"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Of course I can't speak for Avon B7 but I also prefer Apple not to take a cut from every transaction. I'm British but spent most of my working life in Switzerland. I'd far prefer to support local Swiss banks than have Apple take a cut (as the banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.).
So you don't support Apple? Why do you buy their products? Apple has to pay their engineers, upkeep their servers, etc. It's a company's job to operate and make money and they can't do this for free.
Very happy to buy physical products, and I have many subscriptions (Microsoft 365, YouTube, Fitbit, 1Password amongst others), but I don't believe the company who owns the tech on which I make a transaction has to always take a cut of that transaction. To me the NFC chip should always have been open. And you may want to check the markup Apple adds to their products, it's significant...
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Of course I can't speak for Avon B7 but I also prefer Apple not to take a cut from every transaction. I'm British but spent most of my working life in Switzerland. I'd far prefer to support local Swiss banks than have Apple take a cut (as the banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.).
So you don't support Apple? Why do you buy their products? Apple has to pay their engineers, upkeep their servers, etc. It's a company's job to operate and make money and they can't do this for free.
Very happy to buy physical products, and I have many subscriptions (Microsoft 365, YouTube, Fitbit, 1Password amongst others), but I don't believe the company who owns the tech on which I make a transaction has to always take a cut of that transaction. I believe the NFC chip should always have been open. And you may want to check the markup Apple adds to their products, it's significant...
Didn't those banks have a choice initially but said no to Apple and tried to start their own service which failed. (remember)?
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Of course I can't speak for Avon B7 but I also prefer Apple not to take a cut from every transaction. I'm British but spent most of my working life in Switzerland. I'd far prefer to support local Swiss banks than have Apple take a cut (as the banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.).
So you don't support Apple? Why do you buy their products? Apple has to pay their engineers, upkeep their servers, etc. It's a company's job to operate and make money and they can't do this for free.
Very happy to buy physical products, and I have many subscriptions (Microsoft 365, YouTube, Fitbit, 1Password amongst others), but I don't believe the company who owns the tech on which I make a transaction has to always take a cut of that transaction. I believe the NFC chip should always have been open. And you may want to check the markup Apple adds to their products, it's significant...
Didn't those banks have a choice but said no to Apple and tried to start their own service which failed. (remember)?
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Of course I can't speak for Avon B7 but I also prefer Apple not to take a cut from every transaction. I'm British but spent most of my working life in Switzerland. I'd far prefer to support local Swiss banks than have Apple take a cut (as the banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.).
So you don't support Apple? Why do you buy their products? Apple has to pay their engineers, upkeep their servers, etc. It's a company's job to operate and make money and they can't do this for free.
Very happy to buy physical products, and I have many subscriptions (Microsoft 365, YouTube, Fitbit, 1Password amongst others), but I don't believe the company who owns the tech on which I make a transaction has to always take a cut of that transaction. I believe the NFC chip should always have been open. And you may want to check the markup Apple adds to their products, it's significant...
Didn't those banks have a choice but said no to Apple and tried to start their own service which failed. (remember)?
Apple Pay is used by banks in Switzerland, there are also other options of course. I don't see any reference to Swiss banks in your link.
This is what Swiss banks did in the past Swiss banks over alleged Apple Pay boycott Their response was similar to Australia, the use of the NFC chip was offered the banks didn't like the price forgotten in time.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
Wow, it takes some amazing mental gymnastics to want to support a fucking bank in the world.
As an ex-pat living in Switzerland, I and the vast majority of my friends worked in banking / other financial services. It would be odd to be anything but supportive of these institutions for us. To prefer transactions to go to some tech company in Cupertino rather than a bank in Zurich would really require those mental gymnastics of which you speak....
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Of course I can't speak for Avon B7 but I also prefer Apple not to take a cut from every transaction. I'm British but spent most of my working life in Switzerland. I'd far prefer to support local Swiss banks than have Apple take a cut (as the banks provide hundreds of thousands of jobs etc.).
