I get why the banks are not happy, but I can tell them that I am not going to use Chase Wallet, Bank of America Wallet, Citi Wallet...just pay the fee and be thankful for the reduced payment friction, which they invariably make money from. PS: Nobody is going to use Paze (yet another half baked wallet), other than to collect the free $10 to sign up for it.
Somewhat related, even Walmart relented and now supports Apple Pay/Contactless. Every big merchant has now relented (Kroger, Home Depot, Walmart).
Probably, but there is an upper limit on what people will be able to tolerate, everyone is aware of it and capitalism is trying to make products that meet it.
So, it’s not unlimited cost here.
The fact right now is that handling cash is more expensive than handling card- even with the fees, which is why Sweden, Estonia etc; are essentially cash-free countries.
At some point the fee’s will make you break-even I guess?
The phone holds on to a credit card number and some extra information. What service is happening here? Is Apple doing something meaningful every payment?
So it doesn't generate a second card number like other things I've used?
But anyway it sounds like the answer to my question is no, Apple is not doing anything meaningful per payment. They play a role in setting up a card and that's it. Is that accurate?
When you add a card, your bank creates a device-specific Device Account Number, encrypts it, and sends it to Apple w/ a key used to generate a unique sec code for each transaction.
Not if you're tapping in a store. Apple's servers re-encrypt the payment data for specific merchants if you buy in an app or on a website. Apple brokers requests for adding a card, or suspending one via Find My, or setting one up again whenever a person changes phones.
> It points to Google's Android, which supports multiple wallets and does not collect a fee from card issuers for contactless payments. It suggests Apple would not be able to continue to charge "substantial fees" if it were forced to support other mobile wallets on Apple devices.
Because this is not the same, and sounds like something I don’t want.
Android supporting multiple wallets isn’t a feature of Google Pay, it’s a feature of Android. Although the implication in the article is that Google not being able to charge the fee is a side effect of any app being able to act as a “wallet.” Which I’m not 100% sure is true.
Another alternative (in the US, at least) is tapping a piece of plastic instead of your phone and not inviting any of the tech giants into your transactions at all. What an unforced error, to shovel more of your data at them needlessly.
Yeah. But this is the US. This is all we’ve got. Having the central bank do it would be communism, and that’s bad. I learned about it from Saturday morning cartoons.
Ironically it's the central bank (and associated regulations) that cause these intermediaries to exist to begin with.
A protocol to support decentralized payments is a hobby project for an individual. You give each institution an identifier (e.g. their domain name) and each institution gives each customer an account number. If you're account 123 at Chase then you sign in as #123@chase.com, tell Chase you want to send $5 to #456@bankofamerica.com, they send the money and Bank of America tells their customer they have a new deposit. If you want to collect money from someone, you tell your bank to send their bank a payment request and they can either approve it manually (e.g. so you can deliver the goods for a one-time purchase) or configure some rules for which accounts get approved automatically up to some threshold amount (e.g. for recurring payments). Also no reason for banks in different countries not to all support the same protocol.
That doesn't require a central bank or any centralized third party payments intermediary. All it requires is for banks to know how to send money to other banks, which they obviously already do and the specific implementation of that isn't even relevant to the customer-facing payments protocol. So how does this not exist? It can't be that no one wants it, so it's got to be that someone (e.g. Visa/MasterCard) doesn't want it.
> is tapping a piece of plastic instead of your phone and not inviting any of the tech giants into your transactions at all.
Apple doesn't see individual transactions when Apple Pay is used at retail stores' tap-to-pay terminals. The secret card payment token is sent from the phone to the credit-card's issuing bank and bypasses Apple servers. In this way, using Apple Pay is more secure and private than plastic cards because the real card number details remains hidden from the merchant.
The iPhone does contact Apple servers to add a new card to the digital wallet. Apple servers then contacts the issuing bank to get the secret token the bank generates and then puts it in the digital wallet. Conceivably, the "add a new card to digital wallet" could also have been done without Apple in the middle but it would require a much more convoluted, less secure, and more user-hostile workflow to do it. (e.g. the end user would have to know what bank endpoint to contact, manually enter the long and cryptic digits of the secret token, or maybe scan a QR code on a computer screen that's vulnerable to interception and phishing.)
Importantly, this provides a degree of protection from compromised PoS terminals. Ever since I switched to nearly exclusively using Apple Pay for physical shopping I’ve had no unauthorized charges, whereas back when I was still tapping, inserting, or swiping my card I’d need to call and get a card or two replaced almost every year.
>Apple doesn't see individual transactions when Apple Pay is used at retail stores' tap-to-pay terminals.
when I added my credit card to ApplePay, transactions made with the bare card would show up on my phone even though the phone was not involved: you're saying my phone has access to that transaction and Apple does not?
yea, feels like tech giants do not have access to this already? they know where you are and what you do every second of every day, keeping away from ( while they know I was a target ) what was the amount on my receipt is really giving it to them :)
I don't really care about any of Apple's business partners being upset about their business terms with Apple. Developers want a bigger cut, banks want a bigger cut, Foxconn wants a bigger cut.
My interests as an Apple user are aligned with Apple. But even if I wasn't an Apple user, market forces determine what the "fair" cut is for everyone.
This is the government's problem. I tend to be on the side of less government, but it is so obvious that payment facilitation should be a service provided by the government. The government is just allowing corporations to collect rents, because they are lazy and incompetent.
It's not a government problem, it's a competition problem. Fundamentally 1-3% is actually a very competitive rate for organizing the easy transfer of money and handling fraud. Merchants would rather the cost be free, and banks may want a larger slice of the pie, but until someone comes up with a better way of paying money for both sides this is the best we have. If government got involved all that could happen is fees would increase and then we'd miss out on future efficiency improvements and savings.
The USPS is overwhelmingly the most efficient and inexpensive way to ship things. Try sending a letter cross country with UPS - it costs $15. USPS costs $0.50.
The USPS lost $9B last year. If our government considered The USPS a real public good, they would pick up the bill and give them more budget. Instead, The USPS had to get in bed with Amazon to keep the lights on and start delivering on Sundays.
It was $2.7 if you remove the forced retirement obligations that private companies don't have to do, which is only about 3% shortfall. And a large part of that was also due to private competition taking more of the market - in part because the USPS isn't as competitive as it could be, again because of costs incurred outside its control.
Certain individuals, such as Susan Collins and Tom Davis, who were the largest names behind the 2006 law to force this on the USPS, were clearly doing it in an attempt to make the USPS fail/become less competitive. PACs affiliated with FedEx, UPS, etc gave more than $192,000 to Collins’s campaign / PAC from 2000 to 2004. FedEx’s PAC has given Collins more donations than any other congressional candidate in that PAC's history.
There is a huge chain of evidence suggesting members of congress don't want the USPS to succeed due to self interest.
I am out of my depth here. $2.7 is not nothing, but $9B is still on the books, no? No ifs and buts about it, unless our government does the right thing. Just eat the cost and prop them up, treat your federal employees right. It's really bizarre that the government expects them to turn a profit.
Tangent, having lived in 5 states, the USPS workers have always been nice and courteous, even when there are lines out the door during the tax season. And in general, like DMV or other licensing agencies.
They’re more like taxes than rents. It’s a constant cost applied to all goods because of the ubiquity of use means we pay with or without playing the credit card/payments game.
This is fundamentally looking at it the wrong way.
Why do we need my bank to send money to your bank via Visa or the Federal Reserve or any such thing, instead of having my bank send money directly to your bank? All they need to do is both support the same openly specified protocol for transferring money.
If you have an open standard decentralized protocol that banks are required to support, that's the network effect solved. Merchants and anyone making the software that merchants use would want to support it because you're getting rid of Visa's fees.
> From NETs in singapore to girocard in Germany, Alipay to UPI.
Singaporean here. NETS is a shitshow of a dinosaur trying to stay relevant.
The biggest reasons they still exist are because they're a joint venture between the big 3 local banks, and our government likes their initiatives to have some competition to emulate a free market.
Pix, from its Wikipedia page, sounds like a bank account aliasing system, just like PayNow in Singapore.
The "network" part of what they do could straightforwardly be done in a decentralized way using ordinary DNS (for the parties to discover the servers of the others) and TLS. When your card issuer is Example Bank then your "card number" would be 123@example.com and the merchant or their bank knows to contact the servers at example.com to initiate a transaction for that card.
It seems like the primary thing they actually do is currency conversion, which a) isn't strictly required (e.g. plenty of small US merchants might hardly notice if they only accepted payment in US dollars), and b) could just as easily be transparently provided as an optional service by either of the card issuing bank or the merchant bank.
Remember CurrenC? The thing a bunch of them tried to make that failed horribly during test with no consumers liking it? If I remember a description it involved using an app where you had to scan a QR code, and then the point of sale terminal had to scan a QR code on your phone or something like that.
It was all so hilariously badly designed compared to tap and pay.
I took great joy in watching its downfall. It also only worked with debit cards, meaning you didn’t get the buyer protections you use from buying things on a credit card.
CurrentC was designed to collect all your transaction info so that its owners could analyze your buying habits. I’m delighted that not-CurrentC won that war.
(I personally use Apple Pay, but my understanding is that Google Pay has the same privacy advantages for end users. Both of them are light years ahead of the other boondoggle.)
Yeah, but it meant they didn’t have to pay credit card fees. And isn’t that what’s really the most important thing here? Lol.
As far as I know, the current Google Pay is identical to Apple Pay: it’s just EMV tap-to-pay. So it would be the same protections. Samsung pay too.
It was kind of neat that Samsung had that thing for a short while that would somehow trick the magstripe reader in a POS terminal by blasting magnetic fields at it to think that you had swiped your card.
I think there was a different one before that that was not, but I’m also pretty sure that’s long gone. And I think it was more like Apple Pay on the web, where it was really for paying in a non-card environment. But I’m not an android person, so I’m not sure.
Another argument for turning finance into a public utility. Instead we have different factions of rentier capital competing for who gets to parasitize us.
"My short term convenience trumps all" is why everything sucks and we have far worse short and long term convenience and efficiency in everything. Thanks for that.
I won't use $bank-wallet either but that's a seperate issue which is that the bank is not really any better than Apple or PayPal or anyone else. The only reason they "fight" Apple tax is because they want to do $bank tax.
Pix and the other variants are the way to go for money transfer, it's just that these monopolies won't be happy to forfeit their easy money, both credit, banks as well as Apple. They are all fighting for monopolies, they must cease to exist for the good of the common folk.
Well, fortunately Pix is statedriven/stateenforced/strateregulated, so it contains some of the most important ingredients to become some type of standard - the only reason why Mastercard et.al. are so powerful is because this area/field of tech was long no recognised as critical/relevant enough.
Pix is doing exactly the right thing, as ECB/SEPA is as well.
Totally, and hopefully if standardisation isn't possible that we will at least see some form of integration between these systems, even if under an international transaction fee.
The national co-integration is actually not a problem,asmost modern stacks are build on ISO20022 mainly, to the basis for co-integraion exists. Its just that attention on these topics is not that big. You could easily connect Brazil to the ECB with a correct setup.
I find this technology fascinating, I'm looking for different fields to apply myself to, if there's job openings for developing Pix here in Brazil I think I'll look into the tech more carefully.
Initially I was casually (didn’t dig into the issue) fine with Apple allowing only a single access to payment via NFC due to the opportunity for fraud, which was Apple’s justification.
But I haven’t heard of it happening with the wild-west Android NFC payments, much less widespread problems with the essentially unconstrained use of QR code payments on SE Asia (e.g. Alipay).
So as an iPhone user I’m happy for Apple’s lockdown going away. I just hope it doesn’t mean that in future I’ll need to install a dozen payment apps and have to figure out which when I buy things.
If the banks win and other stuff is allowed on the iPhone, that’s fine.
I have no intention of using it. I have a feeling it’ll be crap. That’s how this stuff usually is. And I’m absolutely not going to use a different app for each card.
So I wonder if this will end up being a Pyrrhic victory.
What the banks want, and all the other financial institutions want is a free ride on someone else’s technology, without paying for it and it’s ironic because the Apple Pay system was only created by Apple because all of the other existing financial institutions believed at that time that the Apple ecosystems was too small to support, but once it became successful, all of a sudden they wanted in and cried foul to government to help them out.
The only time the People have anything in our sick phony republic protected is when their interests happen to coincidentally align with those of an adversarial oligarch. Not interested in digging through the 15 layers of competing interests, corporate spin, lies, and economics to determine if that’s the case here but it’s sad in any case that stories like this are the only hope we the People have of getting any crumbs out of this system.
It is estimated Apple Pay does anywhere between $5T to $10T transaction per year. That is everything from Credit Card to Debit Card. If we average out at 0.1% per transaction over $5T, that is $5B per year.
The transaction itself doesn't touch any Apple severs. In case anyone is wondering if there is an operational cost. There is a set up cost though with the initial verification and sometimes Apple do charge a one time fee per card set up.
There is a privacy angle with using Apple Pay. But I am unsure how much info banks and network is not getting because of it.
Retailers may get less than using their own app, but I agree I don’t really see how it affects the processors or the banks.
However Apple is providing something in all this. Apple Pay requires biometrics which (in theory) should help lower fraud costs for everyone. So it’s not like they’re just rent seeking for nothing.
I don’t know how it went for everyone else, but I don’t remember tapped pay getting popular until after Apple Pay and Apple pushing it. I know that coincided with when EMV terminals really started to get popular because the credit card companies were forcing it. But I honestly wonder if they helped push it to the mainstream, even for people just using tap cards.
> but I don’t remember tapped pay getting popular until after Apple Pay and Apple pushing it
It's regional—tap with cards was fairly popular in Canada before Apple Pay came along, but every time I visited the US I remember being surprised at how many retailers supported only the magnetic stripe.
I know it was in Europe FAR before the US too. I’m speaking from a very US centric perspective as that’s all I personally experienced.
No one wanted to put on EMV terminals because they didn’t want to pay the upgrade cost. Even if they bought them because they were the only thing, they wouldn’t turn any of the EMV stuff on. You still did everything like 1995. It was the liability shift that finally forced people to start. And that coincided well with Apple Pay. Which obviously was planned by Apple.
I also remember people hating it and trying to avoid it because it was so slow early on.
On the other hand, a lot of places that supported tap to pay didn’t even know. Lots of times when I started using Apple Pay I got confusion from the person checking me out. “What did you do, how did you pay” or “I didn’t know you could do that”. Multiple times retailers I used it at stopped taking it later. I assume they found out people were using it and freaked out because they didn’t know it was on.
There are still lots of retailers where the signs don’t say you can use it, or even the screens on the terminals, but it works fine. It’s still kind of mess but it generally works almost everywhere.
> Apple has changed its policies since the lawsuit was filed. As of iOS 18.1, developers are able to offer NFC contactless payments in their apps.
The lawsuit was files in 2022, and apple opened access to the NFC chip in 2024 (iOS 18.1). Searching I could find alternative wallet apps that offer contactless payments, but only in EEA, eg [0, 1, 2]. It is supposed to be accessible in the US, but I am not sure why there are no apps there, unless I have missed them.
IANAL but if access to NFC is open since 2024 and (assumingly) the amount banks etc pay for apple pay has not really decreased, wouldn't that mean that their main argument is not really substantive?
93 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 56.7 ms ] threadSomewhat related, even Walmart relented and now supports Apple Pay/Contactless. Every big merchant has now relented (Kroger, Home Depot, Walmart).
So, it’s not unlimited cost here.
The fact right now is that handling cash is more expensive than handling card- even with the fees, which is why Sweden, Estonia etc; are essentially cash-free countries.
At some point the fee’s will make you break-even I guess?
But anyway it sounds like the answer to my question is no, Apple is not doing anything meaningful per payment. They play a role in setting up a card and that's it. Is that accurate?
> It points to Google's Android, which supports multiple wallets and does not collect a fee from card issuers for contactless payments. It suggests Apple would not be able to continue to charge "substantial fees" if it were forced to support other mobile wallets on Apple devices.
Because this is not the same, and sounds like something I don’t want.
if apple wallet requires apple phone, and google wallet require android phone, that not competition.
competition is good. no competition should be regulated out of existence.
A protocol to support decentralized payments is a hobby project for an individual. You give each institution an identifier (e.g. their domain name) and each institution gives each customer an account number. If you're account 123 at Chase then you sign in as #123@chase.com, tell Chase you want to send $5 to #456@bankofamerica.com, they send the money and Bank of America tells their customer they have a new deposit. If you want to collect money from someone, you tell your bank to send their bank a payment request and they can either approve it manually (e.g. so you can deliver the goods for a one-time purchase) or configure some rules for which accounts get approved automatically up to some threshold amount (e.g. for recurring payments). Also no reason for banks in different countries not to all support the same protocol.
