated that only Android phones running 4.4 KitKat or higher can take advantage of Wallet's tap-and-pay functionality, which leaves certain phones out in the cold. Still, the same goes for Apple Pay -- older phones are not supported due to their lack of NFC. Wallet is definitely compatible with a lot more devices.

The process of adding a debit or credit card is very similar for both. On the iPhone, simply launch Passbook and you'll see an option to add a debit or credit card. For Wallet, you'll need to get the app first if you haven't already, and then follow the instructions to add a card once you have it. You can either enter in your card's information manually or use your phone's camera to automatically capture your card's number and expiration date. You'll still need to key in your name, address and CVV number, but otherwise it's all pretty easy. If you added multiple cards, you'll need to select one as a default for tap-to-pay, but you can always change to a different card at the point of purchase.

Here, however, is where the first stumbling blocks for Apple Pay show up: It only works with certain cards from certain banks. First, it'll need to be a Visa, MasterCard or American Express (sorry, Discover Card users) and it'll need to be a card from a participating bank. Launch partners include Bank of America, Capital One, Chase, Citi and Wells Fargo.

And even if your card is from that bank, it's not a guarantee that it's compatible with Apple Pay. Corporate cards, for example, are still a no-go, and a few co-branded cards like Amazon's Chase Visa won't work (Update: Though it didn't at launch, Amazon's Chase card now works with Apple Pay). Google Wallet, however, works with all debit and credit cards. I only managed to add two of my cards to Apple Pay -- a debit card from a local credit union isn't supported -- while Google Wallet accepted all of them.

You can use both Apple Pay and Google Wallet with online purchases and through different shopping apps, but the key for me was to see if I could use it in the real world. So I tried both systems out at different Whole Foods and Walgreens locations here in San Francisco multiple times throughout the week. For Apple Pay, I simply tapped the iPhone on the reader, placed my thumb on the Touch ID sensor, and voila, I was done. There was no need for me to unlock the phone prior to payment.

Google Wallet, on the other hand, requires that you unlock the wallet with a PIN before you can have access to it. That sounds like a pain, but it doesn't have to be. You can select the PIN timeout for 15 minutes, a day or never. So, theoretically, you could just leave your Wallet unlocked all the time, which admittedly compromises its security. Even if you decide to lock it up, entering a PIN really isn't all that difficult. For me, I decided to simply leave the Wallet unlocked.

When I tapped my Galaxy S5 onto a payment terminal, it beeped to let me know it was working -- I didn't have to unlock the phone for this to occur. The terminal then showed a prompt asking me to either enter in a PIN (if I was using a debit card) or simply press the Enter key for credit. After I pressed Enter, it took a second or two for the transaction to go through, and then I was done. Payments made with Wallet definitely require a bit more attention and processing time than Apple Pay, but it honestly wasn't significant enough to matter to me, at least most of the time (we'll get to an issue I encountered with Wallet later on).

I also went to try out Apple Pay at AT&T Park during the World Series. Major League Baseball worked with Apple and MasterCard to trick out both AT&T Park (home to the San Francisco Giants) and Kauffman Stadium (home to the Kansas City Royals) with NFC-enabled terminals mere weeks before the start of the Fall Classic -- AT&T Park was equipped with 114 terminals, while Kauffman Stadium has 226.

The league did this not only to introduce the nascent mobile payment system, but also to show off the tech so that other baseball parks would be open to installing it during the offseason and beyond. Adam Ritter, senior vice president of wireless for MLB Advanced Media, says that it eventually wants you to be able to use Apple Pay to pay for everything from food and merchandise to tickets via Apple Pay and the At the Ballpark app.

As I looked for a stand where I could buy some food, it was immediately apparent that not all vendors were equipped with NFC-enabled terminals. MLB tells us that it's still up to the individual vendor or business to agree to it and that they could still adopt them in the future, but that didn't quite help me last Friday, as I had to go from vendor to vendor to find one with Apple Pay. Once I did, I ordered a $6.75 Polish dog (ouch), and the payment went through as seamlessly as it did with all the other Apple Pay transactions I made before.

