5 ms·
Add a "for the children" angle and you're ready for congress. Edit: As far as baseless speculation goes, I suspect it has nothing to do with legal liability an
by smokeyj 13y ago
Add a "for the children" angle and you're ready for congress.
Edit: As far as baseless speculation goes, I suspect it has nothing to do with legal liability and Apple being in a better position to release a Square killer at the OS level.
- ceejayoz 13y agoAnd yet, Square Cash was recently approved.
- outside1234 13y agothis bitcoin app was approved previously too
- ceejayoz 13y agoThis Bitcoin app was approved long before the recent spike in public/media/government interest in cryptocurrencies, and new ones are being consistently rejected.
- alaskamiller 13y agoApple will buy Square this year.
- MBCook 13y agoWhat makes you say that? That seems pretty far outside Apple's domain, running payments for physical merchants.
- alaskamiller 13y ago- Scuttlebutt is that Square staff are prepping for an acquisition - Jack Dorsey just sold back some of his own stock to employees - Apple loves Jack Dorsey - iOS platform can benefit from a mobile money processor
- sandipc 13y ago"a mobile money processor" -- like iTunes/App Store?
- alaskamiller 13y agoiStore = wallet (potential intent) Square = card (actual transaction)
- madeofpalk 13y agoThey actually already do this with their retail stores: You can scan products with the Apple Store App and pay for it using your Apple ID and its charged to your credit card on file.
- zimpenfish 13y agoThis is brilliant when you're at a mega-busy Apple store on a Saturday afternoon and all you want is a Lightning cable adapter. Pick, scan, pay, show the nice man on the way out, PROFIT.
- MBCook 13y agoOK, but I still don't see a compelling business reason that having a payment processor would be good for Apple. They can already process payments, how does helping Barbara at the flea market of Little Jim's Cafe process credit cards help their core businesses? That sounds more like the "Apple should own everything" school of thought. More like what Google or (old) Microsoft does. It doesn't sound Apple-y.
- zimpenfish 13y agoThe price would be too high - Apple has never paid more than a few hundred million for any acquisition[1] and Square are reputed to be north of $4B[2]. [1] http://www.tuaw.com/2014/01/14/why-apple-didnt-buy-nest/ http://www.tuaw.com/2014/01/14/why-apple-didnt-buy-nest/ [2] http://www.thestreet.com/story/12099901/1/square-could-be-worth-45b.html http://www.thestreet.com/story/12099901/1/square-could-be-wo...
- eridius 13y agoYour baseless speculation can be disproven extremely simply, and that is by pointing out that Apple would never broadcast a move (such as entering the payment market) by squashing competition, until they're actually ready to announce. Since they're not announcing anything, it's pretty obvious that this is not motivated by squashing competition for anything.
- chongli 13y agoThe App Store exists for the benefit of one organization: Apple. Whether users or developers benefit from it entirely depends on how their goals align with the goals of Apple. It is a very real and stark example of the principal-agent problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal-agent_problem