Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
PayPal Played Role in EU Antitrust Complaint About Apple Wallet
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not for long. If Apple gets loaded by doing what they are doing, all others will likely follow suit. An open experience will soon no longer exist, just like phones with a replaceable battery no longer exist thanks to Apple.
Maybe the government should regulate replaceable batteries? I don't know. You going to get the government to micro-manage innovation...that sure is where this is headed -- down the tubes.
I couldn't care what Apple does, provided 1)they aren't purposefully and blatantly flouting the law at every corner and 2) produce a product I want to buy. When it comes to a point I don't like what they are doing, I'll "man up" and buy something else and let my dollars do the talking.
Where is the above codified. I got it's your opinion, however.
The EU can do what they want. Since what Apple is doing is obviously not illegal, new legislation has be be crafted, it it gets passed, to force change. Something I am not in agreement with, because imo, it will have a chilling effect on the future.
Thus, the convoluted thinking I was calling out previously. I can apply the two statements I made to ANY company/product and maintain a simple consistency.
Do these “certain rights”, for example, extend to Sony locking down their hardware to benefit their digital media store and their digital media distribution mechanism?
Which is pretty much it. If Apple were to lockdown Bluetooth and Wifi, they wouldn’t need the government to do anything, people in the EU just wouldn’t buy them (just like they’re not buying them in huge numbers now). NFC is locked down, that COULD be part of why Apple’s marketshare is so tiny.
It would be quite interesting if the EU makes these moves and, overnight, people start dumping their Android devices because they ONLY had them because of some feature Apple wouldn’t support. Want to make Apple’s marketshare in Europe 50% and higher? This is likely one sure fire way to do it!
Really stick it to Apple by making their share of the market balloon!I'm surprised people thought this was pro-consumer. Look at the bozos behind it, do you think they have consumers in their best interest? If they did, they would've come up with a better solution.
In reality, do these bozos actually deliver better solutions on other platform? Take Android, what payment system that are mostly used? Either Google Pay or Samsung Pay. PayPal actually partnered with Google instead of doing it on their own app (with the exchange of your user data, of course). Why not partner up with Apple for Apple Pay? Oh, maybe Apple doesn't want to expose as much data that PayPal wanted? And yet they pretend they want full access of the hardware on iPhone? Give me a break.
If these bozos cannot even offer a better solution on another platform that are more open, why do they suddenly want full access on another platform?
In reality, do these bozos actually deliver better solutions on other platform? Take Android, what payment system that are mostly used? Either Google Pay or Samsung Pay. PayPal actually partnered with Google instead of doing it on their own app (with the exchange of your user data, of course). Why not partner up with Apple for Apple Pay? Oh, maybe Apple doesn't want to expose as much data that PayPal wanted? And yet they pretend they want full access of the hardware on iPhone? Give me a break.
If these bozos cannot even offer a better solution on another platform that are more open, why do they suddenly want full access on another platform?
Apple’s privacy controls blew a big hole into all these companies big plans and they’re going to keep trying to find a way to get back at that data.
No they don’t. The sole fact that many companies do the same doesn’t make it right to do it.
Well, by that logic, the sole fact that many companies don’t give half of their profits to charity doesn’t give them the RIGHT not to give half of their profits to charity. I doubt the EU will be making any moves in this area, though.
There’s just so many circuitous inconsistencies in that way of thinking that doesn’t align with how the world works. It’s not even Anti-Apple at that point, it’s Anti-Reality.
“All these ways that the world works, even those that led to it being financially viable for someone to create and maintain a free ad-sponsored forum for me to post to… None of that should be. I want it all to end!”
“You do realize that pulling that thread could mean no more free ad-sponsored…”
“THAT’S THE PRICE I’M WILLING TO PAY!”
I think what you call convoluted thinking, then, I'd say is simply a recognition that the world usually doesn't easily lend itself to easy yes/no, right/wrong, black/white answers.
Personally I'd say we want more competition on any digital platform and I don't see a particularly good reason why gaming consoles, as you seem to suggest here, shouldn't support multiple stores for me to buy video games. After all, that's the status quo when it comes to the traditional distribution of games.
Maybe that will come later, or maybe this is simply not as pressing on a device most people buy for one (gaming) or two (limited media apps for their TVs) purposes. It doesn't have the same impact and maybe that's why regulators are more willing to let companies shift to a more controlled business model.
Something being financially viable is not the only thing to care about, though. To make the point with a very bad example, the people importing drugs from Latin America seem to have a very financially viable operation going on. I'm being facetious, of course, but I hope you know what I mean.
There's always trade offs and maybe no more free because as-supported forum would be a price worth paying for some other thing. What it might be we don't know since your example comes a bit out of left field there.
I think it's important to remember that no one is entitled to a specific business model. Things change. Sometimes because consumers change their habits and sometimes the broader environment, including regulation and legislation, changes for one reason or another. That's just life.
Because nothing tells a regulator that you are an upstanding member of the business community that doesn't need no antitrust investigation than the retaliatory exclusion of a competitor in response to an antitrust complaint from said competitor that the regulator appears to agree with.
Have we actually read or seen any consumer demand for this? So far the ones lobbying the government are the actors who don't have the consumer interest at heart. They just want access.
Heck, look at PayPal on Android, they don't bother making their own NFC payment system, they just piggybacked Google Pay with a deal for data sharing. So to me, looks like hardware access is not really the issue here.
I want more competition also, see sometimes we are aligned, but not from government mandates. That’s taking away a companies ip and giving it away.
I think you should put together a startup and show the world how it should be done. Should be easy peasy. Or maybe it’s easier to petition the government.
Except, in reality, it largely does. There are areas where it doesn’t but the broad strokes of business and commerce are fairly well spelled out in clear terms. If they weren’t, commerce couldn’t happen. Risks wouldn’t be taken. Rewards wouldn’t exist that would be worth taking the risks and an online bookseller wouldn’t become a cloud services provider making it affordable to host a web forum for folks to post that the world shouldn’t work in the way that makes these things possible.
Your employer is focused on financial viability. It is that viability that allows them to continue paying you. If you’re not working, then someone in your inner circle is concerned with ensuring they have the financial viability to ensure that you’re able to have the electronic device (made by a company that found it financially viable to produce), the electricity (provided by a company that found it financially viable to produce and distribute electricity)… etc. etc.
The things that you are against, companies having the ability to control and profit off the products/services they produce, is the very underpinning of things like this free forum. The first Apple II didn’t exist because they just thought it’d be cool to do it. It existed because they knew that in creating it, they would get to control how it’s marketed, what features it’d have, how it’s sold, how they’d profit from it. If the government proclaimed that ALL COMPUTERS MUST BE MONOCHROME and fined Apple for having a 16 color graphics mode, we wouldn’t have the Apple that exists today.
Again, the world that exists today depends on businesses understanding what’s required to take risks and profit from products/services they create. Without those compacts, there’s very few business that you currently profit from/buy products from/sell products to/acquire the services of that would exist.
Actually yes.
As a result of the pandemic there has been a significant increase in the use / want of no touch mobile pay systems. At this time it has limited availability on Android, GoOgle (Android) is designing a new type and Apple has Apple Pay / Wallet. Banks are pretty much stymied on the iOS side. Android side has been slowly expanding.
From what I understand, PayPal uses Google Pay for NFC however you can make PayPal the default. For iOS it is a bit more of a headache.
”
You cannot add PayPal to your Apple Pay as both applications are digital wallets, serving the same purpose, which is to make payments, send money and receive money. Hence, this means you can't add PayPal to your iPhone to make contactless Apple Pay payments.
”
I can see why PayPal is part of this. They have been on Android since 2017 and locked out of iOS.
Apple didn’t force other OEMs to not provide replaceable batteries.
PayPal doesn’t want to pay Apple any cut. The user data is also valuable of course. If these people were being honest, they should start by stating the obvious.
Maybe PayPal should target the much larger Android community. But that would take actual work.
Maybe you could take a look at what PayPal really wants and what it has been doing in the Android Space.
See Post #170 for a start.
Maybe PayPal doesn’t target the much, much larger Android community because they are lazy.