4 ms·

Given the anti-competitive nature of this move, combined with the massive market power of those involved, I think the DOJ might take some action here. "Let's b

Given the anti-competitive nature of this move, combined with the massive market power of those involved, I think the DOJ might take some action here. "Let's band together to crush our competitors and ensure the success of our own product" is generally illegal under US law. As a consumer, this is actually pretty upsetting, and I would be in favor of legal action. This doesn't just affect Apple Pay - it affects all contactless payments. I quite often use(d) my contactless debit card at CVS. All of this to promote a payment system that literally has a 0% chance of success. As noted in the parent comment, given the history of major retailer data breaches, no one in their right mind is giving these people their checking account information. It's just not going to happen.

atmosx 12y ago
> All of this to promote a payment system that literally has a 0% chance of success. I don't think so. If retailers choose to not support a system then the system itself is kinda doom because this system was made for retailers. The current payment systems are becoming obsolete at a fast pace (faster than I thought anyway). Cryptocurrencies, large chains of retailers rolling up their own payment system, etc. Just a small comment on security: Most banks suffer serious hacks that you and I never know about it, for obvious reasons. So don't be so sure that banking systems are more secure than retailers.
- downandout 12y ago
  >I don't think so. If retailers choose to not support a system then the system itself is kinda doom because this system was made for retailers. I disagree. I think people will just wind up using their standard cards if given no alternatives that are viewed as safe by most people. >Most banks suffer serious hacks that you and I never know about it, for obvious reasons. So don't be so sure that banking systems are more secure than retailers. True, but regardless, the banks have won the PR war here. For consumer products, that's really all that matters. When it comes to widespread consumer trust, perception is reality.
sbierwagen 12y ago
If the DOJ gave a damn about monopolies, you'd figure they would have broken up the credit card cartel, or Apple itself
- MBCook 12y ago
  > credit card cartel Europay, MasterCard, and Visa? What about Discover, Diner's Club, or AmEx? > or Apple itself Is this supposed to be the app store, OS X, or the old iPod argument?
comex 12y ago
Anticompetitive goes both ways, though. Currently, on iOS, there is no NFC API at all; you might be able to accomplish something similar with iBeacon, but you can't replicate Apple Pay's single-touch flow (AFAIK, you'd have to swipe the notification, fingerprint to unlock, and then fingerprint again to confirm payment once the app had launched). Now, Apple is not a monopoly, and admittedly this is all brand new - opening up the secure element would be an implementation challenge, and it's possible that a new extension point will be added for lockscreen NFC handling in a future version, although not adding it would be nothing out of the ordinary for Apple. But the net result, for the time being, is that the retailers' payment system looks essentially doomed from the outset, since it can't compete with Apple's system on Apple devices.
- downandout 12y ago
  Working by itself, Apple isn't being anti-competitive under US law. Anyone can be as exclusionary as they like on their own. Several of the largest retailers in the country working together to specifically block Apple Pay (and all other contactless payments), in favor of their own payment solution, is clearly anti-competitive behavior under US law.
  - comex 12y ago
    True. I'm just saying that in a looser ordinary language sense of "anticompetitive", Apple by itself probably brings an amount of market share to bear comparable to these companies together - at least out of all US retailers supporting smartphone payments.
    - MBCook 12y ago
      > I'm just saying that in a looser ordinary language sense of "anticompetitive" I don't think that's a normal definition. "Today Hoover released their new anti-competitive vacuum". Why is it anti-competitive? "They didn't create a network of 3rd party bag manufacturers on day one." If they were going out of their way to prevent it (such as when Keurig or the printer companies added DRM to stop clones) that's one thing. Apple doesn't let you choose a different keyboard manufacturer when you buy a MacBook either. Is that anti-competitive? Amazon's Kindle cases don't work with Nook tablets. Is that anti-competitive? I think you're reaching here.

atmosx 12y ago

> All of this to promote a payment system that literally has a 0% chance of success. I don't think so. If retailers choose to not support a system then the system itself is kinda doom because this system was made for retailers. The current payment systems are becoming obsolete at a fast pace (faster than I thought anyway). Cryptocurrencies, large chains of retailers rolling up their own payment system, etc. Just a small comment on security: Most banks suffer serious hacks that you and I never know about it, for obvious reasons. So don't be so sure that banking systems are more secure than retailers.

downandout 12y ago
>I don't think so. If retailers choose to not support a system then the system itself is kinda doom because this system was made for retailers. I disagree. I think people will just wind up using their standard cards if given no alternatives that are viewed as safe by most people. >Most banks suffer serious hacks that you and I never know about it, for obvious reasons. So don't be so sure that banking systems are more secure than retailers. True, but regardless, the banks have won the PR war here. For consumer products, that's really all that matters. When it comes to widespread consumer trust, perception is reality.

sbierwagen 12y ago

If the DOJ gave a damn about monopolies, you'd figure they would have broken up the credit card cartel, or Apple itself

MBCook 12y ago
> credit card cartel Europay, MasterCard, and Visa? What about Discover, Diner's Club, or AmEx? > or Apple itself Is this supposed to be the app store, OS X, or the old iPod argument?

comex 12y ago

Anticompetitive goes both ways, though. Currently, on iOS, there is no NFC API at all; you might be able to accomplish something similar with iBeacon, but you can't replicate Apple Pay's single-touch flow (AFAIK, you'd have to swipe the notification, fingerprint to unlock, and then fingerprint again to confirm payment once the app had launched). Now, Apple is not a monopoly, and admittedly this is all brand new - opening up the secure element would be an implementation challenge, and it's possible that a new extension point will be added for lockscreen NFC handling in a future version, although not adding it would be nothing out of the ordinary for Apple. But the net result, for the time being, is that the retailers' payment system looks essentially doomed from the outset, since it can't compete with Apple's system on Apple devices.

downandout 12y ago
Working by itself, Apple isn't being anti-competitive under US law. Anyone can be as exclusionary as they like on their own. Several of the largest retailers in the country working together to specifically block Apple Pay (and all other contactless payments), in favor of their own payment solution, is clearly anti-competitive behavior under US law.
- comex 12y ago
  True. I'm just saying that in a looser ordinary language sense of "anticompetitive", Apple by itself probably brings an amount of market share to bear comparable to these companies together - at least out of all US retailers supporting smartphone payments.
  - MBCook 12y ago
    > I'm just saying that in a looser ordinary language sense of "anticompetitive" I don't think that's a normal definition. "Today Hoover released their new anti-competitive vacuum". Why is it anti-competitive? "They didn't create a network of 3rd party bag manufacturers on day one." If they were going out of their way to prevent it (such as when Keurig or the printer companies added DRM to stop clones) that's one thing. Apple doesn't let you choose a different keyboard manufacturer when you buy a MacBook either. Is that anti-competitive? Amazon's Kindle cases don't work with Nook tablets. Is that anti-competitive? I think you're reaching here.