12 ms·

Apple says Australia's banks pose a security threat to iPhones

85 points by rukuu001 10y ago

tomlock 10y ago
I'm an Aussie and use one of the big bank's apps on a s6 edge (the edge is weird and I hate it). Contactless payment already works great in exactly the way that a credit card does as a store terminal. Anyone know if Samsung gets a cut?
- smitec 10y ago
  Not sure which bank you are with but mine seems to have some exclusivity deal with samsung phones which it hides under the guise of 'other phones are not secure enough to do contactless payments'. Not a hard fact but it would also lead me to believe they get some sort of kick back.
  - viraptor 10y ago
    Samsung phones have a secure element, which means your NFC transactions happen a bit outside of the normal app's control. There's some extra information here: http://www.sequent.com/secure-elements-vs-cloud-based-hce-secure-nfc-mobile-payments/ http://www.sequent.com/secure-elements-vs-cloud-based-hce-se... It's true that they provide security, but then again, other banks are happy to use other techniques (commbank's app does nfc payments on pretty much anything with NFC - nexus 5 included)
wtbob 10y ago
> These banks want to maintain complete control over their customers. And Apple want to maintain complete control over their customers. No-one has clean hands in this. I trust that Apple's cage has much nicer gilding than the banks', but I'd rather not live in a cage at all, thank you very much.
- sjwright 10y ago
  iPhones aren't cages, they're serviced apartments. You pay a bit more and you don't get a choice on the decor, but you also don't have to vacuum the carpet, put out the trash, replace broken light bulbs, or lug heavy furniture around. Apple makes it abundantly clear that they're selling an integrated solution. Anyone who cares about this knows this. It's not strictly Apple's fault if people who want a different deal buy their product in error.
  - ocean3 10y ago
    Isn't every mobile the same?
- nostromo 10y ago
  That's a false equivalency. Apple being a closed platform is not an excuse to allow the banks to form a cartel. If you don't like Apple, you can use Android. But if every bank in Australia decides what you can and can't do with your phone when making payments, where will you go?
  - WaylonKenning 10y ago
    It's not every bank, you can use ANZ.
  - flukus 10y ago
    This isn't banks acting like cartels, it's banks defining industry standards.
  - xbmcuser 10y ago
    I don't think banks are blocking Apple pay. But are asking access to the NFC chip so they can have their own NFC apps. I think they are in the right in this.
    - zepto 10y ago
      No, because they don't know anything but about keeping a mobile platform safe from attack.
tetrep 10y ago
Why would user security be compromised by NFC access any more than WiFi access or Bluetooth access? Or does Apple not provide APIs at the same abstraction level for WiFi/Bluetooth that the banks are requesting for NFC?
- techdragon 10y ago
  Apple does not provide developers with access to the NFC hardware and they also do not provide direct access to Bluetooth either. Using these is limited to being able to make use of IOS services which make use of these hardware capabilities such as Apple Pay, Bluetooth audio outputs, etc...
  - drakenot 10y ago
    This is true of NFC but Bluetooth capabilities are much more open. I've personally used Core Bluetooth to connect and communicate with arbitrary devices and communicate over custom protocols.
    - techdragon 10y ago
      I was trying a little to hard to be succinct, I've also used CoreBluetooth, I was lumping it into an awfully generic group by categorising that as part of the "services" provided by iOS, but I was thinking from the point of view that all the things the iOS frameworks provide are the ones Apple has allowed them to provide on iOS. Effectively the framework is a way to access the limited set of allowed services, as opposed to direct hardware access. Otherwise we could do much more interesting things with Bluetooth such as implement new Bluetooth profiles and create things like apps where the iPhone functioned as a Bluetooth keyboard for another device.
      - 0x0 10y ago
        This iOS app appears to be able to advertise custom bluetooth profiles, though? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightblue-explorer-bluetooth/id557428110?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightblue-explorer-bluetooth...
darawk 10y ago
Apple couldn't really be more disingenuous here. This has nothing to do with user security and everything to do with squelching competition. Competition for them, not for the banks. The banks just want to compete and Apple doesn't want to let them. This is exactly why I do not own an iPhone.
- sjwright 10y ago
  Unless you know what the banks specifically want changed in the deal, you can't substantiate that assertion. Apple has undoubtedly put a lot of time and money into validating and auditing the security around Apple Pay. It's a solution that doesn't need to be modified for the Australian market: one major Aussie bank has fully adopted Apple Pay already. There's no way Apple are going to allow that effort to be trashed by a few banks in a small overseas market. (It's also highly probable that the banks want to be able to implement processes that bypass the consumer friendly aspects of Apple Pay, like its strong privacy controls.)
  - viraptor 10y ago
    > small overseas market That depends really. While Australia is a relatively small market, everyone here pays using paywave (contactless payments via credit/debit cards, 69% owned and 43% used in 2013!), and if a shop has a card terminal they support it. If it could be enabled on iPhones, they would get instant adoption by lots of people. I can't see any specific numbers to compare right now, but I'd be interested to see some contactless payment comparison between the US and Oz for 2015.
