EU Hearing 'Many Concerns' About Potential Anticompetitive Issues With Apple Pay

[rocknblogger]

I’m sure you’ll be aware that many BSI standards predate the EU. Why would the U.K. give up on those? Any facts to back that up?
[automerge]1573251542[/automerge]

And I’ve highlighted several times that you can pay on websites anyway you like.
Likewise there are many apps that provide restricted access unless you have a subscription elsewhere. Office 365 is a good example and so is Google GSuite. Although Office 365 later brought in an alternative method as well where you now in addition to the alternative systems can pay using Apple Pay.

But this isn't really about websites though it may be included in the investigation. This is primarily about whether Apple pressures merchants to use Apple Pay in their apps while also possibly prohibiting the merchant to use a different payment system. That's what this is about.

I'm pasting from my earlier post;

For example let’s say I sell widgets and I create an app for selling my widgets on iOS and I use Stripe on my website but Apple says I now have to accept Apple Pay instead of Stripe. If that is the case that is in fact anti-competitive. Maybe Apple says I have to add Apple Pay as an option if I want to be on Apple devices. This too might be a problem. Why should I have to use Apple Pay if I’m already set up with Stripe and have been for years?

 

[cyb3rdud3]

But this isn't really about websites though it may be included in the investigation. This is primarily about whether Apple pressures merchants to use Apple Pay in their apps while also possibly prohibiting the merchant to use a different payment system. That's what this is about.

I'm pasting from my earlier post;

Sure I get you and got you the first time.

if the EU deems that anti competitive then it doesn’t bode well for any market place.
What next, If you want to sell via Amazon marketplace but you don’t want to use their payment system. Will you insist being listed free of charge and that Amazon opens up and changes their payment system so you can plug in your own?

Or what about Ebay? Would you refuse to use their payment system and for a redirect to Stripe instead?

market places, even in the bricks and mortar world come with conditions. Surely you are free to keep selling your widgets through your own website.

 

[danny842003]

Sure I get you and got you the first time.

if the EU deems that anti competitive then it doesn’t bode well for any market place.
What next, If you want to sell via Amazon marketplace but you don’t want to use their payment system. Will you insist being listed free of charge and that Amazon opens up and changes their payment system so you can plug in your own?

Or what about Ebay? Would you refuse to use their payment system and for a redirect to Stripe instead?

market places, even in the bricks and mortar world come with conditions. Surely you are free to keep selling your widgets through your own website.

I mean I voted for brexit but your argument falls over by your own logic. Apple are free to not sell in the EU and if they don’t like the conditions.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I mean I voted for brexit but your argument falls over by your own logic. Apple are free to not sell in the EU and if they don’t like the conditions.

Of course. So please do tell me what are the conditions? And are they the same for everyone?

 

[rocknblogger]

Sure I get you and got you the first time.

if the EU deems that anti competitive then it doesn’t bode well for any market place.
What next, If you want to sell via Amazon marketplace but you don’t want to use their payment system. Will you insist being listed free of charge and that Amazon opens up and changes their payment system so you can plug in your own?

Or what about Ebay? Would you refuse to use their payment system and for a redirect to Stripe instead?

market places, even in the bricks and mortar world come with conditions. Surely you are free to keep selling your widgets through your own website.

Wow!!! That is completely different. Everything you mentioned is a sales platform that’s designed to make it easy for retailers or even people like you and me to sell products on. iOS in and of itself is not a sales platform. Independent app developers should not be forced to use any payment system. Can you really not see the difference?

 

[danny842003]

Of course. So please do tell me what are the conditions? And are they the same for everyone?

Well I’m not an EU lawyer but clearly the EU believe they maybe broken here. I would assume they’re the same for everyone although that doesn’t mean they’re equally applied.That fact is neither here not there. If you want to trade in the EU you need to conform to the rules.

 

[weckart]

Or what about Ebay? Would you refuse to use their payment system and for a redirect to Stripe instead?

Seems to be no problem in Germany. While everyone else was obliged to at least accept Paypal, the Germans could list away with bank transfers as the only method of payment. That was not down to the EU, however, but local laws.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. It is more a question of eBay's having to abide by local legislation if it wants to continue operating in that market.

 

[Eraserhead]

Sure I get you and got you the first time.

if the EU deems that anti competitive then it doesn’t bode well for any market place.
What next, If you want to sell via Amazon marketplace but you don’t want to use their payment system. Will you insist being listed free of charge and that Amazon opens up and changes their payment system so you can plug in your own?

Or what about Ebay? Would you refuse to use their payment system and for a redirect to Stripe instead?

market places, even in the bricks and mortar world come with conditions. Surely you are free to keep selling your widgets through your own website.