That's a very legitimate concern for some consumers who can look beyond their own self interests. Nothing to argue about along those lines for folks who live according to that type of belief system. But then I have to ask why are all of these non-Swiss mega millionaires and billionaires depositing vast sums of money into Swiss banks who can in turn leverage those funds to benefit the Swiss economy rather than the economies in which the depositors reside? If all those investors lived by the hometown-first rule and shared the wealth locally, things would be quite dire in the Swiss banking economy.
To be fair, the EU is by no means the only entity that wants to put a heavy thumb on the scale to protect their own self interests. They've come to the same place as the US has with semiconductors, many consumer products, energy, manufacturing, raw materials, etc. Like so many other economies they went all-in with the benefits of a global economy, divested core capabilities they used to own, and are now at a point where they can't control their own destiny through free market economics. Why is there no EU equivalent to Apple, Google, or Microsoft? Why is the US so dependent on China, Taiwan, OPEC, and global raw material suppliers?
One big difference here is how each of these short-term thinking countries or unions of countries are trying to fix what they have essentially broken, all on their own. The US uses tariffs at many levels and the EU strong-arms individual companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Google to cripple critical parts of their operational and business models to weaken them to the point where EU companies can catch up or get a bigger piece of the action from those who made better choices. Would it be better if the EU got its hands out of Apple's shorts and simply imposed tariffs on Apple products? I don't know, but it's an interesting question to ponder.
Whether it's the EU or US, or many other countries, those businesses who have achieved global success, not just Apple, are being forced to pay for the mistakes made by countries who have allowed their economies to reach a point where they can no longer compete on a level playing field. If Nokia or Ericsson or Siemens or Schneider or SAP or any other big EU tech giant had made the same level of investments along the same lines as what Apple, Microsoft, or Google made we wouldn't be having this discussion.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
Those millions will instead go to Curve. Is probably what he didn’t mention.
Sounds like a glorious future for consumers where multiple “wallet” apps will have exclusive cards, forcing the the consumer to permanently switch wallet apps, Such a gain from a usability standpoint! Apart from the little fact that other wallets simply may not work during your trip so abroad.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
Well, when you say you never asked about harm, you actually asked this:
"What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?"
As my wife isn't a bank I explained the consumer harm which is one of the key components of the DSA/DNA.
I'll set aside the claim that choice isn't always a benefit, and say that lack of choice in this situation definitely isn't a benefit, and for the reasons I've already outlined.
There used to be wallet app from my bank (years ago) and I believe there still is in some of its international markets, but now, in my market, it's all rolled into the app and that is where everything happens, along with all the transfer options.
For online payments we usually use an interbank system (Bizum) or a special 'virtual' card (which actually exists in a physical format too) which has a 'dynamic' CVC which is only 'live' for 10 minutes and on top of that, no numbers appear on the card either. Funds need to be placed onto that card beforehand too. I find it to be very, very secure.
Google Pay is unable to handle the dynamic CVC but some retailers like Amazon have no issue with it and without authorisation. Others do need authorisation, but that is a security measure not a technical limitation. Certain higher cost purchases even on Amazon require me to give the OK. My bank also uses the security aspects of 5G network slicing. That is by the by though. All my in-person phone payments are managed by BBVA Pay on one BBVA card.
The point is just one app fluently handles everything. It is supposedly the best banking app on the planet (but that might be marketing spiel). For example If I think I have lost my physical card for whatever reason, I don't have to cancel it. I just need to pause it and then restart it from the app when I find it. It's been that way for years.
Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location. It can compete in other areas such as the discount and cashback side. In the event that I need cash or send cash to someone, I can also do that in an entirely 'cardlesss' manner, using NFC or a phone number.
I can use Google Pay (as long as there is not a dynamic CVC on the card) but I don't need to.