    - eon1 10y ago
      Why do you think people would use their iPhones over the cards they already use, though? That's going backwards in terms of efficiency for the user, and it's not like the majority of people care about security.
      - viraptor 10y ago
        Fewer things to carry. It may not work for everyone, but it's one very practical reason.
sjwright 10y ago
An important thing to realise about the Australian banking market is that we're already a world leader in the adoption of contactless payments using our credit cards. (And unlike the US, our floor limit is $100, which covers almost all transactions. When exceeded, most terminals just prompt for your PIN.) I'm sure Apple Pay is great, but with an entire continent already familiar with tapping their credit card, tapping a phone doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
- Alphasite_ 10y ago
  Honestly it's he same in most places but it's still convenient not to have to worry about your wallet.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    It really isn't the same. A May 2015 survey by RF Intelligence Group, called ‘Global Payments Evaluation Study’, based on 32,000 respondents in 16 countries found that 66 per cent of Australians are aware that they own a contactless payment card and 53 per cent have made a contactless transaction. By contrast, just 14 per cent of Americans own a contactless card and only 9 per cent have used one for a payment. http://www.bpaybanter.com.au/news-views/why-do-australians-lead-the-way-in-contactless-pay http://www.bpaybanter.com.au/news-views/why-do-australians-l...
    - dalore 10y ago
      Australia had EFTPOS which was a way of using your debit card to buy stuff, way before the VISA network really took off.
    - Alphasite_ 10y ago
      I don't live in the US, I mean in most developed economies contactless is fairly common place.
      - kuschku 10y ago
        Well, take Germany. Every store supports contactless, but MasterCard refuses to offer EC Cards with contactless, and wants to move customers to credit cards (which earn them far more profit – over 20 times the transaction fee). Oh, and we don’t get Android Pay either. As a result, the experience is horrible. And for every single bit US corporations are to blame.
ausvisaissues 10y ago
> Providing simple access to the NFC antenna by banking applications would fundamentally diminish the high level of security Apple aims to have on our devices. This is what I hate about Apple. I am fairly certain that the customers bought these devices -- so isn't it their customers' devices? Apple wants to sell iPhones, yet keep complete control over it. Simple things such as disabling updates is not possible -- because it is not in Apple's interest. They completely redefine what ownership means -- you "own" it, but Apple "controls" it.
- manicdee 10y ago
  That is not what "our devices" means, and you know it. You just hate Apple for ideological reasons, and reach (very hard) for reasons to support that ideology. Just remember what you said here next time a car company talks about "our cars".
- 7Z7 10y ago
  > Simple things such as disabling updates is not possible -- because it is not in Apple's interest. That seems disingenuous. Yes there is no explicit switch that prevents the user being informed about updates ever again, but there are no forced updates that I'm aware of. If you don't want to update, don't.
  - ausvisaissues 10y ago
    It is not possible to block downloads of updates or to switch of daily update reminders on new iOS devices. This is a well known problem: http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/04/stop-ios-software-update-notification/ http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/04/stop-ios-software-update-noti... The only option is to avoid Wifi or configure your wifi router to block Apple.
abalone 10y ago
Some context: Australia is different because they regulate interchange fees. Credit card interchange averages 0.5% / max 0.8% [1] whereas in the U.S. it's in the range of 1.4-2.4% + 5-10 cents.[2] So that's part of the reason banks are more aggressive with their negotiation. There's less of a pie to slice up. Some more context.. This is a game with 3 main actors: banks, merchants and consumers. Apple's strategy was a smart one vis-a-vis Bitcoin and other "low fee" efforts. While many payment startups have attempted to woo merchants to adopt them with the promise of a lower-fee system, Apple focused on wooing consumers and banks by fully supporting the current, higher-fee interchange system. Banks get their higher fees and consumers get their rewards. Merchants get some security benefits (not as vulnerable to data breaches), but they mainly face pressure from consumers to support it as an amenity. That's much more successful than something that's price-friendly to merchants but offers little advantage to consumers or banks. Problem is in Australia, thanks to regulation there is no "high fee" system to shore up for banks. So they are not as amenable to Apple Pay as in other countries. They want their own system in place so they can get the full 0.5% and, moreover, look for other ways to make money with it. [1] http://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-card-payments-regulation/q-and-a/card-payments-regulation-qa-conclusions-paper.html http://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-... [2] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-Interchange-Reimbursement-Fees-2015-April-18.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In...
