EU Regulators Accept Apple Commitments to Open NFC Access to Rivals

[d686546s]

it's not making a "level playing field".

it's about forcing changes that stop making Apple do things that many customers buy their products for.
if i wanted a device i could install anything, i had a choice. i would buy an android device.
many like the fact Apple vet apps and have more control to stop spyware and bad actor code getting onto devices.
the EU forced that change without regard to those who wanted this feature.

Because this isn't about competition between iOS and Android, but competition between all kinds of services. Maybe someone can figure out a better service than Apple Wallet, maybe not, but at least there's the possibility, which will also keep Apple on their toes.

It's a convenient argument to say that if people wanted x, they would have just bought a different device, but I don't think that's how people actually make these decisions. Something like Apple Wallet is largely interchangeable with possible competition on either really new and innovative features, or alternatively where Apple Pay just isn't available in a specific country. No one is going to switch their device ecosystem because they really want to use Google Pay or Apple Pay. If you were forced to use an Android phone tomorrow you'd install Google Pay or Samsung Pay and you would probably go on to live your life just fine, hence there just isn't competition on an ecosystem level.

So really the only way to enable competition in these areas is to allow people to pick and choose on the device they already have, which includes Apple. Everything else just doesn't work. Smartphones have become way too central to our lives, way too ubiquitous and at the same time way to locked down to only rely on ecosystem competition to keep everyone in check. That might be good in the short term because an integrated ecosystem can be incredibly convenient, and from a personal perspective I can absolutely understand how forcing everyone to support core platform services enhances the user experience, but in the long term it'll kill broader innovation and concentrate an incredible amount of power in the hands of just a few companies.

 

[DownUnderDan]

When will the US hit the EU with a range of tariffs.

I think you meant when will the US stop? The US has had tariffs against Europe for years. Google it.

 

[DownUnderDan]

You can also pay with cards everywhere in the US, and we get points and benefits. Ironically the US is far more pro-consumer than the EU in this space.

I hate to break it to you, but your corporate overlords in the US aren't being kind to you. You are paying for it and then some for your "free points". One example would be how they fleece you as a taxpayer by not paying their proper share of tax.

 

[Anaxarxes]

Great for openness and I think this should have done been from the start. BUT:

What would happen, if, let's say a large bank with millions of customers, prefers to cancel using Apple Wallet and Apple Pay, creates their own Wallet and payment options and therefor forcing its customers using these methods for payment?

Or a store prefers to use another wallet system for their CRM cards. A Gym uses their own platform for their membership card?

Will the EU commission then force the banks also to have an option for Apple Pay and Wallet as part of their regulatory activities? I doubt that...

Even though the APIs for Wallet, FaceID etc would be opened now for developers, I really like to be in the ecosystem and have access to all my stuff in ONE location.

 

[Ketsjap]

This is long overdue. In Europe there are multiple non-Apple-pay options that are being widely used, but can’t access the NFC-chip. So they have to rely on QR-codes to initiate a payment. This makes it more cumbersome to use. All while there is a perfectly usable NFC-chip in the device, but they can’t access it.
It’s undeniable that the main reason Apple did this is to favor its own payment system, to create hurdles for competitors.
You only want to use Apple Pay? By all means, keep using it. No one is forcing you to change. But at least now people have a choice. It’s called a free market. If anyone Americans should applaud that.

 

[bn-7bc]

When will the US hit the EU with a range of tariffs.

Wyy would the USW do that, the reason for the EU traits is to level the playing field so that EU tech don't get steamrolled by US megacorps?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Great for openness and I think this should have done been from the start. BUT:

What would happen, if, let's say a large bank with millions of customers, prefers to cancel using Apple Wallet and Apple Pay, creates their own Wallet and payment options and therefor forcing its customers using these methods for payment?

Or a store prefers to use another wallet system for their CRM cards. A Gym uses their own platform for their membership card?

1: that’s up to apple and not the bank. If they don’t want to pay Apple 30-50% of their interchange fee then Apple won’t allow them to connect with apple wallet.

And there no bank ever doing this in EU. These are all done by a banking conglomerate. Just how eID isn’t developed by one bank but all the banks in a country.

