[troad]

> Unless this is a new app backed by a bank cartel

Good news - they've already got the cartel ready to go, and it's conveniently already in bed with the regulators! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BPAY & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Payments_Platform

> This all leads to my opinion of a pretty wonky situation

Yep, that's sadly accurate for all the banks' other tech, so I see no reason they'd shy away from it here either.

I feel like you're coming at this from the wrong angle. No one is saying Apple Pay is bad, or that the banks' solutions will be better. The question is: will banks voluntarily give up a cut to a third party intermediary, when they can roll a slightly-less-convenient-but-good-enough tech stack and keep all the money for themselves?

One doesn't exactly become a top 4 bank by handing out a cut to intermediaries willy nilly. Even if the Apple cut were eliminated (unrealistic), the banks would need a very good reason to allow an intermediary between themselves and their customers at all.

[rswail]

The NPP is about removing the Visa/MC networks from the equation. It would also remove the EMV requirements, if I'm identified by my mobile phone number + biometrics linked to a bank account, which can have it's own credit line associated with it, why does the bank need to support Visa/MC?

The new payment platforms with instant settlement effectively remove the branding and merchant agreements that Visa/MC offer.

Person A can transfer money to Merchant M immediately, no intermediaries except the two banks/account provider and the payment platform usually run by the central bank.