Your ability to simply make up stuff to support your point is mind boggling.
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.
EU Officially Objects to Apple Limiting Third-Party Access to Apple Pay NFC Capabilities
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No it’s not healthy when government artificially regulates competition.
What we are seeing is tech firms executing on-point innovation that is driving sales. Innovation that leads to popularity not monopoly.
As I watch some of the tennis matches between folks here, I wanted to remind myself why regulation can be beneficial.
For the US (I am only passingly familiar with the EU)
1. The U.S. government has set many business regulations in place to protect employees' rights, protect the environment and hold corporations accountable for the amount of power they have in a very business-driven society.
2. Government regulations serve an important role in ensuring a safe, fair economy for small businesses and consumers alike, preventing them from being drained by larger corporations and unfair business tactics.
However I do think the EU has to be extra careful that they do not stifle competition as they are the test case that the rest of the world is watching.
One item on EU Regulations:
Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries.
Based on this, it comes as no surprise to me that Governments are starting to take a stand with regards to corporations like Google and Apple.
JMHO YOMV
For the US (I am only passingly familiar with the EU)
1. The U.S. government has set many business regulations in place to protect employees' rights, protect the environment and hold corporations accountable for the amount of power they have in a very business-driven society.
2. Government regulations serve an important role in ensuring a safe, fair economy for small businesses and consumers alike, preventing them from being drained by larger corporations and unfair business tactics.
However I do think the EU has to be extra careful that they do not stifle competition as they are the test case that the rest of the world is watching.
One item on EU Regulations:
Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries.
Based on this, it comes as no surprise to me that Governments are starting to take a stand with regards to corporations like Google and Apple.
JMHO YOMV
Last edited:
I can at least point to concrete things. Everything I have stated is supported by law.
And if you didn’t know EU laws are codified. We aren’t ruled by archaic interpretations by lower courts.
When a new regulation is passed it replaces 100% of what came before. When a new law is passed it replaces every legal text before it. It’s extraordinary simple
codes and statutes are designed to cover all eventualities and judges have a more limited role of applying the law to the case in hand. Past judgments are no more than loose guides. When it comes to court cases, judges in civil-law systems are investigators
Here you have a small easy difference between EU and USA. The difference between how civil law differs massively from US common law shapes regulations drastically differently
Civil Law vs Common Law - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
What's the difference between Civil Law and Common Law? Legal systems around the world vary greatly, but they usually follow civil law or common law. In common law, past legal precedents or judicial rulings are used to decide cases at hand. Under civil law, codified statutes and ordinances rule...
Last edited:
The number of people setting it up would equate to the number of people that don’t trust others. The part about setting up your own server is directly related to controlling your own data. If a user doesn’t want to control/encrypt their data, then there’s already the SMS/MMS system which works across all telephones made today.
If your other users are ok with you controlling their data, then that’s perfectly fine with them and with you. I think you’ll find that model doesn’t work on a wide scale.
“Paying for data” is not the same as SMS. The expense of SMS is WHY WhatsApp (that uses data) became a thing and is still a thing… folks in the EU wanted to avoid SMS fees. In fact, if the EU really wanted to kneecap WhatsApp, they could take a huge step in that direction by changing the fee to send texts from one EU member state to another to free. Currently, it’s 6 cents +VAT.
Calling and texting other EU countries: Questions & Answers
Find answers to questions on Intra-EU calls: charges for calls to other EU countries are capped at 19 cents (+VAT) and SMS at 6 cents (+VAT).
If you understood cryptography, you would know that each person you share your keys with makes your system that much less secure.
iMessage to iMessage = Secure
iMessage to WhatsApp = SHARES keys with WhatsApp, by default less secure now that two entities hold the keys to the network.
If interoperability is of utmost importance, SMS is the utmost solution. You’d actually have to work hard to NOT be able to send messages to others in a way that they can read and respond. Encryption isn’t [/i]required[/i] to communicate with anyone on the planet with a cellular phone with service. If you SPECIFICALLY want to talk to someone SECURELY, then you need to use one of the SECURE services that are available. Part of that security, though is that you lose the flexibility to communicate with folks outside the SECURE network you choose. That’s actually a feature, not a bug.
Just related to Apple:
Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark ([/b]but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo[/b]) in a referential phrase on packaging or promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology…
I wouldn’t be surprised if other companies include similar clauses, it’s fairly common. That they didn’t ASK for permission doesn’t mean they don’t need permission
EXACTLY! No need for Apple, WhatsApp, Signal to do anything. If this is important to a user, they can set up their own configuration!
