Australia Continues to Scrutinize Apple Pay Amid Push for Regulation

[840quadra]

Yep, it' "just" about allowing other payment providers to have access the NFC hardware.
It's not about having access to the ApplePay backend infrastructure, they simply wan't to be able to use the NFC chip to read & write custom data.

Allowing NFC access would not add any security flaws to the Apple Pay System, simply because the data needs to be interpreted and is broadcasted on activation by the NFC terminals anyway. The security relies inside the backend infrastructure that handshakes and interprets the encrypted data read and written by the NFC hardware.

By limiting the NFC hardware access Apple makes sure no other Payment provider is able to offer a NFC payment on iOS, making it impossible to compete with Apple Pay, which is anticompetitive.
It's simply wrong to let one or two companies de facto take over the whole payment infrastructure and services of multiple countries.

But yeah Apple loves to twist the NFC topic in a way that makes it sounds like opening the pandora box to Apple Pay frauds. The same they do in other topics.

The bolded / red word you used is where I disagree .

I think that term is thrown around quite a bit (Not calling you out specifically). Since the iPod days, and now iPhone / iPad, it is clear that people are buying into a closed ecosystem. Remember when the iPhone didn't have an App Store, had they continued the fully closed, no 3rd party applications would we still call them anticompetitive? There actually is competition, one can buy an Android, feature phone, or no phone at all, there is zero worldwide requirement to buy an iOS device.

In a similar note, can Sony not offering their in-house Playstation titles to Xbox customers also be considered anticompetitive?

I am not saying Apple, Sony, Microsoft, even Tesla are correct in limiting options on their platforms, however we as consumers have a choice to buy other products.

 

[Wildkraut]

The bolded / red word you used is where I disagree .

I think that term is thrown around quite a bit without understanding what it means (Not calling you out specifically). Since the iPod days, and now iPhone / iPad, it is clear that people are buying into a closed ecosystem. Remember when the iPhone didn't have an App Store, had they continued the fully closed, no 3rd party applications would we still call them anticompetitive? There actually is competition, one can buy an Android, feature phone, or no phone at all, there is zero worldwide requirement to buy an iOS device.

In a similar note, can Sony not offering their in-house Playstation titles to Xbox customers also be considered anticompetitive?

I am not saying Apple, Sony, Microsoft, even Tesla are correct in limiting options on their platforms, however we as consumers have a choice to buy other products.

Nah it's not that clear when normalo's buy a mobile phone.

People rarely go to retailers and buy a mobile phone knowing it's closed or more open.
They buy it because they see: Ahh it looks nice, price incl. contract data plan is okay, because the sales guy says that iPhone is like the Ferrari of mobile phones and his friendo has it too, it makes superb photos, games and apps exist too e.g. WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook - Fine I buy it - contract signed.

About the limitation they "maybe" learn after buying it, but anyway they see these anticompetitive limitations as normal, simply because they don't know it better, it's a too complex topic for normalo's, and Apple and also Google tend make use of this situation.

A anticompetitive behaviour comes with market share, and the iPhone simply reached a market share size that makes those limitations become anticompetitive. Yeah, if somebody would sue Sony and Microsoft for anticompetitive game consoles behaviour, i think they would have a hard time to defend. Tesla is not there yet(market share size wise), but yes i think we will see some lawsuits in near future.

Apple and Google will and is facing lawsuits in multiple countries and EU, they will regulate them, it's inevitable.

 

[I7guy]

[...]

Apple and Google will and is facing lawsuits in multiple countries and EU, they will regulate them, it's inevitable.

Nothing is inevitable. However, in an attempt to justify "more competition" by giving away manufacturers assets through regulation, is just plain wrong. This micro-regulation is nothing but a modern day robin hood.
- open up the nfc and bypass apple pay
- open up third party payments and bypass apple's payments methods
- allow sideloading, third party app stores and bypass apple entirely

Basically punishment for innovation and giving the customer what they want.

 

[840quadra]

Nah it's not that clear when normalo's buy a mobile phone.

People rarely go to retailers and buy a mobile phone knowing it's closed or more open.
They buy it because they see: Ahh it looks nice, price incl. contract data plan is okay, because the sales guy says that iPhone is like the Ferrari of mobile phones and his friendo has it too, it makes superb photos, games and apps exist too e.g. WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook - Fine I buy it - contract signed.

About the limitation they "maybe" learn after buying it, but anyway they see these anticompetitive limitations as normal, simply because they don't know it better, it's a too complex topic for normalo's, and Apple and also Google tend make use of this situation.

A anticompetitive behaviour comes with market share, and the iPhone simply reached a market share size that makes those limitations become anticompetitive. Yeah, if somebody would sue Sony and Microsoft for anticompetitive game consoles behaviour, i think they would have a hard time to defend. Tesla is not there yet(market share size wise), but yes i think we will see some lawsuits in near future.

