You shouldn’t need an app for that
Could opening up NFC on iOS lead to fragmentation?
I’ve been wanting to discuss this topic for a while, especially given the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the ongoing DOJ investigation into Apple’s practices.
Much of the debate centers around creating competition, but I’m not convinced that’s always the best approach in certain spaces.
Take, for example, the instant payments market in Brasil before the introduction of Pix: There was a dozen of proprietary apps, each aiming to be the “winner-takes-all” solution, but none of them gained significant traction. People would use these apps when there were special offers, but they never became the go-to payment method.
Customers never knew which stores accepted which payment apps, and all of them using QR codes made it look like they were all compatible.
Then came Pix, a payment scheme mandated by the Brazilian Central Bank that all banks and similar institutions had to support. Its success was almost instantaneous. This example highlights how too many options can actually hinder a market’s potential, and I believe this principle applies to the payments industry more broadly.
Up until now, discussions about opening up NFC access on iOS have been driven by regulators, and I understand the push for more competition.
However, I think there’s room to focus on market-specific solutions. For example, regarding Apple Pay, regulators might consider enforcing Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms or allowing banks to integrate their cards into Apple Wallet without relying solely on Apple’s infrastructure, potentially reducing fees.
But Apple has just announced plans to open up NFC and Secure Element access in countries that aren’t even requiring it. It seems like they’re trying to get ahead of any potential regulations, but I believe there could be alternative solutions.
To be clear, I’m not complaining about Apple opening up access — this move will certainly help in certain scenarios, such as enabling Pix payments via NFC (currently, there’s a working group proposing an App Clip just because iOS doesn’t support card emulation). However, most wallet apps today are quite basic and only include the features that make sense for their developers.
Typically, there are three types of wallet apps:
Bank Wallets: Usually part of a bank’s app, these are convenient because users are already logged in and can pay via NFC without additional setup. However, they hardly would support cards from other banks and lack incentives to include other use cases like transit cards, meal vouchers, or home keys.
Regional Wallets: For example, in Portugal, there’s MB Way, owned by the operator of the largest ATM network in the country. It’s close to being a general-purpose wallet but only accepts cards from Portuguese banks. Even cards technically “Portuguese” by their BIN, like those issued by Revolut or Wise, are not accepted. Revolut has been fighting this for four years now.
Transit Wallets: These are typically single-purpose apps, like Anda in Oporto (only available for Android), which allows users to emulate and manage their transit cards directly within the app.
On Apple Pay, I have cards from Portuguese banks, a Portuguese-ish card from Revolut, cards from Brazilian bank and even a parisian Navigo transit card.
Choosing any of the other wallets as default I’d need to make some tradeoffs. This could work for most people, specially when we are talking payments. But once you start considering other kind of cards (or even keys!) it's really hard to have a wallet that supports them all.
I see the wallet as a neutral tool. In a physical wallet, you can carry your credit card, debit card, transit card, ID, and more — all from different banks, payment networks, and countries. The wallet doesn’t discriminate, and I believe the same should be true for digital wallets. They should serve as neutral tools where users can add whatever they need.
And the closest we have to this neutral wallet are the builtins on Android and iOS, and I think it makes sense that a wallet is a OS-level infrastructure. (Though I would say Apple Wallet loses some neutrality points for also being the app for Apple Card.)
What holds Apple Wallet back is the slow rollout of features: ID integration is happening state-by-state in the U.S., public transit support is limited to a few countries, home and car keys depend on HomeKit certification, and corporate building access cards… well, who knows?
This is why I believe Apple should focus more on opening up Apple Wallet rather than allowing for replacements.
Since Apple will require a commercial agreement to use NFC for card emulation, I hope they are also trying to get most of those proposals on Apple Wallet as well. That would make for a better experience for the end users.