- kalleboo 10y ago
  FWIW, the EU also caps interchange fees (0.3% for credit cards and to 0.2% for debit cards) but that doesn't seem to have stopped Apple Pay adoption in the UK.
  - abalone 10y ago
    That's a very good point. Some possible explanations (let me know what you think): 1) Banks have healthier competition in the EU? They wouldn't be able to form a cartel like they are trying in Australia. 2) Fraud liability is fully borne by the consumer in Europe, whereas Australian banks still have to refund customers? 3) It's a very new change (December), whereas Australian banks have lived with it for a decade or so. Personally I think #1 is sufficient to explain it.
jonhuber 10y ago
As an American living in Australia, you quickly see the lack of innovation on payments in the US. Contact-less payments have been prevalent since moving here in 2012. The ability to pay bills via a common protocol is so nice, BPAY. The ability to move money between people electronically without third parties is also refreshing, direct bank transfers. I have a Nexus 5 and use NFC payments via Google Pay and Bank Apps. In my opinion, they both are terrible from ease of use standpoint. Tapping my card on the terminal is far superior to opening an app and fumbling with it. As far as Apple is concerned, I think they are completely in the wrong in not letting other apps use NFC. Ideally, they win market share by creating the better experience. The banks getting together to negotiate terms is ridiculous too. In my opinion, an ideal outcome would be open NFC use on Apple devices. The better experience wins. I do not think collectively negotiating terms does anything for the consumer.
- mcv 10y ago
  And Apple is trying to simultaneously compete with the banks and with Android. If the banks get a superior experience on Android, Apple has a problem.
- dpark 10y ago
  > Ideally, they win market share by creating the better experience. Right now Apple can't provide the better experience, because the banks in question will not support their system. The banks don't want to support Apple Pay, so Apple opening up NFC would just shift the balance of power entirely in favor of the banks.
  - Veratyr 10y ago
    My impression is that the banks want the access to be bidirectional. If they give access to Apple Pay, Apple should give them access to the NFC module. That seems fair to me. Apple should have to compete instead of monopolising its platform.
    - dpark 10y ago
      If that's what the banks want, it's not unreasonable. I'm not sure I agree that Apple shouldn't be able to monopolize its platform, though. If Apple had a true monopoly, sure, but they don't. They have at this point the minority of smartphones. I similarly don't think Ford is obligated to support Android Auto or Apple Play.
tomelders 10y ago
I think banking is a logical sector for tech firms to move into. Apple, Google, Amazon. They build platforms, and they enhance those platforms with services that they charge for. Day to day banking is the sort of service that would really enhance their platforms, and would also have a massive side benefit of cutting out a notoriously difficult middle man that no one really likes anyway. Take Apple as a thought experiment. The banks have already seeded Apple's hypothetical bank will all of their customers via Apple pay. Here in the UK, I can change bank account at the push of a button and everything is taken care of for me in just a couple of days. That's the law and there's nothing the banks can do to stop me. If Apple one day gave me a "Would you like to move your bank account to Apple" button, I'd press it in a flash, and feel a great sense of pleasure as I stuck it to the established British banks. With Apple's huge stock piles of cash, I think a takeover of an existing bank would not be unfeasible. In addition, should tech firms start setting up or buying existing banks, there's plenty of legislation in place to ensure they play fair with each other. It's pie in the sky thinking, but interesting to think about none the less.
- peyton 10y ago
  Interesting idea. I'm curious what the regulatory landscape is like. Is it feasible to run a bank off of a giant multinational tech company? I remember back in the day Apple needed to charge for iPod Touch software updates for some sort of accounting purpose.
  - tomelders 10y ago
    I wasnt suggesting they offer those services for free. If they were to consider this, I imagine buying an existing bank would be the first thing they would look at. There are a number of banks out there that very few people have heared of. It wouldn't have to be a Barclays or a HSBC, just someone with a banking license or the opportunity to acquire one in the relevant territories. Also, the Financial Conduct Authority here has a strong appetite for being progressive and trying out new ideas. Other countries also take a lead from what the FCA says is OK or not.
  - kuschku 10y ago
sien 10y ago
It's worth noting that Android Pay has launched with 28 banks in Australia. http://www.news.com.au/technology/google-launches-android-pay-in-australia-with-more-banks-than-apple-or-samsung/news-story/b717e8bc8cd651998920c34ffc1b926d http://www.news.com.au/technology/google-launches-android-pa... It's also worth noting that Australia has 4 big banks that have over 80% of the Australian market. With 28 the proportion of the market covered is even higher. Google were clearly prepared to make deals that Apple are not.
forgottenpass 10y ago
Confounding security and business policies is setting a bad precedent for the security of anyone that isn't able to throw their weight around in negotiations as well as Apple can.
- zepto 10y ago
  They aren't.

