Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The issue is security, which the European regulators don't give a damn about as they are happy for dirty money and human traffickers to operate throughout the continent. Politicians like to take a cut of dirty money so allowing more p2p finance apps used by criminals helps grease their palms.

Stuff like this will happen more and more.

And BitCoin has long been the currency of the underworld and shonksters...
 
  • Like
Reactions: stinksroundhere
Perhaps those who live currently under QR codes and not having everything in a Wallet dont see the benefits of double button pushing and selecting a payment option from your Watch or Phone.
No reason why we couldn’t get that. In fact, the article says:

„Apple committed to enable access to important functionalities available on iPhones. This includes Double-Click and Face ID. iPhone users will be able to double-click the side button of their iPhones to launch their preferred payment application. Competing wallets will also be able to use Face ID, Touch ID and passcode to verify users' identities.“
Allowing access to NFT and risking banks taking their ApplePay access method away and forcing customers to use a different bank authorised app for payments isnt going to be optional. it will be another app and disrupt the "all in one place" Wallet function that works conveniently
As I see it, it’s up to Apple to compete provide a better alternative at reasonable pricing to payment providers - rather than their „My way or the highway“ (no NFC access) approach currently employed.

Will some banks consider dropping Apple Pay support? Probably.
Consumers can still vote with their (yes) wallets and choose a bank that supports it.

Switching banks is less or no more time and money consuming than switching mobile operating systems.
Particularly if you make use of the account switching service that European regulation provides for. 😀

And don‘t underestimate consumers on this - there‘d been considerable public backlash online against payment provider that didn‘t and/or were late in providing Apple Pay support in Europe.

Perhaps your wording should have been "and is POSSIBLY able to aggregate payment data".
They‘re showing me transactions from several cards in the wallet App back to (at least) last year, including time and location. They‘re absolve to aggregate such data if their software allows sending it (what’s stored on my phone) back to their servers. Who says they don‘t? (Not saying they do - but regulation shouldn’t be based on such promises)
 
"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."

You are implying Apple aggregate data on people and use it because they have access to all your purchase data which individual banks are not able to do when all they see is their own card purchases.

Perhaps your wording should have been "and is POSSIBLY able to aggregate payment data".

Apple have never viewed customers as the product unlike some other tech companies who store and leverage every bit of data about you they have access too. The were the first to make apps disclose what personal data apps were accessing as well. Made some users question how much info they were giving to third parties.
But it’s always about consumer choice but always Apple should always keep full control.

And anytime Apple loses control over anything it’s argued as consumers loosing control when that’s not what’s happening.

I love how the argument against emulators was made in almost easy but it has tens of millions of users now after consumers getting the option to chose it on their device without changing hardware.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Atog
They already can. Anything added to Apple Wallet has access to NFC. Apple showed people opening office doors with their phones and watches yeas ago. Transit cards can be added today and use NFC.

Apple has made this available to a few specially blessed/selected businesses (eg: certain transit operators have been given access to implement digital versions of their fare cards), but there is no generally available API to add NFC cards to Apple Wallet.

Certainly, no banks or financial institutions have been allowed to add their own NFC cards to the wallet as an alternative to Apple Pay.
 
I think it is the transit agencies loving the extra "float" people keep on their accounts, allowing them to have extra money for rides not taken. There is really no more reason for this type of approach unless you're trying to upgrade an already existing bespoke system like LA's TAP.

Perhaps, but this also becomes a liability on the operator's balance sheet. TfL Oyster cards issued in the first years of Oyster's operation had no expiration date, and apparently there is over £400m in unclaimed balance sitting on cards that are no longer being used. Sounds great, except accounting rules mean that this money must remain available should those customers show up wanting the balance refunded. TfL can spend the interest they're earning on it but not the original funds!
 
But it’s always about consumer choice but always Apple should always keep full control.

And anytime Apple loses control over anything it’s argued as consumers loosing control when that’s not what’s happening.

I love how the argument against emulators was made in almost easy but it has tens of millions of users now after consumers getting the option to chose it on their device without changing hardware.
I wish that comment red well enough to be understandable…
 
  • Like
Reactions: iOS Geek
No reason why we couldn’t get that. In fact, the article says:

„Apple committed to enable access to important functionalities available on iPhones. This includes Double-Click and Face ID. iPhone users will be able to double-click the side button of their iPhones to launch their preferred payment application. Competing wallets will also be able to use Face ID, Touch ID and passcode to verify users' identities.“

As I see it, it’s up to Apple to compete provide a better alternative at reasonable pricing to payment providers - rather than their „My way or the highway“ (no NFC access) approach currently employed.

