EU Approves Landmark Legislation to Regulate Apple and Other Big Tech Firms

[Sophisticatednut]

1. So when you double-click and have chosen to use Bank A's app, every time you double-click Bank A's app launches to the payment page ready to pay by NFC. That sounds good, but when you want to use Bank B instead to pay, you can't double-click because it launches the wrong app. Apple Pay lets you choose from a wallet of cards. Defaulting to a particular app only gives you one option (unless you can install a "Samsung Pay" app that has the same functionality as Apple Pay, and then, why bother?).

that's the beauty, you pick and choose. curently you can choose the standard Mail app, same thing here, i don't understand why you make it more complicated than it is
Use Apple Pay as the standard function or SamsungPay as the standard function or Revolut perhaps?

2. I was giving you the options. Either the bank's app invokes some smaller version of Apple Pay just for your bank card, or they pay directly. But they aren't paying directly anyway because your cards are all issued by a particular payment processor: Mastercard, VISA, Amex etc.

Multiple banks in EU do payment without Visa or MasterCard. And theoretically banks could make a new payment system without MasterCard or Visa, but Apple locking the NFC chip makes it not worth the investment currently as it would just be clunky by using QR codes or Phone numbers as a medium.

Swish (payment) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3. Apple Pay isn't a third-party app in the way you describe it. It's a built-in means of paying for things, and do you really think it would be in use if it weren't safe and secure? Would banks allow their customers' card details to be stored on their phone if they hadn't themselves approved the security? It passes a token to the merchant, not your actual card details. Do bank apps pass a token, or your actual card details when you pay via NFC? Your point about being able to do other things in your banking app is moot. Apple Pay isn't a banking app, it's a way of paying for things. Using Apple Pay does not negate your need to use the bank's app to look at transactions, cancel direct debits etc.

we currently do both

it uses tokens to login to your bank or payment systems.

BankID - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

4. What innovation would there be when NFC is open to all? Would it change the way you pay for things on your phone? What do you need NFC for within your banking app? What would it allow you to do?

who knows, a difrent payment system not using cards but a kind of eID instead as shown above

Items in stores won't become cheaper based on who you choose to pay with, so the fees are neither here nor there. In giving you a Mastercard a bank is already agreeing that Mastercard will take a small percentage of the transaction.

Also, no one seems to be telling Mastercard, Visa and Amex to open up their payment systems to all and sundry. Why not? Why can't I go into a store that doesn't accept Amex and buy stuff with my Amex card via their Mastercard link? Because the technologies are separate and have been developed through the investment of those companies' money over many years. Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to have their own payment processor?

well, EU have told Mastercard and VISA that their payment terminals must be open to the competition and capped their fees. so it's already done.

visa and MasterCard is universal by force. And the reason why apple won't be allowed to have their own payment processor is because consumers lose 100% on it. It's better, it can be used everywhere.

 

[darkpaw]

that's the beauty, you pick and choose. curently you can choose the standard Mail app, same thing here, i don't understand why you make it more complicated than it is

I'm not the one making it complicated. The very idea of making the double-click open Bank A's app means it's more complicated to get Bank B's card to show up. As I said, Apple Pay covers this as it's a repository for the cards you choose to put in there.

I have an Amex credit card, two Mastercard credit cards (two different banks), and two Mastercard debit cards (two different banks). If I default to the Amex card, I would have to unlock my phone, locate one of four other apps, get to the payment feature, authenticate and then I get to pay.

One of my cards gets me Avios. One gets me a 5% discount at certain shops. One gives me cashback. Another gives me zero foreign transaction fees. Apple Wallet stores all five and I double-click once then pick the card to use based on what I need to do. You simply cannot do that if you default to one bank's app.

Use Apple Pay as the standard function or SamsungPay as the standard function or Revolut perhaps?

Using Samsung Pay is the same as using Apple Pay, isn't it? It's a collection of your bank cards. Would you rather Apple get a tiny cut of a transaction fee, or Samsung? You can also use a Curve card that lets you move transactions to whoever cards you want. But you don't need to use Curve's app to do that - you just add the Curve card to Apple Pay.

Multiple banks in EU do payment without Visa or MasterCard. And theoretically banks could make a new payment system without MasterCard or Visa, but Apple locking the NFC chip makes it not worth the investment currently as it would just be clunky by using QR codes or Phone numbers as a medium.

How does it work where a bank bypasses Mastercard and Visa? Are you paying directly from your bank account? How does that work if you want to pay on a credit card? How is that more secure than Apple Pay?

So, let's open up the NFC chip and let some banks get together and create another payment processing system. Do retailers have to buy new terminals to use it? At what point does that new PPS become the target of EU legislation, like Mastercard and Visa have?

it uses tokens to login to your bank or payment systems.

This is not an answer to my third point.

who knows, a difrent payment system not using cards but a kind of eID instead as shown above

You already have that; they're called bank accounts. You can transfer money to an IBAN or SWIFT number (but they charge), but again, how are they more secure than what Apple Pay does?

well, EU have told Mastercard and VISA that their payment terminals must be open to the competition and capped their fees. so it's already done.