85 points by rukuu001 10y ago

I'm an Aussie and use one of the big bank's apps on a s6 edge (the edge is weird and I hate it). Contactless payment already works great in exactly the way that a credit card does as a store terminal. Anyone know if Samsung gets a cut?

smitec 10y ago
Not sure which bank you are with but mine seems to have some exclusivity deal with samsung phones which it hides under the guise of 'other phones are not secure enough to do contactless payments'. Not a hard fact but it would also lead me to believe they get some sort of kick back.
- viraptor 10y ago
  Samsung phones have a secure element, which means your NFC transactions happen a bit outside of the normal app's control. There's some extra information here: http://www.sequent.com/secure-elements-vs-cloud-based-hce-secure-nfc-mobile-payments/ http://www.sequent.com/secure-elements-vs-cloud-based-hce-se... It's true that they provide security, but then again, other banks are happy to use other techniques (commbank's app does nfc payments on pretty much anything with NFC - nexus 5 included)

wtbob 10y ago

> These banks want to maintain complete control over their customers. And Apple want to maintain complete control over their customers. No-one has clean hands in this. I trust that Apple's cage has much nicer gilding than the banks', but I'd rather not live in a cage at all, thank you very much.

sjwright 10y ago
iPhones aren't cages, they're serviced apartments. You pay a bit more and you don't get a choice on the decor, but you also don't have to vacuum the carpet, put out the trash, replace broken light bulbs, or lug heavy furniture around. Apple makes it abundantly clear that they're selling an integrated solution. Anyone who cares about this knows this. It's not strictly Apple's fault if people who want a different deal buy their product in error.
- ocean3 10y ago
  Isn't every mobile the same?
nostromo 10y ago
That's a false equivalency. Apple being a closed platform is not an excuse to allow the banks to form a cartel. If you don't like Apple, you can use Android. But if every bank in Australia decides what you can and can't do with your phone when making payments, where will you go?
- WaylonKenning 10y ago
  It's not every bank, you can use ANZ.
- flukus 10y ago
  This isn't banks acting like cartels, it's banks defining industry standards.
- xbmcuser 10y ago
  I don't think banks are blocking Apple pay. But are asking access to the NFC chip so they can have their own NFC apps. I think they are in the right in this.
  - zepto 10y ago
    No, because they don't know anything but about keeping a mobile platform safe from attack.

