avon b7

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

jvm156 said:

That makes no sense. It’s not like she can’t use any type of card within apple wallet. It affects the consumer not in the slightest.

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"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:

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. 

foregoneconclusion said:

avon b7 said:

dewme said:

harrykatsaros said:

"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. 

Your bank has its own Android wallet app? 

Yes. BBVA Pay. 

I can choose to link my card to different options, one of them is obviously Google Pay. 

"Ternus also argued that durability is the best option for the customer and the planet, even if to achieve that, Apple has to make it harder to repair devices"

I wonder if he can explain how the move to glass backs helped in durability?

Apple does not have to make devices harder to repair to achieve optimum durability. 

Unfortunately, in some cases the point is basically moot because a repair can be so expensive that a user is 'encouraged' into getting a new device (or AppleCare of course). 

Actually designing for repair would be a better option and is what that EU is edging towards. Apple has seemingly already made some minor concessions on that front. Maybe more to come? 

I have long argued against waterproofing with seals if the waterproofing isn't covered by the warranty. 

All the major manufacturers perform similar testing anyway and those making 'rugged' phones obviously do more. 

The YouTubers do serve a purpose when it comes to comparing devices out in the real world. No matter the absurdity of some tests. Internal testing has to be conducted of course and there are very likely legal requirements on minimum levels but internal testing is inherently a non-public affair so no amount of screen scratch resistance marketing claims will ever be a substitute for a guy on YouTube trying to scratch a screen to death. 

9secondkox2 said:

DOA until it becomes a pair of sunglasses. 

No one wants to wear a helmet  just to compute. 

The experience is not much different than meta quest as-is. 

Apple basically saw the quest, then spec’s higher, but also went backward with the brick battery that you have to carry around separately. Big whoop. 

As sunglasses, it’s much more the Apple ethos of getting out of the way of your life. 

Most folks carry a phone out of habit. Most weat shades as a habit. Most wear a watch, etc. 

no body suctions a face-hogging, head-strapping thing on their face/head outside of scuba divers. It’s annoying, cumbersome, takes you out of your every day life and can really only be enjoyed in bursts. Not as a continuum of your daily life. That’s why it fails. 

Black pencil or no, it’s not a success. 

Let’s see how that fares once it’s distilled into shades. I’m betting that’s a whole new paradigm. 

They are valid points when taken 'as is'. 

The real difference is that it was designed to be a 'Quest like' device. Or any other visor style device. 

It does it better than a Quest in some ways but that is to be expected given its price tag. 

The Quest could have gone that route too but instead decided to switch out the more costly components in the design to bring the price down. 

In many ways they are very similar but anyone getting either device knows exactly what to expect. 

I don't think it's reasonable to criticise it for being what it was designed to be. 

Sunglasses mean massive miniturisation and without doubt, all devices will aim to be thinner and lighter with every successive generation/price point. 

More importantly though, real world availability and usage will determine how it all plays out. 

The first mobile phones were literally brick sized and heavy with extremely poor battery life. 

ronn said:

avon b7 said:

All I can say is wow! 

So China is a hostile power? You mean more hostile than the US? LOL. 

The absolute most horrifying thing about your 'justification' is that it is probably how Biden sees things too. 

Anyway. I have no need to continue with this as there is nothing more I can say. So I will rest my case.

This is a joke, right? 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/30/philippines-and-china-in-new-confrontation-at-scarborough-shoal

The Philippines has accused China of “dangerous maneuvers and obstruction” and reinstalling a barrier at the disputed Scarborough Shoal, which Beijing blockaded and seized from Manila in 2012.

Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) spokesman Jay Tarriela said two Philippine vessels on maritime patrol encountered four China Coast Guard (CCG) ships and six vessels from its maritime militia in the area on Monday morning.

https://news.sky.com/story/why-has-the-south-china-sea-become-so-contentious-13126474

That's before you add in China's own extremely expansive claim - the nine-dash line which claims nearly the whole sea as theirs. That was rejected by an international tribunal, a decision which China rejected.

https://eastasiaforum.org/2024/03/22/southeast-asia-stymied-in-south-china-sea-dispute/

Regional claimant states — fatigued by ASEAN’s inability to resolve the dispute and facing the brunt of Chinese aggression — may increasingly forge ties among themselves. But such efforts are unlikely to compel China to halt its aggressive campaign in the SCS.

Those are disputes, and historical disputes at that. They often involve neighboring parties. You left out China/India disputes and a host of other border related disputes. 

There are dozens upon dozens of geographical disputes all over the world. The US has five maritime disputes with Canada. The US is involved in other disputes too. The UK, Spain, France... 

Sometimes disputes (wherever they may be) degrade into conflict and war. 

That has nothing to do with threatening stop a huge infrastructure project by sovereign nations on the other side of the world for which you have no connection at all just because you don't want it to happen.