cropr

mizhou said:

I agree! The tokenisation and biometric authentication to  confirm the transaction makes it far more secure, compared to swiping the card itself. The card issuers have been charging far higher fees for every transaction, than Apple does. Those high fees have been covering not only the costs of doing the transactions but also the cost of paying money back to us customers in cases where we’ve been victims of skimming or others means of criminal withdrawal of money from our accounts. 

It’s not so many years ago where you gave your card to the waiter in a restaurant and they went to the cash register to use the magnetic strip of the card in a card reader. A criminal working as a waiter could easily take a photo of the front of the card to get your card number, and a photo of the back to get the CCV/CVV three digit code on the back, and then use that to order stuff from the internet. It happened to a friend of mine about 15–20 years ago), when he was at some convention in Germany. Right after he got back home to Sweden another transaction was made with his card number in Germany and about 200 Euro was drawn from his account. He got his money back, and that is partly why the card issuers have those high fees. 

With ApplePay this can’t happen,, but the card issuers still charge the high fees from merchants, and since they don’t have to pay for such fraudulent activities, those high fees are pure source of extra income for them. I think they should be forced to lower their fees instead of taking away the small fee Apple charges. 

teejay2012 said:

I am not looking for more apps asking for access to my financial information. Given how uninformed my own bank is on any technical issues, I would hardly trust them with NFC. I trust Apple and I like the convenience of Apple Pay. Consumers will vote of course but the banks and other vendors will need to buy the votes as they won't win on security or convenience imo.

blitz1 said:

Europe 4 (or is it more) - Apple 0

tundraboy said:

avon b7 said:

tundraboy said:

Right to repair laws can get really dumb. I can understand its benefit when it comes to cars*, but for compact electronic devices, it just benefits a handful of people at a cost that is charged to all buyers of the device.  The worst effect of such a law is when it starts to interfere with product design, forcing the company to make design compromises that sacrifice cost, quality, and performance.

*And even with cars, nobody insists that the electronic modules be repairable down to the level that is demanded of iPhones.  When a volume control knob on your car stereo breaks, are auto manufacturers required to make that replaceable, or is just offering a replacement stereo good enough?  I've had that happen to me and a replacement knob is not available, the only solution offered is to replace the whole unit.  An electronic device should be repairable to the same standard as that car stereo, not to the standard applied to the whole car.

The opposite argument applies too because the goals don't have to coincide. 

Cost? At what price? 
Design? What sacrifices against what benefits? 
Performance? What performance metrics?

Companies should be designing for repair.

If they think their products truly last (and are built to last) why do companies like Apple offer such poor warranties out of the gate?

Often requiring external legislation to set minimum warranty periods. The Answer is that 'price' or 'cost' falls squarely on the consumer (both in and out of warranty). 'In warranty' via Applecare or similar systems and 'out of warranty' through poor design decisions that actually impede or dissuade repair due to complexity and/or price and parts availability (lack of, that is to say). 

Tradeoffs abound in any situation but things need to be re-thought to put the paying consumer centre stage. 

If you think IP68 protection is necessary - then back it up under warranty. Simple. Don't say 'you should be fine if it ever happens but your on your own if it fails'. The point here is that it almost always does not happen. I think I've only ever known of two cases of water immersion personally. 

IP68 ratings are questionable design choices at best. Water resistance is a better solution along with things like nano coatings which have been around for years. 

User replaceable batteries should not require a special suitcase full of tools and instructions.

Thickness you say? Take a look at this folding phone (it will be released next week) and imagine how 'thick' things would be if applied to some like an iPhone:

https://www.fonearena.com/blog/427645/honor-magic-v3-launch-date-magic-vs3-magicpad-2-magicbook-art-14.html

Performance is moot. Some would argue that a repairable phone 'performs' better because it can last longer between upgrades. 

And parts pairing should be authorised by the owner, not limited to Apple. 

The only reasonable way to reach these goals is through 'right to repair' legislation and that is what we are seeing. 

The EU directive is already making waves and surely being taken into consideration by manufacturers. Expect a lot of handwringing (and fines) if DMA compliance is anything to go by. Especially as the EU approach is actually part of a bigger initiative. 

Looks like your beef is not really about repairability but Apple's design choices not being the ones you would have made.  Battery replaceability, water proofing, thickness -- you laid out your preference about these things.  Unfortunately companies cannot cater to all consumers' preferences; Apple chose features that it deemed would appeal to the most number of potential customers.

Now the usual consumer response to a product that he doesn't like is to buy something else.  Your response is to demand that government pass a law that forces a company to deliver what you want.

I on the other hand believe that aside from safety considerations, governments should not be in the product design business.

macxpress said:

People still use Spotify?