When vzw stops being anti-competitive.
As well when Google stops being anticompetitive as well.
If you need an explanation. Google blocks the secure element from any company from writing their own code to use it. Google DOES NOT have an exclusive license to do such. Read the white paper of the NFC secure element. Since Google blocks it Isis needs a special sim with a secure element to bypass it. This requires a lot of testing with the FCC and further beta testing as the one in phones have already been tested for years from the USM usage over the past 10 years.
ok i read it. i would purport that it would be anti-competitive if google blocked access to their "secure element" AND prevented any nfc enabled sim card from functioning. The fact that there is in fact a work around (regardless of how much verizon had to spend to develop it) means that google is still permitting competition in the nfc payment market. You may have a point that google might not have exclusive license to the use of such technology, but there is a distinction between not allowing others to use what they developped vs not allowing others to pursue a mobile payment system as a whole. On the other hand verizon is refusing to allow google wallet to use native technology on the ground that its use of the nfc secure element makes it qualitatively different that other mobile payment apps and somehow compromises the integrity of user data (a tenuous argument at best when all google does is store an id code to associate with information on remote servers). I would argue that Verizon's behavior is more non-competitive than google's. I wont say that google isn't playing their hand to the best of their ability. but they are not outright refusing verizon's right to a mobile payment system and the reverse cannot be said of verizon.
There more than just Isis and carriers. What is Square, PayPal, or some other company would want to make a NFC payment. Exactly how would they go about that? Exactly. If carriers didn't have sim cards and didn't disable the secure element within the phones then they'd have nothing. One thing you also forget. Being anti competitive doesn't always stop companies from entering. It can always make it harder for them to enter. See Microsoft Internet Explorer vs other mobile browsers. What did the EU governing bodies do?
See Microsoft Internet Explorer vs other mobile browsers. What did the EU governing bodies do?
The EU governing bodies did this;
Explain what difference is Google doing from what MS did? By them locking out the secure element they are stopping potential competing bodies from entering the market.
snippets from what you linked.
The commission's decision to fine Microsoft was not challenged by the court, saying the company had blocked fair access to its markets. E.U. competition commissioner, Joaquín Almunia, has said that such fines may not be effective in preventing anti-competitive behavior and that the commission now preferred to seek settlements that restrict businesses' plans instead. As such, 'The New York Times called the Microsoft decision "a decision that could mark the end of an era in antitrust law in which regulators used big fines to bring technology giants to heel."
In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice." In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.
On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order. The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim which are accessible viaBrowserChoice.eu.
I willing to bet money the reason why wallet isn't in Europe is because they'll get the same fate as MS did. If they did they'd have to open up the secure element to allow competition to flourish.
some references that fit in what I was saying about Google blocking the secure element.
It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.
"The commission's decision to fine Microsoft was not challenged by the court, saying the company had blocked fair access to its markets."
VZW, oops! i meant MSFT, blocked fair access to its markets? And they were supposed to get away with that?
Verizon must have better lobbyists, or we must have how shall i say, "unenlightened" governing bodies and/or courts.
Hey like I said you keep pointing to Verizon yet you won't admit Google is doing the same thing.