Multiple wallets (where necessary) are a non issue. What do you do when you turn on a pair of Bluetooth headphones and have multiple devices it can connect to? One is the default option and the others appear under a bullet list in the notifications panel to choose from.
And there is no need for things like licences to go, necessarily, into a 'third party' wallet. Far better for anything government related to go into a government app. The EU is working on one:
I have an app called 'my citizens folder' which collects ton of government information on me under one single app. From my properties listed on the civil register, fines, health information, registration on all kinds of census, voting rights, local council information, vehicles registered in my name, all kinds of communication with government, welfare etc.
Digital ID Card, Driver's licence, and passport storage are coming very soon although I'm not sure how they will be stored.
I also use the NFC aspect for transport (my travel cards are loaded onto my phone) while my wife and all iPhone users have been left out in the cold for the last few years because Apple simply hasn't authorised the apps Apple NFC access.
Sounds like a glorious future for consumers where multiple “wallet” apps will have exclusive cards, forcing the the consumer to permanently switch wallet apps, Such a gain from a usability standpoint! Apart from the little fact that other wallets simply may not work during your trip so abroad.
It sounds fantastic. Apple didn't care to launch Apple Card outside US. Apple has used Wallet and Apple Pay to siphon extra charges without giving anything back. I would much rather have local banks work on this than any American company. In addition this will make it easier to migrate to/from Android.
Wouldn't be bad for us to see Apple work harder for our money than iPhone 12/13/14/15. Spending 4 years on adjusting lens positions, changing the FaceID island, and adding USB-C at USB 2.0 speed for iPhone 15 - we're talking performance available 24 years ago and selling it as an upgrade. We need competition.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
Well, when you say you never asked about harm, you actually asked this:
"What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?"
As my wife isn't a bank I explained the consumer harm which is one of the key components of the DSA/DNA.
Hey! You’re right, I did ask that. You didn’t explain the harm, though, other than saying “choice”.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
There used to be wallet app from my bank (years ago) and I believe there still is in some of its international markets, but now, in my market, it's all rolled into the app and that is where everything happens, along with all the transfer options.
For online payments we usually use an interbank system (Bizum) or a special 'virtual' card (which actually exists in a physical format too) which has a 'dynamic' CVC which is only 'live' for 10 minutes and on top of that, no numbers appear on the card either. Funds need to be placed onto that card beforehand too. I find it to be very, very secure.
Google Pay is unable to handle the dynamic CVC but some retailers like Amazon have no issue with it and without authorisation. Others do need authorisation, but that is a security measure not a technical limitation. Certain higher cost purchases even on Amazon require me to give the OK. My bank also uses the security aspects of 5G network slicing. That is by the by though. All my in-person phone payments are managed by BBVA Pay on one BBVA card.
The point is just one app fluently handles everything. It is supposedly the best banking app on the planet (but that might be marketing spiel). For example If I think I have lost my physical card for whatever reason, I don't have to cancel it. I just need to pause it and then restart it from the app when I find it. It's been that way for years.
Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location. It can compete in other areas such as the discount and cashback side. In the event that I need cash or send cash to someone, I can also do that in an entirely 'cardlesss' manner, using NFC or a phone number.
I can use Google Pay (as long as there is not a dynamic CVC on the card) but I don't need to.
Multiple wallets (where necessary) are a non issue. What do you do when you turn on a pair of Bluetooth headphones and have multiple devices it can connect to? One is the default option and the others appear under a bullet list in the notifications panel to choose from.
And there is no need for things like licences to go, necessarily, into a 'third party' wallet. Far better for anything government related to go into a government app. The EU is working on one:
I have an app called 'my citizens folder' which collects ton of government information on me under one single app. From my properties listed on the civil register, fines, health information, registration on all kinds of census, voting rights, local council information, vehicles registered in my name, all kinds of communication with government, welfare etc.
Digital ID Card, Driver's licence, and passport storage are coming very soon although I'm not sure how they will be stored.
