davidw

Honkers said:

davidw said:

Honkers said:

chasm said:

This is a VERY transparent attempt by the Australian banks and their lackey, Mr Chalmers, to limit the use of digital payment systems like Apple Pay, Google Pay, and Samsung Pay *because* when those are used, those companies collect a very small (in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted) fee that comes out of the fees the bank chargers the merchant.

I believe the average rate is somewhere around 0.15% of the purchase amount, so a bit more than you imply.

Your research skill is OK. Your math skill is questionable.

You are correct in that Apple Pay fee (to the CC issuer) is 0.15% of the total transaction. If you were to correctly do the math, you would come up with this ...

On a $1 transaction using Apple Pay

The CC issuer gets 3% or  $.03 from the merchant. (.03 x $1)

Apple gets .15% or  $.0015 from the CC issuer. (.0015 x $1)

So just what part of .0015 cent per dollar is not ........ in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted ..... as @Chasm claimed?

The "very small" fee is much easier to see on a larger scale. On a $1000 transaction, the CC issuer charges the merchant $30 and Apple get $.15 cents from the CC issuer. So the CC issuer is only paying out .5% of what they charge the merchant. (.15 / 30 X 100). .5% is still a very small fee.

Maybe it's your reading skill and you thought @Chasm said ...... in the hundredths of a percent of dollar transacted and not ..... "in the hundredths of a cent per dollar transacted".  Big difference.

$0.0015 is not the same as 0.0015¢.  $0.0015 is 0.15¢.  So not "hundredths of a cent", unless you consider 15 hundredths to be a proper use of hundredths, which I do not, since it's 15% of a cent, over a seventh.   If you do then the term is pretty much meaningless, 0.99¢ would be 99% and also hundredths of a cent, 99 of them.

A $1000 purchase would net Apple $1.50 on a 0.15% transaction fee.  I have no idea how you've managed to get that so wrong, you've tied yourself up in knots.

My reading and math skill is fine.  Check your own, and maybe try being less of a bloviated ass to people who you don't know next time.

crowley said:

beowulfschmidt said:

There's no such thing as "unfair terms" when it comes to the use of my property.  Meet my terms, or GTFO.  The same is true for Apple and their property, i.e. the App Store.

Nope.  Private property used for private things is very different from commercial property used for commercial things.  Commerce has rules.

Nope. You are thinking about the wrong kind of "property". Try copyrights, patents and trademarks.

Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 – Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. [The Congress shall have power] “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

What Epic wants to do is beyond "fair use" of Apple i.P.. That which is iOS. The government should not or can not force Apple to share their I.P. with others, without Apple  being fairly compensated for their work. Even with the use of "eminent domain" of real property, the government compensate the property owner for its fair value. It is just not taken away. 



Now, I would think the government can limit one from sharing their I.P. with foreign nationals, if they think it might pose a national security issue, but to step in and try to limit how one can use their I.P. for commercial purposes might end up being unconstitutional. Even if the I.P. is a monopoly. Microsoft was never in danger of having "Windows" taken away from them or being forced to provide "Windows" for free, to anyone that wants to profit from it.  

With that being said, since were talking about the UK here, they might not value I.P. rights, as we do here in the US.  They don't have to follow the US Constitution.