I doubt Apple would let a third-party wake a phone via NFC to use some other app.
Yet that's how NFC normally works, by watching for a registered App Id (Mastercard, Oyster, Hyatt door key, whatever) and opening the associated app.
... the fraction of a percent that Apple gets from the banks more than makes up for potential fraud in the US and they don't mind it.
Nope, Apple demands more than in-person counterfeit / stolen card fraud costs... even in the US.
The whole fraud thing is a red herring in some ways. The total amount of fraud doesn't lower with EMV and fingerprints and PINs. It simply moves to cardholder-not-present situations. For example, the cost of fraud in say, Australia, is actually now _six_ times what it was when chip & PIN got started. It just moved from in-person cards to online purchases.
Moreover, banks make money by charging to accept the authentication risk. If there's no risk, they stand to make less money. So they're not in a huge hurry anywhere to lock all the doors, which they could do with stricter identification requirements all around.
I am curious if that gets any other support for deployment and management behind-the-scenes, especially since there have been some small podunk banks and credit unions joining in with Apple Pay and I doubt their IT teams are doing all of that themselves.
You're right, smaller banks and credit unions contract with a service provider, because they can't do it on their own. That's an added cost.
You see, Apple's fee is just one part. Mastercard, for example, charges banks per transaction for detokenization, as well as an annual fee for just making a token.
This cost was a fear pointed out early on by small banks and credit unions: Apple Pay is tougher on them, as they often already have slimmer margins. But many feel like they have no choice when their customers threaten to leave.
I'm just asking if it's such a bad deal for Australia since it's basically redundant to what they already have, wouldn't other banks in mainland China, Hong Kong, Singapore, France, Switzerland, Great Britain, and/or Canada also be pitching a fit?
They did resist. The UK banks held out for a long time, complaining about not only Apple's high fee for doing nothing, but also because they felt that Apple's demand for purchase statistics was a privacy issue.
"It is understood the bank is uncomfortable with the amount of personal and financial information Apple wants to collect about its customers. Some executives fear Apple Pay and the data it delivers to Apple could serve as a beachhead for an invasion of the banking industry."
-
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/29/apple-banks-apple-pay-uk-2015/
The rest of the EU also had to hold out for lower rates, because Apple wanted 0.15% when the banks themselves were restricted to something like 0.22%. They'd have had to give Apple nearly everything.
The Canadians also held out for a long time, until Apple supposedly dropped their fee to about 0.04% plus an annual fee per card.
The American banks have said they now think that Apple needs them more than they need Apple (because iPhone users didn't pick up on Apple Pay anywhere near as much as expected), and their contract is up after three years. I foresee some intense negotiations there.
And now, Australia has learned from all the previous banks, and that's why they want to negotiate legally together. (At least they asked. If Apple was a bank, they'd have formed a cartel in secret, if history is any indicator.)
