World's First Apple Pay Alternative for iPhone Launches in Norway

[mrochester]

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?

Businesses and governments shouldn’t be telling their customers that they need to own a smartphone to access their services.

 

[MilaM]

Businesses and governments shouldn’t be telling their customers that they need to own a smartphone to access their services.

I agree. But the choice is this. Download an app and have access to some kind of government service online from the comfort of you home. Or make an appointment in two months on the other end of town. Fill out paperwork. Spend half a day travelling there and then wait hours until it's your turn. It's not really a choice if you have a busy schedule.

 

[mrochester]

I agree. But the choice is this. Download an app and have access to some kind of government service online from the comfort of you home. Or make an appointment in two months on the other end of town. Fill out paperwork. Spend half a day travelling there and then wait hours until it's your turn. It's not really a choice if you have a busy schedule.

Or just go to the website and do what the app does.

 

[surferfb]

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.

I said differentiation through integration. Apple's entire MO is to make its products work better together because they control everything. Allowing third parties to have the same access Apple does completely changes the value proposition for Apple developing new features and significantly impacts Apple's strategy that has been the same for 15 years now. There is no legitimate reason to disallow this when the platform with 75% marketshare in Europe allows anyone and everyone to integrate however they see fit. The EU here is prohibiting an entire innovative strategy here, ironically preventing competition and innovation in business models. And that's before getting into the potential negative impacts of having third parties mucking around in OS and hardware features.

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.

If only there was some other open Operating System where third parties could show innovation and value through integration without permission from the platform owner. Then they wouldn't have to negatively impact a minority Operating System that has advertised its closed nature as a feature, not a bug, for decades now. Maybe that OS would compete for users.

If Apple's ecosystem starts missing out on amazing new features that Android gets because they aren't allowing third parties to integrate then they will start getting punished in the market for not having those features and either will be forced to develop similar features or change their policies. No need to have the government pick the winning model for everyone.

It‘s not.
Apple has a higher share in mobile payments (just as they do in app spending).
They are no minority firm.

They are literally, by definition, a minority firm in the EU Mobile OS market. The fact that their operating model has a higher share of revenue in mobile payments and app spending despite having significantly fewer users is a sign they are doing something right and the market is correctly rewarding Apple for its business decisions. If you recall, Apple was repeatedly told they were making a huge strategy mistake by not opening up for years. Apple is (was?) doomed! But Apple took a risk and is now being rewarded for it, and rather than applauding that risk and innovation, the EU is saying "that shouldn't be allowed even though your bigger, stronger competitor does things differently." Everyone must be equal in the EU - no differing approaches allowed.

…and yet, similar legislation is being considered in many developed jurisdictions around the world.
Why? Why, do you think?

None of the other regulations go nearly as far as the DMA. If the DMA limited itself to requiring alternate app stores and preventing anti-steering language you wouldn't see me vehemently disagreeing with it. For example, while I disagree with the Japanese law mandating third party app stores, it isn't an egregious overreach that requires Apple to give access to any API or hardware component to any competitor who asks for it.

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.

Google allows any and all App Stores, and even side loading, making it completely open to competition (as well as piracy - but that's another discussion). Maybe the fact that the terms and conditions are similar on the App Store and the Play Store is a sign that the conditions for participation for developers to sell their apps and services are not onerous and are what the market will bear. Otherwise, wouldn't you expect to see an alternate store on Android eating the Play Store's lunch?

Namely which options would that have been?

Mandate that browsers operating in the EU have users pick their privacy settings and then have websites operate according to those preferences is one option, banning tracking cookies entirely is another. Even simpler: mandate that websites remember your choice for some set amount of time (six months to a year) would be better than what we have now - it's estimated that EU citizens spend 575 million hours a year and over 14 billion euros in lost productivity by clicking on cookie banners.

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.

Most third-party security products are hardly better than the viruses they protect against - they eat up computing resources, slow down machines, etc. The entire industry is full of scammers and charlatans and almost all of them are a net negative on computing.

And you know if Microsoft has said "you know what, we don't think anyone should have kernel access so we're getting rid of it for everyone, even us" those companies would have gone screaming to the EU about how Microsoft wasn't living up to the agreement they signed.

