I'm not sure about broadband data, as it can't be that useful. However on the mobile side, it's fairly valuable as a mobile app can collect A-GPS location and sensor telemetry that are unknown to the MNO otherwise.
I think the AI/ML ecosystem is a bit of a mess overall, things tend to work out of the box in Python because that's what everyone targets, but it doesn't necessarily say that much about maturity and robustness.
In Rust you can use many C++ frameworks like libtorch or ONNX or specialized libraries (llama.cpp, whisper.cpp ...) via their bindings. Native projects such as Candle or Burn are not feature complete yet, but I assume they'll eventually get there and drive bigger communities compared to C++.
Switzerland since last summer, but banks aren't forced to expose the feature to retail customers yet, at least not for free. We could have had that 15 years ago if our government wasn't so afraid of upsetting the banking lobbies.
> We need instant, free SEPA transfers around the clock.
We have? SCT inst has been rolled out almost everywhere
> Switzerland is not part of SEPA
We definitely are. Transfers in EUR from/to CH IBANs use SEPA rails. CHF accounts can also send or receive EUR transparently (usually at a bad FX rate, but it just works).
> I don't understand what they solve. [...]
> I always say that the day Trump decides to block Visa/MasterCard outside the US is the day we get instant payments and finally get rid of cards.
You answered your own question. We need pan-European payments systems on top of the existing banking infrastructure. Payments and transfers aren't the same thing. By moving to mobile wallets with QR code and NFC payments, this opens up interoperability beyond Europe too.
> We have? SCT inst has been rolled out almost everywhere
That is true; I should have said "EEA" or "countries supporting IBAN".
> We definitely are. Transfers in EUR from/to CH IBANs use SEPA rails. CHF accounts can also send or receive EUR transparently (usually at a bad FX rate, but it just works).
Yes, which is exactly my point. We need it to work for CHF as well. Instant payments are not the norm and in fact UBS is charging for it.
> You answered your own question. We need pan-European payments systems on top of the existing banking infrastructure. Payments and transfers aren't the same thing. By moving to mobile wallets with QR code and NFC payments, this opens up interoperability beyond Europe too.
A payment should be a bank transfer. Anything more complicated is just something that is to be exploited by middle-men.
This is a false dichotomy. You can have very cheap transaction fees, Pix is state-run and probably operates at a loss, with merchant fees as low as 0.2~0.3%. In comparison the cheapest card payment under the EEA interchange cap is probably slightly above 0.5% when you add scheme fees and PSP costs.
However businesses do require payment systems and not just barebones bank transfers. Except for high trust, low volume transactions such as buying a car, paying your rent...
> A payment should be a bank transfer. Anything more complicated is just something that is to be exploited by middle-men.
I disagree with that. Payments (especially online and contactless ones) should have some form of buyer protection, chargeback and a way to handle fraudulent transaction, lost / stolen cards, etc.
Maybe that's changes by country, but here bank transfers are basically final and can not be cancelled or recalled. Why would a bank cover your losses from their profits?
Which has zero incentive to side with the other party. You pay by bank transfer, once the money is on the merchant's account, why would their bank ever agree to a refund in case of dispute? Now it's between you and the merchant, good luck with filing police reports and court claims especially abroad.
The most common scams nowadays involve social engineering to make people log into their online banking and transfer money, specifically because there's no way to revert transactions. The victims are typically 100% liable as they accept and authorize these.
- Switzerland hasn't gotten Apple to open up NFC payments at the same conditions as the EEE, at least not yet.
- Twint is part of the EMPSA which hasn't really delivered anything tangible. On the contrary there's now a real push from EPI and EuroPA to make Wero interoperable with non-Eurozone networks. Hopefully Twint will get on board too.
- Transaction fees are on the higher side, consequently merchants don't have any reason to push Twint or disincentive debit card payments.
> Twint is part of the EMPSA which hasn't really delivered anything tangible.
It's easy to see why. Both Swish and Vipps is part of EMPSA. In Sweden, everyone uses Swish. Vipps (from Norway I believe) wants to expand to Sweden but no one is using it since it's not compatible with Swish. So making it compatible would potentially hurt the business of Swish.
Regulation is needed. Otherwise it will never happen.
If EPI / Wero reach a critical mass then hopefully this will change, as non-Eurozone countries will have a direct interest in making the local mobile payment solution accept the one used by an area of 350+ million people.
