Agree. Windows Phone was the one but MS had a monkey running the company at the time - it should have been ringfenced and kept out of greater company roadmaps, that’s what Jobs did with nascent developments.
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 to Accuse Apple of Unfairly Blocking Third-Party Access to NFC Payment Technology on iPhone
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, good journalists seek the truth. Dan Rather? not so much.
As if anyone believes this is sarcasm ?Who knows? Shouldn't we force Bank of America or VISA to build a way for Apple to use it? It's certainly unfair that Bank of America VISA cards don't allow their competitors to use the chip! They're preventing competition!
/s
I’ve come full circle on that ridiculous childish comment of leaving X market because it’s a good way for the uneducated to self-identify and warn other users.
And why should anyone be allowed to horn into something Apple has created? I'm sure if Apple was fairly compensated, and the access controlled, it may be a different story.
hehehe
Change is the core of existence......
If there had been no Big Banging Breakthrough Change of the Nothingness that existed before the beginning, we would not exist. So let there be change!
That's a lot of buzzwords that amount to saying that Apple should be forced to build whatever APIs any other developer wants.
My point in asking about actual current features of the Apple Card that utilize the NFC chip is simply that you have no evidence that APIs that you are claiming that Apple is withholding even exist in a secure, documented form that could be open to developers. Nor do you have evidence that the Apple Card is using any NFC APIs that their competitors don't have access to.
There you go! The company that issued the NFC chip decides who has access to it.
You're just ignoring IP rights here.
No, it's not. Contracting with your horizontal competition to interfere in vertical markets is clearly anti-competitive.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how android licensing works. Samsung doesn't offer Google Android devices. Their devices come with a Samsung android (little "a" for the open source project) OS. The Samsung OS is not licensed from Google. Google Play Services are not part of the android open source project. They then enter into a licensing agreement with Google to install Google Play Services on top of Samsung android.
You're just projecting your interpretation on Apple. It has nothing to do with a lack of intelligence or maturity. It's just some people don't share your desire for control.
I choose Apple because I trust Apple to make decisions that I don't want to waste my time with. That way, I can enjoy the things that I care about instead of researching every little choice involving my tech.
Is it freeloading with macOS and Windows? Is it freeloading with Android? Your question of “why would Apple continue to develop features that it wouldn’t see any financial benefit” astounds me. The App Store does not exist in a vacuum. Having new software features helps drive the massive hardware sales that are responsible for the bulk of Apples enormous revenue. How do you think Apple operated it’s business for decades before the iPhone? Some of you guys act like any reduction in Apple’s App Store revenue will result in the company going bankrupt tomorrow.
You own the phone but you don’t own the software. You’ve never owned Apple’s software.
It doesn’t matter whether Apple is taking advantage of any secret APIs or not. The fact of the matter is that Apple gives their own card app access to the NFC chip, but not the apps of competing card issuers. That is anti-competitive. Period, end of story.
In the EU they do. In the EU software IP and ownership of a license for the associated software are two different things. If someone buys an iPhone they also buy a license of one copy of iOS. They literally own that one copy of the software. However, since the customer does not own the IP they cannot just start distributing it, but they do own that single copy.
Below is a more in-depth explanation:
Of course it does. Apple can't be expected to give competitors access to something that doesn't exist.
Apple is still free to charge what it sees fit when it sees fit. Just because you can download whatever you want on another OS doesn’t automatically mean iOS should behave the same. Some of you people think every OS should behave the same in that regard. No, iOS doesn’t have to.
And some of you people refuse to understand that last point.
Are you trying to say that application access to the NFC chip doesn’t exist? Apple’s card app proves that it does. They also don’t give that access to other card issuer apps. Surely you understand such a simple concept.
Sure. But owning that one copy doesn't mean what you think it means. The poster you quoted has very little understanding of IP law. Your use of that copy (which involves creating additional copies and derivative works) is still subject to the SLA. Even in the EU.
Did I claim that I own a copy? I’m in the U.S., not the EU, and am sure our laws work differently.
No. As I've already explained. I'm saying we don't know if a secure, documented API exists to access NFC features that aren't already accessible to any card through the Wallet app.
Again, any card has access to the Wallet app with the same NFC access as the Apple Card.
You’re right, Apple is free to charge what they see fit. And governments are free to say, no you can’t do that.
Did you read your link? I read most of it and it doesn’t appear to contradict anything I said, but perhaps you can quote the relevant section.Sure. But owning that one copy doesn't mean what you think it means. The poster you quoted has very little understanding of IP law. Your use of that copy (which involves creating additional copies and derivative works) is still subject to the SLA. Even in the EU.