Will some banks consider dropping Apple Pay support? Probably.
Consumers can still vote with their (yes) wallets and choose a bank that supports it.

Switching banks is less or no more time and money consuming than switching mobile operating systems.
Particularly if you make use of the account switching service that European regulation provides for. 😀

And don‘t underestimate consumers on this - there‘d been considerable public backlash online against payment provider that didn‘t and/or were late in providing Apple Pay support in Europe.


They‘re showing me transactions from several cards in the wallet App back to (at least) last year, including time and location. They‘re absolve to aggregate such data if their software allows sending it (what’s stored on my phone) back to their servers. Who says they don‘t? (Not saying they do - but regulation shouldn’t be based on such promises)
Again with the answers that are hard to read and understand…

a bank statement shows time and dates of purchases.
there is a huge difference to reporting data such as card use to you and leveraging that data to know what you buy, from whom…

and “whataboutism”… thats FUD. Not fact.
 
No reason why we couldn’t get that. In fact, the article says:

„Apple committed to enable access to important functionalities available on iPhones. This includes Double-Click and Face ID. iPhone users will be able to double-click the side button of their iPhones to launch their preferred payment application. Competing wallets will also be able to use Face ID, Touch ID and passcode to verify users' identities.“

As I see it, it’s up to Apple to compete provide a better alternative at reasonable pricing to payment providers - rather than their „My way or the highway“ (no NFC access) approach currently employed.

Will some banks consider dropping Apple Pay support? Probably.
Consumers can still vote with their (yes) wallets and choose a bank that supports it.

Switching banks is less or no more time and money consuming than switching mobile operating systems.
Particularly if you make use of the account switching service that European regulation provides for. 😀

And don‘t underestimate consumers on this - there‘d been considerable public backlash online against payment provider that didn‘t and/or were late in providing Apple Pay support in Europe.


They‘re showing me transactions from several cards in the wallet App back to (at least) last year, including time and location. They‘re absolve to aggregate such data if their software allows sending it (what’s stored on my phone) back to their servers. Who says they don‘t? (Not saying they do - but regulation shouldn’t be based on such promises)
So when you want a phone operating system that allows installing anything, it is not convenient to switch to Android... but when we like to use Apple's Wallet as has been working with our existing bank cards and they decide to use their own app instead, we just need to switch banks because it is easy in the EU... huh?

I think I see where you are coming from now ;)
 
Id really like to know what any single bank would do to equal or improve this. Or any bank-led consortium of their meneber banks? They are already trying with Paze. And all Paze appears to be is an updated CurrenC.
Pretty simple: a user could install a different wallet system... Google Pay for ezample
 
And UPI is a payment system from India, Eu isn’t the ones who regulate Indians for how they use their system in India.

Cmon do better. UPI uses a P2P method (it can also use NFC for offline payments). It is an example of how scammers exploit NFC and P2P payments.

That is a billion dollar industry and the crooks involved are buying up all the land under your feet and owning your countries. You think they'll care about democracy once they laundered enough of their crimes? They'll buy your cops and your presidents to stay out of jail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wbeasley
I wish that comment red well enough to be understandable…
The debate surrounding consumer choice and corporate control often features Apple as a key player. Interestingly, it is often Apple users, rather than the company itself, who argue for maintaining tight control over the ecosystem. They claim this control is in the best interest of consumers. However, this narrative is fundamentally flawed and misleading.

When Apple loses control over certain aspects of its ecosystem, these proponents frequently frame it as a loss for consumers, suggesting that their experience and security are compromised. In reality, what’s happening is quite the opposite: consumers are gaining more freedom and flexibility in how they use their devices.

A prime example of this is the controversy over emulators. Initially, many Apple users opposed the use of emulators, arguing they would harm the user experience and pose security risks. Yet, once consumers were given the option to use emulators without needing to modify their hardware, tens of millions embraced them. This widespread adoption clearly demonstrates that consumers value the ability to choose how they use their devices. Emulators have provided users with opportunities to access software and games that were previously unavailable to them, enhancing their overall experience.

