Australian Banks Seek Open Access to NFC Functions of Apple Pay in New Application

[69Mustang]

No. All information is anonymised and encrypted in the secure enclave.

You misinterpreted what you read. My question was about asking for access to the banks customers as in let us implement Apple Pay through your bank so we can get your customers to use it.

Clearly you don't.
Well documented to be open to attacks, hence the generation of a unique token not associated with your cards or accounts.

Point me to the information that says the banks would use the actual card information instead of tokenization just like Apple/Android/Samsung Pay. When you can't, please tell me why you think they would.

 

[thelippy]

Apple would rather never offer Apple Pay in Australia than compromise the security of the entire system globally. Australia is a small market by comparison. This will go absolutely nowhere for the banks involved and is a huge waste of time.

Except Apple Pay is already available in Australia through ANZ and American Express. The rollout should have been a lot more simple here as we already have widespread support paypass/paywave. The market isn't that small.

 

[rudigern]

Point me to the information that says the banks would use the actual card information instead of tokenization just like Apple/Android/Samsung Pay. When you can't, please tell me why you think they would.

Point me in the direction that says they have to. If it's open there is no requirement for the bank to do any kind of security. This is Apple's reasoning, the onus is on them and I've given two examples where banks have not used best password policies. This is how a bank will thing of it:

Price for App that has the same level of security as our current system: $50,000
Price for App that has a much higher level of security than our current system will have for the next 5 years: $200,000

And that wouldn't be a lie to the price difference, I've built Apps similar to this in large organisations (though the organisation processes can often add another few 0's to the price). As a CEO who reports to the board, which one do you think they'll pick?

 

[69Mustang]

I'm sure you don't have any idea how software development works. NFC is a communication device. It doesn't do anything with tokens or anything. The NFC in cards these days is a fixed token which can be hijacked and there are a lot of black hat / white hat presentations about how to exploit this. The banks will use this same method because it's a lot quicker to implement and can therefore be hijacked. They CAN implement their own temporary tokens, but if the NFC is open they don't HAVE to. My examples with the banks is to explain they don't have security at the top of their priorities and therefore unlikely to implement it in the same secure manner, hence lowering the security of the device.

Definitive and declarative. The above portion of your quote is definitive and declarative. Probably would have worked better had it been more speculative and interrogatory. "The banks will use..." - You don't know that. "...they don't have security at the top of their priorities..." - You don't know that either. "... hence lowering the security..." - Aaaaaand strike 3. Building a narrative around things you made up is cool if you're writing a fictional novel, but in this instance, not so much.

Take heart in the fact that you may know more about NFC than I do. That knowledge doesn't make your hypothetical any more plausible.

Apple can't (they can but it turns into a minefield of asterisks that layperson can't grasp) market it anymore because people will use their cards believing they are more secure because it's an iPhone however if the NFC is open the banks implementation is the weakest link. When their details are hijacked it will immediately be assumed that Apple pay has been hacked. Just the same as people thought iCloud had been hacked despite it coming to light it was due to weak passwords / social engineering (the fappening, and there are many other examples). Now Apple might open up NFC in a limited manner in the coming iOS releases which might mean that banks could engineer the same security with ease but I have no idea if this is Apple's intended path.

There's so much wrong here. Apple can continue to market Apple Pay just as they always have. No amount of hypothetical hacks can change that fact. The fact that you have no idea how the banks would implement NFC's use only exacerbates the fear mongering in your hypothetical. You freely admit that you have no idea what Apple's intended path is, so you may as well freely admit you have no idea what the bank's paths are either.

Don't personally attack someone who is trying to explain something as requested. I gave you the details and although you might disagree I can assure you I know what I'm talking about.

Me saying you didn't understand something is an assumption. Admittedly, I could be wrong. You taking it as a personal attack is a problem I can't help you with. If I said you were stupid, ugly, or an a-h0le then that would be a personal attack. Since I said none of those things... like I said, that's a you problem.

 

[iMi]

LOL. Only on MacRumors could you have the Apple hate so strong that folks would take the side of a tiny group of billionaire bankers over a denying a service that consumers get for free and are clamoring for, and mom and pop small business owners get to use for free, because the bankers want to make more money and have more of your information.

A service that the most the small banks and credit unions in Australia eagerly offer to their customers. A service that thousands of banks the world over have eagerly signed on to the make more money and offer for free to their customers. LOL. LOL. LOL. How do you sleep at night??????