An hour later, I returned to the same vendor and tried to pay for an order of nachos with Google Wallet -- after all, MasterCard has said that the terminals should work with most NFC-based payment systems -- but it failed. After the phone beeped, I got an error message that suggested I check with the cashier. The cashier was a little befuddled, so I ended up fishing out my credit card to pay for it instead. Both Google and MasterCard tell me this should've theoretically worked, so my guess is that it was probably a glitch. Still, as far as the ballpark experience goes, Apple Pay (and normal credit cards) won out, at least for this one instance.

Which brings me to my primary sticking point with the mobile-payments concept as it stands today -- it's still only available in a few places. Over 220,000 locations in the US reportedly accept mobile payments, which sounds pretty impressive, but that's still only around 2.4 percent of retailers in the US.

Of course, this will probably change eventually. Since MasterCard and Visa are requiring a transition to EMV credit cards by October 2015, many shops will have to upgrade their systems to support so-called chip and pin technology (which already exists in much of the world), and will likely throw in NFC support as well. But for now, don't expect to pay for stuff at your local mom-and-pop store with your phone. Shopping at just Whole Foods and Walgreens was fine, but not being able to buy a burrito from the Mission (a San Francisco neighborhood famous for their taquerias)? That's just criminal.

Additionally, for the majority of people, the extra step of taking a card out from a wallet isn't seen as terribly tedious. At a number of retailers like Bloomingdale's and Macy's, even if you pay with Apple Pay or Google Wallet, you still need to sign for your purchase if it's over a certain amount (usually $25). Plus, I still need my wallet to carry my driver's license and there are still instances when only cash will do.

And it seems that NFC isn't even the only way to pay with your phone. CVS and Rite Aidmade headlines last week when they disabled NFC on their terminals to push their own in-house payment technology, called CurrentC. A method devised by the Merchant Customer Exchange, of which CVS, Rite Aid and Walmart are a part, CurrentC uses a rather convoluted QR-code scanning system to authenticate purchases.

This supposedly allows retailers to curb the transaction fees typically incurred by credit card companies (Of note, both Apple Pay and Google Wallet get some sort of fee per transaction; Wallet charges the merchants the regular credit card processing fee while Apple Pay charges the issuing bank). The barrier to entry to CurrentC appears to be much higher than either Apple Pay or Google Wallet, so I doubt it'll survive in the long run. But add that to the occasional machine glitch and you can see why most people will still want to clutch on to their wallets.

Still, despite my reservations about mobile payments, I deeply want it to succeed. Using my phone as a way to pay for things was just so freeing. I usually have my phone in my hand anyway, often to fill time while waiting in line in exactly the places where I would use it to pay for something. Having to take out a card from my wallet isn't that much of a hassle, but once I got a taste of paying for stuff with my phone, I couldn't get enough.

Also, mobile payments are arguably a lot more secure. Your actual credit card number is never handed over to merchants. Apple Pay uses a Secure Element chip that encrypts user data and assigns a unique device number to each phone, while Google Wallet transactions are made with a virtual prepaid MasterCard that's different each time. Mobile payments could therefore be the answer to the ever-present threat of data breaches and identity theft.

But until we can get it accepted at every merchant and figure out a way we can use the phone to securely carry our ID as well, it simply isn't going to replace your wallet.

Yet.

Credit:http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/29/week-apple-pay-google-wallet/

How Tight Is Smartphone Market? Xiaomi Joins Samsung, Apple in Top 3 for Only a Few Hours

Only three years after launching its first mobile device, China's Xiaomi leapt to third place in global smartphone shipments, trailing market leaders Samsung and Apple.

Those bragging rights lasted about 8 hours.

The press release from International Data Corp. at about 10 a.m. Beijing time heralding Xiaomi's rise to the top three in the third quarter, after more than tripling shipments in the period, was followed by one at 6 p.m. from Lenovo announcing the completion of its purchase of Motorola Mobility from Google.