Moreover, the success of emulators shows that consumer choice can coexist with a high-quality user experience. The ability to install and use emulators has not led to the catastrophic outcomes these Apple users predicted. Instead, it has empowered users, offering them more control over their digital lives and allowing them to make decisions that best suit their needs.

In conclusion, the argument that Apple’s control is synonymous with consumer benefit does not hold up under scrutiny. The case of emulators illustrates that when consumers are given more choices, they can enhance their device usage in meaningful ways. True consumer empowerment comes from having the freedom to choose, not from being confined within a tightly controlled ecosystem. Therefore, it’s clear that consumer choice should be prioritized over corporate control, allowing users to fully realize the potential of their technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppliedMicro
Cmon do better. UPI uses a P2P method (it can also use NFC for offline payments). It is an example of how scammers exploit NFC and P2P payments.

That is a billion dollar industry and the crooks involved are buying up all the land under your feet and owning your countries. You think they'll care about democracy once they laundered enough of their crimes? They'll buy your cops and your presidents to stay out of jail.
We have had p2p forever in payment systems. This exist because Apple doesn’t allow its use of the NFC chip to facilitate a secure transaction.
This is how you can pay in store


And this is how you can request payment from a friend.
 
So when you want a phone operating system that allows installing anything, it is not convenient to switch to Android... but when we like to use Apple's Wallet as has been working with our existing bank cards and they decide to use their own app instead, we just need to switch banks because it is easy in the EU... huh?

I think I see where you are coming from now ;)
It takes literally less time to open a bank account than it takes to type these comments and read the responses.

And it’s free.
 
The debate surrounding consumer choice and corporate control often features Apple as a key player. Interestingly, it is often Apple users, rather than the company itself, who argue for maintaining tight control over the ecosystem. They claim this control is in the best interest of consumers. However, this narrative is fundamentally flawed and misleading.

When Apple loses control over certain aspects of its ecosystem, these proponents frequently frame it as a loss for consumers, suggesting that their experience and security are compromised. In reality, what’s happening is quite the opposite: consumers are gaining more freedom and flexibility in how they use their devices.

A prime example of this is the controversy over emulators. Initially, many Apple users opposed the use of emulators, arguing they would harm the user experience and pose security risks. Yet, once consumers were given the option to use emulators without needing to modify their hardware, tens of millions embraced them. This widespread adoption clearly demonstrates that consumers value the ability to choose how they use their devices. Emulators have provided users with opportunities to access software and games that were previously unavailable to them, enhancing their overall experience.

Moreover, the success of emulators shows that consumer choice can coexist with a high-quality user experience. The ability to install and use emulators has not led to the catastrophic outcomes these Apple users predicted. Instead, it has empowered users, offering them more control over their digital lives and allowing them to make decisions that best suit their needs.

In conclusion, the argument that Apple’s control is synonymous with consumer benefit does not hold up under scrutiny. The case of emulators illustrates that when consumers are given more choices, they can enhance their device usage in meaningful ways. True consumer empowerment comes from having the freedom to choose, not from being confined within a tightly controlled ecosystem. Therefore, it’s clear that consumer choice should be prioritized over corporate control, allowing users to fully realize the potential of their technology.
Apple never allowed game emulators because of copyright.
the EU pushing for sideloading made this less of an issue for Apple because now when rights owners get upset, Apple can say "we upheld it as long as we could but the EU forced it". Washes hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LowKeyed
It takes literally less time to open a bank account than it takes to type these comments and read the responses.

And it’s free.
it would take less time to walk in, buy an Android phone and port your number.
and that gives you all the added functionality to load whatever you want.

there is a lot more to banking than just opening an account.
all your scheduled payments need to be rebuilt.
all your credit details in streaming media and subscriptions and in Apple and every other place that stores your card details. :)

you know that.
 
So when you want a phone operating system that allows installing anything, it is not convenient to switch to Android... but when we like to use Apple's Wallet as has been working with our existing bank cards and they decide to use their own app instead, we just need to switch banks because it is easy in the EU... huh?
Both are inconvenient. But there are more banks to choose from and more competition between banks than for operating systems.
Apple never allowed game emulators because of copyright.
the EU pushing for sideloading made this less of an issue for Apple because now when rights owners get upset, Apple can say "we upheld it as long as we could but the EU forced it". Washes hands.
First, Google has been distributing and selling retro emulator apps on their Play Store for many years.
Second, they‘re allowing them worldwide, not only in the EU - which would, if your claim were true, open them up to lawsuits/legal issues - including in the U.S., where those can get particularly nasty.