Not having to use PayPal sounds good to me.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Wow!!! That is completely different. Everything you mentioned is a sales platform that’s designed to make it easy for retailers or even people like you and me to sell products on. iOS in and of itself is not a sales platform. Independent app developers should not be forced to use any payment system. Can you really not see the difference?

Ahem, so independent seller on say Amazon aren’t forced to use Amazon’s payment system? And what about those that are on eBay, can they use whatever payment system they want?
And you are conveniently, or on purpose?, ignoring the points I made and examples provided by those who get around it. Here is another example for you, within the Trainline app I can get a choice as to how I want to pay for my train ticket. I prefer to choose Apple Pay so as a consumer I don’t have to give my card details to their payment provider, nor have to be concerned whether the developer is good enough to implement proper security measures. But plenty of people use their credit or debit card.
[automerge]1573286714[/automerge]

Well I’m not an EU lawyer but clearly the EU believe they maybe broken here. I would assume they’re the same for everyone although that doesn’t mean they’re equally applied.That fact is neither here not there. If you want to trade in the EU you need to conform to the rules.

No they did not state they believed the rules have been broken. They have a sufficient level of complaints to warrant a review. The two aren’t the same.
[automerge]1573286883[/automerge]

Seems to be no problem in Germany. While everyone else was obliged to at least accept Paypal, the Germans could list away with bank transfers as the only method of payment. That was not down to the EU, however, but local laws.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong angle. It is more a question of eBay's having to abide by local legislation if it wants to continue operating in that market.

All companies have to abide by local legislation, that is a given and totally not the point. Same as with eBay, you missed the point in that example also.
[automerge]1573286924[/automerge]

Not having to use PayPal sounds good to me.

Well choice is a good thing. You don’t have to use it

 

[MacBH928]

Thats not even remotely what this is about....

If Sony blocks MicroSoft (or anybody else) from (re)releasing XBox games on the Playstation than you would have a similar case.

but in this case Sony will get a cut, they do for every game released on their system. Apple does not get a cut if they let others access to NFC.

 

[rocknblogger]

Ahem, so independent seller on say Amazon aren’t forced to use Amazon’s payment system? And what about those that are on eBay, can they use whatever payment system they want?
And you are conveniently, or on purpose?, ignoring the points I made and examples provided by those who get around it. Here is another example for you, within the Trainline app I can get a choice as to how I want to pay for my train ticket. I prefer to choose Apple Pay so as a consumer I don’t have to give my card details to their payment provider, nor have to be concerned whether the developer is good enough to implement proper security measures. But plenty of people use their credit or debit card.

No I’m not ignoring your examples but you’re the one ignoring my point so, fine I’ll address you’re points one at a time.

Amazon was specifically built to be a sales platform with a predefined and implemented payment system. As a merchant you sign up for it knowing what the deal is. So no you can’t use your own payment system because there is no way to implement it.

eBay is exactly the same. It’s a platform that was built from ground up that allows merchants or individuals to hold auctions or set hard and fast prices on products they want to sell. Again, in this instance a merchant is going in knowing that the payment system is already set up for them so they don’t have to worry about it.

As for your Trainline app that is exactly how it should be. If the developers of the Trainline app wanted to accept Apple Pay they can and obviously do. The Trainline app is not a sales platform but an independent app specifically created to sell train tickets. You see the difference between Amazon, eBay and Trainline, right?

So back to my original point. iOS is not a sales platform. It is an operating system that was created to run apps. At first they were internet based apps and later Apple created the App Store. Apple’s own App Store accepts a number of different payment types but they use their own payment system in part to collect their 30% share.

Now here I come with my widgets. I create an app to sell my widgets but Apple says “Wait, you have to accept Apple Pay exclusively or you can’t get into the App Store“. Or they say to Amazon or eBay that they have to change their entire payment system and only accept Apple Pay. Or that they had to add Apple Pay in addition to their already established payment system. Don’t you see how that would be wrong and anti competitive?

Here is the quote from the article that Macrumors posted

The questionnaire asked if companies were under a contractual obligation to enable a certain payment method and also if such contracts included conditions for integrating Apple Pay in their apps and websites.

Regulators wanted to know if Apple has rejected merchant apps as incompatible with the terms and conditions for integrating Apple Pay in their apps.

Can you now see the difference?

Edited to add: This is all the more important now that Apple has their own credit card and it's automatically implemented into Apple Pay.

 

[Tech198]

NFC is locked to Apple, no-one except Apple can make Apps for it, so it is anti competitive.

So was Siri at one point, but they "opened" that up to allow third party access.. As well TouchID/FaceID as well for other apps to implement.

perhaps i'm confussing "restriction" with "locked"


It's NFC is locked, they can unlock it, give it time..