I also use the NFC aspect for transport (my travel cards are loaded onto my phone) while my wife and all iPhone users have been left out in the cold for the last few years because Apple simply hasn't authorised the apps Apple NFC access.
This is interesting. It seems you are talking about your bank’s app (that maybe has NFC access for payments?) and not a wallet.
Am I misunderstanding this? It seems your wife has an iPhone and can’t add your bank’s card/s to Apple Wallet AND your banking app is also not available to her? You mentioned it kept nagging her to add the card until you turned off the nagging so I assume she couldn’t add or didn’t want to add her card.
For clarity, I view a digital wallet the same way as I view a physical wallet. That is, a convenient place to carry around the things I may need while on the go such as credit cards, debit cards, loyalty cards, government ID, insurance cards, theme park passes, museum passes, transit cards, etc. That is what Apple Wallet is, one place to carry all those things and have quick, easy and secure access to. I don’t think I’m the only one that has this general view of what a digital/mobile wallet is.
You also mentioned “my citizens folder” which has a bunch of information that most people don’t normally carry around in a physical wallet, so I don’t understand the relevance. Maybe it’s just me but census data and local council information isn’t something I carry with me on a regular basis or even need particularly often. I’m not saying that app and access to that info isn’t handy to have, but it doesn’t really fall under the mobile wallet category.
ETA: You said, “Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location.” - Right, but Apple isn’t trying to compete here. As I mentioned above, Apple Wallet is just that, a wallet. It isn’t meant to be a full-fledge banking app. Even if you have an Apple Card and manage it through Apple Wallet it only has some basic management features, Wallet isn’t a banking app.
Sounds like a glorious future for consumers where multiple “wallet” apps will have exclusive cards, forcing the the consumer to permanently switch wallet apps, Such a gain from a usability standpoint! Apart from the little fact that other wallets simply may not work during your trip so abroad.
It sounds fantastic. Apple didn't care to launch Apple Card outside US. Apple has used Wallet and Apple Pay to siphon extra charges without giving anything back. I would much rather have local banks work on this than any American company. In addition this will make it easier to migrate to/from Android.
What do you mean by “extra charges”? If I pay via Apple Pay using my debit card I pay the same amount as if I paid cash or if I used a Visa, for instance. I don’t pay anything extra by using Apple Pay. As far as I know, when I use my debit card my bank isn’t sending money to Apple. All I’m aware of is that if one pays via Apple Pay and uses a credit card the credit card company shares some of the fee they already collect with Apple. There isn’t an increased, “extra fee” involved with using Apple Pay from the consumer side or even the retailer side.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
Well, when you say you never asked about harm, you actually asked this:
"What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?"
As my wife isn't a bank I explained the consumer harm which is one of the key components of the DSA/DNA.
Hey! You’re right, I did ask that. You didn’t explain the harm, though, other than saying “choice”.
"The newly competitive market for digital wallets is about to experience genuine customer-first innovation," Curve founder Shachar Bialick said. A Curve spokesperson also claimed that switching to its service will save banks "millions of euros" that currently go to Apple.
Just me or were these two statements completely contradictory to one another? What do I care how much money the banks save?
It’s never been about customers. They were never the ones complaining unless it was about their lack of access to Apple’s services due to local restrictions.
It’s always been about the app vendors and the companies and investors behind them who have always wanted a cut or bigger cut of the transactional fees.
To the customers who are ultimately paying the transactional fees and service charges indirectly it doesn’t matter, unless they have some sort of personal connection to the entities now collecting the fees, like a brother in law who works at the bank in question.
Finally, what’s innovative about one fee collector getting paid over another fee collector getting paid? Can’t innovate? Absolutely!
Ever since my wife found out the she only had Apple as an option on her phone she has complained.
It is one of the choice restrictions that Apple imposes and never communicates to users prior to purchase.
She wants to use our banks Wallet system as I do on my phone.
