How did the US banks and the UK banks manage to 'succumb' to Apple's 'demands'?
Hmm. You said Canadian banks were greedy for not supporting Apple Pay (and all the fees and info demands that entails). Are you claiming that US and UK banks are
less greedy than Canadian banks? That would be surprising, at least for US banks, considering how much more they make from fees than most banks in the world
Apple played the major US banks like a fiddle, keeping them in the dark about each other. None of them wanted to not be included. Everything is about being a user's primary card choice.
UK banks came much later, and had far more reason to resist, since their fees are tightly capped, and their contactless fraud costs a fraction (1/20th) of what Apple charges. So there was no monetary incentive to support Apple Pay. Unfortunately for them, they failed to unite, and even Barclays finally had to give in to public pressure.
Canadian banks have learned from the above history, and are (so far) standing together to get Apple to lessen its demands.
Still, "succumbing" probably isn't the best word to use here. It's not like Apple could really force them to adopt it if the banks didn't want to.
Reevans used "succumb", not me. But he's right, the banks gave in to Apple's demands. They certainly didn't approach Apple and volunteer to pay for Apple doing nothing during a transaction, nor to have to give back info they had always considered bank confidential.
Apple asking for a fee per transaction, is basically the same as if the manufacturer of a smart card wanted a piece of each transaction done using one of their cards. They both just provide the client device being used. What Apple is really doing, is selling its customer base. We are part of their product in this case.