Cool, now let’s talk about the issuer’s app. Does it have access to the NFC chip? Apple’s card’s app does.
NFC access in the Wallet App was never at issue here.
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
The headline pretty much covers it. Owning the software is very different than owning an individual copy.
Let me break this to you very, very slowly. EU users who own iPhones do not have the iOS source code.
Again, there is no Apple Card app. There is a Wallet app that all cards have the same NFC access within.
And yet it's the only access that we know actually exists.
And if you want to use generalities, Apple is still free to charge what it sees fit. Think about that when you buy your next iPhone.
Wow. Ok so you didn’t even bother to read your own source, but yet want to pretend that it disproves what I said. ?
Not having the source code somehow negates that software in the EU is purchased as a ‘good’ that one owns?
Software defined as goods by European court
The supply of software electronically is a "sale of goods" under the Commercial Agents Regulations. That is the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") which had been asked to determine the issue by the English Supreme Court."
dwfgroup.com
The Wallet app is the Apple Card’s app. I can use it to check my Apple Card balance or pay my Apple Card bill, just like the associated apps for each of my other cards allow me to do those things for those cards. You’re almost getting it now. Apple, a competitor in credit cards, allows their own app NFC access. They don’t allow other credit card competitors NFC access for their own apps. They do this because forcing other credit card companies to use Apple’s app means the banks have to pay Apple a cut. That is also anti-competitive. You’re forcing your direct competitors to pay you.
And? Apple’s ability to charge what they want doesn’t supersede government regulations.
Banks can't charge what they want. But so far there has not been any government regulation restricting fees and commissions in the digital space. Maybe the government should start...with the same draconian regulation for fees and commissions on new car purchases. I'd then be all in for this nonsense.
I’m not going to read this entire thread to try to determine what point some people are trying to make. I’ll discuss what I’ve discussed with friends offline.
It sounds like some 3rd parties want access to NFC without going through Apple Wallet. To do so they would have to create their own APIs and create whatever they think Apple isn’t providing in Wallet.
I’m assuming there is a NFC driver. Not a bad assumption since it’s hardware and apps don’t usually talk directly to hardware. Third party will complain that it’s still not getting full access to NFC via Apple’s driver. Third party will want to write and install its own driver.
Now we are back to the MacOS and Windows examples of installing whatever a person wants. Is that what some people here are asking for?
You still want to use generalities? Apple is still free to price their phones (and also computers) as they see fit. You really want to take the ridiculous position that Apple isn’t free to price itself out of the market?
Maybe because there’s a lot of competition in that space. There are four major card networks alone and then you have all the issuers on top of that. You don’t need to apply monopoly/duoploy regulations to a healthy, vibrant, competitive market with multiple relevant players.
Last edited:
Let’s keep going with that. Government should dictate to the console makers what their commissions should be. If the console makers can’t rely on commissions to recoup money from selling consoles at a loss, hardware would probably be sold for much higher. Let’s do that. It would be funny to watch.
What is your point exactly? Of course Apple can charge however much they want for a phone, within any relevant government regulations of course, of which there are currently none as far as I know.
If you to use generalities then I can too. Apple is still free to charge whatever they want. What you are probably trying to say is you want the government to limit how much Apple can charge for specific services.
As for phones, you want to speak in pure fantasy where government would create a price cap on phones. Should I laugh or seriously consider that given you live in the US.
I certainly read the article I posted. Perhaps you're simply not following the conversation that you entered. The post you originally responded to claimed that Apple was in response to a claim that Apple was interfering with property rights by ignoring Apple's own IP rights.
The Wallet app existed long before the Apple Card. Again, the Apple Card doesn't have any special NFC access.
You seem to have no idea what the term anti-competitive means. Offering a feature in exchange for money isn't "forcing other credit card companies."
Yes absolutely, if Apple insists on playing both the role of both competitor and gatekeeper. If Apple wants to stop the gatekeeping, they can charge until the sky’s the limit as far as I’m concerned.
I’m not speaking about any kind of fantasy or desire. I don’t think government should regulate the price of phones. My only intent was to point out that whatever a company’s wants may be, they still have to be within bounds set by the government.
Last edited:
Yet you still have yet to quote a relevant section of the article. Here are two quotes showing that your article doesn’t even counter what was claimed.
