The NFC access angle is dumb, but a case could be made that they limit access to the SE, where payment details are stores. I would image the Secure Enclave has to do with security, but what do I know? I am not rocket surgeon.
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
I hope this won't make NFC payment open up on iPhone. I hope it stays Apple Pay only. If NFC open up too much there is security risk.
Also Apple Pay FORCES bank to adapt and allow their cards be used with Apple Pay and it took some banks ages ages to finally give in and allow Apple Pay. I am from UK and my bank took forever. If NFC payment open up to everyone then there chance many banks withdraw from Apple Pay and make you use their own app to use NFC payment. I don't want use many apps for NFC payment depending which cards I want use. I want them all in ONE place and all in Apple Pay.
Also Apple Pay FORCES bank to adapt and allow their cards be used with Apple Pay and it took some banks ages ages to finally give in and allow Apple Pay. I am from UK and my bank took forever. If NFC payment open up to everyone then there chance many banks withdraw from Apple Pay and make you use their own app to use NFC payment. I don't want use many apps for NFC payment depending which cards I want use. I want them all in ONE place and all in Apple Pay.
Tipping, like the Imperial measurement system, is not a thing in almost all the rest of the world, so it may surprise you that your card is actually pre-cleared for a percentage over your bill to account for tips. My guess is it is kept separate because they are worried about confrontations between staff and customers over tip amount. "Newer" mobile POS systems let you do everything at your table, tip and all. Now the companies just need to reconcile everything at once.
That depends on your bank and CC company. Some are charging it, others have an annual fee. Some have an annual fee and only charge an additional fee when using the CC out of the country. It really depends on where you are in the world, the bank and the CC company.
That being said, Apple brings in an additional fee which can be avoided. And don't forget the additional hassle to deal with another party if something goes wrong. It's bad enough watching banks and CC companies playing the blame game, throwing in Apple to this is not helping either.
... but you can, provided the bank is not greedy for their greater cut of transaction fees and allows NFC payment. All
Apple Pay is is a proxy for your credit/debit card.
What are you talking about? I am talking about merchant fees, not the enduser fees. Apple Pay is just a proxy for your debit/credit card.
Same question for you I asked before. Which part of a high level NFC API would be a security risk? How? Can you describe an attack vector that would raise serious concern?
Those stores own the NFC point-of-sale units. We own the iPhones we bought from Apple. The owner of something should get to decide where and how their item can be used.
If it were a business decision it would never happen.
The reason that we have regulation is it moderates the free markets tendency to be harmful to the greater good (regulation, like most laws, being the result of things gone acutely wrong and/or things chronically drifting into destructive or unsustainable conditions.
I do think if Apple is forced to open up NFC, in fair exchange, banks should be required to support Apple Pay on all offered credit and debit cards (ultimately accounts as cards disappear over time) and merchants should be required to accept it without limiting consumers to that merchant’s NFC-based proprietary system.
You think your bank is eating up the fees? They're going to pass this on to the enduser one way or another to compensate for it. So yes, the end user is affected.
answer the question and name 10.
you are very clearly astroturfing. dozens of posts in this thread with poor grammar and no logic behind any of them.
Although I agree w much if your second paragraph, why didn’t you leave your bank for one that offered Apple Pay?
Here in Switzerland, banks under antitrust investigation finally offered Apple Pay on maybe just one credit card in their portfolio, or credit cards only (which require an annual fee); very few offer it on their debit cards.
Agreed. Europe has a legacy of aristocratic overstep in the form of the ruling class seeking ways to keep the merchants and peasants under their wing. Too much power frightens them and they will find ways to use their laws and influence to keep those beneath their status in check.
Sure, which leaves 75% of whatever population you're referring to capable of making reasonable, intelligent decisions without the need for Apple locking down their hardware/software to the point it functions below what the industry allows. If you don't see that Apple's protection of the user's "security" is just a scapegoat for excess control in the name of profits, I think you're missing the point.
This what Apple tells you. But the real and only reason for this is money. It is all a part of Apples wallet garden business model. It is simply not true that you can not implement secure payment if you allow access to NFC.
But take this:
Apple could have allowed a system, where you can select a payment provider (piece of software that follows an interface description). The new payment provider could use a different clearing method, that differs from ApplePay.
So there are tons of possible solutions, to open the NFC interface to developers.
Another one - a developer could use an Apple certificate if he wants to access the interface (like it is done with e.g. Push Notifications today).
Apple is only blocking access cause it has the role of the gatekeeper and it doesn't want to allow competition on its platform. Apple iOS strategy is "Lock competition out, lock customers in" - this is also documented in Apple internal emails:
https://www.theverge.com/c/22611236...-liberty-app-store-schiller-sweeney-cook-jobs
Government involvement making things more expensive and not work efficiently? Do tell.
Attachments
I use my port to charge. Not for data. Wifi6 is fast. I would rather apple go fully wireless and use the port just for charging.
I get on the metro every day with my watch through the Apple Wallet, I pay for everything with Apple Pay. What you're talking about is an older, and very insecure use of NFC and is why Apple cited security concerns for not opening that up. Taking my phone or watch will not let the thief do anything without authenticating first. What you're frustrated by is security, not limitations.
Why have a port at all?
Apple Watch doesn't have one.
Charge wirelessly and use WiFi or cell service for data transfers.
What he's talking about is happening because Apple isn't opening up the API.
Since you say security is compromised if Apple would open the API, I'm asking again.... which part of a high level NFC API would be a security risk? How? Can you describe an attack vector that would raise serious concern?
I guarantee you that greed has nothing to do with not having moved to USB C yet - it's a customer outcry issue. Apple device ecosystems are far more prolific than any other company, when this change comes, you will find people who are ticked off. Think of it like a sliding scale, on one end you have people who want things to stay the way they are, on the other are you and I who want everything using USB C right now. As more and more people adopt it, as more time goes by since the lightning connector was introduced, that scale slides further and further to what we're looking for. We're finally at that point, I believe.
Apple will STILL be able to use their MFI stuff with USB C, and it brings in so little revenue that the cost to maintain practically breaks even anyway. So on one hand, you're right, it does compromise a lot of benefits for users like us. But it totally destroys their current environment in the process and will be a smack in the face for hundreds of millions of other people.
No user is demanding? Well, they will start once banks/credit card companies pass on the Apple pay cost to the customers if they use Apple pay instead of using the bank/CC app. Let us see how many would be interested in Apple pay.
Big tech and their many products and solutions have become pillars of modern society -There's no way our governments can simply let them profit freely off our infrastructure without restrictions.
Anyone who thinks the EU shouldn't meddle doesn't grasp the magnitude of Apple's impact on our lives.
All of this is just common sense.
Obviously they aren't opening the API because of security...not sure what the wink was about.What he's talking about is happening because Apple isn't opening up the API.
Since you say security is compromised if Apple would open the API, I'm asking again.... which part of a high level NFC API would be a security risk? How? Can you describe an attack vector that would raise serious concern?
Physical security is what is at risk, he's referring to allowing direct NFC access so you can load up any NFC profile to it. That means anyone could take your phone and make a charge as no app access or authentication is needed. Opening that API may ALSO allow a third party wallet developer to work while the phone is locked, but I can't speak to that. What I can say is that allowing another wallet using the current API would not solve his problem. Also, building another wallet for the iPhone is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of. What about all those companies that want to make another Settings menu for the iPhone? What if I want a different lock screen? A wallet itself is going to do nothing but cause confusion, especially if what is in that wallet cannot be added to another wallet.