ACCC denies Australian banks to collectively bargain, boycott over Apple Pay

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    The word 'boycott' in the article's title sits very uneasily with its context.

    Did the ACCC mention that word in its ruling? Is that what it is denying? Or is it simply the opinion of the author.

    Even on an individual level, boycott sits out of place. The banks simply don't want to accept Apple's proposals (at least at this point in time). Apple designed a system that required the acceptance of the banks. No bank is obliged to use Apple Pay and Apple knows this. Apple can put a negotiation offer on the table but no one is obliged to even look at it if they don't want to. To call it a boycott is a stretch.
  • Reply 22 of 40
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,920member
    You need one or two banks from that cartel breaks out to support Apple Pay and rest will fall behind. Has to happen, just matter of time. Apple needs to offer better deal to one bank from big four which will attract customers switch from other banks and that will force rest of banks to come on board in fear of loosing more customers. .
  • Reply 23 of 40
    avon b7 said:

    That's all up to you but slamming the banks for protecting their own interests is a little harsh.

    If you had any experience with dealing with any of the 3 banks in question, you wouldn't be saying that.

    Here in Australia, we LOATH the banks. We know they're out to screw us. And the fact they constantly brag about their profits, makes us hate them even more.
    hill60lostkiwiwatto_cobrabrakkensennen
  • Reply 24 of 40
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,953member
    avon b7 said:
    lolliver said:
    anome said:

    I'm thinking more and more they're going to capitulate, but they're going to drag it out as long as possible. If they drag it out long enough, maybe I'll get around to jumping to ANZ instead.

    Just make the jump to ANZ now. I made the swap a week after ANZ started supporting Apple Pay and I haven't had any regrets. Most features of the big 4 banks are all the same but the support of Apple Pay makes ANZ more than worth the effort of swapping banks.

    Even if the other banks turn around and start supporting Apple Pay after you make the switch they deserve to have lost as many customers as possible for treating their customers like their product and focusing on how they can make more money out of us rather than providing us with a better experience. They are like the Google of the banking world.
    When you say 'providing us', do you just mean iPhone users?

    If you do, you are ignoring the bank caters to all customers not just iPhone users. The refusal to jump on board Apple Pay is largely commercial. They are fully aware that some users might switch (as you have done) and, at this point at least, they are happy with that as their commercial interests for the future are what really matter. Anyone supporting Apple Pay is feeding Apple Services and it is never really 'free' to the customer as the bank will always factor in the cost to the end user. Nothing new with that, but it means you are perfectly happy with paying for the 'convenience' of Apple Pay.

    That's all up to you but slamming the banks for protecting their own interests is a little harsh. Especially when iPhone users possibly don't even make up the majority of customers in the first place.
    Wrong. AP is paid for by the much lowered credit card fraud. That's why the banks do it, and why they often give it "card present" status even when it's not. This was discussed when AP launched. 

    Nice try tho. Keep those FUD pamphlets handy!
    edited March 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 40
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,953member
    avon b7 said:
    The word 'boycott' in the article's title sits very uneasily with its context.

    Did the ACCC mention that word in its ruling? Is that what it is denying? Or is it simply the opinion of the author.

    Even on an individual level, boycott sits out of place. The banks simply don't want to accept Apple's proposals (at least at this point in time). Apple designed a system that required the acceptance of the banks. No bank is obliged to use Apple Pay and Apple knows this. Apple can put a negotiation offer on the table but no one is obliged to even look at it if they don't want to. To call it a boycott is a stretch.
    You're misguided. The ACCC doesn't need to call it a boycott for others to call it a boycott. That's how a free press works. 

    Its very reasonable to observe the beavhior of the big banks not supporting AP and trying to collectively bargain and conclude they agreed not to support AP together. That's a boycott. Here in the states when companies agree together not to do things in order to prevent competition or fight for their customers the companies get into hot water. 
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    avon b7 said:
    lolliver said:
    anome said:

    I'm thinking more and more they're going to capitulate, but they're going to drag it out as long as possible. If they drag it out long enough, maybe I'll get around to jumping to ANZ instead.

    Just make the jump to ANZ now. I made the swap a week after ANZ started supporting Apple Pay and I haven't had any regrets. Most features of the big 4 banks are all the same but the support of Apple Pay makes ANZ more than worth the effort of swapping banks.

    Even if the other banks turn around and start supporting Apple Pay after you make the switch they deserve to have lost as many customers as possible for treating their customers like their product and focusing on how they can make more money out of us rather than providing us with a better experience. They are like the Google of the banking world.
    When you say 'providing us', do you just mean iPhone users?

    If you do, you are ignoring the bank caters to all customers not just iPhone users. The refusal to jump on board Apple Pay is largely commercial. They are fully aware that some users might switch (as you have done) and, at this point at least, they are happy with that as their commercial interests for the future are what really matter. Anyone supporting Apple Pay is feeding Apple Services and it is never really 'free' to the customer as the bank will always factor in the cost to the end user. Nothing new with that, but it means you are perfectly happy with paying for the 'convenience' of Apple Pay.

    That's all up to you but slamming the banks for protecting their own interests is a little harsh. Especially when iPhone users possibly don't even make up the majority of customers in the first place.
    Wrong. AP is paid for by the much lowered credit card fraud. That's why the banks do it, and why they often give it "card present" status even when it's not. This was discussed when AP launched. 

    Nice try tho. Keep those FUD pamphlets handy!
    Sorry. If you lower credit card fraud, you pass savings back onto the user (which is currently bearing the cost universally). To lower fraud you design a better system (EMV was flawed from birth). Why should users have to support fraud costs for a system that was flawed from the start? That system should be universal (as in open to everybody on the same terms). To make fraud matters worse, some banks force customers to use a four digit PIN instead of signature plus ID.

    AP provides a solution that is none of the above and has a price. That price is passed onto ALL participating bank clients, whether they can (or want) to use AP or not.

    Cardless payments? Nice convenience but they have existed ever since cards were introduced. Amazon has never seen my card but I sometimes use it with them for payments.

    Apple could potentially get AP into every bank simply by applying a percentage to every transaction and billing the card holder 'directly'. Of course that would imply negotiations in the opposite direction (Apple would have to pay EMV and the banks).

    To really move Terminal Payments forward, we need a truly universal system that isn't dependent on just one provider. AP doesn't fit that bill. 
  • Reply 27 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    avon b7 said:
    The word 'boycott' in the article's title sits very uneasily with its context.

    Did the ACCC mention that word in its ruling? Is that what it is denying? Or is it simply the opinion of the author.

    Even on an individual level, boycott sits out of place. The banks simply don't want to accept Apple's proposals (at least at this point in time). Apple designed a system that required the acceptance of the banks. No bank is obliged to use Apple Pay and Apple knows this. Apple can put a negotiation offer on the table but no one is obliged to even look at it if they don't want to. To call it a boycott is a stretch.
    You're misguided. The ACCC doesn't need to call it a boycott for others to call it a boycott. That's how a free press works. 

    Its very reasonable to observe the beavhior of the big banks not supporting AP and trying to collectively bargain and conclude they agreed not to support AP together. That's a boycott. Here in the states when companies agree together not to do things in order to prevent competition or fight for their customers the companies get into hot water. 
    Misguided, no. The word is ill placed in the title. Also, boycotts usually mean to stop using a product or service in protest at something. These banks never used AP in the first place.
  • Reply 28 of 40
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 405member
    Nice to see all the comments from down under. I switched my primary credit card in the US because it would not support Apple Pay. Wrote several letters, got ignored, made the change, haven't looked back.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobrabrakken
  • Reply 29 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    jdgaz said:
    Nice to see all the comments from down under. I switched my primary credit card in the US because it would not support Apple Pay. Wrote several letters, got ignored, made the change, haven't looked back
    I think that's the way to go about it. Make your opinion heard then take action if you feel strongly enough about the situation.
  • Reply 30 of 40
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    I use Apple Pay with ANZ and have been since the day it launched.

    People in stores are still surprised when I pay with Apple Watch, it's extremely convenient.

    Australia seems to be the only country where selfish banks hold out, appleinsider regularly announce new countries coming aboard where all the banks get involved.

    Banks here charge excessive fees, an example is to use another banks ATM the charge is around $2.50, there is no way that it costs the banks that much to process an inter bank transfer.

    Banks here make huge profits through fees on basically everything we do with our money.
    lostkiwiwatto_cobrabrakken
  • Reply 31 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    hill60 said:
    I use Apple Pay with ANZ and have been since the day it launched.

    People in stores are still surprised when I pay with Apple Watch, it's extremely convenient.

    Australia seems to be the only country where selfish banks hold out, appleinsider regularly announce new countries coming aboard where all the banks get involved.

    Banks here charge excessive fees, an example is to use another banks ATM the charge is around $2.50, there is no way that it costs the banks that much to process an inter bank transfer.

    Banks here make huge profits through fees on basically everything we do with our money.
    Banks are generally evil but I have to admit that my  bank doesn't charge me anything and has really pushed into the technological side (although it doesn't support AP).

    Spanish banks have also taken a battering recently from the courts. First with the so called 'preferentes', then the floor clauses and now with mortgage formalization costs. I stand to receive up to 5,000€ as a result of that last one.

    All in all it's costing the banks billions and that's one of the reasons I'm not paying any kind of fees.
    edited March 2017
  • Reply 32 of 40
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    avon b7 said:

    Banks are generally evil but I have to admit that my  bank doesn't charge me anything and has really pushed into the technological side (although it doesn't support AP).

    Spanish banks have also taken a battering recently from the courts. First with the so called 'preferentes', then the floor clauses and now with mortgage formalization costs. I stand to receive up to 5,000€ as a result of that last one.

    All in all it's costing the banks billions and that's one of the reasons I'm not paying any kind of fees.
    It's not going to happen here under our current government, the party in power receives way too much in political donations, they block any attempts to bring some of the bank's more reprehensible behaviours to account.

    They even want to give them a $A7 Billion tax cut.

    The Prime Minister is an ex banker who worked for Goldman Sachs and was almost jailed for his role in HIH/FAI, Australia's largest corporate collapse for publishing a misleading prospectus when shares were floated, a secret settlement believed to be $500,000,000 is the only reason he avoided it.

    Thousands of people lost their life savings, the building industry ground to a standstill as HIH was their main insurer.
    edited March 2017 watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    hill60 said:
    avon b7 said:

    Banks are generally evil but I have to admit that my  bank doesn't charge me anything and has really pushed into the technological side (although it doesn't support AP).

    Spanish banks have also taken a battering recently from the courts. First with the so called 'preferentes', then the floor clauses and now with mortgage formalization costs. I stand to receive up to 5,000€ as a result of that last one.

    All in all it's costing the banks billions and that's one of the reasons I'm not paying any kind of fees.
    It's not going to happen here under our current government, the party in power receives way too much in political donations, they block any attempts to bring some of the bank's more reprehensible behaviours to account.

    They even want to give them a $A7 Billion tax cut.

    The Prime Minister is an ex banker who worked for Goldman Sachs and was almost jailed for his role in HIH/FAI, Australia's largest corporate collapse for publishing a misleading prospectus when shares were floated, a secret settlement believed to be $500,000,000 is the only reason he avoided it.

    Thousands of people lost their life savings, the building industry ground to a standstill as HIH was their main insurer.
    Not only evil but unjust.

    My bank was also taken to court (mortgage floor clauses) and would have tried to wear claimants out in court but a Spanish judge escalated the issue to the European Court of Justice and from there they had little chance of winning the case. The bank, and all other Spanish banks that applied such clauses in the same way, will now have to return an estimated 4 billion euros to consumers. And quickly.

    The EU has also forced Spain to modify its mortgage laws to bring them into line with EU legislation. 


    lostkiwi
  • Reply 34 of 40
    prokip said:
    The 4 big banks in Australia are an oligopoly.  A big gorilla with too much hair!!  Arseholes !!  At least the ACCC is finally doing its work.

    Now Apple do your work and get this stuff rolling down here !!

