Norwegian banks ally to say that Apple Pay should be opened up

Posted:
in General Discussion
The coalition of banks that formed Norwegian payment app Vipps wants to see antitrust action taken against Apple, unless Apple Pay's NFC tech is opened up.

Credit: Apple
Credit: Apple


The European Union held a closed hearing over Apple's alleged antitrust behavior on Tuesday, but following it, Norway firm Vipps says that it wants to see decisive action taken against Apple Pay.

According to Reuters, Vipps was present at the hearing. The EU has not yet released its findings following the closed session, but Vipps' decision to speak out may indicate that Apple was persuasive in its presentation.

Regardless of the hearing, Vipps says that the EU should now force Apple to allow access to its NFC technology.

"This is really important for us," Vipps Chief Executive Rune Garborg told Reuters. "Seventy-eight percent of card transactions in Norway are done through terminals. It is why NFC is so important especially among young people."

Vipps was reportedly present at the EU's closed session, where Apple was expected to argue that it does not preclude other firms using NFC.

"[However,] "Apple is only sharing NFC with banks, which have to pay for installing their cards in Apple Pay," said Garborg. "But for us as a wallet, we don't have open access to NFC."

Vipps is owned by a consortium of Norwegian banks. Its representatives told Reuters that they had tried alternatives to NFC, but they were too cumbersome to be competitive.

Apple has not commented on the statement from Vipps. However, as part of its response to the EU's investigation, Apple has previously defended its position.

"We designed Apple Pay to provide an easy and secure way for users to digitally present their existing payment cards and for banks and other financial institutions to offer contactless payments for their customers," an Apple spokesperson told AppleInsider in 2022. "Apple Pay is only one of many options available to European consumers for making payments, and has ensured equal access to NFC while setting industry-leading standards for privacy and security."

Read on AppleInsider
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    It is open, any bank can participate, as long as it’s in apple privacy and security focused approach.

    I don’t get that, they made their platform a success by being closed and simple to use. 

    If we have 12 options for wallets in the App Store, iOS becomes the same mess we see on android. 

    Leave my things that work perfectly alone. It’s one of the only things I can count on hahahaha.
    StrangeDaysmike1Dooofuswilliamlondonfoadlolliverd_2danoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 27
    It is open, any bank can participate, as long as it’s in apple privacy and security focused approach.

    I don’t get that, they made their platform a success by being closed and simple to use. 

    If we have 12 options for wallets in the App Store, iOS becomes the same mess we see on android. 

    Leave my things that work perfectly alone. It’s one of the only things I can count on hahahaha.
    They don’t care they want the info and control. They don’t want to jump through hoops and offer a seamless experience. 
    mattinozdanox
  • Reply 3 of 27
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    The problem banks and merchants have always had with Apple Pay is that they don’t get to collect their customers private data, end of story. Follow the money every time.
    rob53StrangeDaysdarelrexmike1dewmewilliamlondonfoadmattinozsphericdanox
  • Reply 4 of 27
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,251member
    This is Apple's product, not the world's. Apple, like any other company, can determine what features they want on THEIR PRODUCTS without being told what they have to include by politicians. Apple can't tell Norway how to run their country why should Norway be able to tell Apple how to design a product?
    StrangeDaysdarelrexchadbagDooofuswilliamlondonfoadiOS_Guy80lolliverdanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 27
    Banks: “Your product is very popular and a better option than ours, so now we want to control it!”
    williamlondoniOS_Guy80lolliverdanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 27
    NFC is just a standardized short-range wireless protocol for a mobile device to communicate with a point-of-sale terminal. There is nothing in the NFC standard that requires any particular mobile device to participate in any particular bank, credit card, digital wallet, third-party app, or whatever. Apple is just using NFC the way it wants to: Not long ago, iPhones didn't even have NFC hardware at all. Apple added NFC hardware to iPhone specifically to support Apple Pay and for no other reason. Does that create a positive obligation that Apple let other companies use it any way they want to, and does that logic apply also to the FaceID scanner, the camera, the microphone, the GPS chip, the Secure Enclave, etc.? Believe it or not, the EU's competition authorities have actually suggested that it does.
    edited February 2023 iOS_Guy80lolliverd_2danoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    sbdudesbdude Posts: 260member
    Oooh, Norwegian banks. Now there's a huge market Apple is going to miss.
    iOS_Guy80lolliverd_2watto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 8 of 27
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,284member
    NFC is available to the banks. It's called the chip already in the cards they issue and can be used at any terminal.
    They are just looking for a free ride on somebody else's train.
    rob53iOS_Guy80lolliverd_2watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 27
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,366member
    lkrupp said:
    The problem banks and merchants have always had with Apple Pay is that they don’t get to collect their customers private data, end of story. Follow the money every time.
    Exactly, they just want a cut of the action without having to do any of the heavy lifting or taking on the financial risk that was needed to make it work. It’s the same story with nearly all of those who seek to coerce authorities into taking action against Apple or any profitable entity. Some things will never change.
    DooofusiOS_Guy80StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,678member
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 



    edited February 2023 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 11 of 27
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 



    I don’t want t let other banking financial ecosystems into apples ecosystem.
    lolliverdarelrexdanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 
    Yay hand-waiving. Customers have freedom to select the hardware they want. A lot of people prefer Apple’s hardware, despite oodles of knockoffs on the market like your Chinese brands. Apple isn’t even a majority market share…so this is a rather silly position. 