Bankers have been the most vilified occupation the world over, next to journalists and politicians anyway, and they must be laughing their tushes off as they sit around sipping their cognac reading MacRumors to see that they have got some folks labelling them as "poor victims" of the big, bad Apple.

You clearly missed the point of the entire article.

You see Apple, a company that is cheating both American and European governments out of paying its fair share of taxes for example, as some holy entity that can do no wrong. They don't give a **** about you. You are a number on a spreadsheet to them. They are as faceless of a corporation as the banks you disparage. This is about challenging the status quo and enforcing existing antitrust laws. The banks made a fair point, whether you like it or not.

If you have an actual point to make about the merits of the issues presented here, please enlighten us with your comments.

 

[ErikGrim]

Point me to the information that says the banks would use the actual card information instead of tokenization just like Apple/Android/Samsung Pay. When you can't, please tell me why you think they would.

Where would they store the actual card information to create the token?

 

[rudigern]

Definitive and declarative. The above portion of your quote is definitive and declarative. Probably would have worked better had it been more speculative and interrogatory. "The banks will use..." - You don't know that. "...they don't have security at the top of their priorities..." - You don't know that either. "... hence lowering the security..." - Aaaaaand strike 3. Building a narrative around things you made up is cool if you're writing a fictional novel, but in this instance, not so much.

I've given you two cases, from banks in the consortium, that have password policies that are against industry standard around length, allowed characters and input methods (on screen keyboards are an accessibility nightmare). You claim that I write fiction, I have given proof that the banks involved have poor security practices, specifically with passwords, and your only retort is I made it up? I think you've dug a hole you can't get out of.

 

[69Mustang]

Where would they store the actual card information to create the token?

They could use cloud tokenization just like Android Pay. That way, if Apple doesn't want to let banks use the Secure Element the transaction still doesn't use the actual card number.
[doublepost=1487047115][/doublepost]

I've given you two cases, from banks in the consortium, that have password policies that are against industry standard around length, allowed characters and input methods (on screen keyboards are an accessibility nightmare). You claim that I write fiction, I have given proof that the banks involved have poor security practices, specifically with passwords, and your only retort is I made it up? I think you've dug a hole you can't get out of.

No, it's not a hole. You can't seem to come to the realization that the examples you've given have nothing to do with NFC. Even if the banks have poor security habits in one area, it's not ipso facto that they will have poor security in another. Especially since the hard work regarding NFC and tokenization has been done by other companies. They could easily latch on the work done by others. You notice how I state that they could, and not they will? Neither of us know what they are going to do, but at least I don't pretend that I do. And yes, you are making stuff up. You said banks will do this, they will do that, they're too cheap to do the other thing. These are things you made up. It's WAG (wild ass guessing) masquerading as some sort of fact. Just like you said Apple can't market Apple Pay in the same way they do now. That was just as emphatic and equally untrue. Being emphatic doesn't make it true.

 

[Sweetchilli]

Ridiculous from the majority of big banks in Australia, they seem to be not interested in what customers want (just what benefits them). Its about time Australians start voting with their feet, ING direct get apple pay this month, so with my ANZ credit card, and ING everyday banking I'm sorted. I won't be going back to westpac/stgeorge.

 

[Abazigal]

No quarter, Apple. Show no quarter.

 

[ErikGrim]

Ridiculous from the big 4 banks in Australia, they seem to be not interested in what customers want (just what benefits them). Its about time Australians start voting with their feet, ING direct get apple pay this month, so with my ANZ credit card, and ING everyday banking I'm sorted. and i won't be going back to the big 4.

ANZ is part of the big 4 but.

 

[Euge]

So you think Samsung should be able to make SamiMusic and limit the headphone jack to AppleMusic on a Galaxy Phone? Microsoft can limit the WiFi card to iTunes on the Surface Pro? Google can block the Bluetooth chip to all map services except GoogleMaps on the Pixel? Non of them as individuals hardware makers have a monopoly in phones or tablets.

No, I do not think any of these things nor implied as much. One of my pet peeves in forums like these is people who make arguments based on analogies. Analogies rarely convey the actual argument. If you read this paragraph you're not really saying anything here. What are you trying to explain?

And for the record, yes, all those companies can do those things if they wanted to. It would be unwise, though, as it would be bad user experience and bad for business, so why would they? On the other hand, keeping the Apple Pay experience under control would benefit the user and keep the experience consistent. Open it up to third parties and it could become confusing and more complicated.

