“Apple has rejected registration of ‘Samsung Pay Mini,’ which is a mobile payment system for online payments only, onto its app store,” The Electronic Times reports. “Samsung Pay Mini is a simple mobile payment service that Samsung Electronics is going to introduce in January. Competitions between Samsung and Apple have expanded towards markets for online payments, and Samsung has decided to focus on Android rather than providing its service through Apple devices.”
“Samsung Electronics has decided not to reapply again to Apple’s app store and has decided to focus only on Android markets,” The Electronic Times reports. “‘After Apple rejected registration of Samsung Pay Mini onto its app store, we have decided to focus on Smartphones with Android OS.’ said a representative for Samsung Electronics.”
“It can be that Apple rejected Samsung Pay Mini because its particular functions do not meet with Apple’s policies on security and regulations. If this is the reason then Samsung can reapply after tweaking some of functions according to Apple’s regulations. However Samsung has decided not to reapply again,” The Electronic Times reports. “If Apple rejected Samsung Pay Mini without any particular reasons then there is a cause of violation of Fair Trade Law.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: If Samsung has decided not to reapply, then there is no “violation of Fair Trade Law.”
Samsung Pay can have the Android market. Now they just have to find an Android settler who pays for things.
SEE ALSO:
Apple reaps 106% of smartphone industry profits – November 21, 2016
Poor man’s iPhone: Android on the decline – February 26, 2015
Study: iPhone users are smarter and richer than those who settle for Android phones – January 22, 2015
Why Android users can’t have the nicest things – January 5, 2015
iPhone users earn significantly more than those who settle for Android phones – October 8, 2014
Yet more proof that Android is for poor people – June 27, 2014
More proof that Android is for poor people – May 13, 2014
Android users poorer, shorter, unhealthier, less educated, far less charitable than Apple iPhone users – November 13, 2013
IDC data shows two thirds of Android’s 81% smartphone share are cheap junk phones – November 13, 2013
CIRP: Apple iPhone users are younger, richer, and better educated than those who settle for Samsung knockoff phones – August 19, 2013
iPhone users smarter, richer than Android phone users – August 16, 2011
Study: Apple iPhone users richer, younger, more productive than other so-called ‘smartphone’ users – June 12, 2009
“Now they just have to find an Android settler who pays for things.”
Heh. The crux of the problem with Android, hence Apple’s 100+% of all smart phone’s profit.
Seen that stat way too often w/o the actual profits/losses by the other ‘participants’.
Look it up. After all, you were on the internet when you posted your comment.
Thanks for the suggestion. I learned a lot about how the calculations were made, who the ‘nearest’ Android competitors are that bear some notice and several reasons why Android OEMs continue producing handsets in the competitive environment. Here’s two that were news because of Samsung’s fall over Q3.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/22/apple-smartphone-industry-profits/
http://www.androidguys.com/2016/11/23/huawei-gets-crowned-most-profitable-android-oem-in-q3/
Huawei is making some bold statements about surpassing both Apple and Samsung by 2019 and 2021 respectively. “It also became the third largest smartphone maker in the world. Back in February, Huawei told CNBC that it planned to surpass Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) as the second largest smartphone maker in 2019, and pass Samsung as the biggest player in 2021.”
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/12/03/guess-whos-the-most-profitable-android-smartphone.aspx
This is a good thing because it is possible to use Samsung Pay entirely UNsafely such that your identity is stolen. It allows the use of old crap card readers that keep purchaser data in-the-clear in RAM, from which it is readily stolen. Think Target.
Also, Samsung is most likely asking for full access to Apple’s NFC system on iOS devices, to which Apple’s eternal response is ‘NO!’. Think Australian Banks debacle.
“Also, Samsung is most likely asking for full access to Apple’s NFC system on iOS devices”
I would bet not, in this specific app’s case anyway. IIRC there’s no public API for doing this, and they’d have to be dumb beyond belief to try submitting an app that used private APIs. I mean I know it’s Samsung we’re talking about here, but that’s a stretch even for them.
It would be good to see Samsung’s specs. But for now, it’s irrelevant. And that’s fine with me.
Thanks Derek. You would think there would be minimum industry standards abs practiceso by now.
Here in the USA, despite the NFC deadline of October, 2015, I can imagine cruddy old card readers still being around years from now. The constant feedback I get from retailers is that the entire roll out continues to be a mess. Meanwhile, fellow bank card holders ask me how the frack I got NFC chip cards and they didn’t. Seriously, they still have the old mag stripe cards. Apparently, it’s up to the banks to decide to catch up with the future or live in the past until the last possible moment. (0_o)
The deadline is for EMV cards.
They don’t us NFC.
They use an integrated circuit on the card to generate a one time transaction code.
The code is transmitted by rfid or through contact inside the reader.
And the deadline is being widely ignored (in the USA). I just visited a new McDonalds which opened less than a week ago. The workers were informing everyone “the chip readers are not operational.”
Fine with me. I buy discounted gift cards for McD’s and received my CC rewards already. 😀
As I understand Samsung Pay working now (perhaps your info is old) it also tokenizes your credit card numbers for each transaction and uses Samsung KNOX to store security info.