👉🏻 Retro gaming emulators have obviously not been a copyright issue for anyone else (let alone someone the size of Apple) and the explanation doesn’t make any sense.
it would take less time to walk in, buy an Android phone and port your number.
and that gives you all the added functionality to load whatever you want.

there is a lot more to banking than just opening an account.
all your scheduled payments need to be rebuilt.
Just as there’s a lot more to switching to an Android phone than porting your number.
And you know that.

Side note: although in Europe and many other countries, there’s no need to „port your number“, when you just pop your SIM card in the new phone.
The people who refuse to switch to an android phone now telling people they can always switch banks if they are not happy.

Imagine that.
I do acknowledge the irony.

So let’s just agree that consumers can’t quickly and easily „just switch to Android“ and that there is a customer lock-in of sorts for both banks and smartphone platforms.
 
Both are inconvenient. But there are more banks to choose from and more competition between banks than for operating systems.

First, Google has been distributing and selling retro emulator apps on their Play Store for many years.
Second, they‘re allowing them worldwide, not only in the EU - which would, if your claim were true, open them up to lawsuits/legal issues - including in the U.S., where those can get particularly nasty.

👉🏻 Retro gaming emulators have obviously not been a copyright issue for anyone else (let alone someone the size of Apple) and the explanation doesn’t make any sense.

Just as there’s a lot more to switching to an Android phone than porting your number.
And you know that.

Side note: although in Europe and many other countries, there’s no need to „port your number“, when you just pop your SIM card in the new phone.

I do acknowledge the irony.

So let’s just agree that consumers can’t quickly and easily „just switch to Android“ and that there is a customer lock-in of sorts for both banks and smartphone platforms.
You initially said how quick and easy it was to switch banks... with no mention about phones.

What Google does or doesnt do is not our concern here.
Apple took a stance that game emulators used copyright ROMs.
And Google didnt need to approve apps... people could dev and sideload them and circumvent any checks.

There actually isnt an issue switching phones.
The old iPhone wont stop working without a SIM card. You can EASILY connect to Wifi for apps that need internet (you could even hotspot the Android phone). And other apps will keep working on the old phone as well.
You have two devices but that's a small price to pay for the freedom to do whatever you want, isnt it?

Finally, the irony is acknowledged.

I'm not agreeing to your final statement however.
Switching to an Android phone is a choice based on app availability and freedom to load whatever apps you want.
That's your choice to do if you like.
If banks with NFC access now choose to set up the own apps AND stop using Apple Wallet that's their choice and I have no control over it. And all the inconvenience of changing banks and cards and accounts.
If they leave Wallet alone and keep using it as well then I'm fine with access being granted.
I cant for the life of me see a single reason you would use a per bank app for paying but let them try to convince people that single service apps are better than one group app...
 
You initially said how quick and easy it was to switch banks... with no mention about phones.
Yes. Holding up a mirror to the „Just switch to Android“ arguments was intended.
What Google does or doesnt do is not our concern here.
Apple took a stance that game emulators used copyright ROMs.
And Google didnt need to approve apps... people could dev and sideload them and circumvent any checks.
Google did approve them to their Play Store.

I don’t know how/whether Apple took their stance publicly - but if anything, it has been exposed as being disingenuous. Particularly by their decision to allow such apps worldwide. It‘s not like copyright law has changed substantially.

Switching to an Android phone is a choice based on app availability and freedom to load whatever apps you want.
That's your choice to do if you like.
But, as you admitted yourself, it’s not as good a choice and Google isn’t as trustworthy as Apple. That means there’s a lack of reasonable or attractive choice.

If banks with NFC access now choose to set up the own apps AND stop using Apple Wallet that's their choice and I have no control over it. And all the inconvenience of changing banks and cards and accounts.
Just as I did have no choice in Apple arbitrarily pulling onerous terms out of their a*se to make game streaming apps economically unviable (just because they didn’t like them competing with Apple Arcade and their App Store).
I cant for the life of me see a single reason you would use a per bank app for paying but let them try to convince people that single service apps are better than one group app...
Well, neither can I.