I have never - ever - been sat in a restaurant waiting to pay, and the waiter has had to go back to get the Mastercard terminal because he'd brought me the Visa terminal. AFAIK they've always been interchangeable.

visa and MasterCard is universal by force. And the reason why apple won't be allowed to have their own payment processor is because consumers lose 100% on it. It's better, it can be used everywhere.

How do consumers lose 100% if Apple Pay exists? Prices didn't go up when Apple Pay came out because the banks decided that they would give Apple a small percentage of the transaction total, just like they already gave a small percentage to Mastercard and Visa.

 

[AppliedMicro]

To this point, not true. Example: Affinity Photo or CleanMyMac are two popular apps available both in Apple's App Store and their respective stores.

It's true on iOS and iPadOS.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You don't care anything about how it got to where it is

Correct. I care about the status quo and its consequences.

Only focusing on the negative (if that) 30%-15% to any %

No - I'm also focusing about consumer choice and innovation.
Apple denying certain apps and functionality impedes innovation.

Because according to folks such as yourself. Apple doesn't deserve anything. Except what they earn from the devices. That's all they need

No. They deserve the price of their handsets. They also deserve commission from their App Store sales.
They shouldn't have free rein on the distribution of apps for their platform - when it's one of only and half of the market for mobile apps (give or take a few percentage points).

Thanks now F off

😘

When 95% of Android users download from the play store even though they have the option to side load. Tells you everything you need to know. Most people given these extra options, will choose to keep it simple which is what they had in the first place

...and mobile app developers are on the Google Play Store. Including Microsoft and Adobe.

👉 So if the current model is so great that consumer will uphold it - what's the problem with this regulation?

But with more security holes for the trouble.

There's no more security holes with allowing sideloading, given how it's available and spread today.
Apple are just withholding from the honest developers.

 

[djphat2000]

1. In Android, you can choose your default app at the time of opening an App and you have an option not to choose a default app so that the same choices pop up every time you use an app. It will probably be emulated in some form once NFC opens up. So, the problem of double click will be there even for Apple pay unless you set it as default, if NFC access is allowed for any app.
2. Why would banks allow access to your account through Apple pay, when it is better for them to operate directly? Apple is not doing it out of concern for users, it is either getting a cut or traction with users because of it. Banks would rather operate directly. Any commission they pay to Apple automatically becomes zero, which should benefit users.
3. Banks are heavily controlled in most countries and subject to many regulations such as SOX, NIST, PCI DSS, BSA, GLBA, FINRA, PSD2, Bill C-11, OSFI self-assessment and several others. So, they are as good as or better than Apple at security so no additional issues. In fact, If I am a customer of, say Citi Bank, I would rather be comfortable using official Citibank app than some third-party app like Apple Pay. And the official app probably lets me do far more than Apple Pay, such as other banking transactions.
4. Once NFC access is given to all, the onus is on the banks to differentiate themselves, which could lead to better products. Apple Pay being the only one available, it is my way or highway with Apple. That is going to change.

So you would be happy with an app for each? Or would it not make sense to use a wallet that has all your cards in it?
As the moment NFC is open to all on the iPhone, every bank card will want their own app, and most likely they will not want to be in the Apple wallet (at the same time). So for those of us that like the wallet and everything in it. Will lose that feature to manage each card independently in each of their apps. I personally have about 6 CC's and 8 coupon member cards. If you have a few say under 3, then this maybe a non-issue. For me it's an issue.

 

[djphat2000]

Correct. I care about the status quo and its consequences.

Our viewpoints are different.

No - I'm also focusing about consumer choice and innovation.

Customers have a choice, sorry the other options failed. And we do get plenty of innovation.

Apple denying certain apps and functionality impedes innovation.

Denying is there right. If any physical store only wanted to sell only products they made. Would that be illegal?
If Apple decided tomorrow they will only sell apps in the App Store that they make. Would that be illegal? Are they required to be open to developers? Do they get to pick which and what applications?

If Apple did do something like that, many would call them stupid for doing so. They would lose customers overtime if they could not find all the apps they wanted to use. I'm willing to bet some folks would still stick around, but it would be a bad move. No different than the current situation with apps that are not on the App Store. Someone will decide they don't want the iPhone because the app they wanted isn't available to them. If it happened in mass, and many people left the platform. That would be expected and is how it should work. The market works. We don't need any regulations when you have a bigger competitor (Android/Google) that already provides the means these rules want to implement AND is available on more devices. Which only about 5% of those people even care enough to use those features. Why do this? It's proven, we don't need to Swiss cheese iOS for this.

No. They deserve the price of their handsets. They also deserve commission from their App Store sales.
They shouldn't have free rein on the distribution of apps for their platform

You lose me when you say "their" platform. It will happen every time.

- when it's one of only and half of the market for mobile apps (give or take a few percentage points).

30%

...and mobile app developers are on the Google Play Store. Including Microsoft and Adobe.

Proving the point of why waste out time doing this.

👉 So if the current model is so great that consumer will uphold it - what's the problem with this regulation?

Swiss cheese iOS/iPadOS and devices. Reducing your attack surface is the easiest and best way to protect your security. It's just physics. You're less secure when there are more means in which to attack.

There's no more security holes with allowing sideloading, given how it's available and spread today.
Apple are just withholding from the honest developers.