tetrep 10y ago

Why would user security be compromised by NFC access any more than WiFi access or Bluetooth access? Or does Apple not provide APIs at the same abstraction level for WiFi/Bluetooth that the banks are requesting for NFC?

techdragon 10y ago
Apple does not provide developers with access to the NFC hardware and they also do not provide direct access to Bluetooth either. Using these is limited to being able to make use of IOS services which make use of these hardware capabilities such as Apple Pay, Bluetooth audio outputs, etc...
- drakenot 10y ago
  This is true of NFC but Bluetooth capabilities are much more open. I've personally used Core Bluetooth to connect and communicate with arbitrary devices and communicate over custom protocols.
  - techdragon 10y ago
    I was trying a little to hard to be succinct, I've also used CoreBluetooth, I was lumping it into an awfully generic group by categorising that as part of the "services" provided by iOS, but I was thinking from the point of view that all the things the iOS frameworks provide are the ones Apple has allowed them to provide on iOS. Effectively the framework is a way to access the limited set of allowed services, as opposed to direct hardware access. Otherwise we could do much more interesting things with Bluetooth such as implement new Bluetooth profiles and create things like apps where the iPhone functioned as a Bluetooth keyboard for another device.
    - 0x0 10y ago
      This iOS app appears to be able to advertise custom bluetooth profiles, though? https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightblue-explorer-bluetooth/id557428110?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/lightblue-explorer-bluetooth...

darawk 10y ago

Apple couldn't really be more disingenuous here. This has nothing to do with user security and everything to do with squelching competition. Competition for them, not for the banks. The banks just want to compete and Apple doesn't want to let them. This is exactly why I do not own an iPhone.

sjwright 10y ago
Unless you know what the banks specifically want changed in the deal, you can't substantiate that assertion. Apple has undoubtedly put a lot of time and money into validating and auditing the security around Apple Pay. It's a solution that doesn't need to be modified for the Australian market: one major Aussie bank has fully adopted Apple Pay already. There's no way Apple are going to allow that effort to be trashed by a few banks in a small overseas market. (It's also highly probable that the banks want to be able to implement processes that bypass the consumer friendly aspects of Apple Pay, like its strong privacy controls.)
- viraptor 10y ago
  > small overseas market That depends really. While Australia is a relatively small market, everyone here pays using paywave (contactless payments via credit/debit cards, 69% owned and 43% used in 2013!), and if a shop has a card terminal they support it. If it could be enabled on iPhones, they would get instant adoption by lots of people. I can't see any specific numbers to compare right now, but I'd be interested to see some contactless payment comparison between the US and Oz for 2015.
  - eon1 10y ago
    Why do you think people would use their iPhones over the cards they already use, though? That's going backwards in terms of efficiency for the user, and it's not like the majority of people care about security.
    - viraptor 10y ago
      Fewer things to carry. It may not work for everyone, but it's one very practical reason.

sjwright 10y ago

An important thing to realise about the Australian banking market is that we're already a world leader in the adoption of contactless payments using our credit cards. (And unlike the US, our floor limit is $100, which covers almost all transactions. When exceeded, most terminals just prompt for your PIN.) I'm sure Apple Pay is great, but with an entire continent already familiar with tapping their credit card, tapping a phone doesn't seem like much of an improvement.

