Apple Says Australian Banks' Apple Pay Challenge Harms Consumers

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 29, 2016.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple today made a submission to the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), arguing that Australia's "Big Three" banks' request to collectively negotiate over Apple Pay is ultimately harmful to consumers, would stifle innovation in mobile payments, and would avoid competitive dynamics (via AppleInsider).

    [​IMG]

    The Cupertino company argues that each of the big three banks (Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank (NAB) and Westpac) have resisted "serious engagement" with Apple on Apple Pay for the past two years.

    Apple claims that they have tried and failed to negotiate with all of the banks, save for one bank who refuses to sign a confidentiality agreement that would allow Apple to send over its initial terms. Apple says that collective bargaining would slow negotiations further, dragging the collective to the level of the least willing member.

    The collective, Apple argues, means that each of the banks has no fear of its competitors offering Apple Pay. Thus, the banks wouldn't fear a potential loss of consumers over the feature. This harms consumers by avoiding competitive dynamics, according to Apple.

    The move would also stifle innovation in mobile payments, erasing incentives for existing players in Australia to build on top of or compete with Apple Pay. However, a spokesman for the banks told AppleInsider that they, alongside Australia's merchants and payment processors, have been working on contactless payments before Apple Pay.

    The banks say that, unlike Android or Samsung, Apple blocks access to NFC payments and "wants to leave users with no choice but to use Apple Pay." They want to negotiate with Apple to offer other integrated wallets within Apple Pay. Last week, Australia's retailers and payment processors sided with the banks to collectively negotiate.

    Apple's submission comes 10 days after the ACCC denied interim approval of the collective negotiations. The banks first issued their joint application in late July. The ACCC will make a final decision in October. Most recently, Australian bank ANZ expanded support for Apple Pay to MasterCard, adding to the already-supported Visa and American Express.

    Article Link: Apple Says Australian Banks' Apple Pay Challenge Harms Consumers
     
  2. farewelwilliams macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2014
  3. Philj6970 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2015
    Location:
    Brisbane
    #3
    I am with both ANZ and NAB.
    Soon to be ANZ only if NAB insist on their current course of greed.
     
  4. Speedy Dingo macrumors regular

    Speedy Dingo

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #4
    So can someone tell me if android pay takes a cut from transactions, like Apple Pay does?

    I'm with ANZ and they've been great in regards to heavily supporting Apple Pay, so I use it regularly. The other 3 banks can go jump. Just watch as more customers switch banks to ANZ because of a service they want.
     
  5. canadianreader macrumors 6502a

    canadianreader

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    #5
    I enjoy Apple Pay where it's available it's easy and fast since I have Apple Pay I bought a smaller wallet. Aussie Banks should allow Apple Pay and produce their own Apps and the market will decide anyways.
     
  6. wouwout macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    Sydney
    #6
    Sure, Android Pay (Google's mobile pay service) takes a cut as well, but banks have access to NFC hardware on Android phones and can implement it into their own mobile pay apps. Android let's you set the preferred default app for NFC payments
     
  7. dave2010 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2014
    Location:
    Canberra
    #7
    The point is it's not unless you're cleared by the regulator.
    Banks are, of course, colluding but they can't make this public and especially not to a company as legally savvy as Apple.
     
  8. miniyou64 macrumors 6502

    miniyou64

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2008
    #8
    There is no one less qualified to pass judgement on what's harmful to consumers than a government.
     
  9. JackANSI macrumors 6502a

    JackANSI

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    #9
    Sounds like Apple finally met its' monopoly match. Open up the hardware and let consumers pick who gets the income from fees.
     
  10. MH01 Suspended

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #10
    Fact: Apple Pay challenge ....hurts Apple.

    What else are they going to say, either way I am not a winner , cause the $ are not passed onto me.
     
  11. developer13245 macrumors 6502

    developer13245

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #11
    Wow, read some of the linked history... Apple argued that these three banks "want to maintain complete control over their customers", which should be unacceptable, yet Apple maintains complete control over Apple's customers by not allowing other payment systems on iOS. Apple believes they are the only party that should be allowed this kind of control. The three banks are actually arguing for giving their customers CHOICE of payment systems, not just forcing Apple pay on them. just wow...

    Apple already has ANZ on Apple pay in Australia, so competition exists. All three banks should individually refuse to negotiate until Apple opens the NFC platform to other payment systems - this high level demand is general enough and also just plain common sense and does not constitute collusion, so each taking this individual stance would not violate anti-trust laws.

    Why doesn't Apple also open the platform to 3rd party apps sold outside their captive app store directly by developers (like OS X currently does)???? How long will Apple get away with "maintaining complete control over their customers" when it involves what apps a iOS device owner can install on their phone? In such an 'open' iOS system, customers could choose to just stick with the Apple App Store instead of buying apps outside - this is called consumer choice.. but Apple only believes arguing "consumer choice" is a tool for getting THEIR control.