Competing systems should bring prices down for consumers in the long run. Unless Apple tries to apply a, cough, 'core technology fee' on competing systems.
The problem isn't with the cards but the wallet.
It is why Apple has been forced to open up. Apple takes a cut from every single transaction and doesn't allow competing wallets to exist. That is changing in the EU.
So, this is about protecting banks so they can earn more money and isn’t about consumer harm.
The second Apple restricted competition, the consumer was harmed.
That is now changing (at least in the EU).
I don’t understand what your wife was complaining about. What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank? Here’s what I asked above that has yet to be answered no matter how many times I have asked: ”I have asked before and never gotten an answer, but what is the benefit to having multiple wallets? What is better about having a separate wallet for each bank? How is this good for the consumer?” (Typo fixed)
Harm is having options taken away from you. Harm is never being openly informed of limitations. Harm is Apple closing off the market and not allowing competition.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
You keep going on about harm, but still haven’t answered my questions as to benefit. How does the consumer benefit by having multiple wallets?
I use 3 banks and credit cards from MC and Visa. It’s convenient for me to have all my cards in one wallet. How would I benefit by using a wallet app produced by my individual banks over using the wallet Apple already provides?
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
You specifically asked what harm had been done. I don't 'keep going on about it'. I simply gave a reply to what you asked.
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
No, I never asked about harm. What I said was it is about protecting banks and not consumer harm.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
There used to be wallet app from my bank (years ago) and I believe there still is in some of its international markets, but now, in my market, it's all rolled into the app and that is where everything happens, along with all the transfer options.
For online payments we usually use an interbank system (Bizum) or a special 'virtual' card (which actually exists in a physical format too) which has a 'dynamic' CVC which is only 'live' for 10 minutes and on top of that, no numbers appear on the card either. Funds need to be placed onto that card beforehand too. I find it to be very, very secure.
Google Pay is unable to handle the dynamic CVC but some retailers like Amazon have no issue with it and without authorisation. Others do need authorisation, but that is a security measure not a technical limitation. Certain higher cost purchases even on Amazon require me to give the OK. My bank also uses the security aspects of 5G network slicing. That is by the by though. All my in-person phone payments are managed by BBVA Pay on one BBVA card.
The point is just one app fluently handles everything. It is supposedly the best banking app on the planet (but that might be marketing spiel). For example If I think I have lost my physical card for whatever reason, I don't have to cancel it. I just need to pause it and then restart it from the app when I find it. It's been that way for years.
Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location. It can compete in other areas such as the discount and cashback side. In the event that I need cash or send cash to someone, I can also do that in an entirely 'cardlesss' manner, using NFC or a phone number.
I can use Google Pay (as long as there is not a dynamic CVC on the card) but I don't need to.
Multiple wallets (where necessary) are a non issue. What do you do when you turn on a pair of Bluetooth headphones and have multiple devices it can connect to? One is the default option and the others appear under a bullet list in the notifications panel to choose from.
And there is no need for things like licences to go, necessarily, into a 'third party' wallet. Far better for anything government related to go into a government app. The EU is working on one:
I have an app called 'my citizens folder' which collects ton of government information on me under one single app. From my properties listed on the civil register, fines, health information, registration on all kinds of census, voting rights, local council information, vehicles registered in my name, all kinds of communication with government, welfare etc.
Digital ID Card, Driver's licence, and passport storage are coming very soon although I'm not sure how they will be stored.
I also use the NFC aspect for transport (my travel cards are loaded onto my phone) while my wife and all iPhone users have been left out in the cold for the last few years because Apple simply hasn't authorised the apps Apple NFC access.
This is interesting. It seems you are talking about your bank’s app (that maybe has NFC access for payments?) and not a wallet.
Am I misunderstanding this? It seems your wife has an iPhone and can’t add your bank’s card/s to Apple Wallet AND your banking app is also not available to her? You mentioned it kept nagging her to add the card until you turned off the nagging so I assume she couldn’t add or didn’t want to add her card.
