Obviously not, but hardware restrictions aside, the point was that Apple is free to bring their services to other platforms, so why shouldn't others be allowed to bring their services to iOS?
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
Oh no. The poor banks. Quick, let’s destroy a private and secure eco system to help protect them.
That android allows companies to do so is a conscious choice by the parent company, Google, not because the law says they have to. My guess is that this was viewed as an extra advantage over iOS. Android being more "open" and welcoming to third party developers, while iOS was comparatively more restrictive and locked down.
Google did what they felt made the most strategic sense to them at the time, just as Apple did what made the most sense to them at the time (and in the present). Each has their own respective pros and cons, and I am not convinced that being "more open" necessarily equates a better experience for the end user.
This is why I favour the Apple ecosystem. In many ways, it's like joining a union. There are annoying parts, but as a whole, it gives users a collective voice to force third parties to behave and play ball. If there are alternatives, then the user base can be divided, losing power to the latter.
Also Americans: damn govermant can’t tell me what to do. I’ll shoot them, it’s my right. Rarrrr! Go me!
Also Americans: ‘Please Mr, Government - it’s not fair I cannot do X on platform Y, make them do it for me or I’ll cry’
I am as well, but I wasn't referring to the situation now; I was referring to the DMA and DSA
Allowing different payment services doesn't damage the security of Apple Pay. Unless, you know, it's found to not be secure, which means it hasn't ever been secure
How can choice make users of a phone "lose power" to a completely different OS? What does that even mean?
The solution seems obvious to me: allow Google Pay and all the rest but make customers aware that the security is then bound by those providers' TACOS not Apple's. In other words the walled garden isn't going to keep you safe if you voluntarily venture through the gate. It then becomes the customers' choice.
Purposely obtusely missing the point or genuinely not seeing the differences between Apple Pay and other mobile payment solutions verses privacy and indeed security? Qi codes anyone?! Data gathering and advertising profiles?
I’m not suggesting the integrity of Apple Pay will be damaged, but on a system touted as private and secure, introducing a potentially less secure, and definitely less private default method to pay has more drawbacks than advantages for general Joe or Jane Bloggs - all just to appease a group of banking internationals (which are worried that they may lose their own monopolistic style stranglehold on the world financial sector), potentially mandated by the government. It’s disgusting really.
Nobody in this thread has said the default can't still be Apple Pay. Besides, you're clearly mistaken if you think Apple wouldn't want to partake in the ownership of the financial sector.
If you continue to miss the point then our part of the discussion will just go around in circles. Putting words into my mouth will just further the cycle. So, respectfully, I’m going to stop chatting with you on the subject. Have a nice day though.
Here‘s the response I was referring to earlier today.
Post in thread 'Apple Sued for Blocking Tap-to-Pay Competitors on iPhone'
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...y-competitors-on-iphone.2351593/post-31266732
Meaning choosing the default. The entire point of the conversation.
Your continued ignorance of the valid reasons Apple will not bring Apple Pay to the compromised security that is Android is akin to a guy stating “I convinced my sister to prostitute herself, it’s unfair that everybody else doesn’t do so.
You just cannot/refuse to understand that your point is irrelevant.
I tried a few of the Aussie Bank versions of NFC payments and they were rubbish
I don't like Google Pay or Samsung Pay
I prefer Apple Pay. It works how I like but the local Banks are annoyed because they have to pay a fee and also because they want more access to the NFC functions of Apple Pay.
If the banks don't like Apple Pay then they can stop using it, but they won't because they know they will bleed customers. If they think they can come up with a better service then why don't they design it?
I know more people are doing online purchasing but I doubt we are all using Apple Pay online to buy stuff. They may use VISA or PayPal or something else. I cannot use 75% of the features of Apple Pay in Australia like people in the USA use. I wanted to gift my daughter some money the other day and I was intending to do it through Apple Pay but I had to use the clumsy bank front end to transfer funds
Apple Pay does a lot more than just NFC payments.
I don't like Google Pay or Samsung Pay
I prefer Apple Pay. It works how I like but the local Banks are annoyed because they have to pay a fee and also because they want more access to the NFC functions of Apple Pay.
If the banks don't like Apple Pay then they can stop using it, but they won't because they know they will bleed customers. If they think they can come up with a better service then why don't they design it?
I know more people are doing online purchasing but I doubt we are all using Apple Pay online to buy stuff. They may use VISA or PayPal or something else. I cannot use 75% of the features of Apple Pay in Australia like people in the USA use. I wanted to gift my daughter some money the other day and I was intending to do it through Apple Pay but I had to use the clumsy bank front end to transfer funds
Apple Pay does a lot more than just NFC payments.
First off, A number of people have stated that the reason they use Apple Pay is that they trust apple where they wouldn’t trust store x+treatment center Y - which is the likely outcome of forcing Apple to open their NFC API’s. Secondly how adorably naïve of you to argue that those attempting to force Apple to open their API’s won’t be trying to force Apple Pay to no longer be the default immediately afterwards
Yes, a legal monopoly. The same way apple owns 100% of the distribution of the iPhone.
Nobody is forcing these merchants to accept Apple Pay. They do so because they want the Apple shopper. It has been shown time and time again Apple users are generally wealthier and spend more than Android users.
Just because Apple doesn’t want to bring Apple Pay to other phones doesn’t mean Apple should be able to block other wallets from the iPhone.
I'm pretty comfortable with the folks handling the case since they're 2 for 2 on getting some big settlements from Apple.
I totally get it, but NFC has its issues with reliability. The local grocery has issues with Apple Pay on occasion. Some POS systems appear to be tone deaf, requiring the payer to wave their iPhone/Apple Watch around the thing like a voodoo priest trying to cast a spell. Sometimes appearing to be a frantic and occasionally pointless gesture.
I've been to New York enough to see all kinds of issues with the Metrocards and the readers at the gates. It's not perfect. People slide them wrong, the cards are wrinkled, etc. BUT would NFC make it 'better'?
One could hope, but it's pretty easy at the moment. Perhaps they should go with a semi active pod that people can put in their hand bag, or clip on a belt. I don't know if the iPhone could be made active being in the presence of the gates, but having to use, handle, wave an iPhone or Apple Watch in just the right area at just the right speed doesn't seem like such a 'fix'. Throw in cases and such blocking and attenuating the signal, it could be a huge gaping sore for the NYC transport system.