I am so sick and tired of things being called "anti-competitive" that aren't any such thing.
Is it "anti-competitive" for a restaurant to serve only the food that they themselves prepare? Is it "anti-competitive" for factory car dealers to only sell their own brand of automobile?
The why the fvck is it "anti-competitive" for a device payment service provider to only support their own payment app?
It is not anti-competitive for Apple to restrict access to the NFC chip, or any other part of the iPhone. The banks are free to develop, market, and manufacture their own solutions, thus competing in the market.
Good luck with that.
Funny how people don't apply this logic when the banks refuse to allow Apple to profit from a free ride on their systems. Then it's the banks who are accused of being anti-competitive.
Funny, I haven't witnessed anyone suggesting that the banks are anticompetitive in this context. I've only heard people say the banks don't care about what their customers desire. That's a whole lot different than being anti-competitive.
So the three major banks would like to have Apple Pay for themselves while on the same time refusing Apple Pay to use their services. I understand that all business want profits, but if by "any methods necessary" means jeopardizing the consumer's security (and we're talking their money here) AND neglecting the consumer's choice to use ApplePay by forcing their own products (using Apple Chip while throwing out Apple Pay token tech), I think there is a big problem here - in which does not lie on Apple side.
The don't want to use Apple Pay, they want to use the NFC. Apple pay is Apple Pay. It's not the Apple chip as Apple doesn't have exclusive rights to it because it's a standard NFC. It's also not Apple Pay token tech as all NFC payment's use the same standard token tech.
I'm not siding with the banks here but you're making it sound as if Apple owns all rights to the NFC payment's token tech, which they do not.
Read again any OS license. You, the owner of an iPhone, do not own the OS that makes the iPhone useful. Apple owns the OS and grants you a license to its use. Since it's the OS that provides software running on top of the OS access to all hardware, Aplle certainly does have the right to control access to the hardware, including the NFC chip. Now, if you want to jailbreak your iPhone, have at it. Maybe you could gain access to tne NFC directly, and maybe you can't, if Apple designed it only to be accessible via its Secure Element hardware.
Funny how people don't apply this logic when the banks refuse to allow Apple to profit from a free ride on their systems. Then it's the banks who are accused of being anti-competitive.
Funny, I haven't witnessed anyone suggesting that the banks are anticompetitive in this context. I've only heard people say the banks don't care about what their customers desire. That's a whole lot different than being anti-competitive.
This:
Australian banks accused of anti-competitive behavior by refusing to allow customers to use Apple Pay
The banks make plenty of money off the credit cards they issue. Apple is taking a minuscule transaction fee to make the process more secure than the cards themselves. Me thinks these banks are idiots.
Untrue. If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get. With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
…the secure enclave, which is really just a JavaCard chip made by NXP.
Citation, please.
You can do that yourself if you're that curious. Open your favorite search box and enter ApplePay NXP as the search terms. You can learn a lot thru web searches
Apple, whatever fingers it may want to have in the pie, is still providing the most secure solution for it's customers. I'll take that over whatever service Australia's banks want to push onto me.
My bank is offering financial service since 1945, Apple started 2 years ago The financial services of my bank are audited yearly by an independent organization, Apple isn't I take me 15 minutes to get an appointment with a bank representative, I cannot get an appointment with someone from Apple All the data of my bank is stored in a national data center, Apple stores its data in a foreign data center, If have a dispute with Apple, I have no chance to access my data and to prove I am right My bank supports heavily open standards, Apple has a closed iOS ecosystem My bank is expensive. Apple is expensive
And you want me to believe that Apple is a more trustworthy partner than my bank. You must be kidding
this is nonsense. Apple as a business is 40 years old. theyve been trusted with millions of credit card numbers for almost two decades. i can make appointments with someone at apple. apple supports open standards in addition to having a closed mobile OS. what open standards does your bank promote?
Funny, I haven't witnessed anyone suggesting that the banks are anticompetitive in this context. I've only heard people say the banks don't care about what their customers desire. That's a whole lot different than being anti-competitive.
The banks make plenty of money off the credit cards they issue. Apple is taking a minuscule transaction fee to make the process more secure than the cards themselves. Me thinks these banks are idiots.
Untrue. If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get. With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
well, are the reports correct? you're saying Apple gets 50% of the interchange fee?
also, you're ignoring the value apple offers the banks -- drastically decreased card fraud. thats an operating expense for the bank, and thats why apple charges the bank, and not the cardmember. charging the cardmember would be idiotic since its the bank who directly benefits financially from the improved service.
