The only one in town? Who has 75% smartphone OS marketshare in Europe? It isn't Apple.
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.
World's First Apple Pay Alternative for iPhone Launches in Norway
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Public utilities are under a different set of regulations than for profit consumer discretionary companies.
The market.
Then buy a product that you like.
They don’t dictate anything, but they are a trendsetter and popular.
It‘s still factured into the prices consumers pay.
The overall customer base pays more.
To be fair, Apple Pay isn’t limited to Visa, Mastercard or American Express.
It’s rather network agnostic. Interac, in a smaller market like Canada, is a good example.
Interoperability does not mean iOS becomes Android.
And given that consumers face a duopoly (in mobile operating systems and application stores), it’s appropriate to regulate Apple - as the duopoly supplier for the rest of us - in a similar way as Google.
Apple‘s limitations and restrictions make iOS a non-starter for many - thereby only increasing the dependence on Android.
Only having two reasonably interoperable platform provides real consumer (and developer) choiceand competition.
If all cars sold are either Ford or Ferrari, that isn‘t true choice and doesn’t provide beneficial competition.
Quite the contrary.
Without the EU, no one and no country would keep in check the ruthless and unethical business practices of American tech companies.
Why are cookie banners annoy thing? Because of the creepy and anti-privacy data collection and tracking practices of companies that are subject to no or little privacy regulation.
And we can name where these companies and their data collection practices originate from: the United States of America.
Not to mention their monopolisation of markets.
Making an operating system that is not secure - and then monopolising the APIs for security software to interact with, to preference your own security software product? More customer-hostile and anticompetitive business conduct from the U.S. - and the EU rectifies that for their market.
👉🏻 This.
If network operators used similar proprietary systems and charged „platform fees“ as the Apple apologists are advocating (for Apple to be able to do), we‘d all be much worse off.
Owning a smartphone in 2024 isn‘t really a choice.
It‘s basically a requirement to participate in modern society.
As such, the suppliers of smartphones or their software should be regulated somewhat similar to public utilities - if and where there’s a lack of competition and choice in the market.
I believe we both agree that there’s healthy competition in the market for hardware devices.
Software is another story.
Prohibiting companies from communicating with their customers through apps or even emails is dictating others how to operate.
That is made up. Owning a smartphone isn’t in the same plane as food, air and housing.
No, because demeaning said above. Any discretionary product that isn’t targeted toward finances, health or welfare, (look up the definition of discretionary) by definition shouldn’t be regulated.
See above. But as we’ve seen everything can be regulated even to the worst degree.
Even if not, a smartphone isn’t at the same level as food, air or water.
Dont buy the product.
Last edited:
I remember when Apple Pay was first available in the US. Even though Canada had NFC tap to pay well before the US, when I traveled to Montreal for business, I would pay for some groceries at the local IGA. All the cashiers saw me pay with my phone and were confused. Every subsequent time I would go and pay for groceries, all the cashiers and managers would gather around to watch to make sure I want doing anything nefarious.
So is internet access or electricity.
“By definition”? No - that’s just your personal opinion!
I’d still be curious:
Why would you regulate „finances“?
Finances certainly aren’t „in the same plane as food, air and housing“.
Let's not forget that businesses do significantly more business because credit cards exist. So yes, prices are slightly higher to account for the fees, but it's in the businesses' interest that credit cards exist.
If you take away Apple's ability to differentiate its products through integration then it absolutely becomes Android with a (in my opinion) more attractive skin. Literally everything I've seen from the DMA is "We don't want Apple to differentiate through integration" I mean the DMA mandates a browser choice screen! In 2024! A phone manufacturer can't set its own default apps? Insanity. And to add insult to injury, the user's choice of Safari isn't allowed to be remembered when moving to a new device unlike every other browser's. The EU clearly thinks they know better than Apple and Apple's customers.
What you and the EU don't seem to understand is that Apple doesn't see the phone as one product, safari as another iOS as another, the watch as a fourth, the Mac as a fifth etc. Apple sees the ecosystem as the product, made by a highly opinionated company. And the government is coming in and saying "Nope, your opinion is wrong, try again." Given they have somewhere around a 40-50% smaller marketshare than their competitor, they should be able to operate how they want. The market clearly prefers their competitor.