2: a store can’t legally prevent a wallet from functioning. If it used NFC then 100% of terminals work. And I don’t think a single CRM and gym card in EU that supports Apple wallet.

Will the EU commission then force the banks also to have an option for Apple Pay and Wallet as part of their regulatory activities? I doubt that...

Even though the APIs for Wallet, FaceID etc would be opened now for developers, I really like to be in the ecosystem and have access to all my stuff in ONE location.

Yes it would as it wants full interoperability of the financial system.

Just how it’s working on having a single unified electronic ID system between 27 countries.

 

[Abazigal]

Great for openness and I think this should have done been from the start. BUT:

What would happen, if, let's say a large bank with millions of customers, prefers to cancel using Apple Wallet and Apple Pay, creates their own Wallet and payment options and therefor forcing its customers using these methods for payment?

Or a store prefers to use another wallet system for their CRM cards. A Gym uses their own platform for their membership card?

Will the EU commission then force the banks also to have an option for Apple Pay and Wallet as part of their regulatory activities? I doubt that...

Even though the APIs for Wallet, FaceID etc would be opened now for developers, I really like to be in the ecosystem and have access to all my stuff in ONE location.

More competition doesn’t always result in a better experience for the end user. It just means there is more competition.

I just wish people would be more honest and upfront about this. It’s totally okay to say “Yeah, there’s a chance things may end up being worse, but it’s a risk we have to be ready to take”.

Yet they are always pretending that Apple is the one holding progress back, and that other financial institutions are somehow the victims here, and such a move has only pure upside.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Great for openness and I think this should have done been from the start. BUT:

What would happen, if, let's say a large bank with millions of customers, prefers to cancel using Apple Wallet and Apple Pay, creates their own Wallet and payment options and therefor forcing its customers using these methods for payment?

Or a store prefers to use another wallet system for their CRM cards. A Gym uses their own platform for their membership card?

Will the EU commission then force the banks also to have an option for Apple Pay and Wallet as part of their regulatory activities? I doubt that...

Even though the APIs for Wallet, FaceID etc would be opened now for developers, I really like to be in the ecosystem and have access to all my stuff in ONE location.

When I listen to American fear mongers I do wonder what kind of dystopian corporate hellscape you people live in.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

More competition doesn’t always result in a better experience for the end user. It just means there is more competition.

I just wish people would be more honest and upfront about this. It’s totally okay to say “Yeah, there’s a chance things may end up being worse, but it’s a risk we have to be ready to take”.

Yet they are always pretending that Apple is the one holding progress back, and that other financial institutions are somehow the victims here, and such a move has only pure upside.

Well it is in this case Apple is holding progress back and it’s kind of annoying as a European. So we just find clunky workarounds.

Apple wallet is extremely barebones considering the functionality we want to have in it. Using NFC and a secure biometric authentication in a separate wallet is then needed to build the functionality that’s needed for as close as possible for 100% citizens.

Edit: and indeed when competition exist it doesn’t mean the best solution will win. But this is always the case. Sometimes the worst solution wins because of sheer luck or other factors

 

[mrochester]

Great for openness and I think this should have done been from the start. BUT:

What would happen, if, let's say a large bank with millions of customers, prefers to cancel using Apple Wallet and Apple Pay, creates their own Wallet and payment options and therefor forcing its customers using these methods for payment?

Or a store prefers to use another wallet system for their CRM cards. A Gym uses their own platform for their membership card?

Will the EU commission then force the banks also to have an option for Apple Pay and Wallet as part of their regulatory activities? I doubt that...

Even though the APIs for Wallet, FaceID etc would be opened now for developers, I really like to be in the ecosystem and have access to all my stuff in ONE location.

This is the problem with pro-business, anti-consumer regulation. It’s the consumers that end up suffering.

Us consumers just cannot be allowed to have nice things, especially if it means EU companies don’t make as much money as they would like to.

 

[d686546s]

More competition doesn’t always result in a better experience for the end user. It just means there is more competition.

I just wish people would be more honest and upfront about this. It’s totally okay to say “Yeah, there’s a chance things may end up being worse, but it’s a risk we have to be ready to take”.