    Nobody I know gives one fork about alternative “digital wallets”. We just loads our various bank cards into iOS Wallet and use them via Apply Pay without issue. Apple knows its customers better than you do. 
    edited February 2023 lolliverdanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,678member
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 



    I don’t want t let other banking financial ecosystems into apples ecosystem.
    That's fine as a personal opinion but do you really think your opinion should outweigh those of others? 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,678member
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 
    Yay hand-waiving. Customers have freedom to select the hardware they want. A lot of people prefer Apple’s hardware, despite oodles of knockoffs on the market like your Chinese brands. Apple isn’t even a majority market share…so this is a rather silly position. 

    Nobody I know gives one fork about alternative “digital wallets”. We just loads our various bank cards into iOS Wallet and use them via Apply Pay without issue. Apple knows its customers better than you do. 
    But customers aren't aware of what is really going on. Shouldn't they be informed at least? Clearly and up front. 

    I'm sure the vast majority wouldn't agree with Apple choosing for them.

    Nothing silly to see here. 
    edited February 2023 ctt_zh
  • Reply 15 of 27
    avon b7 said:
    iOS_Guy80 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ...


    I don’t want t let other banking financial ecosystems into apples ecosystem.
    That's fine as a personal opinion but do you really think your opinion should outweigh those of others? 
    Should every company's products' features/policies be up for public vote? Maybe people who don't like iPhone can go buy an Android phone — last time I checked, 50% already do that in the USA, and it's at least 70% worldwide.

    Here's what I should have said about NFC the first time I commented here: NFC is an open standard, and as such, everyone can use it, including Vipps. But no one is required to use it the way anyone else wants them to use it. Apple is using NFC the way Apple wants to. Vipps can use NFC the way Vipps wants want to. But Vipps isn't satisfied with that: in the name of "antitrust," it wants to force Apple to use NFC the way Vipps wants Apple to.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 27
    davidwdavidw Posts: 2,051member
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 



    Telling us to .." swap out bluetooth with NFC and you begin to understand." ...... is only telling us that you don't understand. You are trying to use a fallacy in logic to support your view. 


    Of course Apple have the right to limit the use bluetooth chip on their devices. It's Apple choice and since in order to access the bluetooth chip on an Apple device, one must use iOS. iOS is Apple IP, Apple have the right to control their IP and limit how their bluetooth can be used. Can anyone just write their own software to use the bluetooth chip in an Apple device and force Apple to install that software in their devices? Or allow others to use iOS without the right to charge for the use of their IP to do so?

    If Apple don't allow others access to their bluetooth in Apple devices, it might cost them customers that might want to use their favorite brand of bluetooth headphones or earbuds, or speakers or to transfer data to another bluetooth device, etc.. Apple get to weigh how much to limit access to the bluetooth in their devices vs the cost of loss sales. So ultimately, it's the customers that decides on how much Apple will limit the use of their bluetooth in their devices.

    Here, the banks that want access to Apple NFC, are not Apple customers. They are Apple competitors to Apple Pay. And AFAIK, Apple is not preventing Apple customers from using these bank's CC, with Apple Pay. Apple is not preventing these banks from buying their own NFC chip and installing it on their own device, to use with their own NFC Pay. The customers are not charged for using any CC in Apple Pay. Apple devices and Apple Pay are not the only ways to use NFC for wireless payment. Can the EU demand that all mobile phones must have an NFC chip so that all EU banks can use NFC tech for payment? Maybe, if the only way to pay for purchases in the EU was to use NFC on a mobile device.   

    And notice that here, the banks don't want access to the NFC chip, they want access to Apple Pay tech. They not only want to use the NFC on Apple own devices to compete with Apple, they also want to be able to also use Apple NFC tech like tokenization of CC number, store CC accounts in Apple secure enclave chip, use of fingerprint/face recognition to bypass having to input a PIN or password, Tap and Pay, etc.. To the EU, those are "unfair" competitive advantages that Apple must share with its competitors because ..... why?  Because Apple is a "gatekeeper" under some BS EU standards specifically made up to only include the top 5 US tech companies. But what these banks really want to to have their CC in Apple Pay, without having to pay Apple the .15% cut of their transaction fee. It seems having to pay Apple  15 cents for every 100 dollar of transaction fee to use Apple Pay, is anti-competitive. 

