Yet, you continue to make uninformed comments about things you have no experience with? Cool.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sued for Blocking Tap-to-Pay Competitors on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This entire comment is a lie. Apple doesn’t rent seek. And they only get 0.15% of the transaction. Why aren’t you screaming about professors taking 3%? Or the 19.99-29.99% interest rate charged by credit card? Or the measly 0.5% interest banks give you on your savings while charging up to 20% on money you borrow.
That’s over half a billion dollars per year in Apple contractual surcharges in a $7 trillion dollar card transaction market, assuming 5% usage by Apple Pay. 15 cents adds up. Discover Global Network (Discover Card) for a poor example had about a billion dollars net income last year.
I take it you therefore think the U.S. suit against Microsoft in the 1990s was wrong? Microsoft should have been able to freely block/restrict Netscape's and other companies' "access" to the Windows desktop OS market?
That's basically what antitrust laws and regulations are for. Companies with dominant positions (e.g., a monopoly or part of a duopoly/oligopoly) tend to be large and wealthy and their business activities understandably come under greater scrutiny due to the added and potentially illegal impact, influence, power, control, etc. they have in the market(s) in question.
Being a monopoly or part of a duopoly/oligopoly is not itself illegal but that tied with anticompetitive behavior can be, hence cases like these.
I can completely understand your comments but if I may be permitted to respond to your points:
- I did not assume that Apple invented NFC for which, of course, they did not and cannot claim any proprietary IP for the technology. However they did add it to the iPhone so they could sell a new feature, Apple Pay. They did not add it for another party to use.
- I am pretty sure that Apple's use of NFC was not innovative, but they did add it so they could sell Apple Pay. Without it Apple Pay was a non starter.
- You have a significant point here and I may be overly influenced by my experience and that of other friends, but we can probably assume that it is not an overriding concern for Apple users that they cannot use Google Pay on their iPhone. For my part, I can see no benefit for having support for other wallets on my iPhone. I also own a Samsung S22 Ultra (to keep me familiar with other eco systems) and I do not miss Apple Pay on that phone since the role is sort of taken care of by Google Pay and Samsung. However I trust Google far less than I trust Apple (maybe incorrectly) so I prefer Apple Pay and the ease with which it is managed.
- You are absolutely correct, but my point is that I am not sure that Apple should be susceptible to antitrust inspection in this case. Apple added hardware support for a software service they wished to sell. It is not as if other people were already providing the same service on the iPhone and then Apple locked them out and forced everyone to use Apple's service. That would require antitrust inspection I would have thought (I am not a lawyer but an IP lawyer I know and work with agrees with me in principal). MS and the browser wars were caused by the fact that MS tried to lock out Netscape, who had a perfectly working browser solution, with their own product making it the default etc. I know that this can get very complex, but I may be going against the received wisdom here in suggesting that when a product is successful this is not a signal that we should all be allowed to share that success by forcing them to share the components that make that success unless, and this is key, the product is the only one in the field and it has reached some mythical domination and necessary position in a vital market. In this case the iPhone is not even the most dominant phone in the market as Android phones dominate the market.
Fair enough, it's time for the monopolistic practices of Apple and Google to be taken down a couple of pegs. I'm ok with 2 companies controlling how we interact with almost every element of our modern lives, but only with adequate rules and regulation keeping them in check.
A "free" market benefits no one but shareholders and executives.
A "free" market benefits no one but shareholders and executives.
Most likely something with your address needs changed. I had that happen and I had to set the correct address.
I don’t believe the business even pays the fee. It’s the bank that pays the .15% gladly because it cuts down on fraud.
I don't need to be aware of any valid reasons. If they had the will to do so, they would find a way, but that is not the issue at stake here. The issue is that while being in a dominant position, Apple is able to use its policies to restrict competition. It's akin to if Tesla would only allow its cars to be charged using Tesla Superchargers. While that might be okay if Tesla was just a small player, but with 75% of the EV market, it would stifle competition.
Guess what? Even if Google Pay was allowed to work on the iPhone, you wouldn't be forced to use it. Just like you aren't forced to use Apple Pay now. Shocker! 🤯
Bet not..... I'm fine with exclusive features/apps for platforms.
want to use another pay service buy the phone that uses that service.... easy peasy
Whatever is Apple going to be sued for next?
As a customer I understand that when I buy Apple I am buying their hardware, software and services.
If I did not like it or was against what they did I would not buy Apple, and buy an Android phone.
Where does it say anyone has a right to force a company to change its product or services.
If Apple's customers were unhappy they would vote with their feet.
The only people complaining are the ones wanting to make money off Apples products, again where in law does it state Apple has to allow that?
It is their product and should be their rules.
As a customer I understand that when I buy Apple I am buying their hardware, software and services.
If I did not like it or was against what they did I would not buy Apple, and buy an Android phone.
Where does it say anyone has a right to force a company to change its product or services.
If Apple's customers were unhappy they would vote with their feet.
The only people complaining are the ones wanting to make money off Apples products, again where in law does it state Apple has to allow that?
It is their product and should be their rules.
I just don't understand how people complain about no competition, but then want everyone the same. What competition is that then?