And while I agree it's ridiculous to believe only the OS vendor can keep its users safe, it's not ridiculous to believe that they should have a greater level of access than third parties, ESPECIALLY when it comes to security. But no, EU regulators who don't understand what they're regulating know better than Microsoft's engineers!

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.

It absolutely did. The EU mandated that if Microsoft got kernel access everyone did. It literally would not have happened if the EU didn’t think it knew better than Microsoft. You can try to hand wave that away as much as you want, but it doesn't change the facts. Who knows what security nightmare the EU has signed us up for with the DMA. Because clearly they don't know better than the professionals but think they do.

That doesn’t take away the fact that it would be beneficial for you to get it (such integration/interoperability).

Sure it's beneficial to me. But my rights shouldn't outweigh the rights of others, particularly the rights of those who are spending time and money to design the products and systems I am interacting with, without a compelling reason. And "the smartphone OS with 25% market share in the EU doesn't allow things the competitor with 75% market share does" is not a compelling reason.

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.

Because it's not the government's decision to make. The government should not be making engineering and product decisions without a compelling reason - they don't know what they're doing. See above about the EU not having a compelling reason.

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.

It's a crummy experience for users that also opens them up to a much higher risk of scams, identify theft, etc. (whether through data breaches from legitimate companies or scam apps in general) - and I suspect actually increases enough friction to cost developers significant sales. It is far superior for the vast majority of users to have everything run through Apple and receive Apple's additional features and protections - easy cancellations, family sharing etc.

Apple should be able to charge whatever it wants for access to its platform. And the 15-30% commission is more than just payment processing. It includes lots of features for users and developers. If you're going to use another company's property (iOS) to make money, they deserve to be compensated for that use if they ask to be. And they are well within their rights to be subject to their rules. If you sign a lease to be in a mall you don't get to decide which of the mall owner's rules for the mall you follow. If you don't like it as a developer, make an out-of-app subscription, web app, or develop for Android. Despite what is often repeated here, no one is forcing developers to use the App Store or its payment processing.

Or otherwise stopping to discriminate between physical and digital purchases.

There are very good reasons for charging differently between physical and digital purchases. Just because you don't personally agree with the reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.

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.

But the difference is in the App Store case nothing has been sold yet. It's the equivalent of HP taking up shelf space in Walmart giving away "free" printers, but when you go home and open the box it says "in order to use the free printer, you need to sign up for a subscription on our website because we don't want to give Wal-Mart a cut of the transaction even though you saw the printer you "bought" in their store".

And again, I 100% support the ability for developers to advertise cheaper prices in their app as long as Apple receives appropriate compensation for use of its intellectual property (or a commission when a commission is warranted). I'd prefer it if they were required to also offer Apple's in-app purchase (even at a higher price to reflect the "extra" fees), but I'm not even demanding that. Just Apple getting compensated for use of their property.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

The issue is the iPhone is being regulated in a manner that runs counter to why consumers chose it in the first place - its integration. I do not see the masses taking to the streets with picket signs, demanded to be allowed to play Fortnite again or sideload the Epic games store.

All of the basic functions are covered by your smartphone, be it iOS or android. I am already able to access my bank account, insurance, appointments from my health provider, as well as manage my public transport needs via apps on my iPhone. They are not really using any banned APIs or doing anything controversial that would make Apple want to withhold them from the App Store. Rather, we are now talking about being allowed to download emulators, a clipboard manager or Fortnite. Hardly mission critical stuff.

And besides, if we ever come to a scenario where the government needs to push out some crucial app which their populace absolutely needed to access right away, I doubt they are going to find much success getting their citizens to figure out sideloading an app or installing a third party App Store first (especially when Apple still holds notarisation rights and can still block apps that are distributed outside of its App Store).

 

[AppliedMicro]

Operating systems - very little choice, no regulation to ensure a vibrant and varied market of operating systems. Market forces has reduced competition.

No one has interest in ten operating systems competing. Just as no one needs ten electrical power, phone or internet companies to provide wires to households or business premises. It’s a natural oligopoly - and regulation doesn’t and can’t change that.

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.

Rock bottom pricing? Have you recently shopped for software?
Even notetaking or camera apps are selling subscriptions for dozens of £/€/$ a year.

