Android can run ransomware too
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.
Germany Passes Law Forcing Apple to Open Up iPhone's NFC Chip to Apple Pay Rivals, But Loophole May Exist
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
According to joyofandroid.com
Top 4 Best NFC Payment Apps for Android Phones
- Google Pay
- Samsung Pay
- Paypal
- Venmo
Hopefully they claim the exemption or lock out the German market from Apple Pay. I don’t want the security of my implementation affected by German lawmakers.
This is tricky.
On the one hand, giving Apple the exclusive authority (a quasi-monopoly) over NFC-based payments on an iPhone isn't great. What if you want to found a startup that has a better approach to payments, but also uses NFC? No-can-do on iPhones, which have enough market share that it essentially means no-can-do at all.
On the other hand:
Still, ultimately, Apple should probably stand down and just turn it into another "This app would like to use blah blah blah" warning.
On the one hand, giving Apple the exclusive authority (a quasi-monopoly) over NFC-based payments on an iPhone isn't great. What if you want to found a startup that has a better approach to payments, but also uses NFC? No-can-do on iPhones, which have enough market share that it essentially means no-can-do at all.
On the other hand:
- these "concerns" mostly don't come from independent watchdogs, but from competitors. Banks want a bigger slice of the pie. (See also, as the article mentions, Australia.) So their argument is at least biased.
- you may not want those third parties to have access to the data. Payment providers are increasingly notorious for abusing it. Apple, OTOH, has no financial interest in doing so, and to the contrary advertises on offering a privacy-friendly alternative.
Still, ultimately, Apple should probably stand down and just turn it into another "This app would like to use blah blah blah" warning.
I find it kind of humorous that my list of blocked users regularly chimes in with asinine comments like the one you responded to.
Don't think many in Germany's parlament would care if they did.
No. This is like allowing banking apps on your phone. Or Paypal. Or an internet browser that processes payments.
The NFC chip was not invented by Apple. All Apple did was put a lock on it and say "this hardware you paid for can only be used for the benefit of Apple's profit".
NFC is an interface, like bluetooth, that has nothing to do with security of transactions.
Apple's position is as stupid as saying "anyone competing with us can't use the touchscreen for their apps... but we aren't anti-competitive".
An iPhone (7 and up) running iOS 13 absolutly is capable of doing what you are asking for. The reason it doesn't is that the developers of your local metro haven't included that ability into their own system. The ability is there though.
The lobbying for these laws comes down to the consumer's data. That's all these banks, and other companies want. They want to be able to track your purchases and spending habits in the easiest most pervasive way possible. They don't like the way Apple does Apple Pay because they can't do that.
I heard people in Germany prefer using cash over credit/debit cards and certainly over Apple/Google/Samsung Pay. Is that true?
Germany (Or the EU) can make laws that Apple have to open up the NFC chip.
I think it's not if but when.
EDIT: Seems like you can do a lot more with NFC on iOS now, so, I take my (above) words back.
Last edited:
By forcing vendors who want to use NFC on an iPhone for payment to work with Apple, it prevents a proliferation of required apps on my devices. You are correct that no one forces me to install the app, but if they do not need to integrate, it can be the only I can use their service.
that is a feature if you ask me
I use my cc card in various ways physical card, paypal, apple pay, direct debit and so on... I dont think tokanization benefits me that much...most of my apple pay use is actually in brick n mortar stores.
that is a feature that apple created. while i am happy with it doesnt mean apple should charge for it... they charge enough for the device and it should be included. should u be charged if apple charged u for storing you web passwords in safari in a more secure way? or analogy apple devices can only connect to the internet with modem/routers made by apple & no others should be allowed because of security. ...everything these days needs some level of security incorporated this is just an excuse...
I use my cc card in various ways physical card, paypal, apple pay, direct debit and so on... I dont think tokanization benefits me that much...most of my apple pay use is actually in brick n mortar stores.
Better question, why would anyone be against having the option of using something other than Apple Pay?
This is just silly. If you add a credit/debit card to Apple Pay today, the issuing bank can of course already track your purchases since they are processing the transactions. This is about the transaction fees that banks have to pay to Apple to be allowed onto Apple Pay, as well as the inability of alternative payment providers to be on iPhones.
How does opening up the NFC chip to third party apps stall progress?
The NFC chip enables similarly equipped devices to share data (such as payments). Access to this chip has nothing whatsoever to do with opening up Apple's payment method. That is just one piece of software that happens to use that chip. It is about allowing other payment apps to be installed.
It is entirely reasonable to expect Apple not to deliberately block other payment systems from "their" phones, if only because it's not "their" phone it's my phone. It is no different from the situation a few years ago when Microsoft made it difficult (but not impossible) for other browsers to be used in Windows.