Untrue. If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get. With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
Apple takes 0.15%. Most credit cards add 2-3% in fees. Maybe Australia is different but that is nowhere near 50%. For the small fee they do ask for, the banks get a system that is basically fraud proof- credit card fraud is a major issue. They also get a service that brings in customers. On the other hand, when banks ask for NFC access, they offer nothing in return except that they will tarnish the payment experience for Apple users.
You can do that yourself if you're that curious. Open your favorite search box and enter ApplePay NXP as the search terms. You can learn a lot thru web searches
Nope. I have not been able to find a single authoritative source that states that Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP. Perhaps you or "rachapman" can help out.
You can do that yourself if you're that curious. Open your favorite search box and enter ApplePay NXP as the search terms. You can learn a lot thru web searches
Nope. I have not been able to find a single authoritative source that states that Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP. Perhaps you or "rachapman" can help out.
This took less than one minute to find. http://www.nfcworld.com/2014/09/19/331560/iphone-6-teardown-shows-nfc-chips-nxp-ams/ Then if you REALLY want to dig into it here's the gritty details on the most recent version of that chip, NPX 66V10, used for the iPhone 6s. That search took another couple of minutes. It's compliant to Java Card specification V3.x
EDIT: OOPS! Scratch that link as "This report is provided exclusively for the use of the purchasing organization." Try this one. I believe you'll find it's open-source Java Card compliant, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say it's just a "JavaCard chip". Rachamman may have more information on it. I'm just using a search tool. https://www.chipworks.com/TOC/NXP_66V10_NFC_Controller_FAR-1510-804_TOC.pdf
Untrue. If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get. With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
well, are the reports correct? you're saying Apple gets 50% of the interchange fee?
also, you're ignoring the value apple offers the banks -- drastically decreased card fraud. thats an operating expense for the bank, and thats why apple charges the bank, and not the cardmember. charging the cardmember would be idiotic since its the bank who directly benefits financially from the improved service.
Looks like I got confused with the difference in Interchange fees between the US and Australia, which are 50% lower in Oz. According to this article, if correct, Apple may be seeking 'only' 30% of the interchange fees.
Untrue. If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get. With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
Apple takes 0.15%. Most credit cards add 2-3% in fees. Maybe Australia is different but that is nowhere near 50%. For the small fee they do ask for, the banks get a system that is basically fraud proof- credit card fraud is a major issue. They also get a service that brings in customers. On the other hand, when banks ask for NFC access, they offer nothing in return except that they will tarnish the payment experience for Apple users.
According to the article I quoted above, Apple are taking 15% of the banks interchange fees in the US. Card fraud that is from fraudulent tap-and-go payments from lost or stolen cards - which is the only circumstance I can see where Apple Pay might offer an advantage, is low in Australia for tap-and-go NFC transactions.
Tap-and-go card fraud in Australia low: financial Institutions
Tap-and-go card fraud in Australia is costing about 2¢ for every $100 of
legitimate spending – half the rate of conventional card fraud, and a
third of the rate of international card fraud, according to Visa.
... Visa’s senior director of risk services, Ian McKindley, said the company
monitored card fraud internationally, adding that the Australian rate
of card fraud in face-to-face (not online) transactions was one of the
lowest in the world. He added that the rate of contactless fraud was
half that of other cards despite 45 per cent of all face-to-face card
transactions in Australia now being contactless.
Untrue. If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get. With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
well, are the reports correct? you're saying Apple gets 50% of the interchange fee?
also, you're ignoring the value apple offers the banks -- drastically decreased card fraud. thats an operating expense for the bank, and thats why apple charges the bank, and not the cardmember. charging the cardmember would be idiotic since its the bank who directly benefits financially from the improved service.
Looks like I got confused with the difference in Interchange fees between the US and Australia, which are 50% lower in Oz. According to this article, if correct, Apple may be seeking 'only' 30% of the interchange fees.
According to the article I quoted above, Apple are taking 15% of the banks interchange fees in the US. Card fraud that is from fraudulent tap-and-go payments from lost or stolen cards - which is the only circumstance I can see where Apple Pay might offer an advantage, is low in Australia for tap-and-go NFC transactions.