Businesses and governments shouldn’t be telling their customers that they need to own a smartphone to access their services.

…and yet they do.
That’s the reality we’re living in.

 

[AppliedMicro]

That's not apple's problem.

No, of course not. It‘s developers‘ problem, payment providers‘ problem and ultimately consumers that pay more (as deadweight loss).

Which is why this regulation exists.

You wouldn't have a meager life without a smartphone

My social circle communicates through smartphone apps.
Whether I like it or not.

Things doesn't cost more by using CC here

They evidently cost more than they need to, if credit card companies can sustain providing generous reward schemes.

 

[mrochester]

No one has interest in ten operating systems competing. Just as no one needs ten electrical power, phone or internet companies to provide wires to households or business premises. It’s a natural oligopoly - and regulation doesn’t and can’t change that.

Rock bottom pricing? Have you recently shopped for software?
Even notetaking or camera apps are selling subscriptions for dozens of £/€/$ a year.


…and yet they do.
That’s the reality we’re living in.

Just the same way no one has any interest in ten app stores competing.

10 competing operating systems would also result in 10 competing app stores. 2 birds, 1 stone.

Subscriptions for software aren't going anywhere I’m afraid, regardless of how many app stores there are. In fact one of the competing app stores is nothing but a subscription service.

 

[I7guy]

No, of course not. It‘s developers‘ problem, payment providers‘ problem and ultimately consumers that pay more (as deadweight loss).

There is no deaweight loss. Apple is being compensated for use of its intellectual property. Millions of developers agree, by virtue of enrolling in the program, that this is a good program.

Which is why this regulation exists.

The regulation exists to take apples intellectual property and distribute it for free.

My social circle communicates through smartphone apps.
Whether I like it or not.

You won’t die if you don’t have an iPhone. You won’t die if you don’t have a smartphone. In fact, by virtue of like it or not, you are saying it’s a modern convenience.

They evidently cost more than they need to, if credit card companies can sustain providing generous reward schemes.

Companies that lend out money generally are rewarded for the efforts. Unlike the EU who is playing Robin Hood. There is no reward for Apple. But I suppose AppliedMicro would just lend money for 0%. No?

 

[mrochester]

There is no deaweight loss. Apple is being compensated for use of its intellectual property. Millions of developers agree, by virtue of enrolling in the program, that this is a good program.

The regulation exists to take apples intellectual property and distribute it for free.

You won’t die if you don’t have an iPhone. You won’t die if you don’t have a smartphone. In fact, by virtue of like it or not, you are saying it’s a modern convenience.

Companies that lend out money generally are rewarded for the efforts. Unlike the EU who is playing Robin Hood. There is no reward for Apple. But I suppose AppliedMicro would just lend money for 0%. No?

The value that Apple brings to the table is the creation and maintenance of the OS, ecosystem and APIs that developers make use of to generate revenue. This is why Apple takes a cut. It's the reason why Visa takes a cut when you use a Visa card to make a transaction, because Visa created and maintain the system that facilitates that transaction. Likewise, Block Inc takes a cut of any transaction you make using their payment service.

They are all middlemen who created and operate systems that facilitate putting potential customers in front of businesses and faciliatating a transaction between the two.

You can't remove them as a middlemen because the middleman is the reason why the transaction exists in the first place. No Apple Pay means no Apple Pay transactions. No iOS or APIs means no iOS apps or iOS app market.

Visa made spending money a lot easier than using cash, hence Visa take a cut of the transaction.

Apple Pay made spending money a lot easier hence Apple take a cut of the transaction.

The App Store made selling software for a smartphone a lot easier hence Apple take a cut of the transaction (or a flat fee depending on region).

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apple's entire MO is to make its products work better together because they control everything.

…and they can still do that.
They can make their products work well together without locking out third parties.

changes the value proposition for Apple developing new features

It‘s a complete non-issue.

There is zero lack of financial incentive to develop new features.
They became the „richest“, most valuable company in the world from selling their devices. And hugely profitable.

Also, Apple are free to charge whatever they want for innovative features.

Whereas they haven’t been developing significant features for „App Stores“.
It‘s merely a software store - nothing innovative about it.

And the same is true for Apple Pay (with regards to retail transactions).

