What you’re not getting is that every credit card has to trump a cut of the fee to Apple for using NFC which is not a proprietary platform to Apple...and they don’t want it and as consumers “we” are paying for the Apple cut indirectly...and since Apple have exclusive access to NFC on an iPhone nothing can be done about it.
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.
Dutch Antitrust Probe Targets Contactless Payments Like Apple Pay
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s not how it works here in the Netherlands. Anywhere you can pay contactless using your bank card, you can pay using Apple Pay. The only requirement is that you have a card added to your wallet that is supported (so any Dutch bank will do).
The core reason why ACM is doing this is simply independence from Apple. Apple Pay is a late bloomer here. We had mobile payments on Android long before we had Apple Pay and the upside for the banks is: their own app and infrastructure. This means no fee.
I would still use Apple Pay over a bank specific app, even tho I used my bank’s app on Android, but I understand why this is happening and it makes total sense.
I don't understand this, it's Apple's hardware. Apple doesn't have to allow other apps to access it. They're not going to let other apps access the Secure Enclave, why would this be different. Candy Crush is complaining that they can't install their app in BMWs infotainment system.
Exactly its Apple's device, they shouldn't have to let others use their tech if they don't want to. Banks can create their own NFC devices, which many do, some Visa cards support NFC.
When you use Apple Pay what hardware is it accessing? It is accessing the bank's servers with your account information stored on it. Why should the bank let Apple access their hardware? Why can't Apple go out and create their own bank? The mental gymnastics people do on here to support Apple is mind boggling.
that’s such an American Statement and doesn’t fly everywhere else in the world especially Europe „but no one forced you to ... XY ... you can always XY“
makes me CRINGE. It’s like when people tell you to leave the country, just because you don’t agree with everything 100% blindly
Here's my take - if Apple were to allow third-party payment platforms on their hardware, there are a couple concerns.
• First, I don't know if it's possible to separate the NFC hardware from the Secure Element, which NOBODY should have access to, let alone direct competitors who are desperately trying to scrape your device for every little bit of information they can sell.
• Second, if the SE can be separated and other platforms could be permitted, why would the merchants ever agree to let me use Apple Pay? They get nothing, so I suspect all places that now enable it would quickly shut it off and force me to use something else. This part of it stinks, but I think would be inevitable, and is GROSSLY consumer un-friendly.
Walmart is not creating a payment app with NFC because Apple locks them out. Walmart created a payment app where you have to scan a barcode to pay. Of course it's not a good way to pay. Everyone made fun of it and said it sucks but that's not Walmart's fault. This is exactly what Apple wants. Anyone who tries to create a competing payment app will not be able to create one with a good experience like Apple Pay; thus all consumers will continue to use Apple Pay and Apple will continue to benefit from all the processing fees.
This would be equivalent to Apple suing Walmart for not allowing Apple Pay in store and Walmart being forced to turn on Apple Pay support because they currently support Walmart Pay.
I'm okay with everyone having access to the NFC chip (even for payments), but my biggest fear is that banks will then decide to not use Apple Pay at all. This will hurt the consumer with fragmentation, and I would prefer that not happen. I actually wouldn't use a bank that didn't support Apple Pay at this point. The banks need to pay the fee because their customers want it.
I'm okay with everyone having access to the NFC chip (even for payments), but my biggest fear is that banks will then decide to not use Apple Pay at all. This will hurt the consumer with fragmentation, and I would prefer that not happen. I actually wouldn't use a bank that didn't support Apple Pay at this point. The banks need to pay the fee because their customers want it.
Banks may “want” a lot of things. They may also build their own phone & ecosystem. It’s not like they wouldn’t have the financial resources for it. But it’s certainly easier & cheaper to piggyback off someone else’s business...
Well let's just regulate Apple to open up it's entire business model and turn it into a dumpster fire. Next up, let's investigate if only being able to load IOS on an iphone reduces freedom of choice.
