MplsP

avon b7 said:

MplsP said:

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

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. 

avon b7 said:

ihatescreennames said:

avon b7 said:

Xed said:

avon b7 said:

foregoneconclusion said:

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. 

jdw said:

MplsP said:

@jdw - You did a nice job of posting links from people who think 5GB is too small and seem to think that's the same as making an argument that Apple should give more storage for free. If that's the case you need to work on your reasoning and rhetorical skills. Your points detailing why iCloud is preferable and provides value simply support its utility and actually make an argument justifying its cost. Also @Xed may be a 'Cupertino worshiper,' but that doesn't invalidate his argument. Attacking the person doesn't prove your point.

You seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing more than anything else. For example, your use of “if that is the case“ seems to indicate your own ignorance of people publicly disliking the limited 5 GB tier for many years. It’s been rather commonly knowledge for quite some time. It could simply be you were simply feigning ignorance so as to diminish the significance of my previous arguments.

Furthermore, your use of “you need to work on your reasoning and rhetorical skills” is technically the very “attacking the person” that you seem to take a stand against. You simply chose to cloak your attack a bit more eloquently and politely than others.

Also, the objective of discussing these matters is not to “invalidate an argument.“. Do any of us change our minds based on forum rebuttals? I will guess the answer is NO. It is instead done to emphasize the reality of certain points being made which are either often overlooked, or treated flippantly by some.

The reality is, there are a good number of Apple fans who worship anything Apple says at any given moment, even if Apple shifts its position. I have faced them most often in this very forum. I think that term “worship“ is appropriate descriptor in light of the etymology, where that term comes from the older English “worthship” (modern spelling) which pertains to us ascribing an special amount of worth to a given thing.

There are a good number of Apple fans who worship (ascribe great worth to) anything Apple says at any given moment, even if Apple shifts position. That doesn’t invalidate any positions, nor should it. It is just a factual reality that sometimes needs to be made clear. 

What drives many of my fellow Apple fans to say what they do? In many cases, it is simply the blind following of Apple, more than anything else. Why? Because Apple is a big company and many fans think thusly: “Apple must know better than people in the forum what is best for Apple overall.” Indeed there is some logic to it even if I refuse to embrace that as my basis for thinking as I do. I choose to think independently of Apple.

For those reasons it would be wrong to interpret “Cupertino worshiper“ as unnecessarily “attacking the person.“ It is in fact describing the mentality of Apple fans who often come together to attack those in this forum who disagree with the Apple is always right narrative.  When you disagree with Apple, even slightly, in this forum, you are in the crosshairs of many.

But even Cupertino Worshippers don’t remain such perpetually. Their positions sometimes change at any given time. People are too complex to put in a perpetual box like that. Some people who did fit that category in the past, no longer choose to remain in that category, for example. But when the descriptor fits, it is not wrong or invalid to point out what typically drives an argument.

But if you wish to stick with your “attacking the person doesn’t prove your point“ line of argument, then Xed’s followup “you sound as entitled As F@@K” jab at me would also most likely be in your crosshairs. Note that he directed that exclusively towards me, rather than having read the links that I posted previously. He didn’t consider that I am just one small drop in a greater pool of people who dislike that never changing 5 GB, almost useless tier. Not liking a not-so-free 5GB iCloud tier in no way makes me “entitled.”

Basically, most of you folks who are trying to take jabs at me for having stated the reality of the matter really are doing nothing more than defending, either directly or indirectly, the status quo. That position fails to understand that a good number of people have been turned off of Apple products because of that 5 GB. I know people who got into Apple products because I recommended Apple devices to them, but who later switched away from those Apple products specifically because they were infuriated by that very 5 GB. And no manner of arguing on my part dissuade them. Seems like a silly thing, but it triggers some people who aren’t loyal to Apple.

AT the very least, changing the status quo and increasing that 5 GB in proportion to the purchase of new Apple products, for example, would be a positive change that would likely become a good “PR move“ akin to Apple boosting the base RAM in Macs from the paltry 8GB to 16GB.

It’s not a matter of what Apple “is legally obligated to do.“ It’s a matter of them further enhancing the joy of those who decide to choose Apple over its competitors. It really is as simple as that.