It was also a duopoly when Microsoft had 90% of the computer market and Apple had 8% in the 1990s. No one in their right mind would suggest that Apple should have been regulated like Microsoft. Same deal here. Android has 75% of the EU market, iOS 25%. It's insane that they're being regulated the same. Especially when they have entirely different operating models and the "open" one is clearly winning.
And I suspect that if Android was 3 distinct OSes each with 25% market share in the EU, you would still be demanding a DMA-like law to mandate that Apple not be allowed to operate the same way it has since it released the App Store almost 15 years ago.
The EU has screwed up every major tech regulation it has ever produced. They clearly don't know what they're doing. Have you ever considered the rest of the world doesn't prefer your approach because it makes your companies unproductive and unable to compete? But rather than thinking "hmm, maybe we should rethink our regulations" you say "no, everyone else is wrong - let's bring them down to our level" and plow ahead anyway.
Look - I don't mind the intent behind the GDPR. But again, the EU doesn't know how to regulate tech and they can't think through the actual results of their regulations, let alone second and third order impacts. Anyone who understood how the modern web works could have told you that cookie banners would by the end result. I am sure many did tell them. But instead of listening to them, the EU made using the web more annoying for literally every human being on earth by requiring every website to remind users that cookies exist. There were options that wouldn't have led to that result while still achieving the aims of the regulation.
And in the process of "rectifying" that, (something that I will add, wasn't actually a problem that came close to there threshold of requiring government intervention) they demanded an idiotic concession that ended up breaking a huge portion of the internet for a couple of days. Again, the EU cannot comprehend the first order effects of their regulations, let alone second or third level effects. Who knows what sort of security issue the DMA will cause in the future because the EU thinks they know better than Apple's engineers.
It is absolutely a choice. It's not a requirement to participate in modern society. I know three people who have dumb phones and a computer. Do I think it makes their life more difficult? Yes. Would I make the same choice? Absolutely not. But they don't seem to mind and are participating in modern society just fine.
If the two platforms operated under a closed, walled garden ecosystem you would have a very strong argument. But Android allows everything you want. Your entire argument here is "I don't want to use Google services, but I want an open ecosystem." Well, I want my PlayStation to play Xbox and PC exclusive games, but that doesn't mean I get it. If I want a new GM car with Apple Car play, I don't get it. The government shouldn't be coming in and saying "GM you have to let Apple make CarPlay for your cars." And it'd be the same even if the only two car brands were GM and Ford - the market is able to sort that out on its own. If CarPlay is that important to you, buy a Ford.
While I'm not a fan of Apple's anti-steering provisions in apps, there is a legitimate argument to be made for why they exist(ed). Every app sending you off to a website to enter in your payment info, etc. is a much worse customer experience - and the open web is clearly a much easier attack vector for scam apps to get your payment info. I think a potential compromise would have been to require Apple allow link outs while also allowing Apple to mandate that customers be able to buy through the App Store (at a higher price). But the EU doesn't ever consider user experience, so no dice.
(I'd also point out that you don't see "You can buy this for cheaper on our website" stickers on third-party manufacturers products at Walmart.)
So what is your proposed solution? To not use credit cards at all, and hope that prices come down eventually? Seems that even if this does happen, it would still be more advantageous to keep using credit cards anyways for the rewards unless all the merchants come together to not support Mastercard and Visa collectively.
Android exists. And they allow everything that iOS does not.
No, electricity is a utility and is regulated as such. What is needed is cell phone communication, not smartphones.
As all of the above opined on. It’s your opinion.
Do you want banks and brokerage houses playing fast and loose with your money? Maybe you do, I don’t.
Well yes they are because for most of us we need money to live. Ignoring those who can live off the fat of the earth. I mean you can live without money, but you would have a very meager existence.
The ability is not taken away.
Apple can integrate application stores, payment processing services as they like.
They are just prevented from locking out competition.
👉 Integration is allowed - exclusion is not (the ability to exclude is restricted by regulation).
And that is a good thing - because integration that provides value should be rewarded by markets.
