EU antitrust chief hints at possible Apple Pay investigation

Posted:
in General Discussion edited December 2019
Apple Pay's introduction into the payments market has led to multiple "expressions of concern," the EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has revealed, with comments about Apple's mobile payments service potentially leading the European Commission to take a closer look at how competition in the market is affected by its presence.




Apple Pay has become a massive business for Apple as part of its Services arm, with it processing over 3 billion transactions in the September quarter, more than mainstay payment system PayPal. The massive growth of the platform has, as usual, drawn regulatory attention, with EU antitrust chief Vestager indicating complaints about it have started to arrive at her door.

"We've been asking quite a number of questions because we get many concerns when it comes to Apple Pay for pure competition reasons," Vestager revealed at a news briefing at Web Summit, reports Reuters. "People see it becomes increasingly difficult to compete in the market for easy payments."

Vestager has previously advised of the possibility of an examination of Apple Pay from an antitrust viewpoint, telling Reuters last year there is a possibility of an investigation into the platform if there were formal complaints.

According to one EU document, Vestager has also reportedly sought details from online retailers about their dealings with Apple Pay, including if they were told to use it instead of competitors.

Apple has argued that limiting access to the NFC chip provides tighter security, especially when handling sensitive banking data. They also argue that this is one of the reasons consumers choose Apple Pay in the first place. Banks and rival payment services have claimed the same restrictions make alternative payment services less attractive due to using other methods, such as barcodes and QR codes.

Vestager previously pointed out that other companies, such as Google and Samsung, have not triggered a probe. Smartphones running Android operating systems generally allow all payment apps access to the device's NFC chip.

Apple has taken efforts to start opening up NFC to third parties, such as for Germany's passport and ID card plans, and for the UK's Brexit app to function properly on iPhone.

In December 2018, Apple had settled a complaint with a Swiss payment company, TWINT, to avoid such a probe. Australian banks had also taken issue with Apple Pay for similar reasons, but ultimately resulted in them backing down and adopting Apple Pay support.

Apple is still in the midst of another anti-trust probe regarding their self-preferential practices, centered largely around their long-running spat with Spotify.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 38
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,724member
    The difference between Apple's success and other tech companies, like Microsoft, is for the most part Apple has succeeded because people actually want to buy their products. Microsoft's monopolistic practices had to do with Microsoft forcing PC vendors to license their operating system. Apple is vertically integrated, which is unique in the tech world. Because of that, ignorant competition commissioners just don't understand how to deal with this type of company. Tesla is also vertically integrated and I can't wait for the first complaint from the EU (backed by auto manufacturers) that Tesla should be broken up. 
    AppleExposedMacProlostkiwiGeorgeBMacbshank
  • Reply 2 of 38
    thrangthrang Posts: 901member
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    edited November 2019 wonkothesanelkruppAppleExposedanantksundaram
  • Reply 3 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

    Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

    There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

    If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

    Competition is relevant.
    sphericcroprGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 4 of 38
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

    Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

    There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

    If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

    Competition is relevant.
    Hopediddy....there goes the darn EU again. Mind your own backyard firsthand. If you don’t like Apple pay don’t use it....I still use paypal and hardly Apple pay. Didn’t sign up to Apple card cause my Amex is good enough, my choice not them. EU commissioner go pound a sand. Hahahahaha 
    AppleExposedanantksundaramolssarthos
  • Reply 5 of 38
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Again with the EU and their garbage.
    anantksundaramsarthoswilliamlondon
  • Reply 6 of 38
    Apple has around 20% of the EU phone market. That will drop a lot further once the UK leaves the EU so why are the EU investigating this?
    Google Pay and Samsung Pay combined could be a lot more of a monopoly than ApplePay could ever be.

    I have to wonder if those EU Fat Cats are obviously a bit short of kitty food?
    anantksundaramentropysMacProthrangolssarthos
  • Reply 7 of 38
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    Apple can't succeed in anything nowadays.

    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

    Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

    There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

    If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

    Competition is relevant.

    By "competition" you mean companies who've copied Apple to the letter and release stolen designed knockoffs for profit off the back of Apples hard work. Cry elsewhere.
    anantksundaramMacProols
  • Reply 8 of 38
    avon b7 said:
    I lived in a mixed economy. 
    My sympathies.

    Also, that explains a few things...
    apple ][sarthos
  • Reply 9 of 38

    apple ][ said:
    Again with the EU and their garbage.
    I am waiting to hear from all the bozos who showed up some days ago, gnashed their pro-Vestager teeth, mumbled something along the likes of "they're only asking questions, what's the bid deal blah blah..."
    apple ][AppleExposed
  • Reply 10 of 38
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member


    "We've been asking quite a number of questions because we get many concerns when it comes to Apple Pay for pure competition reasons," Vestager revealed at a news briefing at Web Summit, reports Reuters. "People see it becomes increasingly difficult to compete in the market for easy payments."


    Whatever success Apple Pay has is because users have chosen to use it over other alternatives.

    I use Apple Pay all of the time. Even my local grocery store which didn't have Apple Pay for the longest time finally got it recently and I find myself paying with my Apple Watch using Apple Pay whenever I shop there now. I had been going there for years and I was sure glad when I walked in there one day and saw that little Apple Pay Sticker on their terminals.

    Of course certain actors in the market will have a hard time, those that have inferior products and shitty services. Who said that business should be easy? Some succeed, some fail. Too bad for them. Apple Pay isn't forced upon anybody. If somebody wants to use something else or not use anything at all, then that's their choice.


    edited November 2019 sarthos
  • Reply 11 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    avon b7 said:
    I lived in a mixed economy. 
    My sympathies.

    Also, that explains a few things...
    No sympathies needed!

    I'll take longer vacation periods, greater consumer protections, WEEE, RoHS, common fisheries policy, universal health coverage, free movement etc, over almost any of the other options out there.

    Everybody I have ever known from outside the EU has stated that they would love to live here. That is everyone without exception (including my Brexit voting brother who fell ill while staying with me and required health centre attention followed by emergency hospital attention and promptly changed his tune on that one).

    For all its imperfections, people still want to live here.

    I also have family in Brazil who live very privileged lives but within a 'security compound'. Even taxi drivers are vetted before entering. Living inside a bubble, for all the luxuries, doesn't do much for your quality of life at the end of the day. They visit the EU every single year.
    edited November 2019 sphericmuthuk_vanalingamCarnagetokyojimu
  • Reply 12 of 38
    spice-boyspice-boy Posts: 1,445member
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    How short some peoples memories are. It is that special free wheeling kind of American capitalism which creates global recessions. Due to a libertarian takeover of our democracy these past 30 year, the foxes been have left in charge of the hen house and regulations are a thing of the past. Most European nations do not subscribe to a boom then bust economy and their restrictions are there because not having them will lead to a disaster. It's an exciting time in America to be part of the top 10%, since the bottom 90% have been convinced that markets should resemble the wild kingdom where only the strong will and should survive. Laws are written because the worst in people (greed) always needs to be kept in check. The time of the Baron Robbers taught us that. 
    edited November 2019 sphericmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 13 of 38
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,959member
    Apple can't succeed in anything nowadays.

    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

    Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

    There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

    If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

    Competition is relevant.

    By "competition" you mean companies who've copied Apple to the letter and release stolen designed knockoffs for profit off the back of Apples hard work. Cry elsewhere.
    I hope you realise that 'competition' applies to far, far more than Apple's CE focus.

    Now you are not only repeating utterly absurd claims of 'copying to the letter', after having previously claimed that competitors had simply 'seen' Apple patents and rushed products to market, but now claim they 'stole Apple's designs'!

    And all Apple's hard work was ripped off!

