It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay.
The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.
Apple can be bypassed completely (loosening its grip on Apple Pay, NFC revenues) but the option to remain 'all in' on Apple Pay remains should users choose to do that.
On the Android side, Google Pay is still unable to handle the dynamic CVV on my 'rechargeable' card in spite of me having reported issues for a couple of years now.
The solution? I use BBVA Pay and now never even consider Google Pay.
Choice is good.
foregoneconclusion writes, "those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay" and you replay with "choice is good." You mean the choice to not support ApplePay. How exactly is this good for anyone else but the bank. Your comment sounds like you wish the defunct CurrentC was the payment system in use at all CVS stores right now.
If my bank offers its own wallet system, why should I be given the sole option of Apple Pay and know Apple takes a cut of every transaction?
Can you provide a source for that? From what I understand, Apple gets a cut of a transaction when there is a fee applied to that transaction for using, for example, a credit card. I haven’t seen that Apple gets a cut when I’m using a bank card that takes the money from my account, like a debit card.
If Apple had allow other payment systems from the start, Apple Pay likely would not have become widespread as it is. these days, except for the few holdouts, anyone who takes credit/debit cards, takes ApplePay. No other payment system this large is going to offer the kind of security and privacy protection Apple does with ApplePay and their credit card. So I doubt there is a significant threat to ApplePay in the Apple eco-system at this point. Extra NFC options don't hurt but will they really gain any traction when it comes to global adoption?
It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay.
The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.
Apple can be bypassed completely (loosening its grip on Apple Pay, NFC revenues) but the option to remain 'all in' on Apple Pay remains should users choose to do that.
On the Android side, Google Pay is still unable to handle the dynamic CVV on my 'rechargeable' card in spite of me having reported issues for a couple of years now.
The solution? I use BBVA Pay and now never even consider Google Pay.
Choice is good.
foregoneconclusion writes, "those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay" and you replay with "choice is good." You mean the choice to not support ApplePay. How exactly is this good for anyone else but the bank. Your comment sounds like you wish the defunct CurrentC was the payment system in use at all CVS stores right now.
If my bank offers its own wallet system, why should I be given the sole option of Apple Pay and know Apple takes a cut of every transaction?
Can you provide a source for that? From what I understand, Apple gets a cut of a transaction when there is a fee applied to that transaction for using, for example, a credit card. I haven’t seen that Apple gets a cut when I’m using a bank card that takes the money from my account, like a debit card.
No. From what I've read in the past, sources just mentioned 'cards' and often mentioned Visa and Mastercard systems.
However, the point is that, up until now, Apple was the sole receiver of that commission.
I don't know if Apple has ever made public its Apple Pay terms (perhaps as part of a anti-trust investigation?).
If you would rather I said every credit card transaction I'm fine with that.
The point remains. Apple Wallet was the sole wallet app available to users and as such the sole receiver of all commissions.
As long as Banks don’t compromise the security of the system or start mining data. I like the tokenized system where the merchants don’t get to see my actual card number, store it, then lose is in a data breach.
My bank (one of the largest) never stops advertising, mining and trying to insert themselves in with all sorts of promotions, and that’s why I don’t use them for anything other than as a clearing house, Apple Pay leaves you alone which is why many people will continue to use them…..
"We have fought for years to be able to compete on equal footing with Apple," said Rune Garborg, CEO of Vipps MobilePay
Only in the EU is it considered "equal footing" when the government hands you another company's hardware and IP to use free of charge. Maybe Vipps should have spent those years developing its own phone and VippsPay system? Little wonder that European economies are and have been in the toilet. I honestly wish Apple would just pull the plug on selling to Europe and "Let them eat Android."
I had no idea the United States is now part of the EU…
Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“
FYI- The Department of Justice is not the US Courts. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. Until the Judiciary Branch of the US government rules in favor of the DoJ claims, Apple can not be held guilty for violating any of those claims.
Federal Trade Commission is also part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. They alleged that Facebook is a monopoly (in Social Media market) but the US courts decided otherwise. The FTC is appealing.