“The Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) recently ruled in case C-666/18 IT Development SAS v Free Mobile SAS that the breach of a clause in a licence agreement for a computer program relating to the intellectual property rights of the holder of the copyright of that program falls within the concept of “infringement of intellectual property rights” under the Enforcement Directive, and that, therefore, the holder must be able to benefit from the guarantees provided for by the Enforcement Directive, including the ability to seek a court order to stop the infringement.”
“It seems that a breach of a licence agreement clause not relating to the aforementioned rights, such as a contractual covenant merely labelled as a licence condition, may not constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights.”
Like I said initially, ownership of a copy does not mean you’re free to violate the software creator’s IP rights by doing things like distribution copies of the software.
This has no bearing on the situation.
Right, but the card’s app does.
Apple is abusing their position of power in the smartphone market to force competitors in another market into giving them fees, otherwise cutting off access. That is anti-competitive. You can keep saying it’s not anti-competitive until you’re blue in the face and I’m just going to sit back laughing while the EU says that it is and proceeds to put a stop to it. At the end of the day, governments are the final arbiters of what is anti-competitive. Based on the near daily articles on Macrumors, my side is winning that argument handily, pretty much everywhere in the world it would seem. The a validity of your’s and Apple’s argument is being rejected over and over again.
What does Apple stopping the gatekeeping consist of? Do they have to allow any app for any reason and provide any access that anyone demand? That seems horrible to me.
The problem with this anti-gatekeeping push to me is that it seeks to end the thing that makes Apple unique and useful to me. They build the whole stack. That's what makes Apple products so good. It sucks that people want to eliminate that choice.
Stop being the only distributor of apps on iOS. Stop cutting other developers off from hardware features that Apple themselves use, particularly in markets where Apple themselves compete.
Because the title summarized my entire point. You seem to be making a point we weren't discussing.
Sure it does. You just want to ignore it to pretend that the Apple Card has special access to the NFC chip. In current practice, it does not.
To be clear, if the Apple Card at any point takes advantage of NFC APIs that are not available to third-party cards, I believe that Apple should make those APIs available to third-parties.
Again, the EU can certainly say that Apple has grown so big and influential that we want to regulate it. I disagree with that, but it's certainly reasonable.
However, calling normal business practices "abuse" is just petty name calling. Apple has been competing in vertical markets across its entire history. Pretending that's suddenly abuse and anti-competitive is just silly.
Done! Web apps are available on iOS. Are we good now?
Next, I'll assume that you were only talking about native apps. Apple responds by saying that they will allow alt app stores, but all apps still need to be approved by Apple, and they will cut their commission on apps sold through alt app stores by 5%. Are we good now?
Next, shall we assume you don't want Apple to review those apps? Apple responds by saying that the will allow alt app stores without reviewing apps, but apps will have limited API access for security reasons. They charge a platform fee of 20%. Are we good now?
Etc.
At what point is Apple no longer a gatekeeper?
I’m laughing that you are taking the EU’s approach as if that means that would apply to the US (where you live). More laughs will come from the pro-business republicans tying themselves into knots explaining this. Assuming of course that republicans will win back control of the house and Senate.
I’m not even sure what your point is on this anymore.
No I literally don’t. The app does have special access, not the card.
To be clear, if the card app at any point takes advantage of NFC APIs that are not available to third-party card apps, I believe that Apple should make those APIs available to third-parties.
You don’t have to see it as abuse, but governments don’t wouldn’t regulate such things if they weren’t abusive. If you want to talk about history, vertical integration for Apple historically meant designing their own hardware and running their own software. That’s fine to most people. Apple is now integrating app distribution, credit cards, and apparently soon cars.
Obviously I’m talking about native apps. And no I’m not ok with those stipulations. If Apple wants to review all apps, fine, but Apple will only review for malicious code and not play the role of morality police. They’ll also do so with no commission and in a timely manner. Apple would be the one insisting on app review outside of their store, so they can pay for it.
Hmm, you’ll have to point out where I said or even implied that what the EU does would apply here in the U.S. Just because Apple is getting smacked down in the EU and not here doesn’t mean I can’t take satisfaction.
Though, it’s not true that Apple isn’t looking at getting a smack down here either: