Apple has launched a blistering attack on three of Australia's big banks, saying their request to collectively negotiate over digital wallet access to the iPhone will compromise the handset's security, reduce innovation and blunt Apple's entry into the payments market in Australia.
In a sign of growing acrimony between the world's largest company and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank and Westpac Banking Corp, Apple told the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission that "allowing the banks to form a cartel to collectively dictate terms to new business models and services would set a troubling precedent and delay the introduction of new, potentially disruptive technologies".
The three large banks made an application in late July with Bendigo and Adelaide Bank seeking authorisation to collectively negotiate with the technology giant, which has locked the banks and other third-party providers of digital wallets off the iPhone platform in favour of its own Apple Pay.
In a pithy, three-page submission to the ACCC, Apple says providing access to the phone's transmitter to allow bank applications to facilitate contactless payments would compromise the security of Apple's hardware.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Appalbarry on Wednesday August 10 2016, @08:55PM
So, in a nutshell, Apple is insisting that it needs a monopoly on iPhone NFC payments in order to defeat a banking cartel.
Must be part of that whole "disruptive" thing.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:48PM
Apple don't have a smart phone monopoly.
The Australian banks really are a cartel, so much so that when taxpayers all over the world were propping up their banks, the Australian ones were too embarrassed to hold their hands out. (I know all this because I live in New Zealand, which is owned by the Aussie banks).
(Score: 5, Informative) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:43PM
They didn't hold their hands out because our laws dictate that they must carry enough cash assets to be able to pay up the majority should every one of their customers decide to close their accounts.
And for some reason, the free market wonks consider this to be a bad thing.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:54PM
Debt and the threat of insolvency are The Way To Prosperity.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:32PM
I'm sure you're right about the cash holdings, I just always assumed it was the $1 billion or so annual profits they ship overseas that stopped them asking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:00AM
They didn't hold their hands out because Australia has actual banking regulations that stopped the banks from be as reckless as most other countries banks.
Not for the lack of banks whining and complaining that they were't as competitive as the reckless banks, and even giving lots of money to the politicians, and jobs to them and their families and friends.
Still wasn't enough to have the regulations removed.
Perhaps this is the lesson you should be learning. Taking the dollars out of politics and regulate for the good of the people, not the good of the rich, and you still just may end up with embarrassingly profitable banks anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:12PM
An iPhone NFC monopoly is fair enough, it's Apple's phone.
There's no general NFC monopoly either - the iPhone will be competing with all the other extant contactless payment systems in Australia. For example, the 5+ years of contactless Visa and Mastercards issued by banks.
That being said, our Aussie banks are a cartel (the "Four Pillars [wikipedia.org]").
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:11AM
Indeed. How do you like crapple when the shoe is in the other foot?
Nice little banksies are just having a walled garden over there...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:43PM
> the world's largest company
In employees? LOL
In sales? Nowhere near the top.
In actual value? Saudi Aramco and CNPC would like to have a chat with you
In US dollars based on US market capitalization? Ah, yes, you should have started with that. If I wanted narrow-minded US horn-tooting I'd watch the Olympic on NBC.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @09:50PM
This is so people won't need to carry a wallet around when buying stuff, right? Without co-operation from Apple, can't the banks just embed NFC chips in credit cards and distribute the cards with double-sided tape so people can stick the cards to the backs of their mobiles?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:17PM
That is what I do
It is called tap and go
If I wanted tap and go with my phone I expect that my bank would have an app. Why involve Apple?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:21PM
https://www.commbank.com.au/personal/online-banking/commbank-app/tap-and-pay.html [commbank.com.au]
why is apple pay needed?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:37PM
My bank does, the ANZ go money app on Android allows this.
Having said that, I've never actually tried it.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Demena on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:49AM
They do do precisely that. And they charge for it. It is my belief that they have trained operators to 'misunderstand' and sell you what you do not want. I want fingerprint or password access required to authenticate all transactions as a security issue. The card 'stuck on the side' does no verification. It is simply inadequate.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:38AM
In Canada it is supposed to randomly ask for a PIN every $100 in spending or so.
Sounds like a perfect excuse to get the PIN with a tampered reader.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Thursday August 11 2016, @04:58PM
I've had NFC on my main credit card for years and it's never asked for a PIN when tapping.
However, I'm doing a good mix of tap and chip+PIN (don't seem to have tap option in most restaurants), so maybe it thinks that's good enough.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:24AM
It may be because Apple has a design patent on sticking a card with double sided tape to a mobile, lemme check.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by caffeinated bacon on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:08AM
If they didn't before, you can bet they do now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Absolutely.Geek on Wednesday August 10 2016, @10:54PM
Have a cry Apple; how about working with someone for a change rather then trying to be a special snowflake to lock all your customers into your little garden.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 1) by Demena on Thursday August 11 2016, @12:56AM
No. Good on them. The Aussie banks charge like wounded bulls and Apple Pay charges far less. The four banks here are effectively a cartel. They also write apps that are of relatively poor quality (caveat: I have only used three apps from two of the four banks) and I am not sure they (the apps) are to be trusted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @06:31AM
Hahaha, Apple is the cheaper option. What rock are you living under?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Demena on Thursday August 11 2016, @08:47AM
Well, the moon is a big one but it's about a light second away. I've done my sums and had my experiences, brought 3 kids an 2 parents into computing. Since I have been supplier and service to all of them and I value my time I know that Apple has been invariably the cheapest option even at Australian premium prices. That is simply as it is, not opinion or religious belief. It is and always has been "horses for courses".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 11 2016, @07:53PM
Hahaha, Apple is the cheaper option. What rock are you living under?
AC said that Apple is cheaper than a banking cartel. That doesn't mean that Apple is cheap, it's more likely that Apple is "expensive" but the banks are "holy shit, that's so expensive it's fucking ridiculous".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @02:19AM
Except you are both missing the whole point that Apple just plain isn't any cheaper.
Show us the part where it's cheaper for the customer, or the merchant.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday August 10 2016, @11:44PM
Apple demands a slice of every transaction
The banks want to be "in" with the iMob.
Three banks (of four, ANZ bank has negotiated something separately) get together to negotiate.
Apple cries foul (divide and conquer!)
Every single one (apple, the banks) can be called profiteering bastards.
They ALL want to gouge.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Demena on Thursday August 11 2016, @01:02AM
In this case I think the trouble is the banks want 4% but Apple only wants to charge (and pay them) 1.5%. This may not be accurate as I am going by memory of a number of articles over the last year. In this case it seems to me that the banks are behaving badly and Apple is protecting customers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday August 11 2016, @05:27AM
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford