This will perhaps be an unpopular perspective, but If you actually read the text carefully, and then propose to yourself what the opposite would be, you wouldn’t want the opposite. This isn’t Apple “setting a standard” (see below; Apple is using an ISO standard, not their own), and this isn’t Apple taking control over state infrastructure (which I imagine nobody would want).
Apple is, as someone pointed out above, making the wallet. They’re simply informing states of the work that goes into producing the actual ID that goes into the wallet, and making it clear Apple won’t help them in doing so. States are free to use the same digital ID on non-Apple devices (again, it’s an ISO standard), and they should do so only if they feel it benefits them and their taxpayers. If they don’t… fine.
A specific point:
This is actually a good thing. Ever seen the TV shows where you get a “free $10000 renovation” and it‘s done slipshod? Having the states own the finances means the states have control over the implementation. They can implement it in a way that facilitates cross-platform compatibility, for example. Ultimately, this doesn’t “benefit Apple,” in that Apple sees no incremental revenue for this feature; it “benefits taxpayers,” who’ll need to foot the bill. If a given state’s taxpayers don’t want the bill or the benefit, cool, their state doesn’t need to do it.
This won’t stay an iOS-only feature; there’s zero chance any government who stands up this infrastructure won’t deploy it as widely as possible. Android may not offer something similar today, but what Apple’s doing is based on a set of open standards—Google can add this into Android anytime they want.
The actual text doesn’t preclude states from offering this to non-Apple devices; it says that Apple will determine which Apple devices Apple supports digital IDs on.
Again, you’d want this. You don’t want someone else doing it.
Again… I’d think this is how you’d want it. “Apple‘s requirements” being, in this case, the standards that Apple has adopted and is using. You surely wouldn’t want Apple verifying IDs Or doing QA on the systems.
Yeah, I mean, maybe this is a bit much, but I can’t imagine states spending the money and not marketing it. Nevada DMV launched a mobile phone reservation service (which works quite well) and they’ve probably spent more marketing it than they did developing it, to get people to use it.
I kind of assume you’d want this if you were going to invest in a digital ID program. Maybe instead of seeing this as “Apple being restrictive,” you can choose to see it as, “Apple saying, ‘hey, only do this if you’re going to be serious about it, otherwise don’t bother.’”
And from above…
Poland is a single country; the 50 US states are much like individual countries in this regard. You cannot view the US as a “country” in many aspects—the Federal government, in some regards (including IDs) acts more as an EU. For example, the Federal government has guidelines on IDs like driver’s licenses, which states can choose to follow or not. For example, in Nevada it is entirely possible to get a Federally approved “Real ID” as well as a non-Real ID. Coordinating ID activities across 50 states is a huge lift.
Also from above…
They did, in the US. It’s called “Real ID.” And it still hasn’t been fully adopted. The Federal government is abysmal at coming up with standards, let alone technological ones. Apple is building these off digital ID standards that Apple itself does not own (although it participates in the working groups):
”ISO” is the International Standards Organization; Apple is not creating the standard, here.
And finally..
Having worked on a number of Federal technology projects, I can pretty much assure you this is the very last thing you want. But again, the standard here is not Apple’s. It’s an open spec from ISO. Google has participated in that same standard, just as Apple has.
You might consider the perspective of, “Hey, Apple will make this possible for you, but if you and your taxpayers want it, you’re going to have to pay for it. If you’re going to use our trademarks in your marketing, we want to review that. If you’re going to do this, you might as well promise to market it. Apple’s going to invest something in this [otherwise we wouldn’t need to be sending you inquiries to help get it working] but we want you to own this.”
Legal terminology can sometimes make things seem more evil than they actually are. That’s because legalese isn’t pure English; it’s a set of phrases that have been honed over time to help ensure everyone understands what they’re agreeing to. So just maybe consider that what Apple’s set up is perhaps mostly in the taxpayers’ best interests. They’re using an open standard, they’re forcing states to own the infrastructure and ID data, and they’re not letting states dash this off quickly or without careful planning. I’m surprised anyone would want something different.