    Let's put it another way. If Apple installed a bluetooth chip that they only use for transferring encrypted data to another Apple device with the same bluetooth Apple tech, can headphones makers demand that Apple allow them to use that bluetooth chip for their headphones. They can ask and Apple can say no. But if millions of customs wants to use bluetooth headphones on their Apple devices and will switch to Android if they can't, then Apple will most likely allow it. It's still should be Apple decision because its still their device. Not the headphone makers or the government.         


    edited February 2023 thtwatto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 27
    davidw said: But what these banks really want to to have their CC in Apple Pay, without having to pay Apple the .15% cut of their transaction fee. It seems having to pay Apple  15 cents for every 100 dollar of transaction fee to use Apple Pay, is anti-competitive. 


    I agree, but it's also been pointed out that said companies want to bypass the anonymous aspects as well. They also want customer purchase data, POS data and whatever else they can vacuum up.

    I suspect the data is worth far more than the transaction fee.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 27
    auxioauxio Posts: 2,727member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 
    Yay hand-waiving. Customers have freedom to select the hardware they want. A lot of people prefer Apple’s hardware, despite oodles of knockoffs on the market like your Chinese brands. Apple isn’t even a majority market share…so this is a rather silly position. 

    Nobody I know gives one fork about alternative “digital wallets”. We just loads our various bank cards into iOS Wallet and use them via Apply Pay without issue. Apple knows its customers better than you do. 
    But customers aren't aware of what is really going on. Shouldn't they be informed at least? Clearly and up front. 

    I'm sure the vast majority wouldn't agree with Apple choosing for them.

    Nothing silly to see here. 
    And Google should be upfront about the fact that they use Android on phones to harvest every bit of information about them. As well as the Chrome browser to do the same. And come up with new web standards every day which only Chrome supports to coerce web developers to create websites which only work in Chrome. As well as install cookies and other tracking mechanisms every time they perform a search, which will be used to track their activities even when they go to other websites.

    There are so many hidden, shady things being done to harvest information about people these days which people don't know about. If only every single business had to post, in clear detail, their exact business model. I'd be willing to bet that Apple has a lot less to hide from public scrutiny than many others.
    edited February 2023 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 19 of 27
    What do the Norwegian banks see about this try that will make it different and more successful than previous attempts in Australia and Europe?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 27
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,678member
    davidw said:
    avon b7 said:
    What would you guys say if Apple chose to block off Bluetooth to third parties and make only Apple Bluetooth services available through it and only to its own devices?

    Swap out Bluetooth for NFC and you will begin to understand something isn't right. 

    Apple is herding banks into its own NFC pen and requiring a cut of transactions. 

    It makes no effort to inform its customers 'up front' about what is really happening in the process. 

    The vast majority of customers have no idea how Apple Pay works and the limitations involved. They see it as an Apple Wallet. 

    Now, if they were informed of the fact that maybe their own bank has a digital wallet but they can't use it on Apple Pay because Apple insists on getting its cut and thwarting competition, how many do you think would question Apple’s motives and choose their own bank's wallet over Apple’s? 

    After all, we're only talking about informing customers of what is going on here. 

    Don't customers have that right? 

    My wife asked me why BBVA Pay was available on my phone but not hers. The upshot is that she refuses to use Apple Pay. 

    Apple lets my wife authenticate her bank app transactions by using FaceID but Apple won't let her bank install its own wallet and use NFC. However, I believe it will let apps have access to iPhone NFC hardware for things like ticket validation on transport systems. 



    Telling us to .." swap out bluetooth with NFC and you begin to understand." ...... is only telling us that you don't understand. You are trying to use a fallacy in logic to support your view. 


    Of course Apple have the right to limit the use bluetooth chip on their devices. It's Apple choice and since in order to access the bluetooth chip on an Apple device, one must use iOS. iOS is Apple IP, Apple have the right to control their IP and limit how their bluetooth can be used. Can anyone just write their own software to use the bluetooth chip in an Apple device and force Apple to install that software in their devices? Or allow others to use iOS without the right to charge for the use of their IP to do so?

    If Apple don't allow others access to their bluetooth in Apple devices, it might cost them customers that might want to use their favorite brand of bluetooth headphones or earbuds, or speakers or to transfer data to another bluetooth device, etc.. Apple get to weigh how much to limit access to the bluetooth in their devices vs the cost of loss sales. So ultimately, it's the customers that decides on how much Apple will limit the use of their bluetooth in their devices.