And when the honest developer gets their cert stolen and applied to a fake app. Who you gonna call? Heck, would you even know? At least for now. I know where the app came from. And if it is a fake app, I know who to call for help. You know what Apple will say if the situation is what you want it to be? Contact the developer. Ok, I contact the developer. They will say, "that's not my app, you should take precaution and maybe remove it". Me: OK so how do I verify it's gone and that it didn't hack my phone and put all my data on the dark web for the world to see my butt?!?! Developer: I don't know dude, I just work here.

Thanks!

 

[AppliedMicro]

If any physical store only wanted to sell only products they made. Would that be illegal?

No, why would it?

If Apple decided tomorrow they will only sell apps in the App Store that they make. Would that be illegal?

No problem. They wouldn't be considered a gatekeeper anymore (at least with regards to installation of apps).
Also, no one wouldn't buy their phones anymore.

30%

50% and more of mobile app revenue.

You know what Apple will say if the situation is what you want it to be? Contact the developer

Same as today.

Ok, I contact the developer. They will say, "that's not my app, you should take precaution and maybe remove it"

They won't or shouldn't. Since Apple would revoke their certificate and all their apps wouldn't be usable anymore.

Me: OK so how do I verify it's gone and that it didn't hack my phone and put all my data on the dark web for the world to see my butt?!?!

This can only be reliably secured against with sandboxing and permissions. Not by certificates.

And when the honest developer gets their cert stolen and applied to a fake app

No need to, when they can get their own developer certificate from Apple. Anyone can get a developer certificate today - and many have sneaked fake apps past Apple's review process.

👉 Security by limitation of distribution has been proven not to work countless times.

 

[AppliedMicro]

You're less secure when there are more means in which to attack

So are you when there's no ways of detecting malware and viruses.
Because "Apple doesn’t allow any proper antivirus apps into the App Store".

Even though Apple now has a folder-based file system on iOS/iPadOS that allows for downloads from the internet and you can easily transfer them to others by Mail, AirDrop, Dropbox etc., ...you can't check the files for malware. Because Apple doesn't allow such software in their store.

Again, Apple's policies seem more concerned about maintain an illusion of security rather than actual security.
Ignorance is bliss, they say.

 

[Beautyspin]

So you would be happy with an app for each? Or would it not make sense to use a wallet that has all your cards in it?
As the moment NFC is open to all on the iPhone, every bank card will want their own app, and most likely they will not want to be in the Apple wallet (at the same time). So for those of us that like the wallet and everything in it. Will lose that feature to manage each card independently in each of their apps. I personally have about 6 CC's and 8 coupon member cards. If you have a few say under 3, then this maybe a non-issue. For me it's an issue.

That is your choice and you can stay with Apple Pay. That need not be everybody's choice. Currently, Apple pay is not available in many countries. So, they should pay for the NFC feature but wait until Apple deems their country suitable for launching Apple Pay? If all apps are allowed to use NFC, maybe others would find other uses for NFC. Why should Apple limit NFC use to itself?

 

[Beautyspin]

1. So when you double-click and have chosen to use Bank A's app, every time you double-click Bank A's app launches to the payment page ready to pay by NFC. That sounds good, but when you want to use Bank B instead to pay, you can't double-click because it launches the wrong app. Apple Pay lets you choose from a wallet of cards. Defaulting to a particular app only gives you one option (unless you can install a "Samsung Pay" app that has the same functionality as Apple Pay, and then, why bother?).

2. I was giving you the options. Either the bank's app invokes some smaller version of Apple Pay just for your bank card, or they pay directly. But they aren't paying directly anyway because your cards are all issued by a particular payment processor: Mastercard, VISA, Amex etc.

3. Apple Pay isn't a third-party app in the way you describe it. It's a built-in means of paying for things, and do you really think it would be in use if it weren't safe and secure? Would banks allow their customers' card details to be stored on their phone if they hadn't themselves approved the security? It passes a token to the merchant, not your actual card details. Do bank apps pass a token, or your actual card details when you pay via NFC? Your point about being able to do other things in your banking app is moot. Apple Pay isn't a banking app, it's a way of paying for things. Using Apple Pay does not negate your need to use the bank's app to look at transactions, cancel direct debits etc.

4. What innovation would there be when NFC is open to all? Would it change the way you pay for things on your phone? What do you need NFC for within your banking app? What would it allow you to do?

Items in stores won't become cheaper based on who you choose to pay with, so the fees are neither here nor there. In giving you a Mastercard a bank is already agreeing that Mastercard will take a small percentage of the transaction.

Also, no one seems to be telling Mastercard, Visa and Amex to open up their payment systems to all and sundry. Why not? Why can't I go into a store that doesn't accept Amex and buy stuff with my Amex card via their Mastercard link? Because the technologies are separate and have been developed through the investment of those companies' money over many years. Why shouldn't Apple be allowed to have their own payment processor?

