[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.

[freeAgent]

Yeah, though hopefully there is some sort of warning (or setting that prevents sideloading when enabled) that makes her think twice. Or, you could perhaps make her a “kids” profile unable to install anything without permission.

[danielmarkbruce]

Sure - but why? Part of Apple's value prop is convenience. This extra app store thing doesn't sound convenient for Apple's customers. Apple isn't trying to make life difficult for consumers, they do make life difficult for developers and others in the ecosystem in many cases - but it's almost always to make life easier for their end customers.

[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.

[smoldesu]

If the current trade-off is considered anticompetitive, there may be enough incentive to create a new model. Bell telephone offered free long distance calls on their network, the happiness of their customers didn't protect them when regulators started questioning how competitive Bell's strategy was.

Maybe it will negatively affect those who are happy with the status quo. That has no bearing on the righteousness of a person or company's actions, especially if they're in a position to deny competitors market access.

[danielmarkbruce]

It has bearing on whether a case should be brought. The goal of antitrust legislation in the US has been largely to protect consumers. It's slightly more gray than that, but by and large that's the goal.

[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.

[smoldesu]

If you pry up the pavement on the way to hell, you'll find good intentions underneath. Trust whoever you want, but don't turn around and make claims you're unwilling to defend. The security Apple offers is far from unconditional - the plethora of iPhone-related data leaks is a dead horse well-beaten on this site.

For your safety, I hope the government looks out for you. Because nobody else is going to do your due diligence, evidently not even yourself.

[danielmarkbruce]

You imply Apple isn't a better choice than the android ecosystem(s) with respect to safety/security/privacy (because you reply to the comment that this appears to be the case). This is, at least on the surface, not the general perception. But given you talk so much about doing due diligence, I assume you have some insight as to why Apple isn't the better choice on these dimensions?

I'm genuinely all ears, because this has not been my observation, but I've never done and in-depth study of the matter.

[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

[danielmarkbruce]

And once you get into grad school they teach that those nice little graphs you drew in high school and undergrad were simplifications of the real world, and whether costs are passed on or not is very dependent on the specifics of the market. And then you hit the real world and realize, it's even more complex again when the costs are felt for some subset of transactions and not others, there are multiple parties to a transaction, etc etc.

Often, a high school education is not enough.

[stale2002]

So then they found a magic way of inventing free money that conjures money from thin air, without any costs being passed down, according to you.

If they figured that out, then why not set the price to 1 million dollars per transaction?

Zero percent of the costs aren't passed down according to you.

With the extra tax revenue from this magic money machine, we could solve the national debt problem overnight!

[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.