For clarity, I view a digital wallet the same way as I view a physical wallet. That is, a convenient place to carry around the things I may need while on the go such as credit cards, debit cards, loyalty cards, government ID, insurance cards, theme park passes, museum passes, transit cards, etc. That is what Apple Wallet is, one place to carry all those things and have quick, easy and secure access to. I don’t think I’m the only one that has this general view of what a digital/mobile wallet is.
You also mentioned “my citizens folder” which has a bunch of information that most people don’t normally carry around in a physical wallet, so I don’t understand the relevance. Maybe it’s just me but census data and local council information isn’t something I carry with me on a regular basis or even need particularly often. I’m not saying that app and access to that info isn’t handy to have, but it doesn’t really fall under the mobile wallet category.
ETA: You said, “Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location.” - Right, but Apple isn’t trying to compete here. As I mentioned above, Apple Wallet is just that, a wallet. It isn’t meant to be a full-fledge banking app. Even if you have an Apple Card and manage it through Apple Wallet it only has some basic management features, Wallet isn’t a banking app.
The BBVA thing is a wallet but it is now integrated within the app. Its current official name is BBVA Mobile Pay. My wife has the same app as I do but mine lists BBVA Pay and Google Pay etc whereas hers only lists the sole option that Apple allows: Apple Pay.
In her case the option of adding the card to Apple Pay exists but she doesn't want to use it now that she knows it is her only option because Apple makes it her only option. The constant nagging to add a card also weighed on her.
My point on the wallet in a general sense (beyond payments and banking) for licences, ID cards and other such personal details is that they are better managed by government entities and with the widest scope possible. Hence, an EU wide 'universal' wallet style system would be the way to go.
My Citizens Folder app is a great example of having a huge amount of government (local, autonomous and national) information relative to me in one place. I much prefer such apps to be government managed. The relevance in this sense is that I don't need seperate pieces of paper on my person to take that information from. It's like not having to carry a credit/debit card with you because you have a 'digital wallet'. A giant wallet so to speak for lots of government related documents.
Let's say I want to drop off something at my local green point. They might ask me to prove that I am a resident of the town and not from somewhere else. For that I would need my local council registration papers but the app contains that information. Or I might need to check my census registration for an election. I can use the app to make sure everything is registered correctly. There is a wealth of information stored safely in one app.
Apple is basically finance related right now but it pushing for storing of other documents (driver's licence, passports, ID cards) etc.
I read Apple might get 0.15% of Apple Pay charges. The bank holding the credit card used by Apple Pay probably gets somewhere around 2-3%. The only way Apple would get millions of Euros would be if UK customers spent 10's of billions of Euros, not just a measly $4 Billion Euros. Yes, Apple makes money on Apple Pay but nowhere near the amount of money the greedy banks do. I am counting the days before the first exploit of Curve is blamed on Apple.
You know it's coming. And as you said Apple will be blamed.
Sounds like a glorious future for consumers where multiple “wallet” apps will have exclusive cards, forcing the the consumer to permanently switch wallet apps, Such a gain from a usability standpoint! Apart from the little fact that other wallets simply may not work during your trip so abroad.
It sounds fantastic. Apple didn't care to launch Apple Card outside US. Apple has used Wallet and Apple Pay to siphon extra charges without giving anything back. I would much rather have local banks work on this than any American company. In addition this will make it easier to migrate to/from Android.
What do you mean by “extra charges”? If I pay via Apple Pay using my debit card I pay the same amount as if I paid cash or if I used a Visa, for instance. I don’t pay anything extra by using Apple Pay.
Apple does charge the banks. In total Apple Pay is more than 1% of all revenue and is probably at 2-3% of the profit. That is a lot of siphoning. No surprise the banks are tired of being used. The only growth left at Apple is within services. Apple Pay growth was +100% in 2023. Without services Apple wouldn't be valued like it is.
