We know, that's always how it is. Nobody is saying Apple invented the LED display and such. It doesn't diminish the importance of what they do, hence the valuation.
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
Oh, well I do fault them for it because they created the loopholes through lobbying. That's what I mean. They aren't just taking the rules the EU (or the US) gave them.
You can't use Apple Pay on Android. Why single out Apple and not Google? I can't use iTunes on Android either.
And there seems to be a misconception on here about security regarding the NFC chip. Everyone is saying but MUH SECURITY if Apple opens up NFC. Apple would not open up access to the NFC chip, they would allow access to an API that interfaces with the NFC chip. It's the same thing with Touch ID/Face ID. Apple has provided an API for third parties to access those but they never have direct access to the Face ID/Touch ID chips. Do you really think Apple would allow a third party direct access to the FaceID or TouchID chip in the phone? Never! They could easily allow an API to interface with the NFC chip and allow third parties to use NFC in their payment apps. This is not or ever has been about security. This is about control and Apple controlling the percentage paid off of every card transaction.
Look at Apple's wars with Qualcomm. The iPhone is nothing without the chip inside that accesses the 4G/5G networks. Apple needs that chip to makes their phones viable but wants to pay as little as possible for it. Qualcomm obviously wants to charge top dollar for their chip just like Apple loves charging top dollar for all their devices. And that little chip inside is the most important part of a phone. Apple built their own CPU pretty easily and quickly, but they have had no success in building a 4G/5G telecom chip. Even Intel couldn't do it. Apple only has a platform to build and own because they used technology other companies invested heavily in. That is lost on Apple devotees. All I see is people saying Apple invested in and built an ecosystem. Yea, but where would that ecosystem be without all the infrastructure other companies invested heavily in to develop? Which brings us back around to Apple Pay. Apple Pay is just a front end for the financial system. Where would Apple Pay be without the banking system which they have had no hand in investing in or developing. Apple Pay is another Apple owned system that only exists because someone before invested in and developed a system which Apple Pay needs to access.
Last edited:
It goes both ways. Without Apple and other users of these Qualcomm chips, Qualcomm wouldn't exist, and neither would the chips.
The chips existed long before Apple. Decades before. They were used by flip phones and the old cell phones that were big as a brick. Qualcomm was doing very well all this time.
If the choice is US banks and Apple, I may agree. But if the choice is between Dutch banks and Apple, I’ll side with Dutch banks.
In the Netherlands we had free electronic peer to peer payments across all Dutch banks since the 80s, no ATM fees even when using an ATM from another bank, and very low cost for electronic payments for retailers. Also no overdraft fees. My bank even gave me a cell phone for free in the 90s to promote mobile payments.
In addition to that, public transit now uses an electronic payment system that is not tied a single smart phone platform. There has been more innovation from banks and government then from Apple Pay.
I do not understand the problem here. Apple wallet was a reason for me, to get an iPhone. That and the fact that there was no phone on the market that had the power and the size of the 12 mini. Great device. My old Android device (Samsung Note, a more expensive device at the time) had nfc but my bank was not accepting the OS for its app, to old. I could put all my cards in to the wallet, even store cards. Most stores here do not accept Apple pay. At least they do not display the sign. Its simply paying like you have the card but it is virtual in the phone.
My bank was all for it, they have a big thing on there main page to register all cards with your phone, they even give you a virtual card FREE (the physical card costs me 10 Euros/year) so how can you complain about that?
There is no charge while paying, no charge from the bank, no charge when its booked of from the bank. The system works.
What exactly is the problem of the eurocrats?
if it is so damaging to the banks, why do they do it? Apple got less then 15% market share here? (Spain) I can actually go the the Apple store two blocks down and get an iPhone on launch day, no lines, no problems. But still, EVERY bank wants to support it. Why?
Looks to me they looking for the solution for a problem that does not exist. Probably just try to get some payments of a big corporation instead to simply reform there tax laws.
I do NOT want a more complicated and less transparent system because someone says so. I CHOSE the Apple platform because it is simple. And secure.
My bank was all for it, they have a big thing on there main page to register all cards with your phone, they even give you a virtual card FREE (the physical card costs me 10 Euros/year) so how can you complain about that?
There is no charge while paying, no charge from the bank, no charge when its booked of from the bank. The system works.
What exactly is the problem of the eurocrats?
if it is so damaging to the banks, why do they do it? Apple got less then 15% market share here? (Spain) I can actually go the the Apple store two blocks down and get an iPhone on launch day, no lines, no problems. But still, EVERY bank wants to support it. Why?
Looks to me they looking for the solution for a problem that does not exist. Probably just try to get some payments of a big corporation instead to simply reform there tax laws.
I do NOT want a more complicated and less transparent system because someone says so. I CHOSE the Apple platform because it is simple. And secure.
Oh mercy. Apple Card is just a card. It is not a bank. Apple uses Goldman Sachs bank and MasterCard as the payment processor. Apple Card would not exist without Goldman Sachs and MasterCard. Apple Card is just a Goldman Sachs card with Apple branding and their app.
This has already been stated. No one is saying to take away Apple Pay. If Apple were to open up and allow access to an NFC API, that is in no way saying Apple Pay would go away. There would just be more choices. I'm pretty sure Apple Maps didn't go away even though Google Maps is on the iPhone. iMessage is still here and thriving although there are a multitude of competing messaging apps on the App Store. If you love Apple Pay you are entitled to continue to use it and no one would take that right away from you. But what you are saying is "hey I love Apple Pay so I don't want any competing apps on there because since I love Apple Pay so much everyone else ought to love it too and therefore we have no need for any competition".
Decades before, the market was small, and the chips weren't as we know them today. Apple was actually using Motorola chips, not modems but CPUs. Both parties are happy with the outcome. Qualcomm is now worth $178.22B, and Apple is worth $2.08T. Of course, the US dollar isn't a constant measurement of value, but they both outpaced the economy.
So I'm not sure what you think about Qualcomm's value. There are AAPL shareholders on these forums. They hold AAPL stock because they think it's undervalued. I'm not one of them, but certainly I agree Apple is worth a lot more than Qualcomm. And Apple has made it clear that they don't need Qualcomm to survive, having moved to competitors.
Last edited:
You are not the only market participant that needs protection. Banks (and other businesses) need it too. There are also millions of iPhone owners who may prefer other payment systems on their devices: cheaper, with more features. You'll be able to keep using Apple Pay (and pay higher fees). We already know that AAPL shareholders who happen to own iPhones are never interested in anything that may reduce Apple profits but should we really care about their opinions?
Yes of course all that is true. Apple definitely added to Qualcomm's value. But the point is there would still be a Qualcomm without Apple probably a less valuable Qualcomm but a still viable company nonetheless. Whether there would be an Apple without the iPhone or Qualcomm chips is another story. Maybe Apple would still be around as a boutique computer company, but the iPhone is what shot them into being the most valuable company in history. The iPhone and trajectory would not exist without Qualcomm/Motorola. Apple owes everything it has to other technologies it piggybacked off of. It needed to use other companies technology to get to where it is, but Apple opening it's technologies to other companies is like taboo and fanatics want to see Apple closing off more and more little by little.
If a bank would do that, then the same anti trust organization would investigate the banks. That is what anti trust authorities are supposed to.
The Dutch and European anti trust authorities are far more focused on improving consumer choice than the FTC and they definitely take on the banks as well.
Makes no sense. If I am a bank and I have a way of getting millions of customers FOR FREE who create enormous business for me, why would I invest large amounts of money in developing my own app as a competition? A competition that would have to be BETTER then the solution already in place? Where do I find the people, the time, the competence to create such an app? An app that has no market? What if I mess it up and customers have losses? Who do I blame? Would the clients blame me? All that for what?
I would have to take Apple pay away (not supporting it) so that my clients HAVE to use my in-house solution. Nad move. Thats how you loose customers.
We are talking about money here. Not a messenger app. Of course other messengers are in the store, because they are BETTER then facetime or iMessage as those services are bound to apple devices. Wallet is not. It works anywhere in the world on any terminal. Google Maps has advantages over Maps. Maps looks better but Google Maps allows user input and many users come from Android and will have Google accounts.
I could not care less if Apple “opens” nfc as long as it is not compromising security, I would not notice as I would not even think about changing the app for payment. Why would anybody? Just get a pingpong bat size Android phone and use whatever app you like?
Since when did Apple start delivering customers to banks? Stop this nonsense. The fact is that iPhone owners have limited NFC payment options. On Android one can use Googgle Pay, Samsung Pay, PayPal, Venmo. Android users will also be able to use Apple Pay once Apple releases it on Android.
So on the other side of that coin: If I am a big bank why should I open up my infrastructure to allow Apple to access it and have all my customers use their app so I lose money? Do you think Apple would ever open up its infrastructure or systems if it would lose them even one penny? Never!!!! Apple Pay/Apple wallet only works because they are allowed to access banking institutions infrastructure. This is just another example of Apple being allowed access to other companies technologies but refusing any access to their own. Apple didn't invent the NFC chip but they lock it down like they did. They are using another companies invention the NFC chip to access another companies banking system and making money off of it.
What fees? What other features do you mean (holding you phone on the reader, press the button and keep going) how much cheaper then free would those Millions of iPhone users get?
Tell me one important part of the iPhone that Apple invented? They didn't invent the NFC chip, the wifi chip, the modem, or the CPU. They didn't invent the battery or the LED display. They didn't invent camera lenses or speakers. They took a lot of other companies inventions and wrapped them in a sexy package and it has made them trillions. Good for them. But this arrogant attitude of "we should be able to access any companies technologies and infrastructure we want but we refuse to allow any access to our own" is crazy.
Fees are paid by the bank and in turn they will charge you more for their services. One may prefer to use PayPal. PayPal now let you buy bitcoins. Does Apple Pay?
IE was always and is still free to use. Why did Microsoft take a beating from antitrust lawsuits if it only involved a free app with no fee to the consumer. Just because something is free doesn't give a company green light to exclude all competition.