[Topfi]

Sure, but on my Android smartphone, my bank still has the ability to implement their own payment solution using NFC directly using their app, which is something they did and offer as an alternative next to Google Pay. It even has certain advantages, such as allowing one to unlock a banks doors outside regular hours to access the self-service area for things that are beyond regular ATMs, something that currently does not work with Google or Apple Pay.

On iOS, my bank does not get to offer that ability, and I do not get that choice. If I owned an iPhone and wanted to do something like deposit some cash, pickup or ship a package via the postal service (as our postal service has the same security measures) outside business hours without a physical credit or debit card, I'd be out of luck, because of Apple's restrictive nature.

Having talked to a few of my friends and family, a lot of Apple Pay users are surprised and/or unaware that this is even an option they could have, and I am certain that at some point, Apple will implement something similar, whereupon Google Pay will also enable such functionality, cause the industry does follow Apple to a large extent when it comes to what is considered the minimum of neceessary features one has to offer.

But until then, I see this as restricting innovation, similar to how AT&T prevented a lot of developments, and we got the internet in its current state in part thanks to antitrust action against them, which they promised, we'd regret in a similar manner to Apple today.

[danielmarkbruce]

Is there any upside to consumers to this restriction?

[pbourke]

Security. I'm quite happy as an iPhone user to have Apple be the only ones in the loop for NFC payments. I'm generally happy with all other restrictions mentioned in the suit (no 3rd party app stores, no super apps, etc). It seems that this suit is brought on behalf of other companies (device and app makers, etc) and has a tenuous benefit to the public. There is a fair alternative available in Android for those who don't want to be in the iOS ecosystem.

FWIW I use Linux on my desktop computer, believe in open source, etc. Since mobile phones have become much more than phones and are now a sort of master key to your entire life, I am happy to have that key reside in as high a trust environment as I can find.

[amf12]

> Security.

Why do you think a banks NFC payment app might not be secure? If ios is a platform then another NFC app could be as secure. Regardless, users should be given a choice. You can continue using Apple Wallet app, some other users might prefer other apps.

[danielmarkbruce]

The concern is bad actors - that some random app (not your bank) gets access to NFC.

Choice isn't always good. Especially where consumers don't really understand all the implications. My mom doesn't benefit from choice here, she is actively harmed by it, she knows it, she uses Apple to avoid it.

[freeAgent]

Your mom already chooses to use Apple for this reason, so presumably would also not use a third-party App Store or sideloaded apps, so she could still benefit from the Apple security blanket even while theoretically having choice.

[danielmarkbruce]

Until she gets a link in an email which confuses her and causes the download. People are really bad at this stuff.

[Topfi]

Honest question: Do you have any example that the approach Android takes to the NFC stack enables exploits that are not possible on iOS in regard to NFC payments?

[pbourke]

I don't have an example, but I believe your question supports my point. From everything I've observed, Apple is generally better at providing a secure ecosystem than the variety of major parties that comprise the Android ecosystem. So if I remain in the Apple ecosystem I'll need to devote less energy to answering questions like the one you've asked than otherwise.

[Topfi]

Ok, that is fair and there can be a difference in opinion between making such choices more based on subjective opinion and personal feeling vs. basing that mainly on evidence and I do not want to dismiss the former. I understand that the convenience and peace of mind of a solution one trusts have value, and I do not discount those facts, even if I take a different approach to this situation, digging into White papers and whatnot, partly for enjoyment and personal interest. I can even recommend the Apple Platform Security Guide [0]. It's quite a good read, actually.

But no one would force you or anyone else to leave that Apple ecosystem you hold in high regard. There would simply be more opportunity for alternatives that, if they are well implemented, may even provide such a robust product for such a long time that even devoting little energy to the decision on security grounds may make it more appealing than Apples. Or maybe some feature, such as the one I described for accessing banking institutions after office hours, might make such an impact on your situation, that you become more open to those additional choices. And if not, again, you may stick with Apple all the same.

[0] https://help.apple.com/pdf/security/en_US/apple-platform-sec...