You also give Apple rights because they created "both hardware and software" but Apple did not create NFC, the CP terminals or the entire banking system it operates on (and ApplePay would be useless without). Nobody ever blocked any other company (including Apple) from that network (Bank of America was building in 1997) or the NFC tech (SONY help create in 2002). But now you think Banks have no right to complain when Apple uses the tech and cuts them out?

Apple created the iPhone and iOS. Of course they didn't create NFC and many of the iPhones components. No modern electronics I know of contains components that are 100% from a single company. So by your logic, every electronic and computer device made in the modern era should be open to any competitor that wants to? I think not.

And as far as NFC goes, I am unaware of any requirement that the use of NFC on a product requires that the it be made available to everyone.

And just because Apply Pay uses "terminals or the entire banking system it operates on" means the entire banking industry has a say in Apple Pay? That's not logical. Apply pay uses existing NFC standards to create a banking experience within the banking infrastructure. That does not mean the bank or government dictate their implementation. If that were true, Apple would have had to get permission in every global banking market before coming up with Apple Pay.

"Nobody ever blocked any other company (including Apple) from that network" ... Apple isn't blocking those banks from the network. They have full access to the network through a variety of means: their own issued cards using various technologies such as swipe, chip, or NFC; Samsung Pay; Android Pay; MasterPass; their own apps that use QR codes; etc.

If you want to talk about companies blocking people from the banking network, what about CVS and Target? They are actively denying Apply Page usage in their stores. Some stores don't take American Express. Some places only take cash. The government isn't getting involved because there is no mandate to require them to take any of these payments.

And yes, The government can to an extent dictate rules to your business. Because in the end Apple (and any other company) are using the federal market space a country created and maintains. You also benefit from access to the federal services that protect you and that business.

Yes, the government can to extent dictate certain rules. But what SPECIFIC rules says that Apple has to open up Apple Pay to third parties?

 

[rudigern]

They could use cloud tokenization just like Android Pay. That way, if Apple doesn't want to let banks use the Secure Element the transaction still doesn't use the actual card number.
[doublepost=1487047115][/doublepost]
No, it's not a hole. You can't seem to come to the realization that the examples you've given have nothing to do with NFC. Even if the banks have poor security habits in one area, it's not ipso facto that they will have poor security in another. Especially since the hard work regarding NFC and tokenization has been done by other companies. They could easily latch on the work done by others. You notice how I state that they could, and not they will? Neither of us know what they are going to do, but at least I don't pretend that I do. And yes, you are making stuff up. You said banks will do this, they will do that, they're too cheap to do the other thing. These are things you made up. It's WAG (wild ass guessing) masquerading as some sort of fact. Just like you said Apple can't market Apple Pay in the same way they do now. That was just as emphatic and equally untrue. Being emphatic doesn't make it true.

Though I did say Apple can't market "Apple Pay" anymore and that was a bit of a stretch can you show me when I said "the banks will"? I said they become the weakest link in the security and there is no requirement on an open platform to have the same security as Apple Pay. I then gave examples of how user security (passwords) is poor. I can't see how you think the security of internet based communication with your bank isn't related to security of internet based communication of your credit card information.

And this is not wild ass guessing. I've been developing both web and iOS Apps for 10+ years. I guarantee you if NFC was open, the company I previously worked for would NOT implement the same security as Apple Pay.

 

[kdarling]

No. All information is anonymised and encrypted in the secure enclave.

The payment account tokens and keys are stored in the Secure Element. Not the Enclave.

I didn't know that banks couldn't access purchase information. Can someone please explain how they don't have access to purchase history of their own customers? As far as I knew it's some sort of NFC payment that you already can do in many countries via contactless debit and credit cards.

You are absolutely correct. Apple Pay is a brand name stuck on top of standard contactless card emulation. That's why it works anywhere that a contactless card works.

Therefore the amount of data the banks get remains exactly the same. Heck, that's no doubt a major reason why the first banks signed up... to help keep Apple from doing like Google Wallet and hiding the purchase details.

Anyone you see here who claims otherwise is demonstrating a lack of basic knowledge on this topic.

The argument that the banks paid for this infrastructure that allows NFC payments seems irrelevant to me. Apple has come along and effectively said to the banks, 'We can offer your customers a really secure way to use 'your' NFC payments system. A way that will save the banks money lost through fraud of stolen cards. You can pay us a small fee for this service. But you'll save so much more than you would have been forking out for fraud.'