    Signed:  a pissed-off antipodean.

    What are you talking about?  ACCC is doing all it can given how much funding it has and has won most of its cases in recent times including most recently against the airlines for their continual use of drip feed pricing.
    The ACCC and ICAC are about the only things standing up for fairness in today's society.
    It's ASIC that has allowed the banks to get away with blue murder for so long.
  • Reply 35 of 40
    brakkenbrakken Posts: 687member
    avon b7 said:
    lolliver said:
    anome said:

    I'm thinking more and more they're going to capitulate, but they're going to drag it out as long as possible. If they drag it out long enough, maybe I'll get around to jumping to ANZ instead.

    Just make the jump to ANZ now. I made the swap a week after ANZ started supporting Apple Pay and I haven't had any regrets. Most features of the big 4 banks are all the same but the support of Apple Pay makes ANZ more than worth the effort of swapping banks.

    Even if the other banks turn around and start supporting Apple Pay after you make the switch they deserve to have lost as many customers as possible for treating their customers like their product and focusing on how they can make more money out of us rather than providing us with a better experience. They are like the Google of the banking world.
    When you say 'providing us', do you just mean iPhone users?

    If you do, you are ignoring the bank caters to all customers not just iPhone users. The refusal to jump on board Apple Pay is largely commercial. They are fully aware that some users might switch (as you have done) and, at this point at least, they are happy with that as their commercial interests for the future are what really matter. Anyone supporting Apple Pay is feeding Apple Services and it is never really 'free' to the customer as the bank will always factor in the cost to the end user. Nothing new with that, but it means you are perfectly happy with paying for the 'convenience' of Apple Pay.

    That's all up to you but slamming the banks for protecting their own interests is a little harsh. Especially when iPhone users possibly don't even make up the majority of customers in the first place.



    Perhaps it would be useful to analyse exactly why Android, with it's huge consumer base, has no functional payment system. This may elucidate Apple's reason for ensuring its total ownership of its own products, and why people who choose iPhone do so.
  • Reply 36 of 40
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,880member
    brakken said:
    avon b7 said:
    lolliver said:
    anome said:

    I'm thinking more and more they're going to capitulate, but they're going to drag it out as long as possible. If they drag it out long enough, maybe I'll get around to jumping to ANZ instead.

    Just make the jump to ANZ now. I made the swap a week after ANZ started supporting Apple Pay and I haven't had any regrets. Most features of the big 4 banks are all the same but the support of Apple Pay makes ANZ more than worth the effort of swapping banks.

    Even if the other banks turn around and start supporting Apple Pay after you make the switch they deserve to have lost as many customers as possible for treating their customers like their product and focusing on how they can make more money out of us rather than providing us with a better experience. They are like the Google of the banking world.
    When you say 'providing us', do you just mean iPhone users?

    If you do, you are ignoring the bank caters to all customers not just iPhone users. The refusal to jump on board Apple Pay is largely commercial. They are fully aware that some users might switch (as you have done) and, at this point at least, they are happy with that as their commercial interests for the future are what really matter. Anyone supporting Apple Pay is feeding Apple Services and it is never really 'free' to the customer as the bank will always factor in the cost to the end user. Nothing new with that, but it means you are perfectly happy with paying for the 'convenience' of Apple Pay.

    That's all up to you but slamming the banks for protecting their own interests is a little harsh. Especially when iPhone users possibly don't even make up the majority of customers in the first place.



    Perhaps it would be useful to analyse exactly why Android, with it's huge consumer base, has no functional payment system. This may elucidate Apple's reason for ensuring its total ownership of its own products, and why people who choose iPhone do so.
    Well, you have defined the problem. What is the point of having a system tied to one platform, that involves a cost to all users (whether they use AP or not) and can only reach a very low percentage of purchasers. It would be better to have a universal system and that doesn't exist beyond cards and the wallets banks tied to them, each with their own particularities.

    If Apple had had an interest in such a system it wouldn't have gone it alone with Apple Pay.