1. I think you got it wrong. When you click, it gives you a choice of apps that can be set default. To set an app as default, you have to double tap. If you do not select any app as default, this choice is shown to you every time you use the service. If Apple Pay were to store non-banking gift cards such as Best-buy or others, then it would be an advantage with Apple pay.
2. Apple is not a payment intermediary and is instead positioning itself as a payment medium alone. In essence, an Apple Pay-enabled phone becomes an expensive and beautifully crafted credit card, one that can be lost or become useless if the phone battery dies. It charges a per-transaction fee to the banks that it partners with, though the details of this fee structure remain somewhat murky. This is in addition to the fees that the payment processor pays.
3. The Bank knows all your details and is the custodian of those details. Banks have the strictest regulations and it is better than the leaking sieve that Apple has been. Google Pay provides at least 100% Fraud Protection, does Apple Pay? When I use a banking App, I do not have to pay the per-transaction fee to Apple. I do not have to worry about security. All these are worries when I use Apple Pay.
4. Innovation need not be technical. It could be in product offerings. I am not an American banking expert so I cannot point out to you what those could be. Unless you open up the NFC, you will not know what uses others will find for NFC.
If I pay through Apple Pay and the bank pays Apple .05% per-transaction fee (just throwing some numbers, I do not know what the per-transaction fee would be), why would the banks not offer me something better when I chose to pay through them so that they can avoid this fee?
Mastercard and VISA are open to all. That is why most outlets accept any type of card and the payments are routed across multiple networks. Am I missing something here?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I'm not the one making it complicated. The very idea of making the double-click open Bank A's app means it's more complicated to get Bank B's card to show up. As I said, Apple Pay covers this as it's a repository for the cards you choose to put in there.

No need to open up bank a or bank b app it. Can be provided in a competitive Apple Pay like solution. Or the standard Apple Pay

I have an Amex credit card, two Mastercard credit cards (two different banks), and two Mastercard debit cards (two different banks). If I default to the Amex card, I would have to unlock my phone, locate one of four other apps, get to the payment feature, authenticate and then I get to pay.

Unless they are used in an apple pay competitor( now apple have zero Apple Pay competitors) and Curve can ad cards without them officially supporting it.

One of my cards gets me Avios. One gets me a 5% discount at certain shops. One gives me cashback. Another gives me zero foreign transaction fees. Apple Wallet stores all five and I double-click once then pick the card to use based on what I need to do. You simply cannot do that if you default to one bank's app.

It doesn’t need to be a banks app it can be a different wallet simply. And if you have your situation your would:
1: use apple wallet only
2: use curve

I don’t understand why you act like Apple Pay won’t exist.

I didn’t know Curve existed until you mentioned it. And I would have loved to use that 1~ year ago or so when my current bank card from Norwegian didn’t support Apple Pay

Using Samsung Pay is the same as using Apple Pay, isn't it? It's a collection of your bank cards. Would you rather Apple get a tiny cut of a transaction fee, or Samsung? You can also use a Curve card that lets you move transactions to whoever cards you want. But you don't need to use Curve's app to do that - you just add the Curve card to Apple Pay.

We’ll curve would be a great applepay replacement if it was allowed to do the same thing. And I would rather use Apple Pay, but other might thunk Samsung pay is a better user experience.

How does it work where a bank bypasses Mastercard and Visa? Are you paying directly from your bank account? How does that work if you want to pay on a credit card? How is that more secure than Apple Pay?

It works like as bank transfer but just as fast as a normal card. There is no card and credit don’t exist.
It’s more secure because it’s impossible to steal it but it’s artificially hindered from working effectively, now it uses a QR code or you typing in their or a business phone number to pay for something.

So, let's open up the NFC chip and let some banks get together and create another payment processing system. Do retailers have to buy new terminals to use it? At what point does that new PPS become the target of EU legislation, like Mastercard and Visa have?

It would likely never be targeted as long as it doesn’t hinder the market. And EU is working on it being interoperable in the rest of EU with similar systems in cooperation with the banks.
Mastercard and. Visa for example are forced to have a 0.6 in merchant fees on EU cards only.

Swish(depending on what bank you have) takes 30$ a month as a merchant fee. And they don’t have terminals, unless you count a sticker with the number and a QR code.

This is not an answer to my third point.

Didn’t Samsung pay support 100% of all cards in the beginning? It’s likely apple made
Some negotiations with the banks to get a piece of the pie for a better consumer experience.

You already have that; they're called bank accounts. You can transfer money to an IBAN or SWIFT number (but they charge), but again, how are they more secure than what Apple Pay does?

Not at all eID are using your bank( it’s a banking network) as a way to identify who you are. I login to other banks, government websites, identify who I am at the post office etc etc.

The thinks I posted don’t need you to login to your bank and are faster, safer and easier than using IBAN number.

And if for example they take my phone number and register it for SWISH, they would only be able to transfer money to this number. They would need my eID(BankID) that exist only on my phone and physically use it to login on my bank or trick me to login by getting me to give them my social security number or scan the eneque QR code on their side just to change my SWISH number.

They are more secure than Apple Pay as it’s essentially apples scan your iD in the wallet but it have existed for 10 years.
But instead of that we use tokens on the same principle as Apple Pay, just more usable. Or Frej ID that does what apple does but better, it just can’t be integrated in the apple wallet unfortunately.

