Apple objects to 'free ride' requests by Australian banks to open up NFC on iPhone

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,995member
    Just correcting myself. I just remembered that I think at least some 'NFS' iPhones don't have the necessary hardware to allow them to implement a wider NFC use. I think it's payments and not much else.
  • Reply 22 of 29
    rob53rob53 Posts: 2,762member
    People need to understand that Apple Pay is more than just the backend charging of a credit card. It includes the secure identification of the user and very specific transmission of the minimum amount of data to and from the user and credit card company. Take the secure enclave portion out of the process and it's no more secure than the CurrentC garbage. NFC is also just part of the process but opening that portion to third party usage could easily conflict with other portions of Apple Pay. If the banks want to create their own (unsecure) process they can do it without NFC capabilities. I don't believe Apple is required to open up all capabilities to all developers. 
    stompylostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 29
    anomeanome Posts: 1,470member
    anome said:
    Yeah considering Apple espouses sticking to their core elements, I have a harder time seeing them getting into the loathed banking industry than I do cars. Banking isn't a product that makes people happier with their lives. 

    Although one of the Apple principles, as seen with development of the iPhone, is to take something people aren't happy with and try to make it better.

    But I agree, getting into banking is a bad idea for Apple. Keep in mind, this article is about the problems they are having with Apple Pay adoption here, in Australia. A foreign company setting up an Australian bank, while much easier than it used to be, is still a nightmare. And they'd possibly have to do it in every market they operate in. Even establishing a US bank that can then operate in other territories is subject to regulations in each of those territories designed to protect the local banking industry. (And all this is about is protectionism.)

    Do the Swiss still have anonymous bank accounts? Could Apple establish, or partner with, a bank in Zurich, and everyone just gets an account number? It would cause problems with international transaction fees, and conversions to and from Swiss Francs, but it's a possibility...

    I have been a loyal customer of Westpac since before they were Westpac, but I don't trust them to have the best interests of their customers at heart. The problem with banks is, like oil companies, they're all evil, but they've made themselves necessary to modern life. I suppose the trick is to find the option that's the least evil, and, at the moment, it seems I may be on the wrong one.


    Come on.  All banks are evil, and all oil companies are evil?  What part of my local credit union's operation is evil?  Is it the lending of money at low interest rates?  The safe deposit boxes?  The certificates of deposit and checking accounts they provide?  In reality banks (and oil companies) are no more evil than any other enterprise--of a similar size and scope.

    Sorry, I couldn't find the "Hyperbole" tags in the message editor.

    Credit Unions are actually different from banks, and used to operate more as mutual societies than financial institutions. As such, they weren't concerned with generating profits for shareholders. (I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Australia, more Credit Unions and Building Societies have been transitioning to banks, and becoming that which they were originally founded as a reaction against.) Banks, however, have traditionally been private financial institutions concerned with increasing value for their shareholders. As such, they tend to put customer satisfaction second, and implement policies that are not in the best interests of their account holders. (At least their personal banking customers who don't have millions tied up with them.)

    As a side note, Banks in Australia are not supposed to be able to collude on things like Interest Rates and fees (which is related to the proposal to the ACCC to negotiate as a bloc with Apple), and yet they manage to work around these regulations, and a number of others, in order to maximise their profits (again at the expense of the smaller account holder). Maybe "evil" was an overstatement, but "technically illegal" may not be.

    As for oil companies, apart from being a bit tongue in cheek, they operate in much the same way as banks, in terms of adjusting petrol prices, and many of them have been implicated in deliberately evading environmental and safety regulations in the name of profit. Again "evil" might be an overstatement, but not by much.

    lostkiwiStrangeDays
  • Reply 24 of 29
    sennensennen Posts: 1,468member
    rob53 said:
    People need to understand that Apple Pay is more than just the backend charging of a credit card. It includes the secure identification of the user and very specific transmission of the minimum amount of data to and from the user and credit card company. Take the secure enclave portion out of the process and it's no more secure than the CurrentC garbage. NFC is also just part of the process but opening that portion to third party usage could easily conflict with other portions of Apple Pay. If the banks want to create their own (unsecure) process they can do it without NFC capabilities. I don't believe Apple is required to open up all capabilities to all developers. 

    Yup. Apple Pay is good enough for ANZ (to whom I've just jumped ship), I don't see why the other banks can't use it. But of course it's not about competition, or user choice or security, it's simply about the per¢entages.
    anomelostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 29
    I wouldn't necessarily state that all banks are evil.

    However, I would not put faith in the Banks having my best interests at heart when they introduce some new feature.

    Let's face it in Australia, the Touch 'n' Go / Paypass / 'Name of the day' incurs a 1.5% credit transaction fee even when the account is your own savings account and not a credit card. That means, the Bank earns 1.5% of the transaction so I can save sticking the card into the terminal, selecting transaction type and entering my pin. In my case, I weighed up the 1.5% to the time saving and have opted to go the manual route and avoid the fee (the cashier rolling their eyes in annoyance is a bonus).

    That said, I'm not completely against the Banks (or other companies) building out the use of NFC. However, that shouldn't be a free for all. Maybe, Apple should be made to open it up but under a license model (and framework). Then the banks wanting to build a "better" digital wallet can take out the licence and pay Apple for the access, build their wallet and compete.

    Apple gets a return on their efforts and the banks get their access. I'd call that a Win-Win.

    Of course, the Banks won't want to pay for the licence (hence their approach with the ACCC) and if they do have to pay one they'll pass it on anyway (but it may make using their wallet less enticing). 

    So two things stand out for me here in your comment:


    1. This 'licensing model' you speak of is basically what the ApplePay model is except you are talking about licensing the use of the hardware and software which would be challenging at best.  Apple has decided to 'license' the service by charging banks 1.5% of the 0.5% transaction fee that the banks bill the merchant anyways... so for a $3 cup of coffee the merchant pays $0.015 to the Bank and $0.00023 of that goes to Apple (the Bank gets to keep $0.0147).  The issue is that the Banks don't want to see their profits eroded to a fintech company like Apple when they think they could easily bypass Apple.
    2. Second, I don't know much about Australian service fees for tap and go payments (yet I suspect that you don't fully understand them either) but if you're saying that you're inserting your card to save the merchant 1.5% of the transaction fee... please refer to my earlier argument because if i was standing behind you I would roll my eyes at you too for the time you're wasting for fractions of cents.
  • Reply 26 of 29
    I'm glad I didn't wait for Westpac. Did the switch 8 months ago and haven't looked back
  • Reply 27 of 29
    leighrleighr Posts: 223member
    It's interesting when the shoe is on the other foot for Australian banks. They charge ridiculous fees both to companies and individuals (such as $6 to deposit a cheque, $12 to write a cheque) claiming it's all part of the service they provide and as soon as another company try to charge them they jump up and down complaining. They're just stalling for time and trying to get a free ride. Well done to ANZ for joining Apple Pay and putting customers first for a change.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 29

    I realize that it's not going to happen, for a variety of reasons, but it would be so nice for Apple to just say "No," and then exit Australia entirely if challenged.  No sales, no support at all.

    I am so sick and tired of governments and their corporate cronies.

  • Reply 29 of 29
    steveausteveau Posts: 291member
    I'm just back from two weeks in Oz and about half of the outlets with tap-and-pay accepted my Amex CC on my Apple Watch. If I had an ANZ (one of the banks that is not in the cartel opposing ApplePay) CC it would have been accepted at all tap-and-pay stores. I also saw a few ANZ ads promoting ApplePay with their cards. It's great tech and I'm reasonably confident that the Australian regulatory machine will eventually make the right decision.
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.