    So we are stuck with EMV until the industry can find a universal mobile solution. And that means we have what we have and Apple isn't demanding anything because it knew the risks before it designed the system. It will have to negotiate and sometimes other parties won't be very accommodating.
  • Reply 37 of 40
    darkvaderdarkvader Posts: 1,146member
    So, in the US, you're pretty much an idiot if you do business with any bank unless you're really, really rich.  We have these things called credit unions, which operate sort of like banks, but are nonprofit.  They tend to like Apple Pay.

    Do you have something like that in Australia?  If so, do they do Apple Pay?
  • Reply 38 of 40
    steveausteveau Posts: 301member
    prokip said:
    The 4 big banks in Australia are an oligopoly.  A big gorilla with too much hair!!  Arseholes !!  At least the ACCC is finally doing its work.

    Now Apple do your work and get this stuff rolling down here !!

    Signed:  a pissed-off antipodean.
    Don't whinge, act! When I'm in Oz, I use an Amex Credit Card (seperate to my Amex Charge Card) with Apple pay on my A-Watch and it works in most places. If I was living there full-time I'd get an ANZ credit card and that would work just about everywhere.
  • Reply 39 of 40
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,474member
    ...
    A:)

    For its part, the banking bloc argues access to iPhone's NFC would foster increased competition and consumer choice, as well as accelerated innovation and investment in the digital wallet space. As a result of opening the technology, consumer adoption of mobile payment platforms would increase, the group says.
    ...
    B:)

    "Finally, Apple Wallet and other multi-issuer digital wallets could increase competition between the banks by making it easier for consumers to switch between card providers and limiting any 'lock in' effect bank digital wallets may cause," Sims said.
    ...
    C:)

    "This case has always been about consumer choice," said banks spokesman Lance Blockley. "The applicants made this application to seek to ensure they could participate in the future of mobile wallets, and not have the course of development for mobile wallets in Australia dictated by a single overseas corporation."
    ...
    A:)  Apple has already innovated and investing i the digital wallet space to produce a rock solid solution that others can take advantaged of with little investment on their part.

    B:)  And this is exactly what the banks would do by locking customers into their solutions making it difficult to move to another bank.  By all the banks using ApplePay, they would them have to compete on an even playing field by who offers the best services.  What a novel concept....

    C:)  I can't believe he said that with a straight face.  If you do not like ApplePay, work with Android vendors for your solution.  Maybe you don't like that kind of choice though.  It has been said multiple times, they can just develop their own hardware solution if they do not like what is available.  Consumers have already chosen and they chose an iPhone, now get on board and let them use the platform the THEY chose.
  • Reply 40 of 40
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission on Friday local time issued a determination denying the country's big-three banks authorization to collectively negotiate with Apple over access to Apple Pay NFC technology.
    ...

    Sims notes that granting access to iPhone hardware assets might artificially skew development of payments technologies toward NFC, prematurely killing off other burgeoning innovations.

    "Finally, Apple Wallet and other multi-issuer digital wallets could increase competition between the banks by making it easier for consumers to switch between card providers and limiting any 'lock in' effect bank digital wallets may cause," Sims said.
    ...

    What competition? The EMV payments system said NFC and Chip+PIN are the only things they will be using. Apple Pay is EMV NFC.

    Anything else, bluetooth, magnetic field transmission (MST), CurrentC barcodes, are not secure in the slightest. These are just solutions to bypass the credit card companies, and they won't work because end-users do not give a care about Bank profits. This is hate brought on by the way Banks act currently and in the past, so no, I don't see any "other innovations" happening.

    While I think Apple should allow access to the NFC chip to accept payments, they could also do this by allowing a path to a NFC chip on a SIM card if they don't want to deal with this. It's not like there are not Bluetooth NFC/Mag/Chip readers for iOS devices (see Square reader.) But the only companies I want to see have less access to a device are wireless providers. Both Banks and Wireless providers want you to use THEM so they get the fees instead of Visa/MasterCard/Amex. What's in it for you? The Device user? Nothing. If the underlying credit card has some kind of loyalty point system or cashback maybe you get that as a benefit. When was the last time a Wireless carrier or Bank didn't charge an idiot tax?

Sign In or Register to comment.