[pbourke]

> But no one would force you or anyone else to leave that Apple ecosystem you hold in high regard. There would simply be more opportunity for alternatives

“Opportunity for alternatives” is not free. There will be a trade off to enabling it, and my perception is that it’ll negatively affect those who are happy with the status quo.

[danielmarkbruce]

With respect, this second part is so dependent on "well implemented" and a party acting in good faith (ie not being a scam) that it's basically a worthless argument.

[smoldesu]

For your safety, I hope the government is looking out for you.

[pbourke]

I don’t know what you’re referring to. Trust is a fundamental part of security. Without trust you need to be ever vigilant in an ever expanding set of domains and technologies, or you have to shrink your vulnerability surface area down to something that you can at all times personally comprehend and manage. This will not work for 99.99% of the population.

[danielmarkbruce]

No no, peace of mind has no value. Just ask the big brains at the DOJ. Safety, peace of mind, convenience - these are zero value items. Only choice matters.

[danielmarkbruce]

Sorry, that was a joke. I should have lathered on more obvious sarcasm. The DOJ don't understand very basic computer security. It's disgraceful. Agree with everything you say here - the antitrust regulators seem to have forgotten who they are supposed to be protecting - consumers, not apple competitors.

[stale2002]

Ok, but about the percentage fee?

If Apple removed the transaction cost entirely, then there wouldn't be much complaint.

That absolutely raises prices and effects consumers.

If Apple takes a 0% fee, or allows other competitors some way of charging 0%, that would obviously benefit consumers.

[danielmarkbruce]

The fee is paid by card issuers. It's 0.15% for cc and 0.5 pennies for debit cards. Card issuers take a large chunk of change in interchange fees, this is a tiny, tiny proportion of it. Even if they managed to pass the cost on (which they almost certainly cannot given the nature of that business), spread across it might be 0.00000x % increase in costs. And, it's quite likely to actually reduce costs for card issuers due to reduced fraud and reduced physical card issuance (those cards actually cost money to produce).

[stale2002]

> t's 0.15% for cc and 0.5 pennies for debit cards.

So in other words, it's not 0%. Apple takes a cut.

Instead, it should be 0%.

That's how consumers would benefit. If it were 0%.

> The fee is paid by card issuers

This is a point addressed by any introductory economics class in high school.

It's called tax incidence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_incidence

[vmladenov]

I question the governments decision to include this in the complaint. Surely Visa's 2-3% fee has a greater impact on the wider economy than Apple's 0.15%.

[danielmarkbruce]

Visa's take isn't anything like that, it's close to 0.10%. The vast majority of that fat fee you refer to goes to the bank who issued the card.

[kalleboo]

> I'm quite happy as an iPhone user to have Apple be the only ones in the loop for NFC payments

You don't think your bank is in the loop on payments you make with your bank's card???

[pbourke]

In the loop for the NFC part. One's bank is, rather obviously, involved in the transaction.

[cush]

While that may be true for nfc payments, a lot of the accusations in the document are excused by Apple using bad-faith arguments in the name of security. Then there’s the 30% tax, which is just anticompetitive extortion.

[jackson1442]

While I would love to see a more open iphone NFC chip (primarily for identification/access control system integration), I shudder to think of bank implementations of contactless payments. Bank apps I’ve used have been “meh” at best, usually bad (and filled with ads!!) and don’t even support modern secure authentication (totp/webauthn). I’d like to see them fix their core technology before trying to figure out a way to sell me a loan using mobile payments.

> It even has certain advantages, such as allowing one to unlock a banks doors outside regular hours to access the self-service area for things that are beyond regular ATMs, something that currently does not work with Google or Apple Pay.

Have you tried it? I’ve been able to open Chase bank ATM lobbies using the NFC Jimmy John’s loyalty card in my Apple Wallet (along with every brand of payment card I have in there). This “security” appears to be primarily to keep unbanked (read: homeless) people out.

[Topfi]

> Have you tried it?

Here in Austria, it does not appear to be possible on either Apple Pay or Google Pay. Just tried with Google Pay, did not work and had a friend try it with Apple pay a few weeks ago, equally failed.