Apple did not invent nor does it own in any way the standard protocols being used. EVMCo and its members did all that. Which is one reason why the banks see no reason to pay Apple, when with NFC access they can implement the EXACT SAME standard method.

These banks didn't build anything. They offer credit card systems that the major corporations like American express, Visa, etc., built. Apple, on the other hand, spent billions of dollars building a platform ...

The EVMCo members and the banks and the various service providers built the payment platform, not Apple. Apple used the standards those members came up with, and rides on the networks those members created, via (as Apple puts it) industry standard Secure Element chips.

For that, Apple is paid 15 cents on every $100 purchase, or for that cup of coffee at Starbucks, less than a half cent.

In many countries, bank fees are capped at around 20 cents per hundred dollars, so giving Apple most of their revenue for their doing nothing during a transaction, makes no sense.

Especially in places which have had chip cards for years and thus are already low on contactless fraud. For example contactless fraud in the UK was already down to 0.7 cents per hundred, or twenty times LESS than what Apple wanted. They certainly did not need Apple (or Google or Samsung) Pay in order to cut in-person fraud costs.

The current way Apple Pay works is the credit card is registered and a token is stored on the device. When you go to pay for something temporary credit card credentials are created and sent. This is a single use card that if stolen is useless. This is something that is marketed by Apple and is at the heart of it's benefit.

It's at the heart of Android and Samsung Pay as well. And banks could implement the same. If they chose something less, then that should actually be good for promoting Apple Pay instead.

-------
tl;dr - Apple didn't invent the Apple Pay methods, nor the payment networks, nor is any of the protocol exclusive to Apple in any way. It's no different than Apple implementing, say, the GSM standard. No one would be stupid enough to claim Apple invented the GSM protocol. Nor should anyone claim it about contactless Apple Pay protocols.

The real question at hand is something totally different: can a company be forced to open access to some of its hardware in order to allow competition? I think the answer would normally be no. Which is too bad, since there are so many cool things that can be done with a regular NFC Forum compliant system.

 

[rudigern]

tl;dr - Apple didn't invent the Apple Pay methods, nor the payment networks, nor is any of the protocol exclusive to Apple in any way. It's no different than Apple implementing, say, the GSM standard. No one would stupid enough to claim Apple invented the GSM protocol. Nor should anyone claim it about contactless Apple Pay protocols.

Absolutely agree. I would argue however that Apple, and it's associated products, are marketed in an eco system that makes it easy for a user to trust the product and ignore how it technically works. Opening up the NFC function in a truely open manner (allowing an API for limited access isn't open) dilutes that trust or eco system. This would be a major problem if they were the only manufacturer who had this technology, but they don't, people are free to have an open platform and they take on the responsibility of security, or a closed one and pass some of that responsibility onto Apple.

 

[Sweetchilli]

ANZ is part of the big 4 but.

fair play... edited.

 

[gjlamb]

I get what theyre trying to do but theyre totally ignoring their customers in the process. I looked on Westpac Twitter page and every 2nd or 3rd tweet was a customer wanting Apple Pay!! I'm sure all the other banks are the same (I know Bankwest site is the same). Just give us Apple Pay to use and fight Apple in the meantime. Realistically, I don't want to open my phone, wait for the bank app to open then go to the section to pay for something then tap the terminal. I just want to double tap my home button, select a card and tap....easy peasy . Simples

 

[SurferPup]

A group of Australia's biggest banks have again applied to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in a bid to negotiate with Apple over Apple Pay. The banks -- including Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, and Westpac -- today announced that they have "narrowed" their application with the ACCC to focus on gaining open access to the NFC function integral to Apple Pay.

The new application echoes the banks' original, filed last July, which also included gaining access to the NFC-based mobile payments software in iPhones. Apple currently only allows its own mobile payment system to access the NFC-hardware in its iPhone devices, which banks argue is an anti-competitive restriction that hampers consumer choice. The banks say that while Apple has a "stranglehold" on this technology, no actual competition can take place in the mobile wallet marketplace.
Previously, the coalition of banks also sought to challenge Apple on Apple Pay due to the service's fees. In the new application, the banks decided to eliminate arguments over fees and any other items "the ACCC considered may lead to a public detriment." Prior to the new application, the ACCC had denied the banks' request to negotiate over Apple pay two times last year.
According to the banks, full access to NFC on iPhone devices "would enable the delivery of substantial public benefits to Australian consumers," across a variety of categories other than mobile payments, including loyalty programs, member security, and other NFC-related cases. Because of these benefits, the banks said they they "have again been supported by nearly all of Australia's leading retailers."

