3 ms·

1. Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept. Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn

1. Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept. Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either either choose from the payment options the seller does accept, or shop elsewhere. Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. Buyers are not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere, just as they are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a particular credit card everywhere. 3. I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the e-book gets added to their collection. If Amazon already has the buyer's payment information from a previous purchase, directly purchasing the e-book through Amazon would be strictly more private than purchasing it with Apple overseeing the transaction. Every purchase is a different situation, and in some situations, using Apple as an intermediary is worse for privacy than directly purchasing through the vendor. Not everyone prefers having Apple monitor all of their transactions.

threatofrain 5y ago
> Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept. Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either either choose from the payment options the seller does accept, or shop elsewhere. This is precisely my point. Walmart's way or the highway. After all, the free market is a land of the negotiation of weight, and you don't weigh very much. > Buyers are not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere, just as they are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a particular credit card everywhere. In the free market, you aren't entitled to anything you can't negotiate. Apple can do this for you. Apple has enough weight with the collection of customers behind them. > I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the e-book gets added to their collection. A company doesn't have to know your financial data to know that you paid for a digital good. I am talking about Target, except Target is just an example of a company that already had a financial leak scandal. I also talked about Amazon, since there's enough room to talk about more than one company. My response was that you forked over your credit card information because Amazon had that power. As you say, you're not entitled to choose the terms of your relationship with Amazon. Your choices were only Amazon or... not Amazon. I mean, not unless you can negotiate with Amazon. And then you have to do this for PopEyes and Target too, all while contemplating your entitlements as a customer. So I ask again, where is the consumer choice to have Apple intermediate relationships on your behalf?
- commoner 5y ago
  Some banks and other services such as Privacy.com offer disposable credit card numbers to conceal your payment identity. These services work very well. You can ask Apple to offer this service, if you want Apple to intermediate for you. But as long as Apple does not offer a such a service, it is not the seller's obligation to cater to a buyer's preference to use Apple to pay for everything. An Apple user has no right to compel a developer to transact with Apple on unfavorable terms, and is therefore not entitled to the "choice" that you are describing. The Dutch antitrust regulator has determined that Apple is not allowed to force developers to exclusively use Apple's payment system. There is no antitrust principle that compels developers to offer Apple Pay or any specific payment option. But as I said before: > Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. If that's not an option for Apple, then the burden is on Apple to offer a competitive payment processing solution to be accepted by both developers and users.
  - threatofrain 5y ago
    > An Apple user has no right to compel a developer to transact with Apple on unfavorable terms, and is therefore not entitled to the "choice" that you are describing. I am not talking about a customer's right to compel a developer to choose private and safe methods for payment. I am talking about leverage in a free marketplace. It's not that you don't have the right... you don't even have the weight as an individual customer to step into a negotiating room for a conversation. Apple does. I am also far more sympathetic to consumer protection than whether companies should be able to choose Stripe or manage your financial information for their business benefit. This is the "unfavorable terms" you're talking about. > Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. If this is the case then the conversation will be moot. But this is speculative, so I am arguing for the other side of your forward-looking statement.
    - commoner 5y ago

threatofrain 5y ago

> Sellers get to choose the payment methods they accept. Some sellers don't take cash, some don't take PayPal, and some don't take Apple Pay. If a seller doesn't offer the buyer's preferred payment option, the buyer can either either choose from the payment options the seller does accept, or shop elsewhere. This is precisely my point. Walmart's way or the highway. After all, the free market is a land of the negotiation of weight, and you don't weigh very much. > Buyers are not entitled to use Apple Pay everywhere, just as they are not entitled to use cash, PayPal, or a particular credit card everywhere. In the free market, you aren't entitled to anything you can't negotiate. Apple can do this for you. Apple has enough weight with the collection of customers behind them. > I'm not talking about Target, I'm talking about an e-book purchase on Amazon that gets added to the purchaser's Kindle collection. Amazon must know that the user purchased the e-book, since that is the only way the e-book gets added to their collection. A company doesn't have to know your financial data to know that you paid for a digital good. I am talking about Target, except Target is just an example of a company that already had a financial leak scandal. I also talked about Amazon, since there's enough room to talk about more than one company. My response was that you forked over your credit card information because Amazon had that power. As you say, you're not entitled to choose the terms of your relationship with Amazon. Your choices were only Amazon or... not Amazon. I mean, not unless you can negotiate with Amazon. And then you have to do this for PopEyes and Target too, all while contemplating your entitlements as a customer. So I ask again, where is the consumer choice to have Apple intermediate relationships on your behalf?

commoner 5y ago
Some banks and other services such as Privacy.com offer disposable credit card numbers to conceal your payment identity. These services work very well. You can ask Apple to offer this service, if you want Apple to intermediate for you. But as long as Apple does not offer a such a service, it is not the seller's obligation to cater to a buyer's preference to use Apple to pay for everything. An Apple user has no right to compel a developer to transact with Apple on unfavorable terms, and is therefore not entitled to the "choice" that you are describing. The Dutch antitrust regulator has determined that Apple is not allowed to force developers to exclusively use Apple's payment system. There is no antitrust principle that compels developers to offer Apple Pay or any specific payment option. But as I said before: > Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. If that's not an option for Apple, then the burden is on Apple to offer a competitive payment processing solution to be accepted by both developers and users.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  > An Apple user has no right to compel a developer to transact with Apple on unfavorable terms, and is therefore not entitled to the "choice" that you are describing. I am not talking about a customer's right to compel a developer to choose private and safe methods for payment. I am talking about leverage in a free marketplace. It's not that you don't have the right... you don't even have the weight as an individual customer to step into a negotiating room for a conversation. Apple does. I am also far more sympathetic to consumer protection than whether companies should be able to choose Stripe or manage your financial information for their business benefit. This is the "unfavorable terms" you're talking about. > Depending on how the antitrust situation is resolved, Apple may be able to require developers to offer Apple Pay, yet still allow developers to offer other payment options alongside it. If this is the case then the conversation will be moot. But this is speculative, so I am arguing for the other side of your forward-looking statement.
  - commoner 5y ago