    ...But, Apple's global market share is in a downward trend... so it may not matter... the end is near if they keep clinging to their "world domination" delusion. I'm sick of hearing how Apple claims they're "so good" at solving whatever particular "problem" exists in the world today, yet then using exclusionary tactics that harms competition when implementing their "solution". It is really starting to get old.... NFC pay can be big in the future, yet iOS owners will be forced to use Apple Pay where as other platforms will offer choice of NFC payment systems (Android is planning this).. so in the end, Apple is also harming their own platform. Not smart... because...

    Eventually iOS will have the same ~5% market share as Mac.. and it will be Apple's own stingy fault by trying to enforce a closed system.... The end...
     
  12. Nozuka macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2012
    #12
    The banks and Apple are basically accusing each other of the same thing.... kinda funny.

    But:
    "save for one bank who refuses to sign a confidentiality agreement that would allow Apple to send over its initial terms. "

    Now that just seems very stubborn. Does not sound like this bank is open for negotiations.
     
  13. developer13245 macrumors 6502

    developer13245

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2012
    #13
    Basically Apple claims that consumers will be harmed until Apple themselves has complete control of all consumers lives....
     
  14. sofila macrumors 6502a

    sofila

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Location:
    Ramtop Mountains
    #14
    Consumer's wallet is what Apple cares most, I can see their point of view
     
  15. Sandybox macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    #15
    Depends what's in the confidentiality agreement. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple demand onerous and potentially damaging terms of the other party and the bank told them to shove it. This whole story reeks of Apple hypocrisy and arrogance - as is often the case they get lawyered up to try and get what they want.......great way to build a long term partnership, by forcing the other party to bend to their way of thinking.
     
  16. tmiw macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2007
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #16
    You know, if the banks really don't like Apple's terms, they could just say no and leave it at that. Instead, this whole fight kinda makes the banks look bad. (Not that Apple shouldn't open NFC for at least non-payment stuff, but still.)

    Also keep in mind that Apple has lowered what they charge when needed, so that's definitely not the reason this is all happening.
     
  17. Krizoitz macrumors 65816

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #17
    Really? Based on what evidence? I don't know which country you hail from but here in the U.S. at least we have had many important and succesful consumer protection actions by the government over the past 100 or so years. The ability to assume within reason, for example, that drugs are what they say they are is because of government action. The continued improvements in automobile safety including things like mandatory seat belts, air bags, and crash testing? Government programs. Clean water? Government.

    In fact without government involvement business behavior can and does become incredibly harmful to the consumer (and employee). Steel, oil and rail monopolies back in the 1800's for example. Ma Bell's monopoly on telephones is another. Left to their own devices a corporation will most often, by its very nature, seek to provide the worst possible product for the most expensive price. In theory competition should alleviate this race to the bottom, but competition does not always exist and very often, absent regulation (and even with it) monopolies tend to form, the natural and inevitable outcome of an unregulated market.

    Even today calculated obstruction by special interests to government involvement in areas like cable, internet, guns, farming, and many other areas allow anti-consumer practices to continue. The consolidation of telecom companies like AT&T or cable companies like Comcast which lower competition and allow inflated prices to proliferate are a perfect example of this. Absent the corruption and lobbying government would be able to implement proper protections which would benefit consumers by increasing competition and driving down prices and driving up services. Instead we have increased costs and decreased quality.

    But sure, by all means, blame government instead.
     
  18. inscrewtable macrumors 68000

    inscrewtable

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    #18
    "The banks say that, unlike Android or Samsung..."

    That just goes to prove how tech illiterate the banks are.
     
  19. Fishticks macrumors 6502

    Fishticks

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
  20. bowlen macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Perth
    #20
    Stupid banks. They should just sign up to Apple Pay like the rest of the world so we can start using it!!
     
  21. inscrewtable macrumors 68000

    inscrewtable

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    #21
    That phoney argument keeps cropping up, there's a difference between maintaining control over customers and maintaining control, meaning security, over the operating system. If banks want to make less secure and more awkward payments via nfc on Android platform then they can do that but Apple wants to maintain their ease of use, integration and tighter security that is a major reason people use Apple products. Not only that that but hundreds of banks including ANZ in Australia don't have a problem. You may as well argue that Apple should let anyone into the App store. This is all about the Banks wanting complete control over data that is not required for the transaction.
     
  22. iGeek2014 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2014
    Location:
    === Nowheresville ===
    #22
    To be honest I can't see why they are so against it (aside from wanting open access to the NFC chip).

    I can't see why they fail to realise that it's one of the more secure method of payments... It surely reduces the risk of card fraud and therefore ultimately is better than having to foot the bill for fraudulent transactions?

    That's why I love Apple Pay... Knowing if there's a data breach my card number is useless to those wanting to commit financial crime!
     
  23. imMango macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2011
    #23
    Android and Samsung pay don't take a cut of the interchange fee.
     
  24. lowkey macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    australia
    #24
    Apple blocking access to NFC payments is reducing competition, not the banks.
    What can't Apple have Apple Pay and Westpac have whatever they develop, then let me, the Apple and Westpac customer decide what is best to use?
    If Apple only gets an agreement with ANZ, but not the other big three banks, its not going to be universally usable like VISA and Paywave is now.
     
  25. FrozenInferno macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    #25
    Sometimes folks just aren't interested in what you're selling. Apple never learned to accept that "no means no".
     

Share This Page