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.
Apple added NFC and created Apple Pay because all the other existing payment systems were on their way to not supporting Mac’s, iPhones, iPads let alone the Apple Watch, see AAA games for what usually happens to Apple in the greater market place no support because they’re not a monopoly, but then crying ensues when Apple creates something to support their devices, and when it becomes successful, then all the other companies want the re-shuffle thru government intervention.
The regional EU Apple hardware gets closer, 77% of the world is outside the EU.
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?
77% of the EU has made their choice they have decided to buy Android smartphones embrace it love it use it don’t worry about the other system. The same applies to Windows computers.
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.
Maybe you should tell your wife to just add her BBVA CC into Apple Pay. That's what BBVA is telling her to do. And if she don't want to use Apple Pay, then tell her to buy an Android phone and use Google Pay. Because Google Pay is how BBVA makes NFC payments with Android. If neither of those, then tell her to use the phone you're using. Unless of course, the phone you're using don't nearly have as much features as an iPhone or Android phone and she needs those features more than being able to use her BBVA CC without having Apple get a cut of the bank's transaction fee. Something that BBVA don't seem to have a problem with, as they are the ones telling her to set up her BBVA CC in Apple Pay, if she wants to use her BBVA card for NFC transactions.
If your wife switches to an Android phone or the phone you're using, to use BBVA, I'm positive that she won't be able to use FaceID either. So what's the difference? Or you think Apple should be forced to allow other mobile phone makers to use their Face ID tech for NFC transactions?
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.
Maybe you should tell your wife to just add her BBVA CC into Apple Pay. That's what BBVA is telling her to do. And if she don't want to use Apple Pay, then tell her to buy an Android phone and use Google Pay. Because Google Pay is how BBVA makes NFC payments with Android. If neither of those, then tell her to use the phone you're using. Unless of course, the phone you're using don't nearly have as much features as an iPhone or Android phone and she needs those features more than being able to use her BBVA CC without having Apple get a cut of the bank's transaction fee. Something that BBVA don't seem to have a problem with, as they are the ones telling her to set up her BBVA CC in Apple Pay, if she wants to use her BBVA card for NFC transactions.
If your wife switches to an Android phone or the phone you're using, to use BBVA, I'm positive that she won't be able to use FaceID either. So what's the difference? Or you think Apple should be forced to allow other mobile phone makers to use their Face ID tech for NFC transactions?
I suppose an image would help out here:
This is from an Android phone.
As you can clearly see, I do not use Google Pay.
My BBVA card is linked to BBVAPay for contactless payments.
Using Google Pay is as easy as flipping a switch.
I have the choice. BBVA is not telling me to use Apple Pay or Google Pay. It is telling users what they can choose depending on the region. BBVA is an international bank not limited to the Spanish or EU regions.
Apple denies my wife that choice on her phone. Same app. Same bank.
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.
Face ID is use for unlocking the iPhone. One would still need to set up Face ID to confirm an Apple Pay NFC payment. It is not something that is automatic once you use Face ID to unlock your iPhone. If Face ID fail when using Apple Pay, one can enter a PIN to confirm. And that PIN do not have to be the same as the passcode that unlocked the iPhone. This is for security reasons, so that if your iPhone got stolen when already unlocked, the thief still can not use your Apple Pay.
The banks that would also want to use Apple's fingerprint or Face ID for their NFC payments on Apple devices (if allowed) because a lot of their customers might not want to input a PIN for every NFC transaction. If these customers can not use fingerprint or Face ID when using an Apple device for NFC CC transactions, then they might use whatever CC that is in their Apple Pay wallet. This would put other NFC payments at a disadvantage. Why should other banks be able to use Apple fingerprint of Face ID IP for their NFC pay? Not sure if anyone has a patent on PIN, but do you dispute that Apple have a patent on their fingerprint and Face ID tech? Do you think that Apple should be force to allow others to use their IP for free because they are a "gatekeeper" and should not be allow to have any competitive advantage.
>The Commission has not disclosed the thinking behind these thresholds. However, a reading of the Digital Markets Act Impact Assessment support study annex, which reported an analysis of various quantitative indicators[1] for 19 digital firms[2], shows three things: (1) the exercise carried out by the European Commission was subjective. There is no magic economic formula that would suggest that these are the optimal quantitative thresholds that maximise the efficacy of the restrictions and obligations imposed by the DMA. (2) The approach applied by the European Commission was most likely based on a backward induction process: the Commission had a rough idea of the companies that the DMA should capture, it then crafted the thresholds accordingly, to be sure the bigger players would be included. (3) Finally, the Commission had to make a clear trade-off: too-high thresholds would limit the impact of the DMA because companies with strong market leverage and capable of limiting competition in digital markets could fall out of scope; too-low thresholds would, however, entail high costs, for example burdening companies with compliance duties when they do not restrict competition in the digital market, or increasing pressure on resource-constrained public enforcers.<
>European lawmaker, Andreas Schwab, who will lead the debate on the bloc’s flagship tech regulation, called for focus to be on top 5 US giants.
“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he told the Financial Times.“But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European tech giant just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added.
“The scope of the [Digital Markets Act] should be clearly targeted to those companies, which play an unquestionable role as gatekeeper due to their size and their impact on the internal market,” the report said.<
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.
Perhaps the customers should be informed, clearly and up-front. That sounds reasonable on its face. But be aware of a few things:
1. Nobody's informing (clearly and up-front) Android phone buyers about all the potential problems with choosing Android over iPhone. Not a peep, just totally positive, "this phone's great, you should buy it."
