3 ms·

The banks are the ones that wear any fraud, all they're asking is to use the NFC to communicate. It's the equivalent of apple charging you to browse the web, a

by jamez1 10y ago

The banks are the ones that wear any fraud, all they're asking is to use the NFC to communicate. It's the equivalent of apple charging you to browse the web, and forcing you to use their browser in the name of 'security'! This is rent-seeking at it's finest.

sjwright 10y ago
Apple have technology that reduces fraud rates and they ask for a very tiny cut of the merchant fees in return. Fraud is an expensive element of the cost of handling credit transactions. That is not rent-seeking, it's payment for services rendered.
- darawk 10y ago
  It's rent-seeking because they are using their control of the phone to force out their competitors in an orthogonal market. They are providing a useful service, no question - but they should allow competition. If they are providing the best service, it won't matter anyway.
  - sjwright 10y ago
    You want rent-seeking? Look at the excessive merchant fees on credit transactions. It's nothing more than a shakedown on merchants so banks can bribe their customers with points and perks. Apple allow competition. It's called Android and it's available everywhere.
    - darawk 10y ago
      > You want rent-seeking? Look at the excessive merchant fees on credit transactions. It's nothing more than a shakedown on merchants so banks can bribe their customers with points and perks. I don't disagree, but what's your point? The fact that other, arguably worse rent-seeking exists does not change anything about the present circumstance. > Apple allow competition. It's called Android and it's available everywhere. Sure, that's true, and that's why anti-competitive laws have not been applied to behaviors like this on Apple's part. But you should recognize that if Android were to do something like this it would be illegal, because of their dominant position in the market place. This is exactly what Microsoft got stung on Antitrust for: Using dominance in one market to force out competitors in another. This behavior is objectively and unequivocally anti-competitive and, in general, bad for consumers. It circumscribes choice and it does so in a particularly pernicious way: by preventing the competitors from ever existing in the first place.
      - sjwright 10y ago
        Proportionality matters. Everything is rent-seeking with a broad enough definition.
    - jpgvm 10y ago
      Australia doesn't have the excessive merchant fees, the interchange fees in Australia are regulated under banking laws. This is a key part of the problem. The interchange fee is only between 0.5-1.5%. The banks already make very little on payments so there isn't much profit left to go around.
      - germanier 10y ago
        In the EU interchange is capped at 0.2%-0.3% and still UK banks (and now French banks) offer Apple Pay (they are said to have gotten a better deal by Apple than in other countries).

by jamez1 10y ago

sjwright 10y ago

Apple have technology that reduces fraud rates and they ask for a very tiny cut of the merchant fees in return. Fraud is an expensive element of the cost of handling credit transactions. That is not rent-seeking, it's payment for services rendered.

darawk 10y ago
It's rent-seeking because they are using their control of the phone to force out their competitors in an orthogonal market. They are providing a useful service, no question - but they should allow competition. If they are providing the best service, it won't matter anyway.
- sjwright 10y ago
  You want rent-seeking? Look at the excessive merchant fees on credit transactions. It's nothing more than a shakedown on merchants so banks can bribe their customers with points and perks. Apple allow competition. It's called Android and it's available everywhere.
  - darawk 10y ago
    > You want rent-seeking? Look at the excessive merchant fees on credit transactions. It's nothing more than a shakedown on merchants so banks can bribe their customers with points and perks. I don't disagree, but what's your point? The fact that other, arguably worse rent-seeking exists does not change anything about the present circumstance. > Apple allow competition. It's called Android and it's available everywhere. Sure, that's true, and that's why anti-competitive laws have not been applied to behaviors like this on Apple's part. But you should recognize that if Android were to do something like this it would be illegal, because of their dominant position in the market place. This is exactly what Microsoft got stung on Antitrust for: Using dominance in one market to force out competitors in another. This behavior is objectively and unequivocally anti-competitive and, in general, bad for consumers. It circumscribes choice and it does so in a particularly pernicious way: by preventing the competitors from ever existing in the first place.
    - sjwright 10y ago
      Proportionality matters. Everything is rent-seeking with a broad enough definition.
  - jpgvm 10y ago
    Australia doesn't have the excessive merchant fees, the interchange fees in Australia are regulated under banking laws. This is a key part of the problem. The interchange fee is only between 0.5-1.5%. The banks already make very little on payments so there isn't much profit left to go around.
    - germanier 10y ago
      In the EU interchange is capped at 0.2%-0.3% and still UK banks (and now French banks) offer Apple Pay (they are said to have gotten a better deal by Apple than in other countries).