    Fasten your seat belt because sooner or later you will wake up to harsh reality.

    But what does all that have to do with the case at hand?


    AppleExposed
  • Reply 14 of 38
    1348513485 Posts: 194member
    spice-boy said:
    The time of the Baron Robbers taught us that. 
    The Robin Hood in me is pretty much in favor of Baron robbing. 

    But as an economic policy that's problematic.
  • Reply 15 of 38
    sphericspheric Posts: 2,108member
    Kuyangkoh said:
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

    Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

    There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

    If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

    Competition is relevant.
    Hopediddy....there goes the darn EU again. Mind your own backyard firsthand.
    That is literally what they are doing. 

    Our backyard, our rules. If you don't give a shit about anticompetitive behaviour, that's your problem. 

    We do. And if there's complaints or indication that this might be happening, then it's the Commission's job to investigate. 

    I agree that Apple gets the balance right more than most anybody else, but as a trillion-dollar company, they have rather different marketing clout than they did in the late '90s, and we need to ensure that they don't abuse it, whether inadvertently or with intent to corner a market. 

    This sort of investigation happens every day, btw. — both here in Europe and in the United States. Corporations from all industries and all countries get slapped with fines etc. 

    Nothing to see here. Europe will let you know how it pans out. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 16 of 38
    1348513485 Posts: 194member
    spheric said:
    That is literally what they are doing. 

    Our backyard, our rules. If you don't give a shit about anticompetitive behaviour, that's your problem. 

    We do. And if there's complaints or indication that this might be happening, then it's the Commission's job to investigate. 

    I agree that Apple gets the balance right more than most anybody else, but as a trillion-dollar company, they have rather different marketing clout than they did in the late '90s, and we need to ensure that they don't abuse it, whether inadvertently or with intent to corner a market. 

    This sort of investigation happens every day, btw. — both here in Europe and in the United States. Corporations from all industries and all countries get slapped with fines etc. 

    Nothing to see here. Europe will let you know how it pans out. 
    The size of Apple's bank account shouldn't have anything to do with it, as estimated capitalization is not a crime. Neither is an intent to "corner a market". Not having seen any part of the actual complaints, I'm not sure what the issue is. It's not a crime to be popular. It's not a crime if stores want to sign on to have those minority of the market Apple users use Apple Pay to buy stuff, the terminals will still work for other payers. Is Apple preventing anyone else from using Google Pay or Sammy Pay instead?
    sarthos
  • Reply 17 of 38
    thrangthrang Posts: 901member
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. 
    Does this mean you don't identify with any currency?  :)
  • Reply 18 of 38
    thrangthrang Posts: 901member
    spice-boy said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    How short some peoples memories are. It is that special free wheeling kind of American capitalism which creates global recessions. Due to a libertarian takeover of our democracy these past 30 year, the foxes been have left in charge of the hen house and regulations are a thing of the past. Most European nations do not subscribe to a boom then bust economy and their restrictions are there because not having them will lead to a disaster. It's an exciting time in America to be part of the top 10%, since the bottom 90% have been convinced that markets should resemble the wild kingdom where only the strong will and should survive. Laws are written because the worst in people (greed) always needs to be kept in check. The time of the Baron Robbers taught us that. 
    Whatever you're lumbering and stumbling on about has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    Apple invented the entire HW/SW platform. They have a responsibility to the business and to their customers to run it in such a way that it delivers the experiences those customers have demonstrated, (through enormous sales over several years) that they want.

    If there is a security risk by opening NFC up, I DON'T WANT IT on my iPhone.  I DON'T WANT Apple to waste resources being forced to try and support that, and then deal with the issues of security cracks that might develop from the forced adoption. It's the same reason I DON'T WANT third party app stores. My view of the Apple ecosystem would diminish greatly if they were compelled to offer this, because I PREFER the walled garden approach, and the vastly (relative) more stable and secure environment it provides.  That remains a large part of my belief in the Apple ecosystem, as it undoubtedly does for a vast majority of consumers who remain with or are attracted to the ecosystem. Any governmental entity's attempt to forcibly changes this goes against the very people they are foolishly  purporting to protect.