Guess what? Closing the Motorola deal makes Lenovo No. 3,according to Lenovo and analysts at IDC and Strategy Analytics.

The back and forth in rankings highlights how competitive the global smartphone market has become. While Samsung and Apple sit at the top, with market share of 23.8 percent and 12 percent, respectively, the next three players were separated by just 0.2 percentage points before Lenovo absorbed Motorola, according to IDC.

Xiaomi had 5.3 percent of the global market in the third quarter, compared with Lenovo's 5.2 percent before taking over Motorola, while South Korea's LG Electronics had a 5.1 percent share. As this chart shows, the three of them -- before the Motorola news -- were practically in a dead heat in this period.

The race is already so tight that researchers can't agree on the rankings beyond the top three. Like IDC, data from Strategy Analytics has Samsung, Apple and Xiaomi in the lead in the third quarter, but rounds out the top five with LG in fourth with a 5.2 percent share and Huawei Technologies in fifth place with 5.1 percent.

Completing the Motorola acquisition should give Lenovo a bit of breathing room. A combined Lenovo and Motorola would have given it an 8 percent share in the period, putting it well ahead of Xiaomi and Huawei, according to researcher Strategy Analytics.

"With the addition of Motorola, the company is now the third-largest vendor globally in terms of smartphone unit shipments, trailing only Samsung and Apple," said Technology Business Research analyst Jack Narcotta. "Motorola’s stable of devices and intellectual property will help Lenovo corral the chaos in emerging markets such as China and India, allowing Lenovo to vault over Xiaomi, Huawei and LG and establish itself as the default choice for consumers seeking an entry-level or mid-tier Android smartphone."

Xiaomi wouldn't comment about its competitors, but Tony Wei, a spokesman, said the company was "proud of our remarkable growth."

One thing is clear. The fight is far from over.

One reason is that China, the world's largest smartphone market, has become saturated, forcing local vendors to look abroad, Lenovo Chief Executive Officer Yang Yuanqing said in an interview.

"If you only play in China, that's not enough," Yang said. "You must win in the global market."

Look for even more volatility in those quarterly global smartphone rankings.

Credit:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-30/how-tight-is-smartphone-market-xiaomi-joins-samsung-apple-in-top-3-for-only-a-few-hours.html

THE APPLE PAY CHALLENGE: LESSONS LEARNED FROM MY WEEK WITHOUT A WALLET

IT'S NOT WITHOUT ITS GLITCHES--AND ITS ENEMIES. BUT APPLE'S MOBILE PAYMENT SYSTEM STILL FEELS LIKE THE FUTURE.

BY HARRY MCCRACKEN

A week ago, when Apple's Apple Pay service became available for the new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, I decided to give it the most real-world test possible, by leaving my wallet at home and paying for a week's worth of stuff using only Apple Pay. Along the way, I wrote an initial post explaining the experiment and a midweek update.

The experiment ended on Monday, when I opened my sock drawer, retrieved my wallet, and ceremonially returned it to my pocket. Here's a final report on my week with Apple Pay, and what I learned:

THE QUALITY OF THE APPLE PAY EXPERIENCE VARIES.

My experiment was a success in that there was never an instance when I theoretically should have been able to use Apple Pay, but couldn't. And I never buckled and paid for anything with a card or cash. There were times, however, when Apple Pay felt like a needless complication, not a great leap forward.

Oftentimes, the technology was buttery smooth--especially at my local Whole Foods, where the transactions happened so quickly that it did feel a little like wizardry. But when I tried using Apple Pay at a McDonald's drive-thru, it was so unwieldy that I felt guilty about holding up the hungry motorists behind me.

In principle, the cashier was supposed to be able to hand me a portable terminal so I could do the Apple Pay gesture in my car. Instead, he took the phone from me, then handed it back and asked me to launch Passbook. That's an unnecessary step: The app pops up automatically when the phone nears the terminal. And then he had to hand it back twice more before the payment went through. (Fortunately, neither of us dropped my phone.)