With Amazon, the FTC case against them won't be heard in the US Courts until 2026. So until the US Courts rule on the matter, the FTC case against Amazon in not a matter of law and no action can be taken against Amazon until then. Not to mention before any appeal is heard.
With Google, the US Courts has ruled in favor of the FTC and against Google (Alphabet). But there's still the appeal to the SCOTUS. So until then, Google will most likely not be broken up, as recommended by the DoJ.
So the DoJ claiming that Apple is .......... "Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party
apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of
cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“, means nothing until the US courts rule on the matter. This is not at all like the EU, where the DMA is a matter of law and already been tested in their courts.
At least you're in the EU. There are many people here in the US, that thinks the DoJ is part of the US Court system. But even the DoJ have to prove their case in a US Federal Court and if needed, all the up to the SCOTUS, before the DoJ claim(s) can be acted upon. Think of the DoJ as the prosecuting attorney representing the US government in a court case against Apple. Apple have the right to disprove any of the DoJ allegations in a court. And the US Court can side with Apple.
It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay.
The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.
Apple can be bypassed completely (loosening its grip on Apple Pay, NFC revenues) but the option to remain 'all in' on Apple Pay remains should users choose to do that.
On the Android side, Google Pay is still unable to handle the dynamic CVV on my 'rechargeable' card in spite of me having reported issues for a couple of years now.
The solution? I use BBVA Pay and now never even consider Google Pay.
Choice is good.
foregoneconclusion writes, "those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay" and you replay with "choice is good." You mean the choice to not support ApplePay. How exactly is this good for anyone else but the bank. Your comment sounds like you wish the defunct CurrentC was the payment system in use at all CVS stores right now.
If my bank offers its own wallet system, why should I be given the sole option of Apple Pay and know Apple takes a cut of every transaction?
Can you provide a source for that? From what I understand, Apple gets a cut of a transaction when there is a fee applied to that transaction for using, for example, a credit card. I haven’t seen that Apple gets a cut when I’m using a bank card that takes the money from my account, like a debit card.
No. From what I've read in the past, sources just mentioned 'cards' and often mentioned Visa and Mastercard systems.
However, the point is that, up until now, Apple was the sole receiver of that commission.
I don't know if Apple has ever made public its Apple Pay terms (perhaps as part of a anti-trust investigation?).
If you would rather I said every credit card transaction I'm fine with that.
The point remains. Apple Wallet was the sole wallet app available to users and as such the sole receiver of all commissions.
In all of your posts you have yet to give a single benefit to the consumer. You state ‘choice,’ but the choice only benefits the bank. Indeed, in this case I can see ‘choice’ being a detriment to the consumer. Say I have an American Express card and a Chase Visa card. AmEx decides they will only support Apple Pay but Chase decides to sign on with Vipps. Now I have to choose which card to have in my tap to pay app because I can’t use both at once. Not a good choice to have.
"We have fought for years to be able to compete on equal footing with Apple," said Rune Garborg, CEO of Vipps MobilePay
Only in the EU is it considered "equal footing" when the government hands you another company's hardware and IP to use free of charge. Maybe Vipps should have spent those years developing its own phone and VippsPay system? Little wonder that European economies are and have been in the toilet. I honestly wish Apple would just pull the plug on selling to Europe and "Let them eat Android."
I had no idea the United States is now part of the EU…
Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“
FYI- The Department of Justice is not the US Courts. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. Until the Judiciary Branch of the US government rules in favor of the DoJ claims, Apple can not be held guilty for violating any of those claims.
I'm aware of this. My point was that the usual suspects here on these fora like to pretend that the thinking behind this is a "EU SOSHULIST MONEY GRAB" or an attempt at curbing competition from foreign tech companies (only when the U.S. is involved, of course).
Except that antitrust is very much an AMERICAN thing, and virtually every investigation by the EU has also been mirrored by the U.S. authorities — though, in some cases, dropped (as have been some European efforts).
It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay.
The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.
Apple can be bypassed completely (loosening its grip on Apple Pay, NFC revenues) but the option to remain 'all in' on Apple Pay remains should users choose to do that.
On the Android side, Google Pay is still unable to handle the dynamic CVV on my 'rechargeable' card in spite of me having reported issues for a couple of years now.