That doesn't require a central bank or any centralized third party payments intermediary. All it requires is for banks to know how to send money to other banks, which they obviously already do and the specific implementation of that isn't even relevant to the customer-facing payments protocol. So how does this not exist? It can't be that no one wants it, so it's got to be that someone (e.g. Visa/MasterCard) doesn't want it.
But it was too much work and didn't make the banks money so now we are also left to the American Visa parasite.
Apple doesn't see individual transactions when Apple Pay is used at retail stores' tap-to-pay terminals. The secret card payment token is sent from the phone to the credit-card's issuing bank and bypasses Apple servers. In this way, using Apple Pay is more secure and private than plastic cards because the real card number details remains hidden from the merchant.
The iPhone does contact Apple servers to add a new card to the digital wallet. Apple servers then contacts the issuing bank to get the secret token the bank generates and then puts it in the digital wallet. Conceivably, the "add a new card to digital wallet" could also have been done without Apple in the middle but it would require a much more convoluted, less secure, and more user-hostile workflow to do it. (e.g. the end user would have to know what bank endpoint to contact, manually enter the long and cryptic digits of the secret token, or maybe scan a QR code on a computer screen that's vulnerable to interception and phishing.)
BIN attacks [1] are still a thing. Your banks are probably just better at blocking them.
[1] https://stripe.com/en-sg/resources/more/what-are-bin-attacks...
when I added my credit card to ApplePay, transactions made with the bare card would show up on my phone even though the phone was not involved: you're saying my phone has access to that transaction and Apple does not?
I don't really care about any of Apple's business partners being upset about their business terms with Apple. Developers want a bigger cut, banks want a bigger cut, Foxconn wants a bigger cut.
My interests as an Apple user are aligned with Apple. But even if I wasn't an Apple user, market forces determine what the "fair" cut is for everyone.
This is a very US-centric take. In the UK, EU and Australia, interchange rates are capped at more like 0.2/0.3%.
Government doesn't always mean worse.
Certain individuals, such as Susan Collins and Tom Davis, who were the largest names behind the 2006 law to force this on the USPS, were clearly doing it in an attempt to make the USPS fail/become less competitive. PACs affiliated with FedEx, UPS, etc gave more than $192,000 to Collins’s campaign / PAC from 2000 to 2004. FedEx’s PAC has given Collins more donations than any other congressional candidate in that PAC's history.
There is a huge chain of evidence suggesting members of congress don't want the USPS to succeed due to self interest.
Tangent, having lived in 5 states, the USPS workers have always been nice and courteous, even when there are lines out the door during the tax season. And in general, like DMV or other licensing agencies.
Which I'm hoping will find its way back to our wallets but which I doubt will happen
Why do we need my bank to send money to your bank via Visa or the Federal Reserve or any such thing, instead of having my bank send money directly to your bank? All they need to do is both support the same openly specified protocol for transferring money.
From NETs in singapore to girocard in Germany, Alipay to UPI.
Singaporean here. NETS is a shitshow of a dinosaur trying to stay relevant.
The biggest reasons they still exist are because they're a joint venture between the big 3 local banks, and our government likes their initiatives to have some competition to emulate a free market.
Pix, from its Wikipedia page, sounds like a bank account aliasing system, just like PayNow in Singapore.
It's not something irreplaceable but it's not trivial either.
It seems like the primary thing they actually do is currency conversion, which a) isn't strictly required (e.g. plenty of small US merchants might hardly notice if they only accepted payment in US dollars), and b) could just as easily be transparently provided as an optional service by either of the card issuing bank or the merchant bank.
It was all so hilariously badly designed compared to tap and pay.
CurrentC was designed to collect all your transaction info so that its owners could analyze your buying habits. I’m delighted that not-CurrentC won that war.
(I personally use Apple Pay, but my understanding is that Google Pay has the same privacy advantages for end users. Both of them are light years ahead of the other boondoggle.)