Even Thunderbolt was once "Apple" only, but now others make certified cables too.

 

[ForkHandles]

No I’m not ignoring your examples but you’re the one ignoring my point so, fine I’ll address you’re points one at a time.

Amazon was specifically built to be a sales platform with a predefined and implemented payment system. As a merchant you sign up for it knowing what the deal is. So no you can’t use your own payment system because there is no way to implement it.

eBay is exactly the same. It’s a platform that was built from ground up that allows merchants or individuals to hold auctions or set hard and fast prices on products they want to sell. Again, in this instance a merchant is going in knowing that the payment system is already set up for them so they don’t have to worry about it.

As for your Trainline app that is exactly how it should be. If the developers of the Trainline app wanted to accept Apple Pay they can and obviously do. The Trainline app is not a sales platform but an independent app specifically created to sell train tickets. You see the difference between Amazon, eBay and Trainline, right?

So back to my original point. iOS is not a sales platform. It is an operating system that was created to run apps. At first they were internet based apps and later Apple created the App Store. Apple’s own App Store accepts a number of different payment types but they use their own payment system in part to collect their 30% share.

Now here I come with my widgets. I create an app to sell my widgets but Apple says “Wait, you have to accept Apple Pay exclusively or you can’t get into the App Store“. Or they say to Amazon or eBay that they have to change their entire payment system and only accept Apple Pay. Or that they had to add Apple Pay in addition to their already established payment system. Don’t you see how that would be wrong and anti competitive?

Here is the quote from the article that Macrumors posted



Can you now see the difference?

I agree with you. Monopoly commissions are usually concerned with large companies who use their monopoly in one area of business (IOS) to leverage a separate monopoly (Apple Pay), this they may see as anti competitive.
They couldn’t have an issue with the way developers are paid for their apps, this was defined before the original monopoly came into being.
That said it is worth re-iterating that the EU have not come close to making a decision on this issue, they may indeed find that Apple can keep exclusive use of their NFC chip. Questions have been asked, and the EU may put together a commission to provide an answer.

 

[Bug-Creator]

but in this case Sony will get a cut, they do for every game released on their system. Apple does not get a cut if they let others access to NFC.

Apple gets a cut from every app sale which I admit is rather pointless considering such an app would most likely be free.....

The whole idea behind this is that the EU doesn't like companies to control all sides of a business like an ISP also being content provider and if such things do happen they want to make sure that competing services get the same conditions as the internal ones.

So Apple is free to set guidelines on how payment systems have to interact with NFC or other aspects of the device and as long as Apple-Pay follows the same guideline and other vendors get approved there won't be a problem.

 

[mrex]

**** the EU.

im sorry, but #### the apple. i cant use any of my bank with apple watch/phone (apple pay) because apple has restricted nfc only for itself. If a bank liked to use apple pay, they should pay apple for that (commissions) and that aint gonna happen because our banks have already created many years ago great apps and payments methods. the problem is apple, not eu or banks.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

No I’m not ignoring your examples but you’re the one ignoring my point so, fine I’ll address you’re points one at a time.

Amazon was specifically built to be a sales platform with a predefined and implemented payment system. As a merchant you sign up for it knowing what the deal is. So no you can’t use your own payment system because there is no way to implement it.

eBay is exactly the same. It’s a platform that was built from ground up that allows merchants or individuals to hold auctions or set hard and fast prices on products they want to sell. Again, in this instance a merchant is going in knowing that the payment system is already set up for them so they don’t have to worry about it.

As for your Trainline app that is exactly how it should be. If the developers of the Trainline app wanted to accept Apple Pay they can and obviously do. The Trainline app is not a sales platform but an independent app specifically created to sell train tickets. You see the difference between Amazon, eBay and Trainline, right?

So back to my original point. iOS is not a sales platform. It is an operating system that was created to run apps. At first they were internet based apps and later Apple created the App Store. Apple’s own App Store accepts a number of different payment types but they use their own payment system in part to collect their 30% share.

Now here I come with my widgets. I create an app to sell my widgets but Apple says “Wait, you have to accept Apple Pay exclusively or you can’t get into the App Store“. Or they say to Amazon or eBay that they have to change their entire payment system and only accept Apple Pay. Or that they had to add Apple Pay in addition to their already established payment system. Don’t you see how that would be wrong and anti competitive?

Here is the quote from the article that Macrumors posted



Can you now see the difference?

Edited to add: This is all the more important now that Apple has their own credit card and it's automatically implemented into Apple Pay.