Yet they are always pretending that Apple is the one holding progress back, and that other financial institutions are somehow the victims here, and such a move has only pure upside.

That's certainly true, just as much as it is true that things could get better or that, in this case, Apple's preferred approach may not be the best.

As always in these cases, how you ask the question and define the success criteria will almost pre-empt the conclusion. Apple Wallet is a fantastic solution, but if you live in a country where it isn't available or where the financial institutions don't support it your experience will be worse. From a European/global perspective, also never discount the possibility that Apple just doesn't roll out certain features at all, or with long delays, and that if the hardware was open local competition could have entered that market and provided services for local consumers. It could also be that Apple just doesn't offer some features that another solution could.

Even if none of this is true, maybe ease of use isn't the only thing you should consider and having a local solution that supports local needs, even if it is slightly clunkier to use, is better for everyone (other than Apple, of course). But alternatively, it could just as well be that competition drives innovation, which in turn improves your experience even if you never step foot outside of Apple Pay.

I think my main point here is that many are quick to point out that things could get worse, but stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that they might not. If we're being honest, let's be honest in both directions.

This is the problem with pro-business, anti-consumer regulation. It’s the consumers that end up suffering.

Us consumers just cannot be allowed to have nice things, especially if it means EU companies don’t make as much money as they would like to.

Really whether Apple needs to open this up or not, either side is pro-business, it's just different businesses and the main thrust of opposition here really is that it might undermine US companies making as much money as they would like.

I'm saying this because the jury is still very much out on whether consumers will be better or worse off -- and what these should even mean in practice.

 

[chucker23n1]

Because this isn't about competition between iOS and Android, but competition between all kinds of services.

OK, like what?

What is the NFC-based service you cannot use right now that would be beneficial for the consumer to use?

Maybe someone can figure out a better service than Apple Wallet, maybe not, but at least there's the possibility,

But there already was the possibility, on Android, and it hasn't happened. Because Apple Pay is actually pretty good already.

And now, by opening it up, what consumers lose is that third parties get access to far more data. The likes of Equifax are going to love this.

No one is going to switch their device ecosystem because they really want to use Google Pay or Apple Pay.

Exactly: because that wouldn't actually offer any benefit. And it doesn't now either.

This isn't a situation where Apple Pay is mediocre, and the Android ecosystem offers a number of nice NFC services that people are missing out on. Or one where cutting out a middleman would improve things for consumers.

 

[AppliedMicro]

So it absolutely could impact those who rotate through a decent collection of cards that offer differing cashback offers.

Those aren’t a priority for the EU. A priority for the EU is efficient digital payments - not the inefficiency of charging ridiculously high merchant fees that allow for very high cashback rates.

But this is not competition. It's the complete opposite of competition. it is forcing a company into homogeny. This stifles competition. Competition is where the free market is allowed to decide, not where it is imposed by a government.

If anyone is forcing companies into homogeneity, it’s Apple.
Apple forces every payment provider into Apple Pay for NFC access. This stifles competition. Competition is where the free market is allowed to decide, not where it is imposed by a a duopoly of wallet operators.

I wonder why EC sticks around in Germany if it’s owned by MC…?

I doesn‘t. The EC brand is owned by Mastercard - but only in „token use“ (to maintain the trademark). Germany‘s domestic „girocard“ scheme is still widely known as and colloquially called as „EC“ - though it has got little to do with Mastercard.

Now watch banks pulling their cards from Apple Pay to force us to use their own sh!tty apps.

You’re not forced.
You can switch banks to one that supports Apple Pay.
Also, you‘re not forced to use NFC payments through phones.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And now, by opening it up, what consumers lose is that third parties get access to far more data. The likes of Equifax are going to love this.

Quite the contrary.

Payment providers (banks) have the transaction data anyway.

Allowing a banking app NFC access with its own apps cuts out the middleman (Apple) - a third party that gets access and is able to aggregate payment data on individual users basis across different payment providers/card used by that individual.

 

[mrochester]

Those aren’t a priority for the EU. A priority for the EU is efficient digital payments - not the inefficiency of charging ridiculously high merchant fees that allow for very high cashback rates.

