Apple objects to Australia plan to regulate Apple Pay

AppleInsider

Australia is set to treat digital wallet apps such as Apple Pay under the same regulations as credit cards, but Apple says this will "stifle innovation."

Apple Pay on an Apple Watch

Apple has previously said that it sees the proposed regulation is "contrary... to greater competition." According to ABC News in Australia, however, now that the law is expected to be implemented shortly, Apple has also argued that it will lead to mistakes.

"Apple believes the proposed expansion... will increase regulatory burden without aa net public benefit, give rise to... regulatory error," said Apple in a statement, "and stifle the dynamic innovation that has characterised Australia's payment system over recent years."

It's primarily the same argument that Apple has used before, where it has compared Apple Pay to a physical wallet.

"Apple Pay can only operate with an existing debit, credit or prepaid card issued by a third party," continued the statement. "Apple does not have access to a cardholder's account to determine whether funds are available... in offering Apple Pay, Apple does not collect any transaction information."

Releasing draft regulation, Australia's treasurer, Jim Chalmers said that the law was to ensure transparency around charges.

"As payments increasingly become digital, our payments system needs to remain fit for purpose so that it delivers for consumers and small businesses," Chalmers said in a statement. "We want to make sure the shift to digital payments occurs in a way that promotes greater competition, innovation and productivity across our entire economy."

Separately, Australia's second-largest bank, Westpac, became the last of the country's banks to support Apple Pay in 2020. At the time, some 10% of card transactions in Australia were done through digital wallets, and ABC News says that has now risen to around 35%.

Read on AppleInsider

mayfly

Great idea. Because governments are always better at protecting the consumer than the consumer himself.

22july2013

mayfly said:

governments are always better at protecting the consumer than the consumer himself.

You can bank on that.

inkling

Treat Apple Pay like credit cards? That's an excellent idea. It'd create a level playing field between the two methods of payment and encourage competition and innovation by both.

danox

inkling said:

Treat Apple Pay like credit cards? That's an excellent idea. It'd create a level playing field between the two methods of payment and encourage competition and innovation by both.

The only purpose, for this is to put the other Australian banks in a default position for free. That’s all, it isn’t like the Australian banks are gonna do anything tech-wise, except drag their feet and cry, every step of the way. In fact, they probably want the Australian government to negotiate their fee with Apple on their terms, of course.

Everyone worldwide is fine with socialism and spending as long as it is on their terms.  

chasm

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmers, to limit the use of digital payment systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay *because* when those are used, those companies collect a very small (in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted) fee that comes out of the fees the bank chargers the merchant.

The banks want 100 percent of their fee, not 99.97 percent of their fee. This was their principle objection to Apple Pay (et al) from the get go, and now that it has been implemented of course people are using digital wallets like crazy (10 percent in the first year, and 35 percent of all transactions now, three years later).

Monopolists hate it when innovators enter the mix.

entropys

inkling said:

Treat Apple Pay like credit cards? That's an excellent idea. It'd create a level playing field between the two methods of payment and encourage competition and innovation by both.

Not so, as both google pay and Apple Pay are in effect just an additional card to existing credit card services,  but less revenue to the bank.
it is just Chalmers trying to give a leg up and line the coffers of his corporate banking mates. Chasm has it exactly right.

and Danox, it is a form of socialism, true. Corporatism, with Big Government in bed with Big Business and Big Union. 

Alex1N

The Big Four(TM) Australian banks are squealing because a fire has been lit beneath them - and that fire not before time.

laytech

Jim Chalmers doing secret deals with the big Australian banks no doubt. This stinks of yet more Government control of this nanny State.

Australian Government needs to concentrate on issues that matter not adding yet more legislation that stifles competition - again. Shine on.  This Government has no interest in protecting the consumer, its more interested in feeding the unions and helping the banks.

laytech

chasm said:

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmer

EXACTLY that. This is not about what is in the best interests of the consumer but what is in the best interest of the banks. Period. It stinks!

anonymouse

I think this article could use significantly more detail. I don't even understand what it would mean to, "treat digital wallet apps such as Apple Pay under the same regulations as credit cards," since they are totally different things. How does the law say this would actually work in practice?

Honkers

chasm said:

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmers, to limit the use of digital payment systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay *because* when those are used, those companies collect a very small (in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted) fee that comes out of the fees the bank chargers the merchant.

I believe the average rate is somewhere around 0.15% of the purchase amount, so a bit more than you imply.

davidw

Honkers said:

chasm said:

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmers, to limit the use of digital payment systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay *because* when those are used, those companies collect a very small (in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted) fee that comes out of the fees the bank chargers the merchant.

I believe the average rate is somewhere around 0.15% of the purchase amount, so a bit more than you imply.

Your research skill is OK. Your math skill is questionable.

You are correct in that Apple Pay fee (to the CC issuer) is 0.15% of the total transaction. If you were to correctly do the math, you would come up with this ...

On a $1 transaction using Apple Pay

The CC issuer gets 3% or  $.03 from the merchant. (.03 x $1)

Apple gets .15% or  $.0015 from the CC issuer. (.0015 x $1)

So just what part of .0015 cent per dollar is not ........ in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted ..... as @Chasm claimed?