‎Freja

‎Freja är mycket mer än en traditionell e-legitimation. Med Freja kan du komma åt e-tjänster, bevisa din identitet och ålder med det digitala ID-kortet, dela din identitet med andra online och kontrollera hur dina uppgifter delas med en säker statligt godkänd app. UPPTÄCK FREJA De funktioner...

apps.apple.com

I have never - ever - been sat in a restaurant waiting to pay, and the waiter has had to go back to get the Mastercard terminal because he'd brought me the Visa terminal. AFAIK they've always been interchangeable.

You should travel abroad. In Japan Mastercard isn’t very supported, VISA is universally supported. It’s not that they will have two terminals, but the one they use will only support some payment systems

How do consumers lose 100% if Apple Pay exists? Prices didn't go up when Apple Pay came out because the banks decided that they would give Apple a small percentage of the transaction total, just like they already gave a small percentage to Mastercard and Visa.

We don’t lose if apple
Pay exist. We lose if it’s locked away. That is why Apple Pay is by legal mandate forced to work anywhere in EU. If the terminal have NFC it supports Apple Pay automatically.

I read by someone that Amazon store for example(or something else) don’t support Apple Pay as they have turned it off, that would example be impossible here.

And Kore doesn’t have Apple Pay. For them it would be great to have the ability to use Samsung pay instead or other wallet system as they currently can’t use the apple wallet as it’s not supported by apple yet officially( even tho you can use Curve)

 

[djphat2000]

That is your choice and you can stay with Apple Pay.

Mine and I'm sure many others.

That need not be everybody's choice.

Which is why they can pick another brand/platform.

Currently, Apple pay is not available in many countries. So, they should pay for the NFC feature but wait until Apple deems their country suitable for launching Apple Pay?

Does anyone have any numbers to share on what any bank pays Apple to be on/in the wallet? I'm sure its minuscule but, just to be sure. I actually work for a bank and we will be "finally" adding our card to ApplePay. After not doing so for a few dumb reasons. Cost wasn't mentioned to me as one of them however. The main one was to use their own product or rather the one our major vendor/partner used. Which I don't believe will go away, just that ApplePay will be added to the options.

If all apps are allowed to use NFC, maybe others would find other uses for NFC.

Yes they will. But not on Apple's platform. Unless they choose to allow it.

Why should Apple limit NFC use to itself?

Because they choose to do so.
I hate to say this as it sounds cruel but, they don't have to do what you want. They build it the way "they" want it to be. Because they made the thing.

Apple is taking the risk of you liking what they made enough to purchase. They are also taking the risk that the "Apple" approach of simplifying a technology (Such as NFC) to any of these CC/bank companies. Will prove to be the safer, more secure and EASIER way for both the banks and the consumer to use. Its' also not like we suddenly removed physical credit/debit/bank cards with their own built in NFC/TapToPay and secure chips. If you don't like the Apple way or want to subscribe to using it. You still have an option that works 99% of the time. Your banking app is still most likely free to download and costs the banks nothing on the AppStore. Or you can pick Android.

 

[darkpaw]

1. I think you got it wrong. When you click, it gives you a choice of apps that can be set default. To set an app as default, you have to double tap. If you do not select any app as default, this choice is shown to you every time you use the service. If Apple Pay were to store non-banking gift cards such as Best-buy or others, then it would be an advantage with Apple pay.

Okay, that makes more sense, but it's still more convenient to have the actual bank cards in the wallet and available for paying than to have to pick which app you then want to fire up and pay via.

2. Apple is not a payment intermediary and is instead positioning itself as a payment medium alone. In essence, an Apple Pay-enabled phone becomes an expensive and beautifully crafted credit card, one that can be lost or become useless if the phone battery dies. It charges a per-transaction fee to the banks that it partners with, though the details of this fee structure remain somewhat murky. This is in addition to the fees that the payment processor pays.

That applies to any phone you use to pay with. The per-transaction fees are also present on Samsung Pay.

Your bank gives you a Visa debit card, and when you go to a store and pay for something, the transaction fee is included in the total price you pay. If you bought something for $100.00 on your card the day before Apple Pay came onto the market, it didn't suddenly cost $100.01 the next day, and if it did then the people not using Apple Pay were being charged the same fee and the store was pocketing that bit of the fee they didn't then have to pass onto someone else.

3. The Bank knows all your details and is the custodian of those details. Banks have the strictest regulations and it is better than the leaking sieve that Apple has been. Google Pay provides at least 100% Fraud Protection, does Apple Pay? When I use a banking App, I do not have to pay the per-transaction fee to Apple. I do not have to worry about security. All these are worries when I use Apple Pay.

What data has been leaked from Apple Pay? Where is the evidence of Apple being a "leaking sieve"? AFAICS, Apple Pay is pretty secure.

4. Innovation need not be technical. It could be in product offerings. I am not an American banking expert so I cannot point out to you what those could be. Unless you open up the NFC, you will not know what uses others will find for NFC.
If I pay through Apple Pay and the bank pays Apple .05% per-transaction fee (just throwing some numbers, I do not know what the per-transaction fee would be), why would the banks not offer me something better when I chose to pay through them so that they can avoid this fee?

Well, if NFC is open on Android, what are the innovations that have come out in Android-land?

Mastercard and VISA are open to all. That is why most outlets accept any type of card and the payments are routed across multiple networks. Am I missing something here?

