cnocbui

About

Banned
Username
cnocbui
Joined
Visits
15
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
-280
Badges
1
Posts
3,613

Reactions

1.1KLike0Informative

  • Redesigned, ultra-thin MacBook Pro with AMD GPU not expected to debut at 'iPhone 7' event Sept. 7

    cnocbuicnocbui
    entropys said:
    Please let them be insanely great.
    Please let them be insanely great.
    Please let them be insanely great.
    Let's hope they up the quality of the power cables and stop using 3rd rate materials on something costing over $2K
    jahaja

  • Apple counters Australian banks' call for iPhone NFC access, cites handset security

    cnocbuicnocbui
    proline said:
    cnocbui said:

    According to the article I quoted above, Apple are taking 15% of the banks interchange fees in the US.  Card fraud that is from fraudulent tap-and-go payments from lost or stolen cards - which is the only circumstance I can see where Apple Pay might offer an advantage, is low in Australia for tap-and-go NFC transactions.

    http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/security-it/tapandgo-card-fraud-in-australia-low-financial-institutions-20140603-zrvzt.html

    Just out of curiosity, did you even read the article you quoted? It says that tap to pay fraud costs 0.02% which is half the rate of conventional retail fraud (0.04%) for a total of 0.06%. Then it links to another article saying that 75% of fraud is online, meaning the total fraud is about 0.24%. This is turn is well more than the the amount that Apple charges for Apple Pay. An Apple Pay user who leaves their card at home cannot be victimized by tap and go fraud, conventional fraud, or, as will soon be the case in iOS 10 / macOS Sierra, online fraud. This is how Apple arrived at that amount and it is why U.S. banks were happy to pay up. 

    Now in the case of the Australian banking cartel, they see the possibility of getting the anti-fraud features of Apple Pay for free. All they had to do was collude to make sure that none of them supported Apple Pay even though it was in their financial interest to do so and then force Apple to eventually lower the charges. It is that collusion which people find offensive. Thankfully it will be over soon, but the consumer has already paid the price via the multi-year delay this has caused.
    I read it, I don't see there being an obligation to track down every secondary link an article might reference that diverges from the main point.  You seem to have missed this:

    The police said most of that increase was due to misuse of tap-and-go cards with thieves specifically seeking the cards in car and home burglaries.

    Apple Pay provides no security against such.

    gatorguy

  • Redesigned, ultra-thin MacBook Pro with AMD GPU not expected to debut at 'iPhone 7' event Sept. 7

    cnocbuicnocbui
    cnocbui said:
    I'll take a 15w theoretical deficit I have never personally encountered, over a smashed $2000+ computer, any day.
    The current model has a 47W CPU alone. Running both the CPU and the GPU at max pushes you to 91W. Older models were even worse; the 2012's were easily over 100W at peak. 
    My current MBPR with magsafe has an 85W supply and a theoretical max load of 90w, leaving a very small 5w deficit.  Can you please describe to me the circumstances that would have both the CPU and GPU running absolutely flat out for hours.  As I said, I have never encountered such a thing.  Personally I doubt the cooling systems would be capable of handling such a condition and the thing would thermal overload and shut down.  This magsafe power deficit argument is a straw man as far as I am concerned and doesn't convince me giving up the magsafe connector would provide any benefit whatsoever, quite the reverse.
    welshdog

  • Apple counters Australian banks' call for iPhone NFC access, cites handset security

    cnocbuicnocbui
    jdgaz said:
    The banks make plenty of money off the credit cards they issue. Apple is taking a minuscule transaction fee to make the process more secure than the cards themselves. Me thinks these banks are idiots.
    Untrue.  If reports are correct, Apple is seeking about 50% of the interchange fee banks currently get.  With AU$2 Billion of NFC payments a week in Australia - 99.9999% of which is done without Pay, there does not appear to be any issue with security that needs improving upon, so the banks don't see any reason to pay 50% of their take to Apple for no benefit.

    I think there is a very simple solution to this which would be fair to all.  The banks should allow their customers to use Apple Pay if they want.  They should pay the fee Apple is asking for from the customers funds, much as many vendors pass on CC fees to customers wishing to pay that way..  The banks would not have to forego income for no benefit, those who want Apple Pay would get it.
    gatorguy

  • Apple counters Australian banks' call for iPhone NFC access, cites handset security

    cnocbuicnocbui
    cnocbui said:
    Funny how people don't apply this logic when the banks refuse to allow Apple to profit from a free ride on their systems.  Then it's the banks who are accused of being anti-competitive.
    Funny, I haven't witnessed anyone suggesting that the banks are anticompetitive in this context.  I've only heard people say the banks don't care about what their customers desire.  That's a whole lot different than being anti-competitive.
    This:
    Australian banks accused of anti-competitive behavior by refusing to allow customers to use Apple Pay

    https://9to5mac.com/2015/11/27/apple-pay-australia-antitrust-claim/


    gatorguyradarthekat