    Apple can choose what they want on their platform for a myriad of reasons. The market will decide if they want to participate. Plenty of nice Android phones out there that compete with different features and options. Thats' exactly the choice you want - from natural competitive position, not governmental interference.

    If I wanted the things Apple did not offer, if I felt constrained or forced, I can go to the store and buy something different that offers the things I feel I'm being denied.

    One has every right to prefer socialism, but it's ironic one would desire to convert successful capitalistic ventures to meet a socialist framework!

    Instead,  look for the socialist-minded companies that deliver what you want. It would be an incredibly long and unfulfilling search...

    edited November 2019 sarthos
  • Reply 19 of 38
    thrangthrang Posts: 901member

    spheric said:
    Kuyangkoh said:
    avon b7 said:
    thrang said:
    These kinds of positions are quite disgusting in their anti-capitalist positions.
    Companies that develop products or services in a commercial environment have the right (and responsibility) to decide to make such products or services as closed or as open as they wish. Not only for their success as an commercial entity (and as a return on their enormous development, support, and marketing investments), but, in cases such as this, for concerns of user security. A company's decisions in all ways impact go-to-market risks - and inform the considerations of the consumer whether they want to purchase. In this case, too open and you invite potential security risk and lack of cohesive user experience - too closed, and you run the risk of alienating consumers and making it too difficult to use. If Apple has shown anything, it's that they get the blend of open and closed quite right far more often than they get it wrong. Its success is the penultimate marker for this. If one does not like Apple's (low) walled-garden approach, there are a multitude of Android alternatives one can move to. That's competition. Apple and everyone else out there have to continually compete, which seems to be forgotten by some. Competing means, among other things, offering differentiated features, sometimes exclusive, sometimes open, to make your mark. The consumers will decide if those offerings are of value or not. If too many people feel Apple Pay's approach is too limited, they won't use it. Or, if significant enough of a concern, they'll leave the platform.
    I lived in a mixed economy. There are other aspects than pure capitalism involved.

    Competition is one of those aspects and this might be a competition issue. The only way to know for sure is to investigate. 

    There is nothing disgusting about the position. There are rules and regulations. There are safeguards.

    If Apple doesn't represent an abuse of competition regulations it has nothing to worry about. Simply being better or worse is irrelevant. 

    Competition is relevant.
    Hopediddy....there goes the darn EU again. Mind your own backyard firsthand.
    That is literally what they are doing. 

    Our backyard, our rules. If you don't give a shit about anticompetitive behaviour, that's your problem. 

    We do. And if there's complaints or indication that this might be happening, then it's the Commission's job to investigate. 

    I agree that Apple gets the balance right more than most anybody else, but as a trillion-dollar company, they have rather different marketing clout than they did in the late '90s, and we need to ensure that they don't abuse it, whether inadvertently or with intent to corner a market. 

    This sort of investigation happens every day, btw. — both here in Europe and in the United States. Corporations from all industries and all countries get slapped with fines etc. 

    Nothing to see here. Europe will let you know how it pans out. 
    Whats anti-competitive about Apple only offering Apple Pay on their own product? It's their hardware, it's their software, it's their total responsibility. Revenues, profits, development, support, marketing, user experience, PR, legal ramifications, (massive) etc...

    If Apple somehow was interfering with other platforms offering their own payment systems on their own devices to "force" people to buy iPhones and force them to use Apple Pay, you'd have a discussion. Otherwise, you have nothing.
    edited November 2019 sarthos
  • Reply 20 of 38
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Socialists, ruining everything that they can get their grubby and corrupt hands on.


    sarthos
Sign In or Register to comment.