The solution? I use BBVA Pay and now never even consider Google Pay.
Choice is good.
foregoneconclusion writes, "those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay" and you replay with "choice is good." You mean the choice to not support ApplePay. How exactly is this good for anyone else but the bank. Your comment sounds like you wish the defunct CurrentC was the payment system in use at all CVS stores right now.
If my bank offers its own wallet system, why should I be given the sole option of Apple Pay and know Apple takes a cut of every transaction?
Can you provide a source for that? From what I understand, Apple gets a cut of a transaction when there is a fee applied to that transaction for using, for example, a credit card. I haven’t seen that Apple gets a cut when I’m using a bank card that takes the money from my account, like a debit card.
No. From what I've read in the past, sources just mentioned 'cards' and often mentioned Visa and Mastercard systems.
However, the point is that, up until now, Apple was the sole receiver of that commission.
I don't know if Apple has ever made public its Apple Pay terms (perhaps as part of a anti-trust investigation?).
If you would rather I said every credit card transaction I'm fine with that.
The point remains. Apple Wallet was the sole wallet app available to users and as such the sole receiver of all commissions.
In all of your posts you have yet to give a single benefit to the consumer. You state ‘choice,’ but the choice only benefits the bank. Indeed, in this case I can see ‘choice’ being a detriment to the consumer. Say I have an American Express card and a Chase Visa card. AmEx decides they will only support Apple Pay but Chase decides to sign on with Vipps. Now I have to choose which card to have in my tap to pay app because I can’t use both at once. Not a good choice to have.
In theory at least, my bank can now offer the same kind of system it offers on Android.
Apple was acting as a 'middleman' in the setup, taking a commission from transactions and it wasn't possible to bypass Apple as it had the sole wallet app. Just another gatekeeper situation.
Although I wasn't being charged that commission directly, there is no doubt that financial institutions were and that means that undoubtedly it had an impact on users somewhere along the way.
However, look at it from a different perspective. There is not a single good reason for Apple to have that kind of de facto power over the system with zero competition.
It was harming competition by simply not allowing for it to exist.
Now, with competition possible we will may well see less costs for services. Remember this is not an Apple only thing and the financial sector has been under scrutiny for years in the EU and had to adapt to a raft of new regulations, most of them aimed at improving competition/innovation and security along with more structural changes such as stress test mechanisms for the system as a whole. In this particular case Apple was affected but Apple isn't alone.
That is good for consumers and the fact that Apple has had its grip loosened in this area means it will have to adapt in a competitive marketplace.
Allowing Apple to have sole control simply because of the possible scenario you mention with Amex/Chase is very strange.
I see plenty of places where cards are not accepted. In the UK I know there are places where cash is not accepted.
At the end of the day users must be able to choose and in your scenario you have choice and should make your voice heard. Tell Chase you are out.
Maybe chase never wanted to be in with Apple from the outset. It's their call. If you don't like it you can dump Chase. That is your call.
There are lots of potential scenarios but eliminating competition to the benefit of one player won't cut it in the EU and I dare say, most of the rest of the world either.
"We have fought for years to be able to compete on equal footing with Apple," said Rune Garborg, CEO of Vipps MobilePay
Only in the EU is it considered "equal footing" when the government hands you another company's hardware and IP to use free of charge. Maybe Vipps should have spent those years developing its own phone and VippsPay system? Little wonder that European economies are and have been in the toilet. I honestly wish Apple would just pull the plug on selling to Europe and "Let them eat Android."
I had no idea the United States is now part of the EU…
Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“
FYI- The Department of Justice is not the US Courts. The DoJ is part of the Executive Branch whose head is appointed by the POTUS. Until the Judiciary Branch of the US government rules in favor of the DoJ claims, Apple can not be held guilty for violating any of those claims.
I'm aware of this. My point was that the usual suspects here on these fora like to pretend that the thinking behind this is a "EU SOSHULIST MONEY GRAB" or an attempt at curbing competition from foreign tech companies (only when the U.S. is involved, of course).
