Yeah... to me, this is like complaining that my AmEx card won't work as a VISA card when I encounter merchants who don't accept AmEx.
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
Yeah... to me, this is like complaining that my AmEx card won't work as a VISA card when I encounter merchants who don't accept AmEx.
Android is the OS.
Hardware that runs Android does have dedicated security chips, for example:
About Knox
What is Knox? Samsung Knox is a business platform for configuring and managing mobile devices – offering efficient and customized use in various industries. Keep your mobile infrastructure connected, protected, and productive.
www.samsungknox.com
Titan Security Key | Google Cloud
Provides phishing-resistant 2nd factor of authentication for high-value users. Works with many devices, browsers & services. Supports FIDO standards.
Mobile Security Solutions | Mobile Device Protection | Qualcomm
Qualcomm Mobile Security solutions provide robust privacy and security solutions, including Device Lock Authentication and Digital Content Protection.
This is simply not true.
There isn't even any objective analysis to show that Apple Pay is more secure than for example Google Pay.
Actually Google in general is better at guarding people's data, one of the peaks of being one of the biggest advertisers in the world, securing people's data is extremely important. Google Project Zero for example uncovered countless iOS and MacOS security flaws, some really bad(so Google actively improved the security on Apple devices), they also uncovered Specter and Meltdow, 2 of the biggest modern processors hardware vulnerabilities. Does Apple have anything similar to Google Project Zero? it doesn't look like it would be the case.
Last edited:
What if they did? It would be a bad business decision for Apple and it would be bad for Apple's customers to limit access to the camera, but do third party developers really have some "right" to demand access to all the hardware of the phone? First it would be compelling Apple to write APIs to support it and second, it would also compel Apple to maintain hardware compatibility in future phones. What if Apple wanted to remove NFC support from new iPhones and move onto some other proprietary short distance radio technology (maybe UWB) and build an Apple Pay network on that and get retailers onboard with it through custom hardware POS terminals. Would they be forced to keep NFC and support it? At this point you are really only a few steps from Apple being required to support third-party operating systems.
If 2 for 2 were a guarantee of future success, there would be a lot more triple crown winners.
Except this isn’t a game of chance. This figure shows that this legal team is adept at picking apart Apple’s legal arguments. And you're the only one throwing around the word "guarantee," as I made no such claim. I simply expressed confidence in this legal team's ability against Apple.
Last edited:
Rent is rent, friend. If you occupy another’s space with your business, expect to pay for it. Be worried if you’re not expected to pay for it. It’s the way of the world in every single segment, real world or virtual space. I’m sorry it’s a hard concept to grasp for some - but in the real world we need to pay for services offered by others. Apple or not. Whether one likes it or not.
Apple Pay is great, I try to use it whenever it’s available. Hopefully, drivers licenses will be in the digital wallet soon.
Yes. Because now this regulation will lead to consumers having 5 or more different wallet apps.
I'm sure everyone will download Apple Pay, Google Pay, Samsung Pay and then some for... wait, there's no reason to.
Exactly. There is no reason too. All the wallets you mentioned offer basically the same stuff. I’m a generic user based in the U.K. and in france. All of my banking apps in both countries provide Apple wallet use. As a iPhone user What purpose would another wallet offer me? Serious question.
They already did, otherwise there would be no Apple Pay. They just need to stop denying app using those APIs, deemed "private."
So be it, not all other phones have got an NFC chip and it hasn't been the end of the world so far.
That would be a huge loss. I doubt many retailers would comply.
No.
Irrelevant and also a huge
No. This applies to users of other wallets. If you're already happily using Apple Pay then this isn't for you.
Last edited:
‘no’ what? What sort of comment is that? Life doesn’t revolve around you or your immediate circle. Life is a user in the eco system. So- what difference does it make? Can I pay less with another wallet? Do I benefit? No. No no no. The key difference this motion would allow is purely that the bank would pay less.
I have a bad feeling that this will result in many banks, credit cards, and major retailers (Walmart & Kroger already do a version of this) to require you to use their own app/wallet for payments. Seems like a cluster of an experience for users.
Do you think others who want to develop iOS tap to pay solutions are doing so altruistically?
Whoops, misread the question. I meant that as "Another wallet will offer little to no purpose to you if you're using Apple Pay"
What?
If I'm a Google Pay user, why should I switch to Apple Pay upon purchase of an iPhone? Do I benefit? Can I pay less? No.