Possible there's some stupid issue with the zip that they can never fix. But it only happens when I use it online or at a pump and I need to put the zip. And it doesn't think about anything. The instant the phone is in NFC range, it shows failed with a red ! And how many places can i still update my address? I've checked everywhere. And why do only some merchants still want the old one? Apple card support is utterly useless
A lot of what we take for granted today exists because Apple did a thing that no one was doing at the time. No one had an easy to use music store where you purchased tracks via simple purchase mechanism. No one had an App Store for smartphones that ONLY charged the developers 30%. No one offered an internet capable smartphone with unlimited data.
In order to provide these things, Apple were required to create all the parts to form the complete solution. Other companies were fine with what they had in place and had no reason to change. They needed to make the hardware because what Motorola thought was “sufficient” clearly wasn’t. They needed to build the purchase trust infrastructure so that clicking “Buy” on a song was an afterthought, with little consumer worry. Companies not only rejected Apple (like Verizon), they rejected the ideas that Apple were attempting to bring forth. They had no choice but to build all the pieces they needed for their vision.
As Apple refined technology after technology, competitors saw how to do things in the ways that “delight the customer” and copied enough of what Apple did in other non-Apple markets to make them a nice profit. Apple’s essentially been an innovation center… all other companies had to do is figure out how to make whatever Apple made, work “well enough” outside a defined walled garden. To be certain, Apple’s motives were always to make money and stay in business to make more money, but, in order to do that they needed to provide solutions people wanted to use, that they felt comfortable using, and they did. To a level of reliability that annoyed their competitors AND detractors.
Whether by fortune or hard work, Apple has found themselves in an enviable position. Not by buying and shutting down the smartphone competition. Not by enacting severe exclusivity agreements. Not by bending the arms of telecommunications companies to NOT sell competing devices… (and all of these would have been very effective ways to get where they are today, but quicker) but simply by making a thing people felt comfortable using day after day. And, working to regularly improve the capabilities of their services.
Once Apple’s no longer able to “show the way” by their brute force manipulation of their ecosystem (only theirs, they have zero influence over any other areas of the economy), other companies won’t have an easy path to improvement. Not only that, if another company DOES come up with a significantly better way to get something done, that just requires they put together their own solutions as a baseline, what’s the likelihood that they will? Understanding that, if successful, they will have their hard work challenged… primarily by those who simply lack vision and will?
In order to provide these things, Apple were required to create all the parts to form the complete solution. Other companies were fine with what they had in place and had no reason to change. They needed to make the hardware because what Motorola thought was “sufficient” clearly wasn’t. They needed to build the purchase trust infrastructure so that clicking “Buy” on a song was an afterthought, with little consumer worry. Companies not only rejected Apple (like Verizon), they rejected the ideas that Apple were attempting to bring forth. They had no choice but to build all the pieces they needed for their vision.
As Apple refined technology after technology, competitors saw how to do things in the ways that “delight the customer” and copied enough of what Apple did in other non-Apple markets to make them a nice profit. Apple’s essentially been an innovation center… all other companies had to do is figure out how to make whatever Apple made, work “well enough” outside a defined walled garden. To be certain, Apple’s motives were always to make money and stay in business to make more money, but, in order to do that they needed to provide solutions people wanted to use, that they felt comfortable using, and they did. To a level of reliability that annoyed their competitors AND detractors.
Whether by fortune or hard work, Apple has found themselves in an enviable position. Not by buying and shutting down the smartphone competition. Not by enacting severe exclusivity agreements. Not by bending the arms of telecommunications companies to NOT sell competing devices… (and all of these would have been very effective ways to get where they are today, but quicker) but simply by making a thing people felt comfortable using day after day. And, working to regularly improve the capabilities of their services.
Once Apple’s no longer able to “show the way” by their brute force manipulation of their ecosystem (only theirs, they have zero influence over any other areas of the economy), other companies won’t have an easy path to improvement. Not only that, if another company DOES come up with a significantly better way to get something done, that just requires they put together their own solutions as a baseline, what’s the likelihood that they will? Understanding that, if successful, they will have their hard work challenged… primarily by those who simply lack vision and will?
So, as long as there is at least one other option in the market then you feel these types of antitrust lawsuits shouldn't be allowed?
This is basically what antitrust laws and regulations are about. They are designed to prevent companies with a dominant position (e.g., a monopoly or part of a duopoly/oligopoly) from abusing their market power by unfairly restricting or limiting access, competition and/or innovation in the particular market(s). Being a monopoly or part of a duopoly/oligopoly is not itself illegal but that tied with anticompetitive behavior can be, hence cases like these.
Do you therefore think the U.S. suit against Microsoft in the 1990s was wrong? Microsoft should have been able to freely block/restrict Netscape's and other companies' "access" to the Windows desktop OS market? Windows is Microsoft's product and therefore they should've been able to make all of the rules surrounding its use?
Apple allowing multiple browser engines, payment systems, etc. doesn't necessarily have to make everything the same.
For example...
- Apple can still restrict Safari to iPhones if they want to and thereby make them unique in that way.
- Apple can still restrict Apple Pay to iPhones if they want to and thereby make them unique in that way.
- Apple can still restrict Pages, Numbers, Keynote and other Apple software to iPhones if they want to and thereby make them unique in that way.
- Apple can still restrict Apple chips to their devices and thereby make them unique in that way.