Is there any upside to consumers to this restriction?
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.
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.
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.
Often, a high school education is not enough.
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!
It's definitely not coming out of card issuers pockets, from their fat interchange fees, that they may be happy to pay due to reduced fraud and other costs. Nope, the free sky money thing is it.
That high school education is serving well.
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.
I'm genuinely all ears, because this has not been my observation, but I've never done and in-depth study of the matter.
- Android is Open Source. Google itself is a ghoulish company nowadays, few people are wrong in assuming that. For all of iOS' security taglines though, you can't build it yourself and create a further-hardened version. "Features" like Apple routing traffic around your VPN cannot be un-programmed. This doesn't necessarily make Android a better OS, but it absolutely enables better overall privacy and proves that a better ideal is realistic. I don't personally hold Google in high regards security-wise, but the AOSP has nothing to hide. You can go see for yourself.
- Apple's software can't be trusted. pbourke's correct in that consumers have to make a choice about trust when selecting hardware, but I see no evidence that Apple's approach is working. Their services turn over personally-identifying data to governments by the ten-thousands, and in countries like China your iCloud server lives in a CCP-owned facility. Apple does nothing to resist obvious government censorship ploys, and is indeed a decade-old member of America's PRISM program. Without any transparency holding Apple accountable, you really have to hold on the question - can you trust them?
- Neither Google nor Apple make good OSes, in part because neither one is motivated to compete with the other. Google treats Android as a technology dumping ground and a defacto unifying platform for their various hairbrained hardware endeavors. Apple treats iOS like Hotel California. Both companies have found a niche in ignoring each other, and Apple has used it as an excuse to pursue business strategies Google could never dream of. It's a threat to the market no matter how either of us feel about it.
The DOJ put it best, this morning: "Apple deploys privacy and security justifications as an elastic shield that can stretch or contract to serve Apple’s financial and business interests."
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...
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Then nobody will use them if Apple allows them. If they do it like Google, by default users cannot sideload or install alternative app stores anyway. It's opt-in. Why do you want to prevent people who actively want to do these things with their phones from doing them?
If Apple's goal is to make things as "easy" for people as possible, then they should just not have any app store at all. And they shouldn't offer different configurations. They should just release an Apple iPhone that comes however it comes and nothing about it can be modified. That would be super convenient!
I don't want to. I want Apple to make the decision. I want Apple to make 1000s of decisions for me around my phone. They seem to be good at it, at least with respect to end users.
And, no, a non-app store phone wouldn't be convenient. Uber is very convenient. So is my banking app. There are dozens of very convenient apps on my phone.
You don't think your bank is in the loop on payments you make with your bank's card???