As far as I know, the current Google Pay is identical to Apple Pay: it’s just EMV tap-to-pay. So it would be the same protections. Samsung pay too.
It was kind of neat that Samsung had that thing for a short while that would somehow trick the magstripe reader in a POS terminal by blasting magnetic fields at it to think that you had swiped your card.
I think there was a different one before that that was not, but I’m also pretty sure that’s long gone. And I think it was more like Apple Pay on the web, where it was really for paying in a non-card environment. But I’m not an android person, so I’m not sure.
I won't use $bank-wallet either but that's a seperate issue which is that the bank is not really any better than Apple or PayPal or anyone else. The only reason they "fight" Apple tax is because they want to do $bank tax.
Walmart USA.
Walmart Canada allowed contactless pretty much from the start over a decade ago
Always confused me on trips to USA when I’d have to insert a card
Pix is doing exactly the right thing, as ECB/SEPA is as well.
The national co-integration is actually not a problem,asmost modern stacks are build on ISO20022 mainly, to the basis for co-integraion exists. Its just that attention on these topics is not that big. You could easily connect Brazil to the ECB with a correct setup.
But I haven’t heard of it happening with the wild-west Android NFC payments, much less widespread problems with the essentially unconstrained use of QR code payments on SE Asia (e.g. Alipay).
So as an iPhone user I’m happy for Apple’s lockdown going away. I just hope it doesn’t mean that in future I’ll need to install a dozen payment apps and have to figure out which when I buy things.
I have no intention of using it. I have a feeling it’ll be crap. That’s how this stuff usually is. And I’m absolutely not going to use a different app for each card.
So I wonder if this will end up being a Pyrrhic victory.
Especially since no one sells unique stuff anymore, it’s mostly the same discount crap from China. So it’s not like I can’t get it elsewhere.
https://walt.is/
The transaction itself doesn't touch any Apple severs. In case anyone is wondering if there is an operational cost. There is a set up cost though with the initial verification and sometimes Apple do charge a one time fee per card set up.
There is a privacy angle with using Apple Pay. But I am unsure how much info banks and network is not getting because of it.
However Apple is providing something in all this. Apple Pay requires biometrics which (in theory) should help lower fraud costs for everyone. So it’s not like they’re just rent seeking for nothing.
I don’t know how it went for everyone else, but I don’t remember tapped pay getting popular until after Apple Pay and Apple pushing it. I know that coincided with when EMV terminals really started to get popular because the credit card companies were forcing it. But I honestly wonder if they helped push it to the mainstream, even for people just using tap cards.
It's regional—tap with cards was fairly popular in Canada before Apple Pay came along, but every time I visited the US I remember being surprised at how many retailers supported only the magnetic stripe.
No one wanted to put on EMV terminals because they didn’t want to pay the upgrade cost. Even if they bought them because they were the only thing, they wouldn’t turn any of the EMV stuff on. You still did everything like 1995. It was the liability shift that finally forced people to start. And that coincided well with Apple Pay. Which obviously was planned by Apple.
I also remember people hating it and trying to avoid it because it was so slow early on.
On the other hand, a lot of places that supported tap to pay didn’t even know. Lots of times when I started using Apple Pay I got confusion from the person checking me out. “What did you do, how did you pay” or “I didn’t know you could do that”. Multiple times retailers I used it at stopped taking it later. I assume they found out people were using it and freaked out because they didn’t know it was on.
There are still lots of retailers where the signs don’t say you can use it, or even the screens on the terminals, but it works fine. It’s still kind of mess but it generally works almost everywhere.
The lawsuit was files in 2022, and apple opened access to the NFC chip in 2024 (iOS 18.1). Searching I could find alternative wallet apps that offer contactless payments, but only in EEA, eg [0, 1, 2]. It is supposed to be accessible in the US, but I am not sure why there are no apps there, unless I have missed them.
IANAL but if access to NFC is open since 2024 and (assumingly) the amount banks etc pay for apple pay has not really decreased, wouldn't that mean that their main argument is not really substantive?
[0] paypal @germany https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/13/paypal-contactless-paym...
[1] curve pay @eu(?) https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/23/curve-pay-launches-ipho...
[2] Vipps mobilepay @norway https://vippsmobilepay.com/en-NO/news/2024/12/09/vippsmobile...