Comments
Didn't those banks have a choice initially but said no to Apple and tried to start their own service which failed. (remember)?
https://www.informationweek.com/it-leadership/apple-pay-rings-the-register-in-the-us-not-europe Europe/Australia and many other places the same song and dance payed out.
She also resented the 'nagging' to add a card to Apple Pay (until I took action to switch it off).
A system that is not unlike Apple's 'stealth' upgrade tactics when you say no to 'upgrade' and realise it says something like 'later' and tucked away below, and in smaller unobtrusive text, it says it will upgrade during the night via Wi-Fi if it detects a Wi-Fi signal.
This is what Swiss banks did in the past Swiss banks over alleged Apple Pay boycott Their response was similar to Australia, the use of the NFC chip was offered the banks didn't like the price forgotten in time.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/16/apple-pay-adoption-in-switzerland-may-have-been-hampered-by-colluding-banks/
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/blog/managed-services-insights-the-client-lifecycle-management-solution
Side note: I can’t recall specifically but I think Apple receives nothing if someone uses a card provided by their local bank (a debit card, not one backed by a CC issuer).
Choice is a benefit. It allows for competition. There is no good in having one literal gatekeeper literally sucking something out of transactions and not allowing competition.
I'm not sure about the commission for debit cards or even if there is one, but when it launched, a cut of 'half a penny' was reported for debit card transactions.
Your convenience is your convenience. No one would oblige to change your habits.
If my wife had access to BBVA Pay she could use it. Or not. It would be her decision.
Choice isn’t always a benefit, so I’m not sure what you mean. Aside from saying “choice” I still don’t see why having multiple options of wallets is beneficial.
Why is it better for you to use the wallet for your bank than it is for you to use Google Wallet? Does your bank’s wallet also allow you to add other forms of payment that aren’t affiliated with that bank? If you have cards from Bank A and Bank B and you use Bank A’s wallet can you add Bank B’s or do you also need to install Bank B’s wallet for that card to work? Is it easier to use than Google Wallet? I’m trying to understand why having multiple wallets is better.
"What harm came to her not having the option to install a wallet from your bank?"
As my wife isn't a bank I explained the consumer harm which is one of the key components of the DSA/DNA.
I'll set aside the claim that choice isn't always a benefit, and say that lack of choice in this situation definitely isn't a benefit, and for the reasons I've already outlined.
There used to be wallet app from my bank (years ago) and I believe there still is in some of its international markets, but now, in my market, it's all rolled into the app and that is where everything happens, along with all the transfer options.
For online payments we usually use an interbank system (Bizum) or a special 'virtual' card (which actually exists in a physical format too) which has a 'dynamic' CVC which is only 'live' for 10 minutes and on top of that, no numbers appear on the card either. Funds need to be placed onto that card beforehand too. I find it to be very, very secure.
Google Pay is unable to handle the dynamic CVC but some retailers like Amazon have no issue with it and without authorisation. Others do need authorisation, but that is a security measure not a technical limitation. Certain higher cost purchases even on Amazon require me to give the OK. My bank also uses the security aspects of 5G network slicing. That is by the by though. All my in-person phone payments are managed by BBVA Pay on one BBVA card.
The point is just one app fluently handles everything. It is supposedly the best banking app on the planet (but that might be marketing spiel). For example If I think I have lost my physical card for whatever reason, I don't have to cancel it. I just need to pause it and then restart it from the app when I find it. It's been that way for years.
Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location. It can compete in other areas such as the discount and cashback side. In the event that I need cash or send cash to someone, I can also do that in an entirely 'cardlesss' manner, using NFC or a phone number.
I can use Google Pay (as long as there is not a dynamic CVC on the card) but I don't need to.
Multiple wallets (where necessary) are a non issue. What do you do when you turn on a pair of Bluetooth headphones and have multiple devices it can connect to? One is the default option and the others appear under a bullet list in the notifications panel to choose from.
