Can you live for a month using only an iPhone to pay for things?

Christina Bonnington sure hopes so.

According to the tech press, one of the "missing features" in the iPhone 5 was the lack of "near-field communications", or NFC, technology. The promise of such tech is that it allows you to turn a phone into a programmable contactless card, and wave it at readers to make payments all day long.

As Matt Drance writes, there was never really any doubt that Apple would not introduce the tech in the iPhone, because although it's a promising technology, it doesn't actually have any use. At least, not today. And so Apple is waiting until it does have some practical applications before moving to roll-out.

In the meantime, one Wired reporter is finding out that it's perfectly possible to make payments with your iPhone today, NFC be damned. Well, not perfectly possible; but doable with a little graft.

Christina Bonnington is living walletless for a month:

You never realize how handy cash is until you don’t have any.

I learned this lesson one day last week when, overcome by hunger, I wandered into the Wired kitchen to grab a bagel for breakfast. I reached into my pocket and suddenly remembered I couldn’t pay for it. See, I’ve decided to spend a month living without a wallet, using my smartphone and various apps to pay for everything. We’re pretty wired here at Wired, but the kitchen still demands cash. Luddites.

Dejected, I went back to my desk and, facing a deadline and unable to venture out into the world, grabbed the first thing that came to hand: a granola bar that’s been sitting in the bottom of my backpack since CES. This culinary disaster was the one setback in what’s been an otherwise flawless week without a wallet, and it taught me a valuable lesson: Be prepared.

We'll see if she can pull it off.

A woman uses Square, a US-only app enabling any iPhone to make mobile payments.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.