The "very small" fee is much easier to see on a larger scale. On a $1000 transaction, the CC issuer charges the merchant $30 and Apple get $.15 cents from the CC issuer. So the CC issuer is only paying out .5% of what they charge the merchant. (.15 / 30 X 100). .5% is still a very small fee.

Maybe it's your reading skill and you thought @Chasm said ...... in the hundredths of a percent of dollar transacted and not ..... "in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted".  Big difference.

Honkers

davidw said:

Honkers said:

chasm said:

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmers, to limit the use of digital payment systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay *because* when those are used, those companies collect a very small (in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted) fee that comes out of the fees the bank chargers the merchant.

I believe the average rate is somewhere around 0.15% of the purchase amount, so a bit more than you imply.

Your research skill is OK. Your math skill is questionable.

You are correct in that Apple Pay fee (to the CC issuer) is 0.15% of the total transaction. If you were to correctly do the math, you would come up with this ...

On a $1 transaction using Apple Pay

The CC issuer gets 3% or  $.03 from the merchant. (.03 x $1)

Apple gets .15% or  $.0015 from the CC issuer. (.0015 x $1)

So just what part of .0015 cent per dollar is not ........ in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted ..... as @Chasm claimed?

The "very small" fee is much easier to see on a larger scale. On a $1000 transaction, the CC issuer charges the merchant $30 and Apple get $.15 cents from the CC issuer. So the CC issuer is only paying out .5% of what they charge the merchant. (.15 / 30 X 100). .5% is still a very small fee.

Maybe it's your reading skill and you thought @Chasm said ...... in the hundredths of a percent of dollar transacted and not ..... "in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted".  Big difference.

$0.0015 is not the same as 0.0015¢.  $0.0015 is 0.15¢.  So not "hundredths of a cent", unless you consider 15 hundredths to be a proper use of hundredths, which I do not, since it's 15% of a cent, over a seventh.   If you do then the term is pretty much meaningless, 0.99¢ would be 99% and also hundredths of a cent, 99 of them.

A $1000 purchase would net Apple $1.50 on a 0.15% transaction fee.  I have no idea how you've managed to get that so wrong, you've tied yourself up in knots.

My reading and math skill is fine.  Check your own, and maybe try being less of a bloviated ass to people who you don't know next time.

davidw

Honkers said:

davidw said:

Honkers said:

chasm said:

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmers, to limit the use of digital payment systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay *because* when those are used, those companies collect a very small (in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted) fee that comes out of the fees the bank chargers the merchant.

I believe the average rate is somewhere around 0.15% of the purchase amount, so a bit more than you imply.

Your research skill is OK. Your math skill is questionable.

You are correct in that Apple Pay fee (to the CC issuer) is 0.15% of the total transaction. If you were to correctly do the math, you would come up with this ...

On a $1 transaction using Apple Pay

The CC issuer gets 3% or  $.03 from the merchant. (.03 x $1)

Apple gets .15% or  $.0015 from the CC issuer. (.0015 x $1)

So just what part of .0015 cent per dollar is not ........ in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted ..... as @Chasm claimed?

The "very small" fee is much easier to see on a larger scale. On a $1000 transaction, the CC issuer charges the merchant $30 and Apple get $.15 cents from the CC issuer. So the CC issuer is only paying out .5% of what they charge the merchant. (.15 / 30 X 100). .5% is still a very small fee.

Maybe it's your reading skill and you thought @Chasm said ...... in the hundredths of a percent of dollar transacted and not ..... "in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted".  Big difference.

$0.0015 is not the same as 0.0015¢.  $0.0015 is 0.15¢.  So not "hundredths of a cent", unless you consider 15 hundredths to be a proper use of hundredths, which I do not, since it's 15% of a cent, over a seventh.   If you do then the term is pretty much meaningless, 0.99¢ would be 99% and also hundredths of a cent, 99 of them.

A $1000 purchase would net Apple $1.50 on a 0.15% transaction fee.  I have no idea how you've managed to get that so wrong, you've tied yourself up in knots.

My reading and math skill is fine.  Check your own, and maybe try being less of a bloviated ass to people who you don't know next time.

You're right. My mistake. It's just that here in the US, we get use to seeing  $.03 as 3 cents. So when the math showed .03, it looks like how I normally see 3 cents (but with the $). Therefore the .0015 looks like .0015 cents. But i needed to move the decimal point over 2 places to get "cents".

But actually,  $.0015 is .0015 cents. Once the $ is in front of any dollar value, the numbers after the decimal point is cents. 3 cents is written as $.03. So .15 cents is written as $.0015. But my calculation wasn't using the $, so to get cents, I needed to move the decimal point over 2 places in the final value. which would lead to .15 cents (with no $).

Honkers

davidw said:

But actually,  $.0015 is .0015 cents

No it isn't.  Please stop being bad at units and decimals.  Is $1 the same as 1 cent?  Of course it isn't, and the same applies when there's a decimal point in play.

You were right when you said:

davidw said:

You're right. My mistake.

Everything else was just gobbledigook.