« | Home | Categories | »

Apple Pay Details: Apple Gets 0.15% Cut of Purchases, Higher Rates for Bluetooth Payments

Posted on September 13th, 2014 at 10:34 by John Sinteur in category: Apple

[Quote]:

According to a new report from The Financial Times, Apple stands to make quite a bit of money from its payments service. Banks and payment networks will be forking over 0.15 percent of each purchase to Apple, which equates to 15 cents out of a $100 purchase.

They are also paying hard cash for the privilege of being involved: 15 cents of a $100 purchase will go to the iPhone maker, according to two people familiar with the terms of the agreement, which are not public. That is an unprecedented deal, giving Apple a share of the payments’ economics that rivals such as Google do not get for their services

According to bank executives, Apple was able to negotiate with so many partners and receive choice deals because the industry didn’t see anything threatening in Apple Pay. One executive suggested that Apple’s payment model continued to put banks “at the centre of payments.” Apple may also have been able to negotiate better deals due to the tight security it has in place for Apple Pay. Payments will be made via NFC with a one-time token, and also secured with a Touch ID fingerprint.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Whatever threats they saw were probably overcome when they were offered an apparently magical solution to a problem that is considered perpetual, boring and difficult in banking.

  2. Yeah. And let’s see just how fast a man-in-the-middle attack will be successfully made. I would guess less than a month from when the phone is released to the public. 1. Intercept token. 2. Re-vector it to credit the malefactors instead of the real store. Oops – where did my $$ go? Why does the store want their $$? I paid, didn’t I?

  3. It’s cool that they managed to negotiate that, but it’s going to be noise on Apple’s income statements for a looooong time.

‘So Little Compassion’: James Foley’s Parents Say Officials Threatened Family Over Ransom

Posted on September 13th, 2014 at 10:30 by John Sinteur in category: News

[Quote]:

The mother of slain American journalist James Foley said she wasn’t necessarily surprised that the U.S. government threatened her family with prosecution should they raise money to pay her son’s ransom, but she was astounded by how such a devastating message was delivered.

“I was surprised there was so little compassion,” Diane Foley told ABC News today of the three separate warnings she said U.S. officials gave the family about the illegality of paying ransom to the terror group ISIS. “It just made me realize that these people talking to us had no idea what it was like to be the family of someone abducted… I’m sure [the U.S. official] didn’t mean it the way he said it, but we were between a rock and a hard place. We were told we could do nothing… meanwhile our son was being beaten and tortured every day.”

Earlier this week five current and former officials with direct knowledge of the Foley case confirmed the alleged threats were made.

“It was an utterly idiotic thing to do that came across as if [the U.S. official] had the compassion of an anvil,” said a former official who has advised the family.

That’s an insult to anvils everywhere.


Write a comment

Comments:

  1. Not to mention the hammer… Now, let’s just put these pinheads’ heads on the anvil and apply the hammer a few times to knock some sense into their thick skulls.

  2. I’m guessing tact isn’t government’s strong suit but I’m kind of wondering why the family was warned three separate times. Did the government perhaps think the family was ignoring the warnings and planned to break the law?

  3. @Rob: they had them under surveillance, almost certainly. Intercepted members of the family discussing such things, their houses are bugged, etc.

    Time to crack open the Le Carré for a little refresher?

  4. I get that, Sue. My consternation lies with two traditions in America. One is Civil Disobedience, where you break the law and just accept the consequences. The other is more of a cowboy thing where you beg forgiveness after rather than ask permission before. I’m guessing the Foleys were possibly on one of those paths. If the government adamantly doesn’t want that law broken, is a couple of stern warnings really that severe a course of action?

  5. @Rob: I’m really sorry for these people, btw. Impossible situation, horrible result. And the family.