Then the EPI protocol could become the least common denominator and you might be able to use Vipps, Twint, Blik... in Sweden? I believe similar scenarios are happening in Asia around Alipay and UPI, for instance I think I can use the Korean Kakao Pay on a payment terminal in Japan, because both sides are compatible with Alipay+.
Even better, as an exchange, they don't even necessarily care whether the line goes up, down, sideways, or in fucking circles to quote the Wolf of Wall Street. As long as it goes somewhere, and customers are charged fees.
PANs are indeed going away and every transaction could already be tokenized, today. But then the US were 20 years behind on EMV, and SCA is still not a thing.
The EU has banned plain SMS tokens for SCA. You need an OTP + PIN or password, or more likely authorize the transaction from a mobile app with biometrics.
The Nexus and early Pixel eras have been a series of weirdly positioned and priced models year after year. Google didn't even bother trying to sell them in more than a handful countries.
Then Google switched to a pretty bad Exynos based SoC and consistently shipped underwhelming hardware at price points aligned with Apple... requiring absolutely insane discounts or promotion campaigns, even at launch. Can you imagine Apple giving you AirPods Pro or a Watch if you buy the next iPhone 18 on day 1?
We've seen things like the Pixel tablet that should have been sold at half its MSRP to stand even a small chance against the iPad.
And I won't even talk of the many hardware issues... my dad's Pixel 7a was fully reimbursed for 25% more money than he actually spent buying it.
> Can you imagine Apple giving you AirPods Pro or a Watch if you buy the next iPhone 18 on day 1?
Apple does exactly this, they just launder it out to their carrier partners. My wife's carrier was recently offering a free Apple Watch if you pre-ordered a new iPhone before launch.
Similarly, Apple was already selling a laptop (the M1 MacBook Air) at MacBook Neo prices, but only via Walmart (and they were continuing production of the M1 MBA specifically for this deal).
Carrier deals aren't comparable as they're subsidized by inflated phone plans.
If you buy an iPhone on day 1 from the Apple store you're certainly not getting any gift or discount. With Google you can pre-order and get a $200-300 gift, wait for deals (Black Friday, Christmas, ...) or if you aren't in a rush, wait six months for resellers and carriers to invariably start dumping their stock at half the MSRP. Meanwhile the base iPhone price has decreased by 10-15% maybe.
And I don't see how older MacBook Airs are relevant here. Apple has always sold previous generations of their hardware for years, directly or indirectly, either by actively maintaining production or simply letting resellers deal with old stocks. Google keeping the previous year generation on their product line-up is a very recent development. Not very long ago they would abruptly stop selling the Pixel N before the N+1 were even announced.
> Carrier deals aren't comparable as they're subsidized by inflated phone plans.
I don't have any insight into what deals the carriers have on the backend, but in my region, the price delta between like-for-like BYOD plans and plans with subsidized iPhones are effectively nil.
Either the carriers are getting discounts from Apple, or everyone with BYOD plans are subsidizing phones for people who get them through carriers.
e.g. I'm currently seeing a carrier plan where the total plan + device cost over 24 months is ~$1,600 and you come out of it free and clear with a 512gb iPhone Air that's $1,749 retail. I don't see how that's possible for the carrier to offer if they're not getting discounts from Apple.
My point is that Apple doesn't want to look like they're giving discounts on their store, so they engineer any discounts to go through third parties.
I work at a carrier in Switzerland, if I take the phone we push at the top of our inventory, the iPhone 17 Pro 256 GB:
Phone: 1099 (Apple's MSRP).
24-month phone plan, 50/month the first year, then 81/month: 1572. Discount: -300
Now BYOD:
Phone: 1067 at the biggest and most reputable online retailer.
Near identical phone plan sold through our discount/virtual brand: 30/month i.e. 720 over 24 months (but you can leave anytime).
So even assuming you buy it on day 1 with zero discount from Apple's MSRP, that 300 gift costs you 852 CHF really.
Now if I look at our most agressive competitor, you get the phone for free if you spend at least 1752 on a 24-month phone plan.
They have a better phone plan at 15/month i.e. 360 over 2 years. BYOD is still way cheaper.
Okay, so maybe your carriers aren't getting good discounts. The existence of plans without good discounts doesn't really show anything. Of course some carriers will have some plans without good discounts.
Like I said, for one of my local carriers, I'm seeing a plan that costs $1,600 that includes both two years of service and a $1,749 MSRP phone.
There's no possible way for a BYOD plan to be cheaper after accounting for the phone MSRP, they'd have to pay you $150 for the SIM card and two years of service.
reply