Last edited:
You have no idea what you are talking about. The NFC chip connects to the Secure enclave for validation. The chip is open for when payment validation isn't needed. Apple doesn't profit from those uses at all. They lock it down so that another developer doesn't weaken the system. And your last point is ridiculous and has no resemblance to the argument at all.
i don’t understand a lot of this. Apple may make the most money but they are not in anyway the most popular device. So you should only legislate when companies have monopolies on a market that removes choice. Or if the thing is a human right like water or something.
it’s like asking Rolex to open up some feature and ignoring the fact that there are other watch sellers!
The main gripe I have is that private businesess should not be forced to use their own effort and money to develop features to facilitate other businesses! It’s done under the guise of consumer choice but really it’s forcing companies to open up or facilitate other businesses.
its the same thing with the Spotify vs Apple issue. a company is trying to get legislation passed to force another company to create a better business environment for itself so that it can make more money.. thats sounds mental!
essentially, companies take risks to make products and should be rewarded For that risk. They dont HAVE to take that risk. So in turn they shouldnt be forced to do anything just to make money for other people.
questions should be asked as to who is lobbying these governments to make these judgements? Surely there’s a conflict of interest if companies who stand to gain from these type of judgements are colluding with governments.
it’s like asking Rolex to open up some feature and ignoring the fact that there are other watch sellers!
The main gripe I have is that private businesess should not be forced to use their own effort and money to develop features to facilitate other businesses! It’s done under the guise of consumer choice but really it’s forcing companies to open up or facilitate other businesses.
its the same thing with the Spotify vs Apple issue. a company is trying to get legislation passed to force another company to create a better business environment for itself so that it can make more money.. thats sounds mental!
essentially, companies take risks to make products and should be rewarded For that risk. They dont HAVE to take that risk. So in turn they shouldnt be forced to do anything just to make money for other people.
questions should be asked as to who is lobbying these governments to make these judgements? Surely there’s a conflict of interest if companies who stand to gain from these type of judgements are colluding with governments.
apple really wants it's 30% cut of each sale
A parliamentary committee in Germany on Wednesday passed an amendment to an anti-money laundering law that would force Apple to open up the NFC chip in iPhones to competing mobile payment providers, according to Reuters. The report claims the law is set to come into effect early next year.
In a statement to Reuters, Apple said it was "surprised" about the sudden decision and expressed security concerns.
"We are surprised at how suddenly this legislation was introduced," an Apple spokesperson said. "We fear that the draft law could be harmful to user friendliness, data protection and the security of financial information."
As noted by German financial website Finanz-Szene, however, there appears to be a provision in the law that could allow Apple to keep the NFC chip locked down. Specifically, it appears that Apple might be able to argue that opening up the NFC chip would put the security of its customers at risk.
A rough translation of the passage:Earlier this month, the European Union's competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager acknowledged that her department has received "many concerns" over Apple Pay and potential anticompetitive issues. Australia's big banks have also sought open access to the NFC chip on the iPhone in recent years.
Article Link: Germany Passes Law Forcing Apple to Open Up iPhone's NFC Chip to Apple Pay Rivals, But Loophole May Exist
I think you're confusing the secure enclave and NFC. NFC has been opened. The secure enclave has not (to my knowledge).
You missed the basics of how Apple Pay works. As this article discusses, it is opening up the NFC hardware that is the issue.
Ok, let's say someone in the black market invents a portable NFC scanner to extract payments from unwitting pedestrians in crowded places. Apple pay takes a handful of security measures to prevent such hacks. Should Apple also open up its FaceID/touch ID interface to secure others' payments over its phone? Should it make the "secure enclave" open? Should it write software and hardware to allow third party payments to thrive on its own closed platform?
It's about how it has the potential to get exploited and how they don't want to be responsible for securing other companies third party payments. People specifically pay Apple money for a predictable, secure experience. App store has at least some quality controls in place that prevent malicious apps from getting released. In my mind, the NFC chip follows the same principle. Why should Apple open it up for anyone to do anything with it?
Here in the UK there was an issue recently with EU citizens who wished to apply to stay post Brexit and you had to use the NFC chip in your phone to scan your passport to apply. Problem was that you had to have an Android device or similar, no iPhone user was able to use the NFC to read something.
If Apple opened up the NFC chip on the iPhone, the options are endless for loads of different products and functionality.
If Apple opened up the NFC chip on the iPhone, the options are endless for loads of different products and functionality.
Apple should charge me $0.05 every time it scans my face with FaceID to unlock my phone...where do I pay?