Except that antitrust is very much an AMERICAN thing, and virtually every investigation by the EU has also been mirrored by the U.S. authorities — though, in some cases, dropped (as have been some European efforts).
I was showing up the hypocrisy.
But in the DoJ case against Apple, the DoJ is not going after Apple for ....... "Limiting Third Party Digital Wallets. Apple has prevented third-party
apps from offering tap-to-pay functionality, inhibiting the creation of
cross-platform third-party digital wallets.“. The DoJ is claiming that Apple is violating US anti-trust laws by using anti-competitive practices to maintain a "monopoly" in the smartphone market. The only reason why Apple digital wallet is mention is because of the EU ruling. The US government is not going after Apple for this. They are trying to use it as proof that Apple is abusing their "monopoly" in the "performance smartphone" market.
The problem is that the DoJ have not provided any evidence that Apple is a monopoly or have monopoly power, under US anti-trust laws. Except by using a relevant market that is narrowed down to suit their need. A relevant market the will most likely not stand up under SCOTUS scrutiny.
The DoJ right now aren't concern about forcing Apple to open up Apple Pay, for competitors to use for free. The fact that the EU found Apple Pay in violation of the DMA was enough for the DoJ to use it as an example of Apple anti-competitive behavior. It may be because here in the US, only about 30%-34% of the consumers use a mobile phone (both iPhone and Android phone) for non-contact in-store payment and only about half of those (16%) involves a bank CC. The about the other half uses a debit card. Which may be why here in the US, there are hardly any consumers complaining about
how Apple Pay works and I don't recall any banks complaining about it.
The main complaints about Apple Pay seems to be from AU banks and the EU.
If the US is going to mirror anything from the EU, is that we will try to pass some BS "gatekeeper" law so the big 5 techs can be tried for "anti-competitive practices, without having to prove a monopoly as defined by the Sherman Act. The Progressive politicians (or "Socialist" party as referred to by some) have such a bill. Only if this bill ever pass, so call "gatekeepers" will be referred to as "covered platforms". But the majority of elected Democrats, Republicans and Independents are against it. Here in the US, we are much more concern about harm to the consumers, than harm to the competitors.
Don't be fooled by the DoJ rhetoric. They aren't nearly as determined or efficient in going after the big 5 techs, as the EU is. The DoJ case against Apple began during Trump first Presidency and in 6 years, this is the best the DoJ can do to come up with a case against Apple? And it will be at least another 6 years before any ruling because of the appeal process. Unless the courts dismiss the case.
It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay.
The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.
Apple can be bypassed completely (loosening its grip on Apple Pay, NFC revenues) but the option to remain 'all in' on Apple Pay remains should users choose to do that.
On the Android side, Google Pay is still unable to handle the dynamic CVV on my 'rechargeable' card in spite of me having reported issues for a couple of years now.
The solution? I use BBVA Pay and now never even consider Google Pay.
Choice is good.
foregoneconclusion writes, "those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay" and you replay with "choice is good." You mean the choice to not support ApplePay. How exactly is this good for anyone else but the bank. Your comment sounds like you wish the defunct CurrentC was the payment system in use at all CVS stores right now.
If my bank offers its own wallet system, why should I be given the sole option of Apple Pay and know Apple takes a cut of every transaction?
Can you provide a source for that? From what I understand, Apple gets a cut of a transaction when there is a fee applied to that transaction for using, for example, a credit card. I haven’t seen that Apple gets a cut when I’m using a bank card that takes the money from my account, like a debit card.
No. From what I've read in the past, sources just mentioned 'cards' and often mentioned Visa and Mastercard systems.
However, the point is that, up until now, Apple was the sole receiver of that commission.
I don't know if Apple has ever made public its Apple Pay terms (perhaps as part of a anti-trust investigation?).
If you would rather I said every credit card transaction I'm fine with that.
The point remains. Apple Wallet was the sole wallet app available to users and as such the sole receiver of all commissions.
In all of your posts you have yet to give a single benefit to the consumer. You state ‘choice,’ but the choice only benefits the bank. Indeed, in this case I can see ‘choice’ being a detriment to the consumer. Say I have an American Express card and a Chase Visa card. AmEx decides they will only support Apple Pay but Chase decides to sign on with Vipps. Now I have to choose which card to have in my tap to pay app because I can’t use both at once. Not a good choice to have.