They‘ve been compensated for their innovation for years, being the only (convenient, as in leveraging NFC) mobile payment system allowed on iPhones.

👉 Developing once and charging rent in perpetuity from excluding competition is not how healthy competitive markets work.

If only there was some other open Operating System where third parties could show innovation and value through integration without permission from the platform owner

…it does not change a thing. If and as far as they’re colluding with Apple in gatekeeping access to consumers and having similar business terms (as did the Play Store - though I believe they didn’t nearly as much for NFC access).

Most third-party security products are hardly better than the viruses they protect against - they eat up computing resources, slow down machines

There’s a difference in stealing money, copying or making inaccessible your files and data - and consuming CPU cycles/load.

IT security costs resources - it’s bern proven over and over again.

It absolutely did. The EU mandated that if Microsoft got kernel access everyone did. It literally would not have happened if the EU didn’t think it knew better than Microsoft

Again, that was Microsoft’s choice in implementation.
And lots of things (drivers) have kernel access on Windows.

You can try to hand wave that away: denying third party security software integration with Windows would make us less secure.

Apple should be able to charge whatever it wants for access to its platform.

Duopoly firm should not.
Particularly when they operate (impose on the market) similar terms and conditions.

And I just don‘t give a bloody thing about market share in device sales, in this case - especially not if the „minority“ firm has such an disproportionately higher percentage of sales (spending) to compete with the larger firm at eye level.

And the 15-30% commission is more than just payment processing. It includes lots of features for users and developers

…which many - among them the biggest ones that account for the largest share of revenue - don‘t require.

If you're going to use another company's property (iOS) to make money, they deserve to be compensated for that use if they ask to be

…as is true in reverse.

Apple uses their large “ecosystem” of third-party apps to sell iPhones. And these third-party operators deserve to be compensated for that. Such as choosing to retain 100% of their software or in-app revenue, without paying commission to Apple. If they aren’t using Apple’s transaction processing service.

There are very good reasons for charging differently between physical and digital purchases.

Music CDs are simply a media to deliver audio content to consumers.
So are iPhones. And they both serve very basic functionality in doing so.

They have bern for decades.
It’s not as if Apple invented transmission, storage or playback of digital music.

If you sign a lease to be in a mall you don't get to decide which of the mall owner's rules for the mall you follow

…and you don’t face a monopoly firm.

Malls don‘t give away space for free to monopolise the market.
And you’re free to sell your product elsewhere. You don’t have to develop a different product for a different mall.

That is the key difference:
👉 Malls don‘t lock in consumers to monopolise a market - they compete.

It's the equivalent of HP taking up shelf space in Walmart giving away "free" printers, but when you go home and open the box it says "in order to use the free printer, you need to sign up for a subscription on our website because we don't want to give Wal-Mart a cut of the transaction even though you saw the printer you "bought" in their store".

Walmart better charge a stocking fee.
But ultimately, that’s thrir decision.
If they want to give away free space to HP (just as does Apple on their store), so be it.

But when you’re monopolising access to customers on a nationwide level, they should be regulated.

And again, I 100% support the ability for developers to advertise cheaper prices in their app as long as Apple receives appropriate compensation for use of its intellectual property (or a commission when a commission is warranted)

The appropriate compensation or commission is exactly what Uber, Temu, Expedia etc. are paying in commission:

The 99 USD dollar developer subscription Apple has chosen as a price.
And 0% on in-app purchases that do not use their payment system

That‘s what Apple has leveraged to to become a highly successful smartphone vendor and developer of mobile OS:
Giving away their “App Store” service for (basically) free.And leveraging that monopoly in anticompetitive ways on related markets (and) is what needs to be regulated.

👉🏻 I have zero issues with Apple charging whatever the hell they want. From consumers or developers.

But giving away service for (basically) free to most developers to attain monopoly power - and then (ab)using that on the few that can’t escape it, to charge what they (Apple) want: No!

Particularly on markets like ebooks and music streaming, where Apple unfairly compete with a service of their own.

I'd prefer it if they were required to also offer Apple's in-app purchase (even at a higher price to reflect the "extra" fees)

Forcing to deal (with Apple) is anticompetitive.

But again: I don’t have a problem with that: As long as Apple operates the service at non-discriminatory terms.