Payment terminals are open to all, not Mastercard and Visa. I can't pay via the Visa network with my Mastercard, but I can pay via the Visa network on a terminal that accepts Visa, and I can pay with my Mastercard on a terminal that accepts Mastercard.

 

[webkit]

Which is why they can pick another brand/platform.

Yes they will. But not on Apple's platform. Unless they choose to allow it.

Because they choose to do so.
I hate to say this as it sounds cruel but, they don't have to do what you want. They build it the way "they" want it to be. Because they made the thing.

Or you can pick Android.

So, to sum up... your feeling is essentially that as long as consumers have at least one other choice in the particular market, no legislation like this should exist? A company should be able to do whatever they want with their products and services regardless of their profits, size, market share, etc. Again, as long as there is at least one other competitor in the market.

Is this basically your view?

 

[I7guy]

So, to sum up... your feeling is essentially that as long as consumers have at least one other choice in the particular market, no legislation like this should exist? A company should be able to do whatever they want with their products and services regardless of their profits, size, market share, etc. Again, as long as there is at least one other competitor in the market.

Is this basically your view?

Basically, yes. Apple has already complied with existing regulation. It would be great if apple could reply to this legislation with the same veracity as the language of the legislation. But it remains to be seen whether they will comply or leave.

 

[djphat2000]

So are you when there's no ways of detecting malware and viruses.
Because "Apple doesn’t allow any proper antivirus apps into the App Store".

How would you get malware onto your device? With the AV apps that "are" available. They block:
1) web-links in text/SMS/email
2) websites known fraud/malicious/unknown
3) Wi-Fi networks you may be joining

And do you mean proper as in full scanning of your storage/memory?

Even though Apple now has a folder-based file system on iOS/iPadOS that allows for downloads from the internet and you can easily transfer them to others by Mail, AirDrop, Dropbox etc., ...you can't check the files for malware. Because Apple doesn't allow such software in their store.

Dude, we barely have file/folder access. It took YEARS to get what we do have and I'm unaware of files magically loading into these folders without user interaction. Do you need a full AV scan 99% of the time as it is currently built? And unless your tying to side load, nothing should "run" or execute without a corresponding application to open the file (i.e. Music, documents, images, movies, html pages). Of which should be trusted apps from the AppStore. In theory, if I only allow applications that are vetted from reputable/verified developers, which can only be installed from one monitored location and mechanism (AppStore). And they can only access specifically what they should or have been given express permission to access (camera, network, location, hardware, API's, files, etc.). It should limit any exposure to malware.

Not that you can't figure out a way to put something on the phone that bypasses that. But, for most everyday stuff. You should practically never get malware on your device. Combined with regular security patches/updates to the OS, and basic awareness when using the device. Such as not opening email attachments you didn't expect to receive or from unknown sources. Opening text messages from people you don't know or where not expecting to receive. Especially web links in the messages. Don't try and visit websites you know are bad. Don't plug into unknown lightning/USB-C cables/outlets, supply your own! All this should keep malware off of the vast majority of peoples devices.

Unless that is your going to a place that is trying to break into your device. In which case they must do so via network means (WiFi, Bluetooth, NFC). And usually some kind of user interaction (open a link in a text or email message, download a bogus app, visit a malicious website). Or just steal your phone, or you connect to a hacked USB connection/cable. In which case, those AV softwares can help. Plus what Apple is doing with lock down mode for those extreme cases.

The last think you want is your phone running a full system scan in your pocket.

Again, Apple's policies seem more concerned about maintain an illusion of security rather than actual security.
Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Ok, lets go with your argument here. It's an illusion of security. How would they actually secure the device and OS?
I am by no means saying the iPhone is the most secure thing on planet earth. Anything with time can be hacked into. But as I explained above, they seem to be doing it pretty well (in my honest opinion) while providing an extremely good user interface and interaction with the device. Plus its interoperability with not just their own technology, but others as well. Maybe not to the extent everyone would like of course.

 

[AppliedMicro]

How would you get malware onto your device? With the AV apps that "are" available. They block:
1) web-links in text/SMS/email
2) websites known fraud/malicious/unknown

Note sure I understand your question!?
Safari on iOS allows file downloads, as does Mail allow receiving and opening mail attachments.

Blocking web-links and "known-bad" websites does as much or little for security as blocking known criminals and terrorists from entering airports - but then abolishing all physical screening of flight passengers and and their baggage.

And do you mean proper as in full scanning of your storage/memory?

Maybe. As full access to device storage is, inevitably, a security risk in itself, how about on-demand scanning for virus in the files / folders I choose to allow it access to?

A share sheet icon with "scan with Kaspersky/McAfee/other antivirus" for instance.

Dude, we barely have file/folder access. It took YEARS to get what we do have

Regardless of how long it took, we have a Files app on iOS/iPadOS that macrumors calls "drastically improved"

Do you need a full AV scan 99% of the time as it is currently built?

I didn't say I need full AV background scanning all the time.

👉 Apple is withholding even the very most basic antivirus functionality from us:
On-demand scans of particular files/folders.