Preventing others from integrating into a dominant system (core platform service) should not be rewarded.
Apple are not the only company and stakeholder that can provide innovation and value through integration.
It‘s a monoculture ecosystem in many ways.
And that is bad in the long term.
For competition, consumers and innovation.
It‘s not.
Apple has a higher share in mobile payments (just as they do in app spending).
They are no minority firm.
…and yet, similar legislation is being considered in many developed jurisdictions around the world.
Why? Why, do you think?
By the way: I disagree with the premise. The payment services regulations are yielded in a more integrated and efficient market for cashless payments, with acceptance rising and fees falling.
Possibly. Then again, it’s the lack of regulations and antitrust enforcement (in addition to availability of capital) on the other side of the pond that makes American tech companies so “successful”.
Markets with such market concentration are more competitive than duopoly markets. There would actually be an incentive to refrain from the anticompetitive business practices Apple and Google have (in silent understanding) on.
Namely which options would that have been?
You’re missing the value in security that third-party security products provide.
Without third-party security software and their ability to interface with the dominant operating system, “the PC” and corporate infrastructure would be much less safe in today’s world.
Many IT security threats depend on bugs and vulnerabilities in operating systems. And it’s ridiculous to believe that the only company that can keep us safe is the OS vendor that’s responsible for those bugs in the first place.
It did not.
Crowdstrike messed up. And Microsoft provided and APIs that was susceptible to that.
Their blaming the EU was nothing more than a cheap attempt at redirecting the blame.
My bank accounts and payment transactions rely on mobile apps. So does my way finding and journey planning on public transport. And my social circle in communicating with each other.
That doesn’t take away the fact that it would be beneficial for you to get it (such integration/interoperability).
Why not?
It would be good for consumers and good for competition.
If GM was a duopoly car manufacturer, I don’t see why their (possibly) inferior system should succeed due their ability to lock Apple’s superior system out.
Not that bad. Apple even let you scan your credit card (before they took that useful ability away to push their Apple Pay solution.
…or, very simple, Apple providing the App Store in-app payment system at - or closer to - cost.
And not at 30% for the large developers (accounting for the great majority of transactions and sales volume) that can do it for less than 10% themselves.
Or otherwise stopping to discriminate between physical and digital purchases.
Neither do I seem them in the App Store.
But you aren’t telling me you’ve never opened up a product after you purchased it at Walmart that included some reference to the manufacturer’s web site (such as ordering consumables from them).
Say… an HP printer: you aren’t telling me that Walmart prevents HP from including all reference to their own store, are you?
👉 Walmart control the sale until the box is sold and delivered to the customer - not beyond that.
Last edited:
…and that includes communication through apps.
Absolutely 👍🏻
Neither do I.
Nor do I want tech companies from monopolising access to me as a consumer.
…so would I without having a smartphone.
That’s not for me - that’s just due to network effects.
Yes, I do think we disagree on what meaningful competition should look like here.
It's not that I can't see (or experience, by the way) the positive effects of the integrated ecosystem, it's just that I think in the long run the trend towards 'ecosystems' will lead to a very small number of very powerful corporations that control significant aspects of our lives and could limit or even stop competitors at a whim or whenever it is profitable to them.
I've said it previously here but I just don't think it's realistic, feasible or desirable to expect different services to create their own hardware platforms in order to compete with Apple or Google and the ecosystem carries the very real risk of naturally eroding competition and preventing innovation.
The times where you could release your own music player, be confident that all of your customers would pay using the plastic card you sent them in the mail etc are over or coming to an end. It's all apps now and I think that needs to be reflected in how we enable competition.
I'm convinced that if Windows had been locked down as much as the Apple ecosystem is today the iPad, and later the iPhone, simply would not have happened.
In this case, VIPPS is just forcing its way in (with the help of the EU) without needing to make any concessions at all. Think back to how Apple used leverage to sell music for the iPod, then to block carrier meddling for the iPhone, and now this. Ultimately, the DMA is an attack on Apple's integration and the superior user experience that tends to result as a result of this vertical integration, and this forum seems pretty convinced (or is at least hoping) that the theoretical promise of competition will result in banks (of all businesses!) creating a better consumer experience than Apple.