Apple and Google will and is facing lawsuits in multiple countries and EU, they will regulate them, it's inevitable.

At the end of the day, we are all presented with a page stating what we agree with when it comes to the phone software. In Apple's case, they make it quite clear that we license, not own, the software and to other terms that make it clear they own what they will or will not allow on their devices.

I definitely want more control myself, but at the same time I did not develop nor do I own the actual OS software.

 

[Wildkraut]

At the end of the day, we are all presented with a page stating what we agree with when it comes to the phone software. In Apple's case, they make it quite clear that we license, not own, the software and to other terms that make it clear they own what they will or will not allow on their devices.

I definitely want more control myself, but at the same time I did not develop nor do I own the actual OS software.

Yeah true, but law wise this is e.g. partly invalid here in Germany and probably in more EU countries, too.
Simply because here you must be informed about the agreement content you are agreeing to, before buying the device, and the software is tied to the device. In other words, they would have to write the whole iOS license agreement to the outer package of the iPhone, but we know there is no space on the package for that.

Generally, there are many passages in Software EULA, license agreements which does not have any legal weights here in Germany. E.g. like the one from Adobe,Microsoft that forbids to resell digital copies of Windows or split up volume licenses. It's probably one of the reasons why Adobe moved to subscriptions, and MS with Office 365, too.

 

[840quadra]

Yeah true, but law wise this is e.g. partly invalid here in Germany and probably in more EU countries, too.
Simply because here you must be informed about the agreement content you are agreeing to, before buying the device, and the software is tied to the device. In other words, they would have to write the whole iOS license agreement to the outer package of the iPhone, but we know there is no space on the package for that.

Generally, there are many passages in Software EULA, license agreements which does not have any legal weights here in Germany. E.g. like the one from Adobe,Microsoft that forbids to resell digital copies of Windows or split up volume licenses. It's probably one of the reasons why Adobe moved to subscriptions, and MS with Office 365, too.

Interesting. I would think (Likely incorrectly) that online customers could be presented with a splash screen prior to purchase, or, at retail locations, one could be presented with a printed copy of such details or have a QR link to a PDF.

I know that the 14 day return policy is accepted here in the US if you don't accept. It is in our legal text that is.

 

[nitramluap]

As long as they require Apple Wallet integration if they want to create their own ‘solution’ I’m fine with this. What I *don’t* want is for them to require you to open up their app to use their card. This is a recipe for disaster at worst and a terrible user experience at best.

 

[@Brett]

I believe their is more important things my government could be dealing with. For example. Getting vaccines rolled out faster and ending our lockdowns and then working on housing affordability. Do what you were voted to do you duds and stop trying to score political points with the rich.

 

[SFjohn]

As long as they require Apple Wallet integration if they want to create their own ‘solution’ I’m fine with this. What I *don’t* want is for them to require you to open up their app to use their card. This is a recipe for disaster at worst and a terrible user experience at best.

There is no requirement to use your iPhone for anything. There is no disaster. (Except CSAM)

 

[Lozza013]

The Australian Government should have put a bit of effort into purchasing and administering vaccines rather than this perhaps...

No no you don’t understand . We are front of the queue according to our moronic Prime Minister. Absolute joke they didn’t order enough vaccines.

 

[gene731]

"Ultimately, if we do nothing to reform the current framework, it will be Silicon Valley alone that determines the future of our payments system, a critical piece of our economic infrastructure."

Exactly this.
Also agree to open up NFC, as in, force Apple to open up NFC.

So may I ask why Apple has to be forced to open up NFC when you have huge chains, Walmart and Kroger (which includes Fred Meyer grocery store) shut their NFC for Apple Pay. For those you have to open their app and scan a QR code so that way they can track your spending habits for targeted ads.

 

[Denzo]

“Angry man yells at clouds”. Your rant only makes sense in 1930. The world is global. So is business.

Your quote sounds edgy and modern. But I’m stuck in reality. In Australia at least, small business makes up 70% of the economy mr fancy pants.

 

[SurferPup]

I'm betting our Government wants to classify  Pay and Giggle Pay as payment systems so they can subject them to our major bank levy plus the encryption of each transaction is probably driving our security service bonkers. ????

 

[Tech198]

Arn't' banks supposed to be doing this anyway ? Apple and others just do it BECAUSE there is no take up (Virtual Credit cards) from the big four, let alone P&N. Also, fees are also the reason why Apple does it to reduce, or eliminate, them.

If you put that power into the big four banks, they will find a way to charge frees on it though.

 

[SFjohn]

Your quote sounds edgy and modern. But I’m stuck in reality. In Australia at least, small business makes up 70% of the economy mr fancy pants.

I would think small business would appreciate Apple Pay. You get exactly the same as you would with any credit card, but you don’t have to worry about not being reimbursed. Credit card fraud costs small business big $, Apple Pay has biometric authorization so you know that income will be bankable.