Slashdot Mirror
Apple is 'Intransigent, Closed and Controlling' Say Banks (afr.com)
Apple is increasingly trying to get banks to implement its Apple Pay mobile payments solutions, but some banks are avoiding Cupertino giant's offer, saying that the company is "closed and controlling". From a report on Financial Review: Three of Australia's big four banks have described technology giant Apple as being "intransigent, closed and controlling" and accused it of attempting to freeload on their contactless payments infrastructure while slowing innovation in digital wallets. In an increasingly acrimonious dispute, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank, Westpac Banking Corp and Bendigo and Adelaide Bank are arguing that the engineering of Apple iPhones prevent them from delivering mobile wallets to millions of customers. This is because Apple Pay is the only application that works with the iPhone's "near field communication" (NFC) antenna, which communicates with payment terminals. In their latest, 137-page submission filed with the competition regulator, the banks argue that by locking them out, "Apple is seeking for itself the exclusive use of Australia's existing NFC terminal infrastructure for the making of integrated mobile payments using iOS devices. Yet, this infrastructure was built and paid for by Australian banks and merchants for the benefit of all Australians."
We don't need yet another middle man charging yet another fee. And no, Apple Pay is not free for the end user. There is a hidden fee charged to the bank, which end up being charger to the merchant, which end up being charged to the consumers one way or another.
There are more than four-thousand banking corporations in the Uniited States alone.
1. Does the aggregate of Australias banking industry authentically believe each corporation should be permitted their own programmatic implementation of contactless banking?
2. who or what will be liable for breeches in security? as of this foul year of our lord 2016 banks are often furiously reticent in disclosing security breeches let alone taking responsibility for them.
3. what if any qualifications does a banking institution have that define it as a cogent source for software? Apple has been developing quality hardware and software for a generation now.
Good people go to bed earlier.
>Yet, this infrastructure was built and paid for by Australian banks and merchants for the benefit of all Australians."
Bullshit. The infrastructure was paid for by merchants buying the equipment.
Banks have shown themselves incapable of passing on the reduced costs of electronic transactions to consumers and incapable of deploying secure payment schemes. This particular scuffle is everything to do with banks wanting to keep all the 2-5% transactions fees rather than share it with a phone vendor who has developed moderately secure payment hardware that is in the hands of millions of people.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The NFC terminals were paid for by the merchants. The terminals support several payment schemes.
It is in my interests as a person who pays for things and as a merchant who pays for and uses payment terminals that IPhone based NFC payments remain as secure as possible and letting thousands of different banks mess with it with thousands of different applications is counterproductive.
Look beneath the surface and you will see that this is about grabbing a larger share of the merchant's fee.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I wonder what ever happened to Samsung's ISIS?
I'm guessing an explosion was involved.
Banks charge those fees because they control the industry, it would cost us a lot more if the fee schedule was not proscribed by law.
Now because Apple wants their cut of the action banks are scrambling to protect their gravy train.
The banks want to make sure anything Apple gets is on top of what they charge.
They do not want to pay apple out of their share.
Rick B.