Notwithstanding some disagreements on the comparisons, I do agree that it is wrong of Apple to demand exclusivity in the app for payments of your application.

did you retry to submit your app with both your payment mechanism and also Apple Pay?
[automerge]1573302095[/automerge]

im sorry, but #### the apple. i cant use any of my bank with apple watch/phone (apple pay) because apple has restricted nfc only for itself. If a bank liked to use apple pay, they should pay apple for that (commissions) and that aint gonna happen because our banks have already created many years ago great apps and payments methods. the problem is apple, not eu or banks.

Perhaps advice your bank to look at the SDK for iOS13. You are right that it wasn’t possible before, but it is now opened up.
U.K. government has released their app to read Passports for example. There are also transit fare apps available so you no longer have to use Apple Pay.

 

[danny842003]

im sorry, but #### the apple. i cant use any of my bank with apple watch/phone (apple pay) because apple has restricted nfc only for itself. If a bank liked to use apple pay, they should pay apple for that (commissions) and that aint gonna happen because our banks have already created many years ago great apps and payments methods. the problem is apple, not eu or banks.

what’s the difference between Apple and your bank in this case?
both appear to be anti competitive. The same thing happened here in Australia. Once one bank broke most of them ended up having to follow suit.
Whilst I realise both are companies I have no shares in I must say I prefer Apple. **** the banks!

 

[chagla]

Another example of how apple places artificial limitation on hardware... to date, they don't allow sharing using bluetooth. They won't even allow access to file system, although recently implemented half baked "Files". The main reason why they won't open nfc for payment is this:

every time you use apply pay, apple gets commission. it's quite unethical. pure greed from apple. nothing new. how else could they have $Bs in cash?

 

[DeepIn2U]

NFC is locked to Apple, no-one except Apple can make Apps for it, so it is anti competitive.

Let's first ask and consider what NFC really provides:
Quick bluetooth pairing (before iCloud with W1/H1) chip.
Android's tapping to share your contact, LMAO 'tap, tap, tap and tap' - sorry we have AirPlay a much better solution. Heck even sending over Bluetooth was better than using NFC to share your contact by tapping. Idiocy!
* Anyone with an NFC reader can steal much more information from a phone/laptop that has it's NFC sensor operating and listening for a contact. There have been a few specific texts done from 2016-2018 on this - very ALARMING results (google this).

From the point of Apple I'm sure it's about security. It's also THEIR device, THEIR OS, THEIR ECOSYSTEM ... this is not anti-competitive it's THEIR choice. Having a license to use a technology can also be called 'anti-competitive' yet essentially it's up to the license holder to be a) willing to sell it to competitors/clients and b) competitors and clients to sign up test and follow said guidelines of use. Example: FireWire 400/800

FireWire 400/800 ... the first being used only drive manufacturers and Sony in their laptops and I think 1 Vaio desktop! FW800 had more external storage and digital audio component manufacturers license and sell products. No other computer manufacturer licensed it. The market won out with USB3 and FW400/800 died!

using NFC is WEAK: Apple is choosing not to implement that technology for their reasons. Many of their users /customers may not need/want NFC while others may want it (such as yourself). At the end of the day ... yes Apple can make apps for it nobody else on THEIR device. Apple HAS worked with a handful of city transit establishments to have NFC used for digital transit cards and now in US Universities for student badges.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Another example of how apple places artificial limitation on hardware... to date, they don't allow sharing using bluetooth. They won't even allow access to file system, although recently implemented half baked "Files". The main reason why they won't open nfc for payment is this:

every time you use apply pay, apple gets commission. it's quite unethical. pure greed from apple. nothing new. how else could they have $Bs in cash?

What a shocker, a payment provider gets paid for providing payment functions. I guess you work and provide all your services gratis?

If you want a fully open system you can form and use Android as one example. I never understood why people want to turn iOS into what the other providers are doing. Go buy the alternative If you prefer that.

 

[weckart]

All companies have to abide by local legislation, that is a given and totally not the point. Same as with eBay, you missed the point in that example also.

Your point seems to be because someone or some organisation creates some minor trading environment that the normal terms of business don't necessarily apply and they can create trading conditions that would not be acceptable in the wider economic market. You are cool with that because people supposedly know what they are getting into. Except, it clearly doesn't work everywhere.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Your point seems to be because someone or some organisation creates some minor trading environment that the normal terms of business don't necessarily apply and they can create trading conditions that would not be acceptable in the wider economic market. You are cool with that because people supposedly know what they are getting into. Except, it clearly doesn't work everywhere.

What are “the normal terms of business”?

 

[weckart]

What are “the normal terms of business”?

The ones, which are not restricted to the particular ones of that microenvironment, of course.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

The ones, which are not restricted to the particular ones of that microenvironment, of course.

So nothing then, just some attempt at fancy words to bamboozle and change goal posts.

 

[weckart]

So nothing then, just some attempt at fancy words to bamboozle and change goal posts.

Nope. I answered your question in the same spirit it was put.