) creating a better consumer experience than Apple.
Who's 'forcing their way in' entirely depends on your point of view. Many countries have pretty established local payment systems and, in that sense, it's Apple (and to a degree I'd expect Google) who are pushing into those markets by leveraging their dominance in the smartphone space.
I'm not saying that change should be impossible, that's the opposite of competition, but equally it's no surprise that Apple can provide a better user experience when its competitors are basically locked out by Apple.
I will say that it's a difficult balance to strike between letting Apple and Google capitalise on the work they have done while also being pragmatic about the role of smartphones in our lives and the implications of that.
The pull of the ecosystem obviously isn't complete and products such as Spotify or WhatsApp show that, but that doesn't negate the overall risks.
Last edited:
Norwegian payment service Vipps has become the world's first company to launch a competing tap-to-pay solution to Apple Pay on iPhone, following Apple's agreement with European regulators to open up its NFC technology to third parties.
Starting December 9, Vipps users in Norway can make contactless payments in stores using their iPhones. The service initially supports customers of SpareBank 1, DNB, and over 40 other Norwegian banks, representing approximately 70% of Norwegian bank customers.
The launch follows the European Commission's July 2024 acceptance of legally binding commitments from Apple to open its mobile payments system to competitors. Under the agreement, Apple must provide free access to iPhone NFC functionality for third-party mobile wallets and allow users to set alternative payment apps as their default option.
Vipps' solution currently works with terminals that accept BankAxept cards, Norway's national payment system, covering more than 90% of payment terminals in the country. The company plans to expand support for Visa and Mastercard cards in the coming months, enabling worldwide payment capabilities before summer 2025.
The service allows users to make payments by holding their iPhone near a payment terminal, with authentication via Face ID, Touch ID, or device passcode. iPhone users can set Vipps as their default payment app and activate it by double-clicking the Side button, just as they would if they were using Apple Wallet and Apple Pay.
Vipps MobilePay, which emerged from a merger of Vipps from Norway and MobilePay from Denmark, plans to extend the tap-to-pay solution to Denmark, Finland, and Sweden in 2025, potentially paving the way for similar implementations by other payment providers across Europe.
Article Link: World's First Apple Pay Alternative for iPhone Launches in Norway
DNB bank of Norway does not support Apple Pay.
Now that Apple opened the NFC function of the iPhone to third party users.
Vipps Mobile Pay is the solution to NFC card payments for iPhone users from DNB bank of Norway.
No it's just cell phones. You are placing some self-important subjectivity on it.
One thing results in financial loss, potentially. See Enron. The other is meh and you can buy into the system that works for you the best.
You wouldn't have a meager life without a smartphone. I wouldn't, nobody wouldn't. People didn't have meager lives prior to 2007. Life wouldn't be as convenient. I mean I would have to use a laptop with a cellular adapter, like I did in the 1990's. But I'm sure some type of scenario is forthcoming where it doesn't fit the mold. But nonetheless, smartphones are great, but convenience shouldn't be a marker for regulation. If one is to say: "I can't make a living without an iphone scenario". I wouldn't believe it.
Things doesn't cost more by using CC here. Things cost less by using cash. Take that as you will. Gas and food are two examples.
That's not apple's problem.
It's great there are hundreds of cell phone manufacturers. Imagine if there were only apple and samsung?
Buy what works for you, these are consumer discretionary devices.
I agree 100% with you, yet at the same time, I remain of the opinion that the EU has gone too far in attempting to regulate Apple (and pretty much every other US tech company which falls under the DMA).
I can concur with your earlier assertion that Apple's absolute power over the store means they do have the right to extract whatever fees they want from developers, and can perhaps hinder the development of apps and business models that don't fit in well with the concept of a 30% cut (even till this day, the concept of digital vs physical goods is a very subjective matter).
On the other hand, the fact remains that iOS is Apple's intellectual property. Even if you argue that iPhones and iPads are profitable enough that Apple is able to subsidise the cost of operating the App Store for free, or that Apple doesn't really need the couple of million dollars it extracts from banks by way of Apple Pay, I remain fundamentally opposed to the idea of compelling Apple to make its intellectual property available to third party developers and vendors on an ongoing basis for free. Especially when they are certainly not free for Apple to develop.