2. Vipps doesn't give a hoot whether or not Apple buyers are clearly informed, up-front, about how NFC works on iPhone — Vipps just wants the government to force Apple to let Vipps control iPhone's NFC hardware directly whether Apple likes it or not.
3. A big part of any purchasing decision is trust: Do I trust this company to make good decisions, overall, for how this product is built and how it functions? What is the general history of this company and its products, as compared to its competitors and their products? A lot of Apple's customers trust Apple, and even if they don't know the particulars of NFC or any other specific feature, they don't want you and/or the government stepping in and forcing Apple to change its products into something that Apple didn't intend them to be.
One more note: Apple is worrying about the long term quality and success of iPhone, especially as differentiated from Android. Vipps is not; Vipps would be perfectly happy if iPhone was completely blown away, and all former iPhone users had to switch to Android. Vipps just wants to be able to harvest user data from NFC transactions, period, however they can make that happen.
Comments
The regional EU Apple hardware gets closer, 77% of the world is outside the EU.
https://www.bbva.es/en/personas/banca-online/pagar-desde-movil.html
https://www.huaweicentral.com/bbva-banking-app-now-available-to-download-on-all-huawei-devices-via-appgallery-powered-by-huawei-mobile-services/
If your wife switches to an Android phone or the phone you're using, to use BBVA, I'm positive that she won't be able to use FaceID either. So what's the difference? Or you think Apple should be forced to allow other mobile phone makers to use their Face ID tech for NFC transactions?
This is from an Android phone.
As you can clearly see, I do not use Google Pay.
My BBVA card is linked to BBVA Pay for contactless payments.
Using Google Pay is as easy as flipping a switch.
I have the choice. BBVA is not telling me to use Apple Pay or Google Pay. It is telling users what they can choose depending on the region. BBVA is an international bank not limited to the Spanish or EU regions.
Apple denies my wife that choice on her phone. Same app. Same bank.
The banks that would also want to use Apple's fingerprint or Face ID for their NFC payments on Apple devices (if allowed) because a lot of their customers might not want to input a PIN for every NFC transaction. If these customers can not use fingerprint or Face ID when using an Apple device for NFC CC transactions, then they might use whatever CC that is in their Apple Pay wallet. This would put other NFC payments at a disadvantage. Why should other banks be able to use Apple fingerprint of Face ID IP for their NFC pay? Not sure if anyone has a patent on PIN, but do you dispute that Apple have a patent on their fingerprint and Face ID tech? Do you think that Apple should be force to allow others to use their IP for free because they are a "gatekeeper" and should not be allow to have any competitive advantage.
https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/which-platforms-will-be-caught-digital-markets-act-gatekeeper-dilemma
>The Commission has not disclosed the thinking behind these thresholds. However, a reading of the Digital Markets Act Impact Assessment support study annex, which reported an analysis of various quantitative indicators[1] for 19 digital firms[2], shows three things: (1) the exercise carried out by the European Commission was subjective. There is no magic economic formula that would suggest that these are the optimal quantitative thresholds that maximise the efficacy of the restrictions and obligations imposed by the DMA. (2) The approach applied by the European Commission was most likely based on a backward induction process: the Commission had a rough idea of the companies that the DMA should capture, it then crafted the thresholds accordingly, to be sure the bigger players would be included. (3) Finally, the Commission had to make a clear trade-off: too-high thresholds would limit the impact of the DMA because companies with strong market leverage and capable of limiting competition in digital markets could fall out of scope; too-low thresholds would, however, entail high costs, for example burdening companies with compliance duties when they do not restrict competition in the digital market, or increasing pressure on resource-constrained public enforcers.<
https://www.sharecast.com/news/international-economic/eu-should-focus-on-top-5-tech-giants-in-digital-markets-act-negotiations-says-mep--7958780.html>European lawmaker, Andreas Schwab, who will lead the debate on the bloc’s flagship tech regulation, called for focus to be on top 5 US giants.
“Let’s focus first on the biggest problems, on the biggest bottlenecks. Let’s go down the line — one, two, three, four, five — and maybe six with Alibaba,” he told the Financial Times.“But let’s not start with number 7 to include a European tech giant just to please [US president Joe] Biden,” he added.
“The scope of the [Digital Markets Act] should be clearly targeted to those companies, which play an unquestionable role as gatekeeper due to their size and their impact on the internal market,” the report said.<
1. Nobody's informing (clearly and up-front) Android phone buyers about all the potential problems with choosing Android over iPhone. Not a peep, just totally positive, "this phone's great, you should buy it."
2. Vipps doesn't give a hoot whether or not Apple buyers are clearly informed, up-front, about how NFC works on iPhone — Vipps just wants the government to force Apple to let Vipps control iPhone's NFC hardware directly whether Apple likes it or not.
3. A big part of any purchasing decision is trust: Do I trust this company to make good decisions, overall, for how this product is built and how it functions? What is the general history of this company and its products, as compared to its competitors and their products? A lot of Apple's customers trust Apple, and even if they don't know the particulars of NFC or any other specific feature, they don't want you and/or the government stepping in and forcing Apple to change its products into something that Apple didn't intend them to be.
One more note: Apple is worrying about the long term quality and success of iPhone, especially as differentiated from Android. Vipps is not; Vipps would be perfectly happy if iPhone was completely blown away, and all former iPhone users had to switch to Android. Vipps just wants to be able to harvest user data from NFC transactions, period, however they can make that happen.