If anyone is forcing companies into homogeneity, it’s Apple.
Apple forces every payment provider into Apple Pay for NFC access. This stifles competition. Competition is where the free market is allowed to decide, not where it is imposed by a a duopoly of wallet operators.

I doesn‘t. The EC brand is owned by Mastercard - but only in „token use“ (to maintain the trademark). Germany‘s domestic „girocard“ scheme is still widely known as and colloquially called as „EC“ - though it has got little to do with Mastercard.

You’re not forced.
You can switch banks to one that supports Apple Pay.
Also, you‘re not forced to use NFC payments through phones.

Sounds like you are advocating for taking control away from consumers. Consumers shouldn’t have to switch banks to get Apple Pay; every bank should be forced to offer Apple Pay if that’s what the consumers wants to use. Consumers should have the power, not the businesses.

 

[Anaxarxes]

1: that’s up to apple and not the bank. If they don’t want to pay Apple 30-50% of their interchange fee then Apple won’t allow them to connect with apple wallet.

And there no bank ever doing this in EU. These are all done by a banking conglomerate. Just how eID isn’t developed by one bank but all the banks in a country.

2: a store can’t legally prevent a wallet from functioning. If it used NFC then 100% of terminals work. And I don’t think a single CRM and gym card in EU that supports Apple wallet.

Yes it would as it wants full interoperability of the financial system.

Just how it’s working on having a single unified electronic ID system between 27 countries.

I live in Amsterdam, have multiple CRM cards in my wallet, from airlines, to restaurants.

I'm not talking about the Apple Wallet not functions, my point was it's not up to grabs which wallet and pay system is now defined by the app and the developer. I don't want to look through multiple wallets and payment systems...

 

[Sophisticatednut]

OK, like what?

What is the NFC-based service you cannot use right now that would be beneficial for the consumer to use?

It’s between all payment services.

Example I would benefit from Swish being able to use NFC to do payments instead of only using QR code or phone numbers to send payments.

But there already wasthe possibility, on Android, and it hasn't happened. Because Apple Pay is actually pretty good already.
And now, by opening it up, what consumers lose is that third parties get access to far more data. The likes of Equifax are going to love this.

They have exactly the same amount of data.

I’d doesn’t matter what’s possible on android when it’s not available on iOS.

A payment system doesn’t work with having only 50% of customers able to use it. It needs to have a payment method that works for all devices. And using a QR code is that minimal they can use.

Exactly: because that wouldn't actually offer any benefit. And it doesn't now either.

This isn't a situation where Apple Pay is mediocre, and the Android ecosystem offers a number of nice NFC services that people are missing out on. Or one where cutting out a middleman would improve things for consumers.

Apple Pay isn’t mediocre, but Apple wallet is.

This would be great if we could use the wallet for but allplebis too slow and incapable to implement it as sofar.

Or take this, it’s impossible to implement using apple’s current wallet.

 

[Anaxarxes]

When I listen to American fear mongers I do wonder what kind of dystopian corporate hellscape you people live in.

Hi there from the Netherland mate

Any reflection to my point you'd like to debunk be my guest.

Al I'm pointing out is the exact thing that the EUC tried to do - I want to continue to use Apple Wallet and Apple Pay. What would happen that with this directive my bank, gym, restaurants etc all have separate systems that I need to find what I'm looking for? I'd like to continue to use things my way, while not preventing any other use to to it differently.

 

[d686546s]

Sounds like you are advocating for taking control away from consumers. Consumers shouldn’t have to switch banks to get Apple Pay; every bank should be forced to offer Apple Pay if that’s what the consumers wants to use.

I assume you're being tongue in cheek here, but it just shows the limitations of this argument. I agree with you that in an ideal world consumers should be able to choose their preferred wallet and use it with their payment cards, but they should equally be able to choose their preferred device and use their preferred services or install whatever they want.

If 'just switch' is a valid argument, it works here as well.

 

[Anaxarxes]

This is the problem with pro-business, anti-consumer regulation. It’s the consumers that end up suffering.

Us consumers just cannot be allowed to have nice things, especially if it means EU companies don’t make as much money as they would like to.

I'm not necessarily thinking that what EUC is doing is wrong. What I'm raising is what EUC is doing with Apple, should also then equally on the developers.