Last week, Apple responded to the Australian banks' continued obstruction of Apple Pay by saying it was damaging to consumers and small business alike, ultimately referring to their request for access to NFC as a potentially hazardous "Trojan horse" scenario. In today's applications, the banks referred to Apple's comments as a "conspiracy theory" and dismissed it as "fantasy."
According to Blockley, who spoke on behalf of the banks, the NFC-targeted application is not an attempt to delay Apple Pay's wider support in Australia as it would be offered alongside other mobile wallets -- similar to how Android supports open access to the NFC function. "Any delay or frustration will be as a result of Apple refusing to negotiate," Blockley said.

Article Link: Australian Banks Seek Open Access to NFC Functions of Apple Pay in New Application

[doublepost=1487060755][/doublepost]A simple solution is to change banks where credit cards are held. American Express offers an annual fee free and interest free period on at least one of their cards and ANZ is the other bank which offers Apple Pay.

 

[dilbert99]

Why do they think they deserve anything at all? You can just complain to the government and demand that a company who has developed a hardware business entirely on its own has to let you use certain features of it.

Apple should say "ok, fine, but you have to turn every 3rd bank branch into an Apple store and your tellers will work for us for free."

Out of curiosity, what part of the system does Apple provide beyond the tech in the iPhone?
[doublepost=1487065539][/doublepost]

Apple would rather never offer Apple Pay in Australia than compromise the security of the entire system globally. Australia is a small market by comparison. This will go absolutely nowhere for the banks involved and is a huge waste of time.

Are you saying the banks can do secure systems? Do you currently trust a bank with your payments?
PS what is the entire system you refer to? The phone is not an entire system.
[doublepost=1487065769][/doublepost]

Ridiculous from the majority of big banks in Australia, they seem to be not interested in what customers want (just what benefits them). Its about time Australians start voting with their feet, ING direct get apple pay this month, so with my ANZ credit card, and ING everyday banking I'm sorted. I won't be going back to westpac/stgeorge.

You could always go google...http://www.news.com.au/technology/g...g/news-story/b717e8bc8cd651998920c34ffc1b926d

 

[69Mustang]

Though I did say Apple can't market "Apple Pay" anymore and that was a bit of a stretch can you show me when I said "the banks will"?

That won't be problem. As I said, you were pretty definitive about what the banks will do. There was no ambiguity in any of the statements below. That's why when you said I dug a hole I giggled. You painted yourself into a corner with declarations of what the banks are going to do.

The NFC in cards these days is a fixed token which can be hijacked and there are a lot of black hat / white hat presentations about how to exploit this. The banks will use this same method because it's a lot quicker to implement and can therefore be hijacked.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier for the banks to piggyback on the same method Android Pay uses?

When their details are hijacked it will immediately be assumed that Apple pay has been hacked.

When their details are hijacked? Kinda sounds like a you've come to a forgone conclusion doesn't it?

This is how a bank will thing of it:

Price for App that has the same level of security as our current system: $50,000
Price for App that has a much higher level of security than our current system will have for the next 5 years: $200,000

They're making a pretty big fuss about wanting NFC access. Couldn't they realize that doing it wrong would crash and burn?

 

[alphaod]

EDIT: I assume you all ain't from Australia, so don't take apples side so quickly.

From what my Aussie friends tell me, everything is overpriced.

 

[rickyipcw]

I can't see the security risk of opening NFC hardward access to third-parties.
This is how Apple Pay works:
It provides a secure platform for card issuers (banks) to store and utilize tokenized card information on a phone. Sensitive information is stored on the so called Secure Element, which is seperated from iOS. When a transaction is about to be made, the token is then transmitted through NFC to the merchant for further processing.

Unless Apple can explain how allowing the use of NFC antenna may lead to unauthurized access to the Secure Element, the Australian banks have a point here. NFC technology is only a means to wirelessly transmit data. Without it, third-parties cannot develope their own payment apps, resulting in the monopoly of Apple Pay on iOS.