In theory at least, my bank can now offer the same kind of system it offers on Android.
Apple was acting as a 'middleman' in the setup, taking a commission from transactions and it wasn't possible to bypass Apple as it had the sole wallet app. Just another gatekeeper situation.
Although I wasn't being charged that commission directly, there is no doubt that financial institutions were and that means that undoubtedly it had an impact on users somewhere along the way.
However, look at it from a different perspective. There is not a single good reason for Apple to have that kind of de facto power over the system with zero competition.
It was harming competition by simply not allowing for it to exist.
Now, with competition possible we will may well see less costs for services. Remember this is not an Apple only thing and the financial sector has been under scrutiny for years in the EU and had to adapt to a raft of new regulations, most of them aimed at improving competition/innovation and security along with more structural changes such as stress test mechanisms for the system as a whole. In this particular case Apple was affected but Apple isn't alone.
That is good for consumers and the fact that Apple has had its grip loosened in this area means it will have to adapt in a competitive marketplace.
Allowing Apple to have sole control simply because of the possible scenario you mention with Amex/Chase is very strange.
I see plenty of places where cards are not accepted. In the UK I know there are places where cash is not accepted.
At the end of the day users must be able to choose and in your scenario you have choice and should make your voice heard. Tell Chase you are out.
Maybe chase never wanted to be in with Apple from the outset. It's their call. If you don't like it you can dump Chase. That is your call.
There are lots of potential scenarios but eliminating competition to the benefit of one player won't cut it in the EU and I dare say, most of the rest of the world either.
Any system is charging a commission. If you think Vipps isn't then you're delusional.
The good reason for having one system is increased simplicity and security. As far as lower costs, we really haven't seen that in other areas that have been forcibly opened up. instead, we've seen similar fees. In this case, the competition isn't for the consumer per se and since the consumer isn't directly paying the fees they have no insight or ability to choose the lower fees. In fact, the reverse may well be true - the service that has the higher fees may have better deals for the issuers to lure them so it can make more fees and indirectly increasing costs to consumers.
My example of AmEx and Chase was simply meant as a very likely scenario where increased 'choice' is actually worse for the consumer (and actually a scenario I've experienced so it's more than hypothetical.)
In the end, as a consumer, Apple Pay works perfectly for me so I fail to see any actual advantage adding multiple services while I see many disadvantages.
It sounds like the only advantage is that those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay.
The major benefit is choice for the end user and with it, competition and innovation.
Apple can be bypassed completely (loosening its grip on Apple Pay, NFC revenues) but the option to remain 'all in' on Apple Pay remains should users choose to do that.
On the Android side, Google Pay is still unable to handle the dynamic CVV on my 'rechargeable' card in spite of me having reported issues for a couple of years now.
The solution? I use BBVA Pay and now never even consider Google Pay.
Choice is good.
foregoneconclusion writes, "those local Norwegian banks don't allow Apple Pay" and you replay with "choice is good." You mean the choice to not support ApplePay. How exactly is this good for anyone else but the bank. Your comment sounds like you wish the defunct CurrentC was the payment system in use at all CVS stores right now.
If my bank offers its own wallet system, why should I be given the sole option of Apple Pay and know Apple takes a cut of every transaction?
Can you provide a source for that? From what I understand, Apple gets a cut of a transaction when there is a fee applied to that transaction for using, for example, a credit card. I haven’t seen that Apple gets a cut when I’m using a bank card that takes the money from my account, like a debit card.
No. From what I've read in the past, sources just mentioned 'cards' and often mentioned Visa and Mastercard systems.
However, the point is that, up until now, Apple was the sole receiver of that commission.
I don't know if Apple has ever made public its Apple Pay terms (perhaps as part of a anti-trust investigation?).
If you would rather I said every credit card transaction I'm fine with that.
The point remains. Apple Wallet was the sole wallet app available to users and as such the sole receiver of all commissions.