AFAIK Apple Pay is the only secure contactless NFC mobile payment provider receiving any cut of the interchange fees at all. It was only a matter of timing that Apple got a cut from what I can see. Others with similarly secure mobile payment apps are prevented from receiving any of it as VISA's tokenized standard was agreed upon in the meantime and their rules prevent it. I believe Apple will eventually be barred from getting any cut too once the current contracts run out, with the initial general term of those reportedly being 5 years.
Nope. I have not been able to find a single authoritative source that states that Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP. Perhaps you or "rachapman" can help out.
This took less than one minute to find. […link…] Then if you REALLY want to dig into it here's the gritty details on the most recent version of that chip, NPX 66V10, used for the iPhone 6s. That search took another couple of minutes. It's compliant to Java Card specification V3.x
EDIT: OOPS! Scratch that link as "This report is provided exclusively for the use of the purchasing organization." Try this one. I believe you'll find it's open-source Java Card compliant, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say it's just a "JavaCard chip". Rachamman may have more information on it. I'm just using a search tool. […link…]
Thanks, gatorguy, but neither of those links support rachapman's assertion that, "Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP." Both refer to the NFC circuitry. That function is entirely separate—and different from—Apple's Secure Enclave.
As far as I know, Apple's Secure Enclave is custom special-purpose circuitry designed and engineered by Apple and fully integrated into Apple's newest Ax series processors. If you have anything authoritative that indicates otherwise, I'm all ears…
Nope. I have not been able to find a single authoritative source that states that Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP. Perhaps you or "rachapman" can help out.
This took less than one minute to find. […link…] Then if you REALLY want to dig into it here's the gritty details on the most recent version of that chip, NPX 66V10, used for the iPhone 6s. That search took another couple of minutes. It's compliant to Java Card specification V3.x
EDIT: OOPS! Scratch that link as "This report is provided exclusively for the use of the purchasing organization." Try this one. I believe you'll find it's open-source Java Card compliant, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say it's just a "JavaCard chip". Rachamman may have more information on it. I'm just using a search tool. […link…]
Thanks, gatorguy, but neither of those links support rachapman's assertion that, "Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP." Both refer to the NFC circuitry. That function is entirely separate—and different from—Apple's Secure Enclave.
As far as I know, Apple's Secure Enclave is custom special-purpose circuitry designed and engineered by Apple and fully integrated into Apple's newest Ax series processors. If you have anything authoritative that indicates otherwise, I'm all ears…
The 'secure element" is in the NFC chip which comes from NXP and not Apple's Ax processor. Your thinking of the Secure Enclave which serves a different purpose than ApplePay and IS part of Apple's Ax processor.
EDIT: I see the issue now. The OP improperly referred to the Secure Enclave rather than the 'secure element" in ApplePay's NFC chip, the topic under discussion.
According to the article I quoted above, Apple are taking 15% of the banks interchange fees in the US. Card fraud that is from fraudulent tap-and-go payments from lost or stolen cards - which is the only circumstance I can see where Apple Pay might offer an advantage, is low in Australia for tap-and-go NFC transactions.
Just out of curiosity, did you even read the article you quoted? It says that tap to pay fraud costs 0.02% which is half the rate of conventional retail fraud (0.04%) for a total of 0.06%. Then it links to another article saying that 75% of fraud is online, meaning the total fraud is about 0.24%. This is turn is well more than the the amount that Apple charges for Apple Pay. An Apple Pay user who leaves their card at home cannot be victimized by tap and go fraud, conventional fraud, or, as will soon be the case in iOS 10 / macOS Sierra, online fraud. This is how Apple arrived at that amount and it is why U.S. banks were happy to pay up.
Now in the case of the Australian banking cartel, they see the possibility of getting the anti-fraud features of Apple Pay for free. All they had to do was collude to make sure that none of them supported Apple Pay even though it was in their financial interest to do so and then force Apple to eventually lower the charges. It is that collusion which people find offensive. Thankfully it will be over soon, but the consumer has already paid the price via the multi-year delay this has caused.
According to the article I quoted above, Apple are taking 15% of the banks interchange fees in the US. Card fraud that is from fraudulent tap-and-go payments from lost or stolen cards - which is the only circumstance I can see where Apple Pay might offer an advantage, is low in Australia for tap-and-go NFC transactions.
