[iamshs]

No. That's not what the banks want. The banks want to form a cartel to collectively negotiate with Apple, which effectively means no negotiation at all. They want to strongarm Apple to open up its NFC module to individual banking apps; they won't roll up Apple Pay.

[Veratyr]

I don't buy it. Apple is just painful to negotiate with and the banks want an at least semi-even table to play at.

This conflict isn't unbalanced. The same access is being sought on both sides. The banks want their ~10M ish iPhone users to have access to payments on their phones. Apple wants the same ~10M ish users to have access to payments on their phones. Both sides want something of equal value, it simply seems like Apple wants it all and isn't willing to give anything up.

[iamshs]

The big 4 want to boycott Apple Pay, and want to strong arm others into boycotting Apple Pay too. They want a mafia ruling, not amicable solution.

This is the submission:- http://registers.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/1197...

[Veratyr]

Thank you, that actually backs up what I've been saying:

> competition: the applicants wish to ensure that the potential for competition and innovation in the emerging market for mobile payments is maintained. Therefore, they wish to collectively negotiate in response to any technological or other exclusivity that a Third Party Wallet Provider may seek to impose by:

> - refusing, restricting or failing to provide software access to any payment functionality built into devices manufactured by or for, or operating systems developed or distributed by, the Third Party Wallet Provider, for example NFC functionality; and/or

> - otherwise preventing or impeding card issuers from developing, deploying or participating in any other mobile payment or mobile wallet services or Third Party Wallets on any mobile devices or platforms;

They're mainly concerned with fraud standards and making sure nobody (Apple) tries to limit access to their platform.

As for your boycotting and "strong arm" claims, this document shows that scope is significantly narrower than you're implying:

> Accordingly, the applicants seek authorisation to: [...]

> enter into a limited form of collective boycott where the applicants will agree not to negotiate with the relevant Third Party Wallet Provider on an individual basis while collective negotiations with that Third Party Wallet Provider are ongoing.

The "boycott" in this document is referring solely to individual negotiation. i.e. Bank1 can't go behind the other banks' back and sweeten the deal while they're negotiating as a group.