In all of your posts you have yet to give a single benefit to the consumer. You state ‘choice,’ but the choice only benefits the bank. Indeed, in this case I can see ‘choice’ being a detriment to the consumer. Say I have an American Express card and a Chase Visa card. AmEx decides they will only support Apple Pay but Chase decides to sign on with Vipps. Now I have to choose which card to have in my tap to pay app because I can’t use both at once. Not a good choice to have.
In theory at least, my bank can now offer the same kind of system it offers on Android.
Apple was acting as a 'middleman' in the setup, taking a commission from transactions and it wasn't possible to bypass Apple as it had the sole wallet app. Just another gatekeeper situation.
Although I wasn't being charged that commission directly, there is no doubt that financial institutions were and that means that undoubtedly it had an impact on users somewhere along the way.
However, look at it from a different perspective. There is not a single good reason for Apple to have that kind of de facto power over the system with zero competition.
It was harming competition by simply not allowing for it to exist.
Now, with competition possible we will may well see less costs for services. Remember this is not an Apple only thing and the financial sector has been under scrutiny for years in the EU and had to adapt to a raft of new regulations, most of them aimed at improving competition/innovation and security along with more structural changes such as stress test mechanisms for the system as a whole. In this particular case Apple was affected but Apple isn't alone.
That is good for consumers and the fact that Apple has had its grip loosened in this area means it will have to adapt in a competitive marketplace.
Allowing Apple to have sole control simply because of the possible scenario you mention with Amex/Chase is very strange.
I see plenty of places where cards are not accepted. In the UK I know there are places where cash is not accepted.
At the end of the day users must be able to choose and in your scenario you have choice and should make your voice heard. Tell Chase you are out.
Maybe chase never wanted to be in with Apple from the outset. It's their call. If you don't like it you can dump Chase. That is your call.
There are lots of potential scenarios but eliminating competition to the benefit of one player won't cut it in the EU and I dare say, most of the rest of the world either.
Any system is charging a commission. If you think Vipps isn't then you're delusional.
The good reason for having one system is increased simplicity and security. As far as lower costs, we really haven't seen that in other areas that have been forcibly opened up. instead, we've seen similar fees. In this case, the competition isn't for the consumer per se and since the consumer isn't directly paying the fees they have no insight or ability to choose the lower fees. In fact, the reverse may well be true - the service that has the higher fees may have better deals for the issuers to lure them so it can make more fees and indirectly increasing costs to consumers.
My example of AmEx and Chase was simply meant as a very likely scenario where increased 'choice' is actually worse for the consumer (and actually a scenario I've experienced so it's more than hypothetical.)
In the end, as a consumer, Apple Pay works perfectly for me so I fail to see any actual advantage adding multiple services while I see many disadvantages.
I'm far from delusional and fully understand that commissions can exist along the processing chain.
That isn't the point.
The point is that one company doesn't have the possibility of sweeping the board with every transaction commission and therefore have a de facto monopoly on setting those commissions.
Yes, the commissions might actually be the same but they also might not.
The point is that there is choice and those commissions are fragmented across all the players on the (level) playing field. There is nothing worse than having one company control everything.
That is one of the major reasons Apple has had to change its ways and it's worth mentioning once again something I've said quite often.
It is very likely that Apple could have continued raking in all the commissions but they would have had to spell out all the limitations on competition that it imposes and make users sign off on its terms prior to purchase.
That might have been enough to satisfy the EU. I'm basing this on various sentences against banks (famously the Spanish 'floor clauses' on mortgages).
Of course, spelling out to users in crystal clear language those limitations would probably make many pull away from the purchase. The competition would have a field day with it too but, as many here claim, people want these limitations because somehow it's for their own good (protection, security, privacy or whatever).
In my opinion that is hogwash but Apple could have chosen that option.
Your very last paragraph sums up why you are unhappy with this. You are happy and don't want things to change.
My wife supports my position and wants to use BBVA Pay.
The current system with the new changes allows for choice. The previous one didn't.
If banks pull away from Apple Wallet and only implement their own systems that will be a bank/client situation.
It's not for Apple to impose its own solution and forbid others from doing the same. That is why these laws were enacted and, like I said earlier, they aren't Apple specific.