And unless your tying to side load, nothing should "run" or execute without a corresponding application to open the file (i.e. Music, documents, images, movies, html pages)

Virus can and have been embedded in specially crafted files that are supposedly non-executing. And corresponding applications can malfunction, trip up over these files and it can lead to code execution outside of normal security parameters. Same principle as browser-based exploits.

👉 Also, whether they're running on my iOS device or not, I can forward to them other vulnerable devices and users.

It's an illusion of security. How would they actually secure the device and OS?

I'm not saying devices can be perfectly secure(d). But... Apple is withholding app functionality that could make us better protected - just to project an image of security for marketing purposes.

"If we allowed virus scanners, people would think our systems aren't secure"

 

[webkit]

Basically, yes. Apple has already complied with existing regulation. It would be great if apple could reply to this legislation with the same veracity as the language of the legislation. But it remains to be seen whether they will comply or leave.

If companies (including those part of a duopoly/oligopoly) should be allowed to do whatever they want with their products and services, what role should antitrust laws and regulations have in the EU or elsewhere?

 

[I7guy]

If companies (including those part of a duopoly/oligopoly) should be allowed to do whatever they want with their products and services, what role should antitrust laws and regulations have in the EU or elsewhere?

This is not anti-trust regulation. It’s anti-American tech regulation. Popularity and innovation should not be punished.

 

[webkit]

This is not anti-trust regulation. It’s anti-American tech regulation. Popularity and innovation should not be punished.

It is antitrust regulation but that wasn't my question.

Again... If companies (including those part of a duopoly/oligopoly) should be allowed to do whatever they want with their products and services, what role should antitrust laws and regulations have in the EU or elsewhere?

 

[I7guy]

It is antitrust regulation but that wasn't my question.

Again... If companies (including those part of a duopoly/oligopoly) should be allowed to do whatever they want with their products and services, what role should antitrust laws and regulations have in the EU or elsewhere?

I feel like this is going to go round in the same circles as other discussions in this thread. (And while it’s a done deal - which we all knew happen) apple no doubt has already begun its path towards compliance (or exit) - my viewpoint is that the EU is model for how to have a hostile business environment and disincentivize tech.

 

[djphat2000]

So, to sum up... your feeling is essentially that as long as consumers have at least one other choice in the particular market, no legislation like this should exist?

For the most part. Yes. So long as their is a choice AND even if there wasn't and you only had 1 choice (Which in this space would be practically impossible). That said company(s) DON'T break any existing laws to prevent competition. And I don't mean that they have to allow others to use built in features like NFC or Bluetooth (etc.) however they wish. No, I mean that Apple isn't preventing Samsung from competition and so on. And I say that because there isn't anything stopping Samsung from making an OS from scratch if they wanted to. Other than their own desire to do so. Or allowing their device to be more "open" than Apple. Or any other handset maker from having any variation on it they see fit to make.

What I'm specifying is things like paying another manufacture or developer to NOT compete. Or to just outright copy another product and crush them out of the market. And I am aware of instances where things like that could/did/might have happened. And I don't think that's fair or should be allowed to go without consequences.

But if I am Apple or Google and I'm just making what I always made. Made improvements, didn't stamp out any other competitors from doing what they do. I should be allowed to operate as is. Let the market decide if my way is the best way or not. Let other markets develop to compete against me and "try" to be better or equal or even less as good as my product. And I don't think that "competes" means within my platform. Your free to make up your own if you don't like the rules I have on mine. If I choose to allow development, I get to make the rules on my platform. If I want to be a charity, I can choose to do that too.

A company should be able to do whatever they want with their products and services regardless of their profits, size, market share, etc. Again, as long as there is at least one other competitor in the market.

IF the issue is monetary. I am VERY much in favor of taxing vs regulating. This way we don't prevent the company/industry from being profitable and using those profits to further develop and grow. While still being able to insure we can use those increases in tax receipts to build infrastructure and or help pay for social programs. So long as no existing laws are being broken by the company/industry. I don't see a reason to regulate beyond that except for safety/health, and the environment.

To further explain, and we can take Apple as this example. They make the iPhone. They make it in such a way that it is proprietary and mostly a closed system. They build the whole widget as we used to say. IF (and we know it to be true) they were allowed to do that (almost world wide by all laws at the time). And became successful with the product based on those rules that existed. They didn't break any rules in becoming more successful. AND other companies they completed (Fairly) against, unfortunately vanished from the face of the earth (In a business sense). Is to me and many others. How the market works. And is fair. Regulation would not have helped those other companies stay a float. People decided with their money to purchase one or the other (or many over time). And we are here now with mainly Apple iOS/iPadOS on a closed system they always had. And Google's Android, with its variants (China, and Samsung) on many other if not all other mobile devices.

Don't take it as "they should be able to do whatever they want". As that would suggest doing illegal things cause they are big enough to wield their power in such a way. More to the affect of, they didn't do anything wrong to end up where they are. So why are we trying to make new rules to punish the success they gained the right way? To me that is disincentivizing others from trying. Apple and Google are like $5-6 Trillion dollar companies between them. I'm sure someone will come along and want a piece of that pie. That's what capitalism is about. You get to try and if your successful, there is no limit to what your potential can be. If there is only 2 companies making a mobile OS. And they are allowed to keep it the way they wanted it to be. Someone else can try and compete against them with something new/better/worse/similar and know they will not be regulated out of business simply if they become too successful.