But you can clearly see why payment providers would do it: To make it inconvenient for users to switch between payment instruments and monopolise their payment transactions.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Sophisticatednut
why payment providers would do it: To make it inconvenient for users to switch between payment instruments and monopolise their payment transactions.
You are pro choice of payment instruments and against payment providers making it hard to select your preferred payment instrument for a transaction, thereby steering or monopolising your transactions.

Yet you are against choice of payment processor for digital in-app transactions and for operating system developers making it hard to select your preferred way of paying for them - if not outright forcing you (and developers) to use their payment system.

👉🏻 You do realise the irony? 😏
 
Apple never allowed game emulators because of copyright.
the EU pushing for sideloading made this less of an issue for Apple because now when rights owners get upset, Apple can say "we upheld it as long as we could but the EU forced it". Washes hands.
Lol that’s never been a legitimate reason.

Rights owners have never had a single legal case to make against Apple or anyone for allowing emulators.

Yet here we are
it would take less time to walk in, buy an Android phone and port your number.
and that gives you all the added functionality to load whatever you want.

there is a lot more to banking than just opening an account.
all your scheduled payments need to be rebuilt.
all your credit details in streaming media and subscriptions and in Apple and every other place that stores your card details. :)

you know that.
You are aware it takes less time opening up a new bank account on my phone on a Sunday than it would to get dressed, get in to my car and get to the store and buy a new phone 10min away from me and get home.

It takes longer to migrate my iPhone data to a new android device.

I don’t need to rebuild my payments or anything. Using different banks doesn’t increase or decrease my credit score.

I already have 7 different bank accounts and 5 different card.

I use NorwegianBank credit card for their points to get flights for free.
- 1 card
Swedbank as my normal debit card and payments and house mortgage.
- 1 card

Forex for their low fees when I’m traveling abroad
- 1 card

SEB for stocks( get my dividend here)
-I don’t have a card
Avanza for stocks I actively trade in.
- they have no card.

Revolut to pay online services in different currencies as well as the one time cards.
- 4 cards

SVEA for my business I run.
- I don’t have a card.


The people who refuse to switch to an android phone now telling people they can always switch banks if they are not happy.

Imagine that.
And you don’t find it ironic the side who’s arguing that you can just buy a different phone is completely acceptable if doesn’t think it’s acceptable to switch bank?

Heck I can even keep my normal bank and transfer money to Revolut or Norwegian bank if I want to use their cards.

In a hypothetical scenario where all my banks currently stops using Apple Pay I could just open up N26 in 5 min and transfer whatever funds I need in 2 min and use it.
 
Last edited:
it would take less time to walk in, buy an Android phone and port your number.
and that gives you all the added functionality to load whatever you want.

there is a lot more to banking than just opening an account.
all your scheduled payments need to be rebuilt.
all your credit details in streaming media and subscriptions and in Apple and every other place that stores your card details. :)

you know that.
Remember we are talking about Applewallet.

It takes you 2min to open up a new bank account at a bank that have Apple Pay.

But hey at least all the bank accounts services are interchangeable for free.

While changing device is very expensive, clunky and that all for getting 1 function
 
Remember we are talking about Applewallet.

It takes you 2min to open up a new bank account at a bank that have Apple Pay.

But hey at least all the bank accounts services are interchangeable for free.

While changing device is very expensive, clunky and that all for getting 1 function

I feel like I’m in crazy world here. Switching your entire financial life is easier than ordering a phone from Amazon and popping in a SIM card?

Things I would need to set up/change if I switched banks:
  • Paycheck direct deposit
  • Retirement Savings (outside of 401k)
  • Investment Accounts
  • Mortgage payment (mortgage is held by my bank, but since that isn’t super common, we won’t refinance it)
  • Bill Pay for utilities, cell phone bill, 5 credit cards
  • Property Tax bill
  • Automatic transfer into high-yield savings accounts
  • Probably open new savings account with new bank for same-day transfers.
  • Zelle/Apple Pay/Paypal/Venmo links
  • Go through last year’s payments to catch random annual bills/charges that require debit/bank card to avoid fees
  • Cancel all automatic payments
Then go in person to cancel account with old bank.

Oh, and hope I didn’t miss anything, otherwise get charged massive fees for overdrawing account OR keep account around with enough money sitting in it to cover anything for at least a year.

Again. Switching to android: Order phone, pop in SIM card, have stuff sync overnight.

Is it possible we found Vestager’s MacRumors account?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.