Comments
However, the point is that, up until now, Apple was the sole receiver of that commission.
I don't know if Apple has ever made public its Apple Pay terms (perhaps as part of a anti-trust investigation?).
If you would rather I said every credit card transaction I'm fine with that.
The point remains. Apple Wallet was the sole wallet app available to users and as such the sole receiver of all commissions.
I was showing up the hypocrisy.
Apple was acting as a 'middleman' in the setup, taking a commission from transactions and it wasn't possible to bypass Apple as it had the sole wallet app. Just another gatekeeper situation.
Although I wasn't being charged that commission directly, there is no doubt that financial institutions were and that means that undoubtedly it had an impact on users somewhere along the way.
However, look at it from a different perspective. There is not a single good reason for Apple to have that kind of de facto power over the system with zero competition.
It was harming competition by simply not allowing for it to exist.
Now, with competition possible we will may well see less costs for services. Remember this is not an Apple only thing and the financial sector has been under scrutiny for years in the EU and had to adapt to a raft of new regulations, most of them aimed at improving competition/innovation and security along with more structural changes such as stress test mechanisms for the system as a whole. In this particular case Apple was affected but Apple isn't alone.
That is good for consumers and the fact that Apple has had its grip loosened in this area means it will have to adapt in a competitive marketplace.
Allowing Apple to have sole control simply because of the possible scenario you mention with Amex/Chase is very strange.
I see plenty of places where cards are not accepted. In the UK I know there are places where cash is not accepted.
At the end of the day users must be able to choose and in your scenario you have choice and should make your voice heard. Tell Chase you are out.
Maybe chase never wanted to be in with Apple from the outset. It's their call. If you don't like it you can dump Chase. That is your call.
There are lots of potential scenarios but eliminating competition to the benefit of one player won't cut it in the EU and I dare say, most of the rest of the world either.
https://business.yougov.com/content/48650-cash-remains-king-67-of-americans-still-prefer-traditional-in-store-payment
The good reason for having one system is increased simplicity and security. As far as lower costs, we really haven't seen that in other areas that have been forcibly opened up. instead, we've seen similar fees. In this case, the competition isn't for the consumer per se and since the consumer isn't directly paying the fees they have no insight or ability to choose the lower fees. In fact, the reverse may well be true - the service that has the higher fees may have better deals for the issuers to lure them so it can make more fees and indirectly increasing costs to consumers.
My example of AmEx and Chase was simply meant as a very likely scenario where increased 'choice' is actually worse for the consumer (and actually a scenario I've experienced so it's more than hypothetical.)
In the end, as a consumer, Apple Pay works perfectly for me so I fail to see any actual advantage adding multiple services while I see many disadvantages.
That isn't the point.
The point is that one company doesn't have the possibility of sweeping the board with every transaction commission and therefore have a de facto monopoly on setting those commissions.
Yes, the commissions might actually be the same but they also might not.
The point is that there is choice and those commissions are fragmented across all the players on the (level) playing field. There is nothing worse than having one company control everything.
That is one of the major reasons Apple has had to change its ways and it's worth mentioning once again something I've said quite often.
It is very likely that Apple could have continued raking in all the commissions but they would have had to spell out all the limitations on competition that it imposes and make users sign off on its terms prior to purchase.
That might have been enough to satisfy the EU. I'm basing this on various sentences against banks (famously the Spanish 'floor clauses' on mortgages).
Of course, spelling out to users in crystal clear language those limitations would probably make many pull away from the purchase. The competition would have a field day with it too but, as many here claim, people want these limitations because somehow it's for their own good (protection, security, privacy or whatever).
In my opinion that is hogwash but Apple could have chosen that option.
Your very last paragraph sums up why you are unhappy with this. You are happy and don't want things to change.
My wife supports my position and wants to use BBVA Pay.
The current system with the new changes allows for choice. The previous one didn't.
If banks pull away from Apple Wallet and only implement their own systems that will be a bank/client situation.
It's not for Apple to impose its own solution and forbid others from doing the same. That is why these laws were enacted and, like I said earlier, they aren't Apple specific.