    Here, the banks that want access to Apple NFC, are not Apple customers. They are Apple competitors to Apple Pay. And AFAIK, Apple is not preventing Apple customers from using these bank's CC, with Apple Pay. Apple is not preventing these banks from buying their own NFC chip and installing it on their own device, to use with their own NFC Pay. The customers are not charged for using any CC in Apple Pay. Apple devices and Apple Pay are not the only ways to use NFC for wireless payment. Can the EU demand that all mobile phones must have an NFC chip so that all EU banks can use NFC tech for payment? Maybe, if the only way to pay for purchases in the EU was to use NFC on a mobile device.   

    And notice that here, the banks don't want access to the NFC chip, they want access to Apple Pay tech. They not only want to use the NFC on Apple own devices to compete with Apple, they also want to be able to also use Apple NFC tech like tokenization of CC number, store CC accounts in Apple secure enclave chip, use of fingerprint/face recognition to bypass having to input a PIN or password, Tap and Pay, etc.. To the EU, those are "unfair" competitive advantages that Apple must share with its competitors because ..... why?  Because Apple is a "gatekeeper" under some BS EU standards specifically made up to only include the top 5 US tech companies. But what these banks really want to to have their CC in Apple Pay, without having to pay Apple the .15% cut of their transaction fee. It seems having to pay Apple  15 cents for every 100 dollar of transaction fee to use Apple Pay, is anti-competitive. 

    Let's put it another way. If Apple installed a bluetooth chip that they only use for transferring encrypted data to another Apple device with the same bluetooth Apple tech, can headphones makers demand that Apple allow them to use that bluetooth chip for their headphones. They can ask and Apple can say no. But if millions of customs wants to use bluetooth headphones on their Apple devices and will switch to Android if they can't, then Apple will most likely allow it. It's still should be Apple decision because its still their device. Not the headphone makers or the government.         


    So, once your essay is boiled down to the essential issues, you agree with all the factual information I provided. All of it. 

    Likewise, your real opinion point here is that you consider the EU gatekeeper stance 'BS'. As an opinion, well, that is OK. 

    But then you throw in some incorrect factual assumptions. 

    For example the notion that banks want to use Apple technology to avoid users having to input a PIN. That is a very weird take on biometric authentication. Biometric authentication is provided in the purchase of the device. It's just authentication. Are you suggesting someone has to pay for access to that functionality depending on use case? Should banks also pay for device PIN use? Apple technology after all! And anyway, every purchase over 50€ I make using BBVA Pay must be authenticated by PIN on the PoS terminal anyway. 

    Let's be clear. What I mentioned is how things currently work. Apple wants banks and users in its own technology pen and restricts access to common NFC technology to favor its own monetary goals. 

    We will see how the EU reacts in this particular hearing but this is not the end of the story by a long shot. I'm sure national consumer protection agencies will pick up on this at some point and it will end up back at the EU level. 

    Also that the EU is specifically targeting five US tech companies just nonsense. Completely incorrect. 

    The EU is laying down legislation to stimulate true competition, level the playing field and protect consumers. There is no targeting of specific companies except for when a complaint is lodged and then there might be an investigation. This is how things work here. Of course there are thresholds on certain definitions. There have to be. 

    Ironically, it is the US which is specifically targeting companies or at least trying to and using 'data' as a national security catch all net. I suppose you wouldn't mind if the EU turned around and targeted US companies on the same flimsy national security grounds. Of course that would be pushing things into the absurd when things like the GDPR are already in place. 

    One of the first big pieces of 'digital age' legislation was the overhaul of data protection legislation. The GDPR. EU individuals are getting whacked by fines for failing to take appropriate measures to protect data. There is no specific targeting going on. Things simply scale so a private individual might get a 100€ fine but then things scale up. All completely normal here. Thresholds. 

    Take another piece of massive digital EU legislation: PSD2. Amazon, precisely due to its size and resources can process online payments without requiring users to authenticate within 7 minutes over a processing gateway and through a banking app. It seems that, under your logic, Amazon should be specifically targeted by the EU as a US company and not be allowed to do that. 

    As for my Bluetooth analogy, you say that market forces would settle that. There is no doubt about it, of course they would, but that isn't the core issue. The core issue is information for the consumer and the resulting impact on choice.

    Apple has in fact already limited Bluetooth functionality by not including a file transfer profile. The same profile it allowed on Macs. Apple makes users go through AppleID linked cloud services (requiring Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and iCloud log in) for device to device file transfers. Why does Apple have to wedge itself between me and the person I want to send a document too? If users actually knew about this, do you think they wouldn't question it? The key is if they know about it. 

    It does the opposite in the case of SMS. It wants you to default to Messages but if the recipient of your message does not have Messages, your message will be shunted out as SMS. The vast majority of Messages users are probably completely unaware of this. 

    Apple Pay is just one more example of this and the common thread in all this is that users are not aware of what is really going on because they are not sufficiently well informed. Apple has zero interest in informing users clearly because if users actually knew what was going on there would be questions raised.



    edited February 2023
Sign In or Register to comment.