Comment by padthai
2 years ago
They get 0.15% of the transaction from the card issuer. And they do not allow card issuers to use the hardware on their own.
2 years ago
They get 0.15% of the transaction from the card issuer. And they do not allow card issuers to use the hardware on their own.
That seems...fair to me? Apple makes a phone a lot of people want to buy, and adds NFC to it to enable mobile payment, and they provide security guarantees for the end user and the card issuer alike. I don't know why they should be obligated to provide this functionality to the card issuers for free.
Sure, but on my Android smartphone, my bank still has the ability to implement their own payment solution using NFC directly using their app, which is something they did and offer as an alternative next to Google Pay. It even has certain advantages, such as allowing one to unlock a banks doors outside regular hours to access the self-service area for things that are beyond regular ATMs, something that currently does not work with Google or Apple Pay.
On iOS, my bank does not get to offer that ability, and I do not get that choice. If I owned an iPhone and wanted to do something like deposit some cash, pickup or ship a package via the postal service (as our postal service has the same security measures) outside business hours without a physical credit or debit card, I'd be out of luck, because of Apple's restrictive nature.
Having talked to a few of my friends and family, a lot of Apple Pay users are surprised and/or unaware that this is even an option they could have, and I am certain that at some point, Apple will implement something similar, whereupon Google Pay will also enable such functionality, cause the industry does follow Apple to a large extent when it comes to what is considered the minimum of neceessary features one has to offer.
But until then, I see this as restricting innovation, similar to how AT&T prevented a lot of developments, and we got the internet in its current state in part thanks to antitrust action against them, which they promised, we'd regret in a similar manner to Apple today.
Is there any upside to consumers to this restriction?
36 replies →
While I would love to see a more open iphone NFC chip (primarily for identification/access control system integration), I shudder to think of bank implementations of contactless payments. Bank apps I’ve used have been “meh” at best, usually bad (and filled with ads!!) and don’t even support modern secure authentication (totp/webauthn). I’d like to see them fix their core technology before trying to figure out a way to sell me a loan using mobile payments.
> It even has certain advantages, such as allowing one to unlock a banks doors outside regular hours to access the self-service area for things that are beyond regular ATMs, something that currently does not work with Google or Apple Pay.
Have you tried it? I’ve been able to open Chase bank ATM lobbies using the NFC Jimmy John’s loyalty card in my Apple Wallet (along with every brand of payment card I have in there). This “security” appears to be primarily to keep unbanked (read: homeless) people out.
1 reply →
You could also frame it as they sold you an NFC capable phone and not really providing NFC functionality, which doesn't seem fair or at least deceptive.
Because apple sold the phones. It's not their phones anymore. It's the consumers' phones.
Because I bought my phone and should be able to use it how I like.
(Thank you for the reply by the way, I didn't know that about the 0.15%!)
Visa and Mastercard both charge a fee for operating a payment network. Apple does as well.
Nobody cares about them operating payment network. They care about them blocking other companies to do so.