Consumers get protected financially with a more open system, but do not get a better experience.

 

[wbeasley]

Because this isn't about competition between iOS and Android, but competition between all kinds of services. Maybe someone can figure out a better service than Apple Wallet, maybe not, but at least there's the possibility, which will also keep Apple on their toes.

It's a convenient argument to say that if people wanted x, they would have just bought a different device, but I don't think that's how people actually make these decisions. Something like Apple Wallet is largely interchangeable with possible competition on either really new and innovative features, or alternatively where Apple Pay just isn't available in a specific country. No one is going to switch their device ecosystem because they really want to use Google Pay or Apple Pay. If you were forced to use an Android phone tomorrow you'd install Google Pay or Samsung Pay and you would probably go on to live your life just fine, hence there just isn't competition on an ecosystem level.

So really the only way to enable competition in these areas is to allow people to pick and choose on the device they already have, which includes Apple. Everything else just doesn't work. Smartphones have become way too central to our lives, way too ubiquitous and at the same time way to locked down to only rely on ecosystem competition to keep everyone in check. That might be good in the short term because an integrated ecosystem can be incredibly convenient, and from a personal perspective I can absolutely understand how forcing everyone to support core platform services enhances the user experience, but in the long term it'll kill broader innovation and concentrate an incredible amount of power in the hands of just a few companies.

So competition is good when it is Apple that is forced to open things up... Samsung announce a Ring that wont work with iOS devices. Are they going to face the same push to expand that?

I have Android devices - I used them for media consumption on SD cards when traveling and app testing for work (the vendor support both iOS and Android so I need to troubleshoot both for employees). I dont trust Google like I do Apple. If I want to buy an app, I purchase a card from the supermarket and use the code to pay. I'm not giving them a credit or debit card. Odd how when I buy something on eBay or Amazon, I always get a flood of spam about deliveries that are coming. Someone is leaking that I made a purchase recently. I dont get that with Apple Pay.

Account management is so bad with Google I added an email for a friend's device and now it defaults to that email all the time rather than my original email and you can't change it. Makes me wonder exactly how robust their customer management is... I even disabled her email and it still tries to reactivate it so it doesnt forget her email afterwards...

 

[wbeasley]

how odd that the biggest proponents of opening up iOS as per EU directives are the ones who complain the loudest when people suggest there is already a choice for open systems and they can go to Android devices... yet now when banks might make their own payment apps, they also loudly say "just change banks".

double standards?

i like how ApplePay works now.
I use my watch to select from one of the many cards and store loyalty cards I have.
Or I use my phone.
It's simple, safe and works.
And I would be really annoyed if a bank pulled their card from ApplePay and tried to force me to use their Wallet or app.

 

[wbeasley]

Quite the contrary.

Payment providers (banks) have the transaction data anyway.

Allowing a banking app NFC access with its own apps cuts out the middleman (Apple) - a third party that gets access and is able to aggregate payment data on individual users basis across different payment providers/card used by that individual.

where is the proof that Apple does that now?

 

[d686546s]

So competition is good when it is Apple that is forced to open things up... Samsung announce a Ring that wont work with iOS devices. Are they going to face the same push to expand that?

I assume not, after all no one has pushed Apple to actively support Android with the Apple Watch. If Samsung or Google, however, actively prevented the Apple Watch from working with Android or, vice versa, Apple actively prevented the Galaxy ring or any of the WatchOS devices working properly with iOS you'd have a ball game.

Remember that not even the DMA creates an obligation to actively bring your core platform services to any other platform. It doesn't even stipulate generally that you proactively have to support any other service, you just have to enable interoperability when requested.

I have Android devices - I used them for media consumption on SD cards when traveling and app testing for work (the vendor support both iOS and Android so I need to troubleshoot both for employees). I dont trust Google like I do Apple. If I want to buy an app, I purchase a card from the supermarket and use the code to pay. I'm not giving them a credit or debit card. Odd how when I buy something on eBay or Amazon, I always get a flood of spam about deliveries that are coming. Someone is leaking that I made a purchase recently. I dont get that with Apple Pay.

I use PayPal on eBay for buyer protection and have never had that problem either. Beyond that I can't comment.