 

[SebCohen]

I'm using it as we speak. It's currently only for debit cards so it will it work outside Norway.. It uses a proprietary payment processing system of own make that's basically or near free for everyone involved, merchant as well. Soon you'll be able to connect multiple credit cards to your Vipps.

And I can say...it's oh oh ooooh so smooth and fast. Unless you have rain on your glasses that is.

 

[SebCohen]

Or add a Visa / Mastercard to the wallet?

You'll be able to add that soon.

 

[SebCohen]

…and they can still do that.
They can make their products work well together without locking out third parties.


It‘s a complete non-issue.

There is zero lack of financial incentive to develop new features.
They became the „richest“, most valuable company in the world from selling their devices. And hugely profitable.

Also, Apple are free to charge whatever they want for innovative features.

Whereas they haven’t been developing significant features for „App Stores“.
It‘s merely a software store - nothing innovative about it.

And the same is true for Apple Pay (with regards to retail transactions).

They‘ve been compensated for their innovation for years, being the only (convenient, as in leveraging NFC) mobile payment system allowed on iPhones.

👉 Developing once and charging rent in perpetuity from excluding competition is not how healthy competitive markets work.


…it does not change a thing. If and as far as they’re colluding with Apple in gatekeeping access to consumers and having similar business terms (as did the Play Store - though I believe they didn’t nearly as much for NFC access).


There’s a difference in stealing money, copying or making inaccessible your files and data - and consuming CPU cycles/load.

IT security costs resources - it’s bern proven over and over again.

Again, that was Microsoft’s choice in implementation.
And lots of things (drivers) have kernel access on Windows.

You can try to hand wave that away: denying third party security software integration with Windows would make us less secure.


Duopoly firm should not.
Particularly when they operate (impose on the market) similar terms and conditions.

And I just don‘t give a bloody thing about market share in device sales, in this case - especially not if the „minority“ firm has such an disproportionately higher percentage of sales (spending) to compete with the larger firm at eye level.


…which many - among them the biggest ones that account for the largest share of revenue - don‘t require.


…as is true in reverse.

Apple uses their large “ecosystem” of third-party apps to sell iPhones. And these third-party operators deserve to be compensated for that. Such as choosing to retain 100% of their software or in-app revenue, without paying commission to Apple. If they aren’t using Apple’s transaction processing service.


Music CDs are simply a media to deliver audio content to consumers.
So are iPhones. And they both serve very basic functionality in doing so.

They have bern for decades.
It’s not as if Apple invented transmission, storage or playback of digital music.


…and you don’t face a monopoly firm.

Malls don‘t give away space for free to monopolise the market.
And you’re free to sell your product elsewhere. You don’t have to develop a different product for a different mall.

That is the key difference:
👉 Malls don‘t lock in consumers to monopolise a market - they compete.


Walmart better charge a stocking fee.
But ultimately, that’s thrir decision.
If they want to give away free space to HP (just as does Apple on their store), so be it.

But when you’re monopolising access to customers on a nationwide level, they should be regulated.


The appropriate compensation or commission is exactly what Uber, Temu, Expedia etc. are paying in commission:

The 99 USD dollar developer subscription Apple has chosen as a price.
And 0% on in-app purchases that do not use their payment system

That‘s what Apple has leveraged to to become a highly successful smartphone vendor and developer of mobile OS:
Giving away their “App Store” service for (basically) free.And leveraging that monopoly in anticompetitive ways on related markets (and) is what needs to be regulated.

👉🏻 I have zero issues with Apple charging whatever the hell they want. From consumers or developers.

But giving away service for (basically) free to most developers to attain monopoly power - and then (ab)using that on the few that can’t escape it, to charge what they (Apple) want: No!

Particularly on markets like ebooks and music streaming, where Apple unfairly compete with a service of their own.


Forcing to deal (with Apple) is anticompetitive.

But again: I don’t have a problem with that: As long as Apple operates the service at non-discriminatory terms.

Controlling EVERYTHING means

a) controlling how much the customers pay without any alternatives b) making more money c) locking customer in to your service d) making as much money as they want without competition.

I basically agree with everything you wrote in that almost tldr post.. 😎 (edit: Siri fixed my spelling wrong)