Alphasite_ 10y ago
Honestly it's he same in most places but it's still convenient not to have to worry about your wallet.
- sjwright 10y ago
  It really isn't the same. A May 2015 survey by RF Intelligence Group, called ‘Global Payments Evaluation Study’, based on 32,000 respondents in 16 countries found that 66 per cent of Australians are aware that they own a contactless payment card and 53 per cent have made a contactless transaction. By contrast, just 14 per cent of Americans own a contactless card and only 9 per cent have used one for a payment. http://www.bpaybanter.com.au/news-views/why-do-australians-lead-the-way-in-contactless-pay http://www.bpaybanter.com.au/news-views/why-do-australians-l...
  - dalore 10y ago
    Australia had EFTPOS which was a way of using your debit card to buy stuff, way before the VISA network really took off.
  - Alphasite_ 10y ago
    I don't live in the US, I mean in most developed economies contactless is fairly common place.
    - kuschku 10y ago
      Well, take Germany. Every store supports contactless, but MasterCard refuses to offer EC Cards with contactless, and wants to move customers to credit cards (which earn them far more profit – over 20 times the transaction fee). Oh, and we don’t get Android Pay either. As a result, the experience is horrible. And for every single bit US corporations are to blame.

ausvisaissues 10y ago

> Providing simple access to the NFC antenna by banking applications would fundamentally diminish the high level of security Apple aims to have on our devices. This is what I hate about Apple. I am fairly certain that the customers bought these devices -- so isn't it their customers' devices? Apple wants to sell iPhones, yet keep complete control over it. Simple things such as disabling updates is not possible -- because it is not in Apple's interest. They completely redefine what ownership means -- you "own" it, but Apple "controls" it.

manicdee 10y ago
That is not what "our devices" means, and you know it. You just hate Apple for ideological reasons, and reach (very hard) for reasons to support that ideology. Just remember what you said here next time a car company talks about "our cars".
7Z7 10y ago
> Simple things such as disabling updates is not possible -- because it is not in Apple's interest. That seems disingenuous. Yes there is no explicit switch that prevents the user being informed about updates ever again, but there are no forced updates that I'm aware of. If you don't want to update, don't.
- ausvisaissues 10y ago
  It is not possible to block downloads of updates or to switch of daily update reminders on new iOS devices. This is a well known problem: http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/04/stop-ios-software-update-notification/ http://osxdaily.com/2016/01/04/stop-ios-software-update-noti... The only option is to avoid Wifi or configure your wifi router to block Apple.

abalone 10y ago

Some context: Australia is different because they regulate interchange fees. Credit card interchange averages 0.5% / max 0.8% [1] whereas in the U.S. it's in the range of 1.4-2.4% + 5-10 cents.[2] So that's part of the reason banks are more aggressive with their negotiation. There's less of a pie to slice up. Some more context.. This is a game with 3 main actors: banks, merchants and consumers. Apple's strategy was a smart one vis-a-vis Bitcoin and other "low fee" efforts. While many payment startups have attempted to woo merchants to adopt them with the promise of a lower-fee system, Apple focused on wooing consumers and banks by fully supporting the current, higher-fee interchange system. Banks get their higher fees and consumers get their rewards. Merchants get some security benefits (not as vulnerable to data breaches), but they mainly face pressure from consumers to support it as an amenity. That's much more successful than something that's price-friendly to merchants but offers little advantage to consumers or banks. Problem is in Australia, thanks to regulation there is no "high fee" system to shore up for banks. So they are not as amenable to Apple Pay as in other countries. They want their own system in place so they can get the full 0.5% and, moreover, look for other ways to make money with it. [1] http://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-card-payments-regulation/q-and-a/card-payments-regulation-qa-conclusions-paper.html http://www.rba.gov.au/payments-and-infrastructure/review-of-... [2] https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-Interchange-Reimbursement-Fees-2015-April-18.pdf https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/merchants/Visa-USA-In...

kalleboo 10y ago
FWIW, the EU also caps interchange fees (0.3% for credit cards and to 0.2% for debit cards) but that doesn't seem to have stopped Apple Pay adoption in the UK.
- abalone 10y ago
  That's a very good point. Some possible explanations (let me know what you think): 1) Banks have healthier competition in the EU? They wouldn't be able to form a cartel like they are trying in Australia. 2) Fraud liability is fully borne by the consumer in Europe, whereas Australian banks still have to refund customers? 3) It's a very new change (December), whereas Australian banks have lived with it for a decade or so. Personally I think #1 is sufficient to explain it.