Just out of curiosity, did you even read the article you quoted? It says that tap to pay fraud costs 0.02% which is half the rate of conventional retail fraud (0.04%) for a total of 0.06%. Then it links to another article saying that 75% of fraud is online, meaning the total fraud is about 0.24%. This is turn is well more than the the amount that Apple charges for Apple Pay. An Apple Pay user who leaves their card at home cannot be victimized by tap and go fraud, conventional fraud, or, as will soon be the case in iOS 10 / macOS Sierra, online fraud. This is how Apple arrived at that amount and it is why U.S. banks were happy to pay up.
Now in the case of the Australian banking cartel, they see the possibility of getting the anti-fraud features of Apple Pay for free. All they had to do was collude to make sure that none of them supported Apple Pay even though it was in their financial interest to do so and then force Apple to eventually lower the charges. It is that collusion which people find offensive. Thankfully it will be over soon, but the consumer has already paid the price via the multi-year delay this has caused.
I read it, I don't see there being an obligation to track down every secondary link an article might reference that diverges from the main point. You seem to have missed this:
The police said most of that increase was due to misuse of tap-and-go
cards with thieves specifically seeking the cards in car and home
burglaries.
what a great way of admitting that you have no argument to trust Apple more than my bank. For the record I don't trust my bank blindly, like I don't trust Apple blindly (e.g. I don't use iCloud)
In case of an issue, I can change bank any minute without much hassle. If I have invested too much in the iOS ecosystem, that is much harder. Or put in your words, Apple really saw you coming.
Several other posters have demolished your ridiculous FUD in excruciating detail. I didn't admit I had no argument against you, I just recognised your obstinacy would render any effort to convince you of your woefully mis-informed status would be a waste of time which could be spent on more productive things.
Comments
https://9to5mac.com/2015/11/27/apple-pay-australia-antitrust-claim/
I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all. The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want. They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way.. The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
also, you're ignoring the value apple offers the banks -- drastically decreased card fraud. thats an operating expense for the bank, and thats why apple charges the bank, and not the cardmember. charging the cardmember would be idiotic since its the bank who directly benefits financially from the improved service.
Apple takes 0.15%. Most credit cards add 2-3% in fees. Maybe Australia is different but that is nowhere near 50%. For the small fee they do ask for, the banks get a system that is basically fraud proof- credit card fraud is a major issue. They also get a service that brings in customers. On the other hand, when banks ask for NFC access, they offer nothing in return except that they will tarnish the payment experience for Apple users.
http://www.nfcworld.com/2014/09/19/331560/iphone-6-teardown-shows-nfc-chips-nxp-ams/
Then if you REALLY want to dig into it here's the gritty details on the most recent version of that chip, NPX 66V10, used for the iPhone 6s. That search took another couple of minutes. It's compliant to Java Card specification V3.x
EDIT: OOPS! Scratch that link as "This report is provided exclusively for the use of the purchasing organization." Try this one. I believe you'll find it's open-source Java Card compliant, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say it's just a "JavaCard chip". Rachamman may have more information on it. I'm just using a search tool.
https://www.chipworks.com/TOC/NXP_66V10_NFC_Controller_FAR-1510-804_TOC.pdf
seeking 'only' 30% of the interchange fees.
According to the article I quoted above, Apple are taking 15% of the banks interchange fees in the US. Card fraud that is from fraudulent tap-and-go payments from lost or stolen cards - which is the only circumstance I can see where Apple Pay might offer an advantage, is low in Australia for tap-and-go NFC transactions.
http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/tapandgo-card-fraud-in-australia-low-financial-institutions-20140603-zrvzt.html
Thanks, gatorguy, but neither of those links support rachapman's assertion that, "Apple's Secure Enclave is a JavaCard chip made by NXP." Both refer to the NFC circuitry. That function is entirely separate—and different from—Apple's Secure Enclave.
As far as I know, Apple's Secure Enclave is custom special-purpose circuitry designed and engineered by Apple and fully integrated into Apple's newest Ax series processors. If you have anything authoritative that indicates otherwise, I'm all ears…
EDIT: I see the issue now. The OP improperly referred to the Secure Enclave rather than the 'secure element" in ApplePay's NFC chip, the topic under discussion.
Now in the case of the Australian banking cartel, they see the possibility of getting the anti-fraud features of Apple Pay for free. All they had to do was collude to make sure that none of them supported Apple Pay even though it was in their financial interest to do so and then force Apple to eventually lower the charges. It is that collusion which people find offensive. Thankfully it will be over soon, but the consumer has already paid the price via the multi-year delay this has caused.
Apple Pay provides no security against such.