I would like to quote some sentenses from https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/how-mobile-payments-really-work/

• So using this method, Apple not only uses a token as a proxy for a real credit card number that is device-specific and ideally should not be able to be replicated across another device, but it also offloads responsibility for the security of the token and the cryptogram to the card issuer.
• All in all, it seems like a good deal for Apple. The company is not carrying a lot of sensitive information on its servers, and, at the same time, it reportedly receives a cut of the Interchange Fees that banks make on each purchase.
  
• As MasterCard's Sherri Haymond described, "What Apple's role is here is they're the technology platform provider, they're interacting with the consumer, but they're not in the middle of the payment flow at all. All they're doing is facilitating their assets to be transferred."

In short, Apple charges banks to make their issued cards compatible with Apple Pay method, while being "not in the middle of the payment flow at all". Since the major Australian banks already developed their own wireless payment methods, why would they pay Apple for a similar thing? If only Apple opened the NFC hardware, the major banks might provide similar user experience without Apple Pay. From their perspective, Apple is trying to block competition by making NFC exclusive to Apple Pay only.

 

[macduke]

All such chip systems have a dedicated line. You see, Apple did not invent any of the NFC Controller/Secure Element concept. The system and chips were already thought out long before Apple started using NFC. (How else do you think contactless payments worked all this time?)

You are right that the whole point of the Secure Element is that it is the only thing allowed to talk over NFC to the payment terminal. This prevents user programs from intercepting and spoofing comms. Also, allowing other NFC applets would not compromise Apple Pay.

-- NFC applets are registered by id:

When you hold a card up to a store terminal, the terminal sends what NFC Application IDs (AIDs) it can support. E.g. MC, Visa, Oyster, etc. The NFC Controller in your device picks out which Secure Element applet is registered for that AID, and shunts further comms to that particular applet in the Secure Element.

The Secure Element can send events (such as "payment complete") to the user application associated with that particular Secure applet, to alert the user.

In other words, an Oyster card id from a terminal would cause the Oyster app to pop up. A Mastercard app id causes the Mastercard (or often, a combination Wallet app such as Apple Pay or Android Pay) to start. Ditto for other bank cards, loyalty cards, travel cards, door swipe cards, you name it.

Each NFC applet only sees comms meant for it. And user apps only see rather bland events meant for them.

-- User's choice for applet to UI binding:

The most important part is that normally the device owner gets to pick what user app launches for each NFC app id. Obviously most of the time there's only one user app (say, for Oyster) so it doesn't matter. BUT for credit cards... where the payment applets are always static for a particular type (MC/Visa/etc)... the choice is really about which WALLET app to open to talk to that particular applet.

In other words, there's no reason why an Australian bank could not have its own branded wallet UI register and use the same MC/VISA/AMEX/etc payment applets that the Apple Pay UI talks to. And of course, they could use TouchId or Iris Scan or a passcode just like other iOS apps for user validation.

Thanks for explaining this. Would using Apple Pay be more secure than using NFC + "Australian Bank" app, because that app doesn't have anything information secured in the secure element? I understand now that it wouldn't cause security issues with the secure element itself or affect Apple Pay, but for the user in general, isn't an app authenticating things less secure than using Apple's method?
[doublepost=1487094126][/doublepost]

Are you saying the banks can do secure systems? Do you currently trust a bank with your payments?
PS what is the entire system you refer to? The phone is not an entire system.

I was referring to that PDF I linked to earlier that was a technical doc from Apple explaining the hardware connections tying the NFC directly to the secure enclave. However, I've been educated by another user on how it works and have changed my mind. It is possible to win arguments on the internet, at least with me, because I listen to logic and reason once I'm educated about something, haha.

 

[sir1963nz]

So the banks should be charged money every time someone uses Apple Pay when the banks built the infrastructure themselves? how is that fair, also we already have a NFC payments system with out cards anyway so it's not like the banks have no NFC cards already.

EDIT: I assume you all ain't from Australia, so don't take apples side so quickly.

Well when the official cash rate is at record lows and credit cards still charge up to 25% interest, I think the banks are doing just fine (My CC is at 5% which proves the banks can charge lower rates).

The important part is the "loyalty program", what they actually want is as much data as they can grab for tracking purposes, selling to advertisers, etc etc etc.

 

[aidler]

Let's pray that the banks never get access to the NFC functionality. If they do there will be no more pressure for them to use Apple Pay. Instead they will try to force their own payment systems on their customers that are often less convenient and less secure and they are also eager to get all the personal informations they can get to make money from advertisement.