And there is no need for things like licences to go, necessarily, into a 'third party' wallet. Far better for anything government related to go into a government app. The EU is working on one:
https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/display/EUDIGITALIDENTITYWALLET/EU+Digital+Identity+Wallet+Home
I have an app called 'my citizens folder' which collects ton of government information on me under one single app. From my properties listed on the civil register, fines, health information, registration on all kinds of census, voting rights, local council information, vehicles registered in my name, all kinds of communication with government, welfare etc.
Digital ID Card, Driver's licence, and passport storage are coming very soon although I'm not sure how they will be stored.
I also use the NFC aspect for transport (my travel cards are loaded onto my phone) while my wife and all iPhone users have been left out in the cold for the last few years because Apple simply hasn't authorised the apps Apple NFC access.
I would much rather have local banks work on this than any American company. In addition this will make it easier to migrate to/from Android.
Wouldn't be bad for us to see Apple work harder for our money than iPhone 12/13/14/15. Spending 4 years on adjusting lens positions, changing the FaceID island, and adding USB-C at USB 2.0 speed for iPhone 15 - we're talking performance available 24 years ago and selling it as an upgrade. We need competition.
This is interesting. It seems you are talking about your bank’s app (that maybe has NFC access for payments?) and not a wallet.
Am I misunderstanding this? It seems your wife has an iPhone and can’t add your bank’s card/s to Apple Wallet AND your banking app is also not available to her? You mentioned it kept nagging her to add the card until you turned off the nagging so I assume she couldn’t add or didn’t want to add her card.
For clarity, I view a digital wallet the same way as I view a physical wallet. That is, a convenient place to carry around the things I may need while on the go such as credit cards, debit cards, loyalty cards, government ID, insurance cards, theme park passes, museum passes, transit cards, etc. That is what Apple Wallet is, one place to carry all those things and have quick, easy and secure access to. I don’t think I’m the only one that has this general view of what a digital/mobile wallet is.
You also mentioned “my citizens folder” which has a bunch of information that most people don’t normally carry around in a physical wallet, so I don’t understand the relevance. Maybe it’s just me but census data and local council information isn’t something I carry with me on a regular basis or even need particularly often. I’m not saying that app and access to that info isn’t handy to have, but it doesn’t really fall under the mobile wallet category.
ETA: You said, “Apple will never be able to compete with my bank on the services side simply because my bank has access to my entire banking life and controls everything (including tax office interaction) from one location.” - Right, but Apple isn’t trying to compete here. As I mentioned above, Apple Wallet is just that, a wallet. It isn’t meant to be a full-fledge banking app. Even if you have an Apple Card and manage it through Apple Wallet it only has some basic management features, Wallet isn’t a banking app.
In her case the option of adding the card to Apple Pay exists but she doesn't want to use it now that she knows it is her only option because Apple makes it her only option. The constant nagging to add a card also weighed on her.
My point on the wallet in a general sense (beyond payments and banking) for licences, ID cards and other such personal details is that they are better managed by government entities and with the widest scope possible. Hence, an EU wide 'universal' wallet style system would be the way to go.
My Citizens Folder app is a great example of having a huge amount of government (local, autonomous and national) information relative to me in one place. I much prefer such apps to be government managed. The relevance in this sense is that I don't need seperate pieces of paper on my person to take that information from. It's like not having to carry a credit/debit card with you because you have a 'digital wallet'. A giant wallet so to speak for lots of government related documents.
Let's say I want to drop off something at my local green point. They might ask me to prove that I am a resident of the town and not from somewhere else. For that I would need my local council registration papers but the app contains that information. Or I might need to check my census registration for an election. I can use the app to make sure everything is registered correctly. There is a wealth of information stored safely in one app.
Apple is basically finance related right now but it pushing for storing of other documents (driver's licence, passports, ID cards) etc.