Inside the same McDonald's at the counter, my iPhone 6 kept asking me to hold it closer to the payment terminal--even when I was pressing it up right against the sensor. Eventually, it worked, but if I'd had a credit card or a $5 bill with me, I would have given up on Apple Pay after the first error message.

Why my experience was inconsistent from store to store, I'm not sure. It might have something to do with the brand of payment terminal in use, or the cashier's familiarity with the process, or how deftly I held the phone and performed Touch ID authentication, or general kinks in the system. Or maybe a little bit of all of the above.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF MARGIN FOR ERROR.

Apple Pay competes with using credit and debit cards the old-fashioned way, by removing one from your billfold and swiping it. And plastic is actually a pretty great way to pay for stuff: It's simple, quick, and reliable.

At its best, Apple Pay is better still, and more secure. (The store's payment system sees only a one-time transaction code for your purchase, not full details of your credit card.) But in any scenario in which Apple Pay works less than flawlessly--whether because of technical glitches, confused cashiers, or user error--it loses most of its advantage over doing a card swipe. If it turned out to be as clunky as I found it to be at my nearby McDonald's over the long haul, there wouldn't be any point in using it.

YOU NEED TO BE SURE WHETHER YOU CAN USE APPLE PAY OR NOT.

The only retailer I visited during Apple Pay's first week that was making an obvious effort to drum up interest in the service was Whole Foods. There was signage promoting the service at every checkout aisle, and it was even mentioned on the payment terminal's screen. Other stores I visited weren't yet playing it up--including the Apple Store itself.

Even if a chain is on Apple's list of official partners, it's not a given that you'll always be able to use Apple Pay. At my local Chevron station, I successfully bought gas--once I figured out that I needed to go inside and pre-pay at the register. But when I went back to the same station later in the week and assumed I knew what to do, I discovered that the cashier was ringing me up at a different register, without a contactless terminal. (When I told her that I had no way to pay other than with my phone, an expression flashed across her face that suggested she regarded me as a crazy person, but she politely started all over at the other register.)

That's another issue relating to the tiny window of time which Apple Pay has to be superior to swiping a card. If you have to pause and wonder if you can use Apple Pay, or be picky about which register you choose, it's already lost its edge.

RETAILERS COULD SCREW THIS UP.

In fact, CVS (where I successfully used Apple Pay several times) and Rite Aid already are doing their best to foil Apple Pay. By the end of the week, they'd disabled contactless payments altogether in order to prevent anyone from using Apple's service at their stores.

Both druggists, along with Walmart and others, are backing a competing digital wallet app called CurrentC, which isn't arriving until next year. It doesn't sound like much fun: To use it, you've got to turn on your phone, launch an app, and scan a QRC code at the payment terminal. And CurrentC isn't really an Apple Pay replacement, since it works with debit cards and bank accounts, not credit cards.

Apple Pay is never going to be the one digital wallet to rule them all, since it will only work on properly equipped Apple devices. But really, what retailers should be doing is welcoming a variety of payment options--not shutting some of them out even though the stores' registers are technically capable of accepting them. The odds seem far higher that CVS and Rite Aid will eventually decide to accept Apple Pay than that consumers will flock to CurrentC.

I'M STILL CAUTIOUSLY UPBEAT.

I cheerfully admit that I'm happy to have my wallet back. More than once during the week, I was in a store and realized at the very last moment that I'd forgotten that I could only shop at Apple Pay-friendly establishments. (I even asked my wife if she'd like me to buy her popcorn at a movie theater, and then had to sheepishly retract the offer.)

But even though my experience with Apple Pay wasn't perfect, and despite obstacles such as recalcitrant retailers, I had a good time using it. I expect to reach for my phone rather than my billfold quite often from now on--partly for convenience's sake, and partly for the privacy and security benefits of being able to pay a store without sharing any information about myself. And if mobile payments finally start to catch on--which seems likely to me--we could end up looking back on last week as the most important moment so far in the history of the technology.

Credit:http://www.fastcompany.com/3037660/the-apple-pay-challenge-lessons-learned-from-my-week-without-a-wallet?utm_source=facebook