Doesn’t matter that they use separate servers. For zero up front work, a user can chat with anyone on WhatsApp, Signal, etc. by just downloading their App and setting up an account. By the time you’re talking about raspberryPI, you’ve already had the vast majority of users tuning out.
The best thing about Matrix is that people can stop pushing for WhatsApp/iMessage/Telegram to be interoperable. If they REALLY want that, they can set it up themselves!
Most cellular plans in the US don’t charge for SMS messages. The USA oligopolistic economy means most folks don’t need WhatsApp and are not inexorably tied to a WhatsApp account in order to save money. Seems pretty ok to me.
Nope, this is needed because iMessage, WhatsApp etc doesn’t allow other to use their servers. Forcing you to make a virtual server essentially.
It’s a compromise to provide interoperability where they don’t want to provide interoperability.
They have, that is why the fee is caped at 0.022 € cents for voice and 0.004 € cents currently. And this IF you travel for an extended period. Otherwise the fee is 0€ and must be the same price as you pay at home calling from Spain to Sweden by law can’t be different than any domestic call if majority of your time is spent domestically.“Paying for data” is not the same as SMS. The expense of SMS is WHY WhatsApp (that uses data) became a thing and is still a thing… folks in the EU wanted to avoid SMS fees. In fact, if the EU really wanted to kneecap WhatsApp, they could take a huge step in that direction by changing the fee to send texts from one EU member state to another to free. Currently, it’s 6 cents +VAT.
Calling and texting other EU countries: Questions & Answers
Find answers to questions on Intra-EU calls: charges for calls to other EU countries are capped at 19 cents (+VAT) and SMS at 6 cents (+VAT).digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu
Questions and Answers: Roaming*
Why is a new Roaming regulation needed?\nThe new Roaming regulation enters into force on 1 July 2022. Building on the outcome of the public consultation, the Commission proposed on 24 February 2021 a n
They regulate all companies equally. US company is treated the same as domestic ones. There isn’t one law for domestic and a difrent law for international.
You always share 1 of two keys with every person you communicate with. There’s no key to the network as this isn’t how encryption is done.
There is a key to decifer the text you sent to a person. It can as easily be a unique key to everyone you talk to. Something apple does if I’m not mistaken. Meaning every conversation uses its own key.
If you don’t use the sms protocol then nobody will understand what you communicate. Encryption is just a privacy layer.
Luckily they didn’t need to ask for permission. Copyright law is only thing that matters. And if it’s an American company then they have the legal right of fair use ( doesn’t exist in EU). And no developer agreement needs to be signed to create this service.Just related to Apple:
Developers may use Apple, Macintosh, iMac, or any other Apple word mark ([/b]but not the Apple Logo or other Apple-owned graphic symbol/logo[/b]) in a referential phrase on packaging or promotional/advertising materials to describe that the third party product is compatible with the referenced Apple product or technology…
I wouldn’t be surprised if other companies include similar clauses, it’s fairly common. That they didn’t ASK for permission doesn’t mean they don’t need permission
Eu seems to think it’s important
That’s because it’s a hack to provide an unsupported service. Because they try to gate keep the users.
And no, I can only talk to WhatsApp users with WhatsApp. Signal with signal, iMessage with iMessage. Viber with Viber etc etc I’m forced to download apps I don’t want to use just to communicate simple text to people, or to receive text from other people.
A group of people use WhatsApp, then I must use it as well. One group uses telegram, then I must download it as well. Some users use signal, then I must use it etc Instead of using the app with best service
Matrix shouldn’t even need to exist as it’s an artificial limitation. And as you said
Mentioning raspberryPI and you already lost 90% of people.
- I think the EU's objection can lead to even bigger limitations such as payment apps that rely on NFC technology for contactless payments. Also, it can cause difficulties in the app integration process (functionality of Apple Pay within these third-party apps, could potentially lead to issues with app launching or using those apps for payments). And as you guys said earlier "Apple's cancellation of Apple Pay in Russia is a scary warning to all countries". The EU's objection to Apple's practices may lead to regulatory changes or discussions about fair competition and user choice.
Apple’s cancelation of apple pay in Russia is due to economic sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, not anything to do with this topic at all….
and how would this lead to more restrictions when the regs being discussed in the EU would specifically force less? Did you completely misread the topic or something?
It shows the vulnerability of having a single point of failure. Same thing when visa/ Mastercard was mandated by law to no longer allow transactions with Iran( some country was sanctioned by the USA) while EU didn’t sanction them in return. Or when they all strong armed adult websites to follow their moral imperative or make payments impossible to do.
Banks are a single point of failure with credit cards. As are credit card networks. Apple Pay is not. You can always fall back to cards and numbers if Apple Pay is not working.
