I mean… there are some fairly large fines they’ve levied that, more than 5 years later, still haven’t been paid. If this is flexing their power, it’s a creative way to do it!
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 Reportedly Satisfied With Apple's Plans to Open iPhone's NFC Chip to Rivals
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Woah… THAT is actually a textbook case of anticompetitive. Apple’s not doing anything even remotely that outrageous. All of their actions only affect folks that own iPhones. This bank in Norway are affecting folks that weren’t even doing business with the bank initially!
This is true. You can use other methods of payment on an iPhone. These banks are ONLY allowing you there method.
Does that include game consoles, TVs and many other devices you probably already own in your home?
I believe this is a move so they can launch Apple Card also in EU.
As long as they do that, I’m fine with any bank doing their own user-very-unfriendly app because as a minimum I will be able to have an Apple Card with Apple Pay.
Steve said it right… if Apple does things right people will buy its services; if it doesn’t people won’t buy them and it will all work itself out.
As long as they do that, I’m fine with any bank doing their own user-very-unfriendly app because as a minimum I will be able to have an Apple Card with Apple Pay.
Steve said it right… if Apple does things right people will buy its services; if it doesn’t people won’t buy them and it will all work itself out.
This is so sad the way you put it. All they’ll see is an additional way to track their users.
Ha! I hadn’t thought of it that way until you pointed both of those things out but you’re right on both counts! While I’m sure that’s how Apple would like to present the narrative as opposed to the current alternative that they did it as part of their having no other choice but to begrudgingly bend the knee to their EU masters, I’m still highly suspicious that if they didn’t have that impending requirement looming over them that they would’ve simply transitioned into a new but equally proprietary charging port. Perhaps even one based entirely on the current open USB-C standard but in every other way was just the lightning port rebranded. Same USB 2.0 transfer speeds, can only use the cables we let you use i.e. only those that we stand to gain revenue from, etc.You can thank Apple for the USB-C port as they were one of a small group that created it AND they added it to the iPhone right at the 10 year mark that they said they would. Which was incidentally a year before the EU required it.
But I guess we’ll never know now will we 🤷♂️
I don't think this is a change that's going to benefit the consumer at all.
Rather, it's going to allow European banks to have the sort of system they wanted in the first place, a clunky, fragmented mess that allows them to force users into using their own proprietary apps rather than being able to use the far more convenient Apple Wallet like we currently do.
If anything it's most likely going to make my life as a consumer worse just so banks can make a bit more money at my expense.
Rather, it's going to allow European banks to have the sort of system they wanted in the first place, a clunky, fragmented mess that allows them to force users into using their own proprietary apps rather than being able to use the far more convenient Apple Wallet like we currently do.
If anything it's most likely going to make my life as a consumer worse just so banks can make a bit more money at my expense.
Don’t you think that if Apple Pay is inherently a better user experience, then Apple users will choose those banks who support it?
It seems to me a similar issue to CarPlay: GM has informed that they will drop support for CarPlay and a lot of Apple users have already shared that they will look for other car manufacturers when they will buy a new car.
I think we as consumers can influence those choices, selecting a bank that supports Apple Pay…
The ideas are similar but not analogous.
For instance when I buy a new car, I'm going to choose one that supports CarPlay because it's a feature that I enjoy, however switching banks and closing my account isn't something that's as simple as a purchasing decision.
If I were to close my bank account and switch to another bank I'd be taking a large hit to my credit score which has a very real effect on my ability to get a mortgage and enter into other similar contracts.
If switching from bank to bank was nothing more than another consumer decision then it probably wouldn't be as bad but there are real financial implications, at least in my country, from opening and closing bank accounts - there's a barrier to switching that just isn't there with most other consumer decisions.
I agree that there is a higher barrier in switching banks, in addition to the psicological barrier as well… however there is a lot of innovation in the banking space in Europe on payment methods that I believe it is more and more decoupled from the bank account itself and becoming more a consumer choice.
In the end you can pick even a credit/debit card separate from your main account and use it for Apple Pay. I can tell you I live in Italy, I picked a Dutch bank which supported Apple Pay because at the time my main bank was late in supporting it and now I have both as they provide me different benefits. So I believe it will be a competitive advantage for the banks that will keep supporting Apple Pay…
Banks will gravitate to the option that makes it easiest for consumers. This is because the more bank activity and credit card charges, the more fees they will collect.
I think Apple doesn’t care either way. They had a plan, (they liked the reversibility/features of lightning, nothing like that existed in the market, they made sure something like that got created, then switched to it on the 10 year schedule they defined) and, they executed their plan. Folks misunderstanding the intent behind what Apple does? By now, Apple likely just expects that and only speaks when the misconception could potentially impact their bottom line. USB-C and all the things Apple enabled with it is built into the SoC, and we know those are on a multiyear track even before they’re planned to be in a future device. To think that the EU made a decision and Apple was able to respond in 2 years… that just means that folks think Apple has a godlike ability to produce and deliver a new architecture. Another reason why Apple doesn’t care to say anything to the negative.
Considering the input Apple had in the creation of USB-C Apple DID essentially transition to an equally proprietary charging port. It’s just that they did the work to get the rest of the industry to go along with their proprietary solution!
Then ‘ate their own dogfood’ by being the first to include the port on one of their products ensuring that third party solutions would start to be created and be available for any “future devices”. (Being able to get digital USB-Audio and midi control out of my musical instrument with just one cable to my iPhone is awesome)
Ahh true that all makes sense. Well in any case, I'm just glad all my primary devices now use the cable. I'm totally fine with this being the standard for the next 10 yearsI think Apple doesn’t care either way. They had a plan, (they liked the reversibility/features of lightning, nothing like that existed in the market, they made sure something like that got created, then switched to it on the 10 year schedule they defined) and, they executed their plan. Folks misunderstanding the intent behind what Apple does? By now, Apple likely just expects that and only speaks when the misconception could potentially impact their bottom line. USB-C and all the things Apple enabled with it is built into the SoC, and we know those are on a multiyear track even before they’re planned to be in a future device. To think that the EU made a decision and Apple was able to respond in 2 years… that just means that folks think Apple has a godlike ability to produce and deliver a new architecture. Another reason why Apple doesn’t care to say anything to the negative.
Considering the input Apple had in the creation of USB-C Apple DID essentially transition to an equally proprietary charging port. It’s just that they did the work to get the rest of the industry to go along with their proprietary solution!
And that's a good point about the lightning connector. There really wasn't anything like that at the time Apple debuted it and you can definitely see how it was sort of a test run before USB-C started becoming the norm several years later.And that’s a good point, too. I’ve seen someone mention that Apple didn’t want to do it because they’re currently fighting the regulation. However, the reason why they’re fighting it is, like you say, 10 years from now there’s bound to be something better, USB-C is not the final state of cabled connection technology. They recognize that having a regulation requiring a port restricts the adoption of new better technology when that technology becomes available. No future vendor is going to want to be forced to provide two ports on what’s bound to be even thinner devices due to some backwards regulation from 2024 that means they have to keep the old one while adopting the new.Ahh true that all makes sense. Well in any case, I'm just glad all my primary devices now use the cable. I'm totally fine with this being the standard for the next 10 years
Oh and here’s a new one. The EU has a new regulation for batteries to be more easily replaceable. And, there’s rumors that the iPhone 16 WILL have more easily replaceable batteries. SO, the same folks are saying that a regulation that just became a thing this year is why the iPhone 16, which has been in development for years, will have a more replaceable battery. At this point, I’m starting to wonder if the EU is just asking Apple what are they planning to do next, then creating regulations for it!