If this is the case then Apple could build their phones and tie every hardware element into the Secure Enclave. They are already starting that trend. Look at the reports about when consumers have the cameras replaced they won't function because it is tied into the Secure Enclave. That leads me to believe it has nothing to do with security and like everything Apple does is about control. If everything is tied into the Secure Enclave then everything has to go through Apple and they get a cut on everything. Soon you won't even be able to have the battery in your phone replaced by anyone other than Apple because it will contain a chip tied to the Secure Enclave. Break your screen, well go to Apple and pay up because the digitizer has a chip in it tied to the Secure Enclave.
Americans think in terms of freedom and tradeoffs being made by person? Americans are CrAzY!
Haha why did Apple build Apple Pay to piggyback off of the banks? Why don't they create their own bank and then everyone can use Apple Pay and Apple bank. Everyone piggy backs off of everyone else. Apple is no different.
Because of competition, if a Bank doesn't allow Apple to access their hardware then, I the user will leave the back and go to another bank that does allow Apple. It's also a much more secure system than just a card, and the bank benefits from not having to pay out fraudulent charges. So my answer is that it benefits the bank to allow Apple access to their hardware, that's why the bank pays Apple to allow their card to be added to Apple Pay.
So Apple should provide them all the technologies for free so that especially banks, the ones that nickel & dime you for everything else, can nickel & dime you for one more thing? Apple Pay is free. Banks can stay away.
They can put NFC right in their credit card....which some have done. Apple is locked out. I bet I cannot use Apple Pay on their credit card. Walmart Pay produces some image you can scan and boom you pay. Lots of ways around this if they want it.
Why should the banks allow Apple Pay to access their servers so you can use their card in Apple Pay? The bank's servers and systems they use are technology they have invested in and developed. Everyone acts like Apple is some savior and banks are only in it for the money. Apple is the most capitalistic company in the history of the world. Only difference they are very savvy and spin everything in such a way that consumers think they are doing this for their own benefit. Apple does nothing unless it enriches Apple's bottom line.
The problem is that not all banks support apple pay because they take a cut. So many credit/debit cards won’t work with it, and you have no other way of using your phone to pay with them.
A credit card is a piece of plastic it is not a digital technology. What you are suggesting is that I send my Capital One credit card into Apple headquarters and they somehow cut a hole in my card and put an Apple Pay chip in it. Of course you can't add anything to a plastic credit card. Apple Pay on the other hand is a digital system that anyone can add to unless Apple locks it down digitally.
Err, but you're failing to mention that Apple Pay reduces fraud claims that banks have to process. Fraud was responsible for 5% of non-cash transactions couple of years ago. Apple pay takes about 0.15% of the transaction instead and makes it extremely unlikely a transaction was fraudulent. A thief would have to steal the physical device and know the passcode before the user remote wipes the device. So even if you ran your own app using NFC for payments, you'd still incur TSM fees (which Apple takes care of via Apple Pay) and take on the 5% fraud overhead.
The plausible reason is that if the responsibility was left up to the banks, either the UX would be bad (banks would probably ask the user to login occasionally before using the card to prevent fraud) or the fraud would still be high which banks have to eat the costs of doing, or both. Apple has always made money by solving a UX problem. This is no different.
Yes and I wish all banks wouldn't work with Apple unless Apple worked with them too. It should be if you want our card to work in Apple Pay we can also have access to the NFC chip and customers can choose to use either Apple Pay or the bank's system.
There is a slippery slope as NFC is protected via the secure section of apples chip. The fewer writhing access the better. How many major breaches have these companies had lately and how many has Apple had. To get what they want you’d have hundreds of banks then 3rd parties wanting access. The limitation is there for a reason.
Yes you are probably right. And if the UX was bad and the experience was bad no one would use it and everyone would switch back to Apple Pay. Still doesn't mean that there should be no competition. I'm sure you like the iPhone as do I. An argument could be made that since the iPhone is a better user experience then Samsung and Google and Sony and OnePlus etc phones should be banned because iPhones have a better user experience. And a better experience varies from person to person. A lot of people hate iPhones and think the user experience is bad so they exercise their consumer right to choose and use Android. We should be encouraging consumer choice not making arguments for Apple to lock everything down.