Banks aren’t a single point of failure as there’s hundreds of banks available in every jurisdiction. Card networks is absolutely a point of failure ,And so is Apple Pay as they are essentially under American control. Without apple pay no other NFC payment options exist on your iphone.
Some things being just assumed to not be a problem out of blind naivety have shown to be a glaring issue for them.
And I like Russia being sanctioned as anyone else, but the fact Apple Pay that is supposedly only on your phone stopping to work isn’t really a good thing with a push of a button.
I was talking about a single point of failure for an individual transaction. If your bank goes down, the transaction won't work. If the card network goes down, the transaction won't work. If Apple Pay goes down, you can still use your card or the card number.
Yep. Strange how you understand that with networks, but not with banks.
No, it's not. As I clearly said, you can fall back to the card or the number. That fact specifically contradicts the claim of a single point of failure. Even by your own argument in the first sentence of your post, you could even switch phones.
As far as Apple being a single point of failure for an Apple service, you can say that about any proprietary service.
Well I’m talking about from the point of using your phone. If my bank goes down I can always use another bank. If the card network goes down it won’t matter if I change bank. If Apple Pay stops working then I can’t use my digital wallet anymore
I can change bank like I change my shoes. Kind of impossible to change card network
Sure if we talk about card transactions as a mediu. But the context is digital wallets using NFC.
That’s the point. The apple service is the only option. No other option is allowed to compete or replace it
Yep.
Sure, but you can change card networks.
If a proprietary service goes down, you can no longer use that proprietary service. You can say that about anything.
Not really, because of impact on your credit, but fair enough.
Impossible? I switch between VISA, Discover, and MasterCard regularly.
No, that's just a made up context you are bringing up after the fact. I was quite clear in my initial post that the context was credit card use.
This is a silly argument. You can define anything narrowly enough that it becomes a single point of failure. In practical reality, if Apple Pay fails, you have other options including physical cards, card numbers. If it is permanently disabled where you live, you can switch to competing products.
Nope I can’t.
It’s not the service, but the function. If NFC chip is open then it doesn’t matter if the proprietary solution closes
Why would it impact your credit? Different credit system? Our credit is based on income and payment history.
Yes i can’t change it. I have a Mastercard as debit or visa as credit. Nothing else really
The post is about Apple Pay.
Well that’s the thing, no competing product exists currently. In the AppStore there’s no NfC wallets available. Apple Pay is the only solution with Apple wallet.
As you admit, you have cards with multiple card networks. So you can absolutely switch between them.
Sure. You can certainly argue that Apple should open the NFC chip. I don't agree. But that's not what we're talking about.
Because no reasonable system would allow you to open an unlimited number of credit cards.
The OP certainly was. But our conversation was about single points of failure with credit cards, as I clearly specified in my original reply.
That's silly. As usual, you are limiting the market to Apple and than saying Apple has no competitors. Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Tap to Pay, physical cards and more are all competitors to Apple Pay.
You want the government to force Apple to make a product that you want. Just say that. There's no reason to make up ridiculous justifications.
A debit card is not the same as a credit card. Debit card is the overwhelming norm and not the same. How would I get my cash out without a debit card without needing to go to my bank.
In what possible way? Opening a bank account doesn’t impact my credit unless I make a loan. You can have an unlimited amount of debit cards unrelated to your credit.
Credit cards aren’t debit cards. Or if I translate it explicitly it’s just a bank card.
Because Apple doesn’t have competition. The market is limited to the companies that competes directly.
Google pay, Samsung pay etc an every other digital wallet system on android is competing with each other on any android platform you can use other payment systems.
Apple Pay on the other hand have zero competition by the user. Apple Card is a direct competitor to any other bank card. Apple Pay is only a competitor to the payment service available on their platform
iOS can’t use Samsung pay or anything else.
Defining a market so broad that the actors doesn’t even impact each other makes zero sense when they don’t even have the same market.
Nope, I want the government to secure an open market allowing competition.
Americans and Europeans just seem to have completely different understanding of what a market is.
I can't tell if you are not following the conversation or are deliberately spouting random nonsense.
Of course, they do. You just discussed their competitors. By your own definition, Apple Pay competes with all of them. When I go to make a transaction. Depending on where I shop, I can choose to use Walmart Pay or a credit card or a debit card or a gift card or cash or Apple Pay or Paypal or a multitude of other options. They all compete directly.
Then your primary concern should be to force Google to end their anti-competitive agreements with their horizontal competitors that control 70% of the market. Not forcing conformity on their only significant competitor.
It has nothing to do with where we're from. You're just choosing a myopic view of a market to justify your conclusions.