There are hardware reasons and security reasons - the NFC protocol handling is controlled by the secure enclave, which does not allow for third party code. Some of this also is what enables express cards, e.g. payments while the phone battery is otherwise dead.
The payment interface has to work in concert with locked and unlocked devices as well, which means there's zero precedent for third party apps running in several contexts (e.g. locked phone wakes up by proximity to NFC payment terminal). It would be a multi-year effort to make this work, so you would likely need to unlock and run the third party wallet to do tap-to-pay.
External and UX limitations also mean you can only have _one_ payment wallet using the NFC antenna at a time - another reason you may have to run that third party wallet to do tap-to-pay.
First, this 100% untrue. They don't even have 50% - see PayPal, Cash, Wise, Venmo, etc.
Second, they also own 100% of the real estate market at 1 Apple Park Way. You don't get to restrict down the size of a market arbitrarily for the purposes of making a statement more nefarious-sounding.
I actually believe that Apple should be restricted from implementing Apple Pay anywhere but Apple devices. As it is, Apple’s potential to be able to control the smartphone payment market is 100% defined physically by how many phones are available. With there not being 5 billion iPhones out there, the greatest number of people at any one time that have the ability to use Apple Pay is quite limited.
Expanding to Android phones is actually describes MORE of a direct antitrust issue. This is because they’d be in a position of using the money they’re already making to subsidize extending it into Android. Pay a few smartphone vendors to include the required hardware updates (which they would because it would give them an advantage) and ApplePay becomes a REAL monopoly. Pretty much every idea described in this paragraph are the things Apple are avoiding in order to intentionally NOT exert control over anything not-Apple.
I used the wrong word. I meant to say "wallets that support payment processing". Since none of these support tap-to-pay, my point stands.
Your comparison makes little sense. Besides, 1 Apple Park Way doesn't represent a significant portion of the real estate market.
That's not the point but whatever. Apple still controls 100% of the "wallets that support payment processing" on more than 50% of the devices in the US without a way for anyone to switch on those devices.
Why are you insisting this position? Just read the original article and the linked complaint. They're asserting allegations under penalty of law, presumably with research and an intent to convince a judge. You're throwing around terms with no connection.
- The complaint doesn't say NFC requires one wallet at a time. In fact, it says Apple requires NFC developers to use TWO services at the same time from the same wallet: tap to pay, and e-commerce. Can't opt out. Both require Apple's surcharge, which is allegedly supracompetitive: unreasonable trade restraint.
- The wallet, the protocol, the whatever, is not just tied to multiple uses. It's critically tied to the iOS device. You, the phone owner, accept Apple Pay's terms. The service the NFC device in your hands connects to through Apple is forced to enroll in both payment schemes to serve you using your own phone.
- You use NFC all the time: your Citicard, your Fitbit, your Marriott keycard at the bar. Only Apple, the predominant market leader, charges this fee for any use through Apple Pay. Not Google, not any creditor, just Apple. And we know how this developed: not security, not innovation, but negotiations with banks to delay Apple from developing its own Apple Pay processing network like Discover Card has. Except Apple Pay is tap to pay and e commerce, not a processor, bank, or anything but a NFC wallet.
- This is actually LESS secure for you. When Google's system competes with Samsung, and Yandex and whoever, each competes around fees and security innovation. When Apple's system locks iOS devices to its own wallet, processors, developers and consumers MUST rely on Apple to do its job better than anyone else, efficiently, at acceptable cost to participants. This is just common sense: think the economics of open software audits as an extreme economic decision model.
- Apple's .15% contractual surcharge is ARTIFICALLY targeted abroad. But Apple isn't paying for that American consumer luxury as its marketshare expands. The processors and other markets are, until Apple the market leader changes their mind! These are real damages to other parties.
- Apple knows it cannot do the above SUPRACOMPETITIVE tactic if Google Pay and Target Wallet could simply be represented on the Apple Pay-NFC system. Apple could not charge its uniquely unusualy, anti-competitive fee if Google and Yandex could simply offer 0% surcharge services using your iPhone wallet. There's really no defensible reason to think otherwise. The "Secure Enclave" can exist side by side with bypassing the tap to pay and e commerce contract Apple insists on by default for users and separately for processors. Instead, Walmart Pay's current 0% contractual surcharge becomes a .15% surcharge because Apple demands it to use the NFC components every other non-Apple device in the minority of the NFC market can do already. It's about competition among participants, not whatever this is talking about.
Yep. Competition wants access to apples customers, software and hardware for $0 so they can make $$$ from apples r&d.