It's a similar case where the EU evidently expects Meta to serve non-tracking ads in their Facebook app, rather than lock this ability behind a subscription model. On one hand, it is true that very few Facebook users will actually pay for this, yet on the other hand, the EU is demanding that Facebook utilise a far less profitable business model just to operate in the EU, while banking that Meta will simply choose to absorb the losses rather than withdraw from the EU market altogether. Which is effectively nationalising Meta's property.
On a side note, I cannot believe that I am actually arguing in favour of Meta / Facebook for once. Don't even get me started about Google.
We are also seeing Nvidia being sued by the French for supposedly anti-competitive practices, due to the AI sector's apparent reliance on CUDA, which again, Nvidia had spent years and a small fortune investing in. I think there was also another article involving the maker Corning Glass as well, but currently, info on this is scarce.
The overarching theme I am seeing is that the EU doesn't seem to care about incentivising innovation at all, which is ironic when they claim that the whole point of said regulation is to open up competition and (hopefully) spur on more innovation. If a company makes the wrong bet, the losses is rightfully theirs to bear. Yet the moment any company starts to reap the financial rewards of an astute business decision that was made in the past, the EU swoops in to either force said company to "divest" or fine them 10% of their global revenue (which is typically more than what they make from the EU).
This goes back to my original point that it really is no coincidence that the companies subject to the DMA are all US tech giants. Where are all the EU tech companies? Is EU regulation the reason why we really don't see more of them around these days?
For the record, I don't think that the incumbents (Apple, Meta, Google etc) will exit the EU (at least not in the near foreseeable future). Like many love to gloatingly point out, their businesses are deeply entrenched in the EU, and opting to suck up the losses is still the lesser of two evils. But structures can (and likely will) change in response to the new normal, and EU regulators should take a page out of the recent Windows saga and avoid a Crowdstrike 2.0 scenario where in trying to fix one problem, they end up creating a far worse problem years down the road.
Take Apple for example. Already, we see Apple expending god knows how much time and resources forking iOS just to implement the core technology fee and allow third party app stores for the EU, as well as withheld iPhone mirroring for the Mac, even though the Mac is technically not subject to the DMA, and who knows what other features may never make it to the EU, or not get developed at all.
I won't go into the likelihood of intervention by the Trump administration, but a collision course between both parties seems more and more likely with each passing day.
And finally, what does this mean for new companies, who may be thinking of entering the EU, but take one look at said regulations (especially that 10% global fine for very vaguely-defined parameters like the Nvidia / Cuda deal), and maybe decide that it's just not worth the risk after all? In this future timeline, even if the EU does succeed in weakening Apple and opening it up to more regulation, what's the point is there's no company left in the EU willing to compete, because they have been scared off by said regulation?
So, please next time read the bottom line of their financial statement and let me know.
Software is actually a mixed bag:
Operating systems - very little choice, no regulation to ensure a vibrant and varied market of operating systems. Market forces has reduced competition.
Software that runs on top of an operating system - Absolutely loads of competition and choice. Rock bottom prices. Market forces has increased competition and reduced prices.
We can see from this assessment where the regulation is required.
DNB added support for Apple Pay yesterday, widely reported in Norwegian media, so this statement is false at the current time.
I was able to add my DNB cards to Wallet around mid-day yesterday, also tried to pay in store, works like all other cards in Wallet app that support Apple Pay.
Attachments
What if you need a smartphone to access your bank account, public health insurance services or tickets for public transport? This is the reality in many corners of the world already. Add to that, that many don't even own regular computers any more and just have a smartphone for all their communication needs.
Apple and Google have worked hard to make the smartphones and their operating systems an indispensable part of everyday life. They should not be surprised that the consequence of this will be more stringent regulation.
Businesses and governments can't tell their customers which phone they should buy. Or would you appreciate it if your government or bank told you that you have to buy a Pixel phone to access basic services as a citizen?
That sounds like a problem created by the service provider, not Apple or Google.