The EU Commission is the Executive body of the EU and it's not elected its appointed by the Council(which is also not elected).
I mean, thanks for reminding us of lessons from high school social studies and civics I guess?
)))
I'm not going to go as far as to say Apple leaving would have no impact on the EU, but you're acting as if that would occur in a vacuum. Apple has something like 30% of the smartphone market in the EU. Do you think if Apple left that those people would suddenly decide to go without a smartphone?? No, they'll buy one of the many other devices on the market instead. Those jobs and billions of dollars Apple is spending will fall to other smartphone companies and their new influx of customers. Those developers will move to other platforms, if they're not already there. Of course this ignores the reality that Apple isn't leaving the EU to punish them, regardless of some people's fantasy.
It's also a fantasy that Apple will allow it's assets to be diluted; that they will be told how to open their assets, what they should be giving away etc.
When the alternative is exiting the second largest market in the world? Lol ok. Even acting as narrowly as disabling NFC and thus Apple Pay in Europe would simply be cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
9to5mac.com
Why would they write to their representatives? It's Apple that took their toys and left "to teach EU a lesson" in your example so nobody kicked them out in the first place. Also what can parliament representatives do regarding the Commission charging companies of anticompetitive behavior? I'm curious.
Don’t know what they are going to do or how to fend off the sharks, but Apple isn’t going down without a fight. If the question becomes which is less of a loss lose the revenue to stop offering the services.When the alternative is exiting the second largest market in the world? Lol ok. Even acting as narrowly as disabling NFC and thus Apple Pay in Europe would simply be cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
Apple Pay revenue is heading toward multi-billion dollars - 9to5Mac
Apple Pay revenue hasn't gotten much attention so far. The most valuable role Apple Pay plays for the Cupertino company is further lock-in to the ecosystem
Apple can fight (aka pay lobbyists and lawyers), but at the end of the day they're at the mercy of whatever the EU decides. Also, there's zero chance that disabling Apple Pay in the EU results in less of a hit to the bottom line than allowing third-party's access to NFC. Not only does Apple take the immediate revenue hit, but they also cease being a competitor in the second largest market in the world in what appears to be an area worth billions of dollars and growing.
Surely that depends on what they are forced to do, if they allow third party access you can bet banks across the EU would drop Apple Pay access favouring their own app to avoid apples fee’s so that revenue stream would get cut anyway.
That is premised on a flawed assumption, which is that banks will just drop Apple Pay left, right, and center. If consumers find Apple Pay to be a worthwhile feature, they'll choose to do business with the banks that offer it. By that same token, banks looking to capitalize on a popular feature will leverage that feature to draw in and retain consumers. Additionally, Apple's current implementation is already pretty slick. If consumers have to go into a separate app or use some other more onerous method, just to use one bank's payment option, they may simply revert to using a less secure piece of plastic or use a different card altogether. Personally the former is what I largely do anyway at brick and mortar stores, just because reaching for my wallet is what I'm accustomed to, even though all of my cards are in Apple Pay. I love using Apple Pay online however. It's much more convenient than typing in credit card details every time I buy something somewhere that's not Amazon. Are banks going to cede being part of such a convenient and widely available payment option over 0.15% when the alternative is that the customer may choose to use a different Apple Pay-supported card altogether, resulting in $0.00 for the bank? And let's not lose sight of the fact that the reason banks were willing to give Apple a 0.15% cut in the first place is because using Apple Pay is very secure and uses biometric authentication and is not easily susceptible to theft or fraud, which in the end saves the bank money. They lose that benefit if people go back to plastic. Apple is also fortunate in that the cake is largely already baked. For banks who perhaps might wish to renege on Apple Pay support, it's far easier to never implement a popular feature in the first place than it is to rescind it once it's out there. I have no problem if Apple remains the most popular and widely implemented wallet out there. However, it should happen organically, not because Apple put up artificial walls that not only prevent competition, but potentially hamper future innovation.