In addition to storing your credit cards for use, Samsung Pay goes beyond Apple Pay in storing gift cards, loyalty cards and any other purchase related barcode (I suspect you could possibly enter coupons too) and has a rewards program for using it, Samsung Rewards. It seems the points accumulated and promotions on it can be used in addition to any such promotions or points accumulated on the credit card you have added to your wallet.
Though I would normally agree that access to the NFC would be a reason. I am not aware of any 3rd party that has access to the NFC via API or otherwise on an iPhone so doubt that NFC access was the problem since the completed App was being submitted and not a request to submit an App in the future.
As I understand Samsung Pay working now (perhaps your info is old) it also tokenizes your credit card numbers for each transaction and uses Samsung KNOX to store security info.
That is ONE method used in Samsung Pay. But it ALSO allows use of POS POS machines that, as I have described, have been MASSIVE security holes at retail companies. Again, refer to the Target catastrophe. This is enablement of bad old technology that should be put down and buried.
Samsung Pay goes beyond Apple Pay in storing gift cards, loyalty cards and any other purchase related barcode (I suspect you could possibly enter coupons too) and has a rewards program for using it, Samsung Rewards.
That’s new to me and sound very useful!
Regarding Samsung requesting access Apple’s NFC APIs, that is a very real possibility. I pointed out the Australian banks debacle. That has still not been settled, with several banks fighting in court to have access to those APIs. There’s no reason Samsung wouldn’t request the same at this point in time.
Samsung Pay requires the retailer to update their POS software so I imagine that in the process CC info is never sent and the upgrade is to support the tokenized card data that would be sent by the Samsung Pay App. As such the security hole is not as detrimental since all they could possibly get is the token for that one purchase, useless for future purchases as far as I know.
I can see Samsung possibly requesting access to Apple’s NFC, but I don’t see that as a possible reason for the rejection this time around of a completed app that couldn’t possibly have any access to the NFC.
It would be great if you are correct. But the original spec I read for Samsung Pay (many months ago) clearly enable the use of the old, crap, Windows XP, user data in-the-clear in RAM POS POS machines. Samsung was even BOASTING that Samsung Pay would be this stupidly backwards compatible. I remember saving articles stating specifically that. But please don’t make me go back and dig them out of may archives. Have mercy!
Again regarding requested access to Apple’s NFC, I don’t understand your point. Asking Apple for access to their NFC APIs would indeed result in rejection of an app. But we know noting about what Samsung wrote or requested. So it ends up being a dead end conversation. It’s just in our imaginations.
As it is my imagining by extrapolation of Samsung KNOX and tokenizing of CC data to guess at what the POS software upgrade is necessary for, I will take your word that the data in-the-clear POS machines are still insecure in handling CC data due to backwards compatibility.
My point was that Samsung couldn’t have had Apple NFC support in the App they submitted since there is no access to the functionality. Requesting use of the NFC on submission of the App would be a separate incident for a possible future version and reasonably have no bearing on the acceptance or denial of the currently submitted (assumed functional) App using an alternative method.
Now that I consider the fact that Samsung would have been submitting code to Apple, obviously they could not have incorporated code to access Apple’s NFC APIs. √ Thank you for your patience.
It’s been a trying day at my end of the world today. This isn’t my first apology today for being disoriented. I think it may have something to do with my cat demanding that I get up and feed her at 4:30 AM. Yeah, I’ll blame her. 😉
Cats are good for blaming.. They don’t care. 😀
My cat will barf somewhere in the house in response. So I have to blame behind her back. Emotional cat.
I’ve used Samsung Pay. While I’m no expert on the tech, the Samsung phones can transmit a magnetic signal a few inches so literally ANY card reader can be used. I even used it with NFC turned off. But whether the MST or NFC is used, the underlying transaction is via a generated token and doesn’t use the actual card number. The only way to “hack” it is to have a spoofed reader at a point of sale, then the perp captures a 1-time use token. And the owner gets a notification that their card was just used to buy something else somewhere else, so the notify the CC company. Not really a viable criminal business model.
And Samsung Pay has constant promotions. I received $105 in credits just for using it.
I don’t see how an iPhone app could help Samsung Pay.
“…the underlying transaction is via a generated token and doesn’t use the actual card number”
That’s excellent. The old EMV system was idiotic in that it transmitted EVERYTHING. I remember people sobbing and ranting how much they wanted that old EMV system in the USA. I just stared at them and shook my head. I still, sadly, have a card with a stupid old give-everything NFC/RFID chip in it, my NYS motor vehicle license that also works as a passport into Canada (to visit my cousins). I have to keep the POS in a Faraday Cage, aka tin foil hat, aka AFDB, aka metal lined envelope.
My guess is that Samsung would like to reproduce their same system on an iPhone via their app. Thus my (disoriented) chat with Xennex1170.
My reading of the article above seems to be missing a sentence from the source article. The full reads:
“Main reason why Apple rejected Samsung Pay Mini is not exactly known. It can be that Apple rejected Samsung Pay Mini because its particular functions do not meet with Apple’s policies on security and regulations. If this is the reason then Samsung can reapply after tweaking some of functions according to Apple’s regulations. However Samsung has decided not to reapply again.”
I took that to mean the author speculated on the rejection and there could still be cause for “violation of Fair Trade Law”.