If anyone is abusing their power, they should be punished and we have laws for that. If you become a monopoly in making a product, that too isn't illegal. Success is not illegal, abuse is.

Is this basically your view?

As best as I can explain it above is my view.

 

[webkit]

I feel like this is going to go round in the same circles as other discussions in this thread. (And while it’s a done deal - which we all knew happen) apple no doubt has already begun its path towards compliance (or exit) - my viewpoint is that the EU is model for how to have a hostile business environment and disincentivize tech.

I was speaking more broadly and not specific to just the EU or this EU legislation.

Again... If companies (including those part of a duopoly/oligopoly) should be allowed to do whatever they want with their products and services, what role should antitrust laws and regulations have in the EU or elsewhere?

 

[I7guy]

I was speaking more broadly and not specific to just the EU or this EU legislation.

Again... If companies (including those part of a duopoly/oligopoly) should be allowed to do whatever they want with their products and services, what role should antitrust laws and regulations have in the EU or elsewhere?

You’re premise is a straw man. “Whatever they want” includes, exploding batteries, toxic materials, over the limit SAR? Or does whatever they want include a locked ecosystem, proprietary messaging and cloud storage? The answer is yes to the latter, provided they got to where they are legally.

 

[webkit]

For the most part. Yes. So long as their is a choice AND even if there wasn't and you only had 1 choice (Which in this space would be practically impossible). That said company(s) DON'T break any existing laws to prevent competition. And I don't mean that they have to allow others to use built in features like NFC or Bluetooth (etc.) however they wish. No, I mean that Apple isn't preventing Samsung from competition and so on. And I say that because there isn't anything stopping Samsung from making an OS from scratch if they wanted to. Other than their own desire to do so. Or allowing their device to be more "open" than Apple. Or any other handset maker from having any variation on it they see fit to make.

Existing laws sometimes aren't specific or clear enough especially as new or charging markets, technologies, etc. come into play. I see the EU legislation as following the intention of existing antitrust regulations; it is just being a bit more specific as to how things are to be assessed. It would be kind of like if an existing law said that you can't speed and then sometime later, a law is introduced that states you can’t drive over 60 mph on these particularly types of roads. While the 60 mph law is essentially "new", it is still the essence of the original speeding law.

But if I am Apple or Google and I'm just making what I always made. Made improvements, didn't stamp out any other competitors from doing what they do. I should be allowed to operate as is. Let the market decide if my way is the best way or not. Let other markets develop to compete against me and "try" to be better or equal or even less as good as my product. And I don't think that "competes" means within my platform. Your free to make up your own if you don't like the rules I have on mine. If I choose to allow development, I get to make the rules on my platform. If I want to be a charity, I can choose to do that too.

IF the issue is monetary. I am VERY much in favor of taxing vs regulating. This way we don't prevent the company/industry from being profitable and using those profits to further develop and grow. While still being able to insure we can use those increases in tax receipts to build infrastructure and or help pay for social programs. So long as no existing laws are being broken by the company/industry. I don't see a reason to regulate beyond that except for safety/health, and the environment.

To further explain, and we can take Apple as this example. They make the iPhone. They make it in such a way that it is proprietary and mostly a closed system. They build the whole widget as we used to say. IF (and we know it to be true) they were allowed to do that (almost world wide by all laws at the time). And became successful with the product based on those rules that existed. They didn't break any rules in becoming more successful. AND other companies they completed (Fairly) against, unfortunately vanished from the face of the earth (In a business sense). Is to me and many others. How the market works. And is fair. Regulation would not have helped those other companies stay a float. People decided with their money to purchase one or the other (or many over time). And we are here now with mainly Apple iOS/iPadOS on a closed system they always had. And Google's Android, with its variants (China, and Samsung) on many other if not all other mobile devices.

Don't take it as "they should be able to do whatever they want". As that would suggest doing illegal things cause they are big enough to wield their power in such a way. More to the affect of, they didn't do anything wrong to end up where they are. So why are we trying to make new rules to punish the success they gained the right way? To me that is disincentivizing others from trying. Apple and Google are like $5-6 Trillion dollar companies between them. I'm sure someone will come along and want a piece of that pie. That's what capitalism is about. You get to try and if your successful, there is no limit to what your potential can be. If there is only 2 companies making a mobile OS. And they are allowed to keep it the way they wanted it to be. Someone else can try and compete against them with something new/better/worse/similar and know they will not be regulated out of business simply if they become too successful.

If anyone is abusing their power, they should be punished and we have laws for that. If you become a monopoly in making a product, that too isn't illegal. Success is not illegal, abuse is.

How is it to be determined if companies have "stamped out" competition or are "abusing their power"? How do we know that Google or Apple's dominance hasn't negatively impacted certain markets or competitors? Should regulations just apply to dominant companies or should it be all companies? If only dominant companies, how should that be determined? How should anticompetitive behavior that stifles or stamps out competition be determined?

It seems to me this is where laws and regulations come in. They can be used as a guide for to help companies determine if they may have a "case" regarding anticompetitive behavior. They can also be a guide for companies to determine if their own business activities may be considered anticompetitive in a particular country/region.