jonhuber 10y ago

As an American living in Australia, you quickly see the lack of innovation on payments in the US. Contact-less payments have been prevalent since moving here in 2012. The ability to pay bills via a common protocol is so nice, BPAY. The ability to move money between people electronically without third parties is also refreshing, direct bank transfers. I have a Nexus 5 and use NFC payments via Google Pay and Bank Apps. In my opinion, they both are terrible from ease of use standpoint. Tapping my card on the terminal is far superior to opening an app and fumbling with it. As far as Apple is concerned, I think they are completely in the wrong in not letting other apps use NFC. Ideally, they win market share by creating the better experience. The banks getting together to negotiate terms is ridiculous too. In my opinion, an ideal outcome would be open NFC use on Apple devices. The better experience wins. I do not think collectively negotiating terms does anything for the consumer.

mcv 10y ago
And Apple is trying to simultaneously compete with the banks and with Android. If the banks get a superior experience on Android, Apple has a problem.
dpark 10y ago
> Ideally, they win market share by creating the better experience. Right now Apple can't provide the better experience, because the banks in question will not support their system. The banks don't want to support Apple Pay, so Apple opening up NFC would just shift the balance of power entirely in favor of the banks.
- Veratyr 10y ago
  My impression is that the banks want the access to be bidirectional. If they give access to Apple Pay, Apple should give them access to the NFC module. That seems fair to me. Apple should have to compete instead of monopolising its platform.
  - dpark 10y ago
    If that's what the banks want, it's not unreasonable. I'm not sure I agree that Apple shouldn't be able to monopolize its platform, though. If Apple had a true monopoly, sure, but they don't. They have at this point the minority of smartphones. I similarly don't think Ford is obligated to support Android Auto or Apple Play.

tomelders 10y ago

I think banking is a logical sector for tech firms to move into. Apple, Google, Amazon. They build platforms, and they enhance those platforms with services that they charge for. Day to day banking is the sort of service that would really enhance their platforms, and would also have a massive side benefit of cutting out a notoriously difficult middle man that no one really likes anyway. Take Apple as a thought experiment. The banks have already seeded Apple's hypothetical bank will all of their customers via Apple pay. Here in the UK, I can change bank account at the push of a button and everything is taken care of for me in just a couple of days. That's the law and there's nothing the banks can do to stop me. If Apple one day gave me a "Would you like to move your bank account to Apple" button, I'd press it in a flash, and feel a great sense of pleasure as I stuck it to the established British banks. With Apple's huge stock piles of cash, I think a takeover of an existing bank would not be unfeasible. In addition, should tech firms start setting up or buying existing banks, there's plenty of legislation in place to ensure they play fair with each other. It's pie in the sky thinking, but interesting to think about none the less.

peyton 10y ago
Interesting idea. I'm curious what the regulatory landscape is like. Is it feasible to run a bank off of a giant multinational tech company? I remember back in the day Apple needed to charge for iPod Touch software updates for some sort of accounting purpose.
- tomelders 10y ago
  I wasnt suggesting they offer those services for free. If they were to consider this, I imagine buying an existing bank would be the first thing they would look at. There are a number of banks out there that very few people have heared of. It wouldn't have to be a Barclays or a HSBC, just someone with a banking license or the opportunity to acquire one in the relevant territories. Also, the Financial Conduct Authority here has a strong appetite for being progressive and trying out new ideas. Other countries also take a lead from what the FCA says is OK or not.
- kuschku 10y ago

sien 10y ago

It's worth noting that Android Pay has launched with 28 banks in Australia. http://www.news.com.au/technology/google-launches-android-pay-in-australia-with-more-banks-than-apple-or-samsung/news-story/b717e8bc8cd651998920c34ffc1b926d http://www.news.com.au/technology/google-launches-android-pa... It's also worth noting that Australia has 4 big banks that have over 80% of the Australian market. With 28 the proportion of the market covered is even higher. Google were clearly prepared to make deals that Apple are not.

forgottenpass 10y ago

Confounding security and business policies is setting a bad precedent for the security of anyone that isn't able to throw their weight around in negotiations as well as Apple can.

zepto 10y ago
They aren't.