Apple News

American Express says it is the first major corporate card portfolio that has been activated for Apple Pay, allowing business members to pay on the go using their compatible Apple mobile devices.

Cards that may be used with Apple Pay include only corporate cards issued to employees of commercial card customers working in the U.S. The Corporate Green Card, Corporate Gold Card, Corporate Platinum Card, Corporate Centurion Card, Business Extra Corporate Card and Corporate Defined Expense Program Corporate Card are all eligible. Prepaid Cards and other products are not eligible.

“Businesses today are going digital, and American Express is at the forefront of digital innovation, helping companies to streamline their payments systems and simplify their processes,” said Greg Keeley, Executive Vice President, Global Corporate Payments, American Express. “We continue to invest and expand digital offerings for our corporate customers in ways that maximize security and enhance the user experience.”

For use at contactless merchants

Apple Pay allows American Express members to register their eligible card and pay with their mobile devices at contactless merchants – those using a smart chip technology – in stores, or within participating apps that accept American Express.

The company adopted Apple Pay for its consumer cards and OPEN Small Business Cards in late 2014.

American Express praised Apple Pay for its security and privacy features, saying they mesh well with those that it offers. When you add a card to Apple Pay, the actual card numbers are not stored on the device, nor on Apple servers.

Apple Pay instead issues a unique Device Account Number, that is encrypted and securely stored in the secure element on the customer's device. Each transaction is authorized with a one-time unique dynamic security code.

But as with any wireless, encrypted technology, nothing is 100% secure. As we reported in June, security researchers at the mobile security company Wandera discovered and warned Apple about a vulnerability in iOS that would allow hackers to set up a wi-fi spot and then, once an iDevice connects to it, present it with a fake “captive portal” page imitating the genuine Apple Pay page asking users to enter their credit card data.

How it works

Apple Pay debuted last October, getting Apple into the mobile wallet game. To use it, customers just hold an iPhone 6 near the contactless reader with a finger on Touch ID. You don’t even have to look at the screen.

Among phones, Apple Pay is only compatible with the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, which are the only iPhones equipped with the requisite NFC radio antennae.

To pay with Apple Watch, just double-click the side button and hold the display of Apple Watch up to the contactless reader. A gentle tap and beep confirm that your payment information was sent.

According to MacWorld, Whole Foods Market has seen mobile payments increase by more than 400% since Apple Pay launched last year. Square integration is expected to expand its use to small, independent retail businesses.  

When the new iPhone 6s and 6s Plus, announced Wednesday, go on sale Saturday (pre-orders), T-Mobile customers are going to find it costs less to get it from the carrier than if they were to buy it at the Apple Store.

A lot less.

When Apple introduced its smartphone upgrades, it started the price of the 6s at $27 for 24 months and the Plus at $31 for 24 months. That works out to a price of $648 and $744 respectively.

But in his blog, T-Mobile CEO John LeGere said the carrier will offer the devices at a lower price; $20 a month for 18 months for the 6s and $24 a month for 18 months for the Plus. That means the $648 phone from Apple costs $360 from T-Mobile and the $744 Plus at Apple goes for $432 at T-Mobile.

The catch

The catch is this deal is for customers signing up for Jump! On Demand, a T-Mobile program where you trade in your phone after 18 months and get a new one. It's very similar to an auto lease. The customer does not pay for the residual value of the phone at the end of 18 months.

Those who pay the full price from Apple own their devices once the payments end, just like buying a car. Jump! On Demand customers who want to keep their iPhones at the end of 18 months may do so by making a one time $164 payment for the 6s.

“That means your total cost to own your phone is just $524 – that’s a screaming deal,” LeGere writes. It’s special introductory pricing for our launch, and it won’t last long.”

Lifetime Coverage Guarantee

At the same time, LeGere introduced what he calls the T-Mobile Lifetime Coverage Guarantee for customers buying one of the new iPhones.

“For as long as you use your iPhone 6s or 6s Plus on T-Mobile, if you aren’t completely satisfied with your coverage experience we’ll refund you for every penny you’ve paid for your new device in the first month, or after that, we’ll unlock it at no charge so you can use it with one of the other wireless companies,” LeGere writes.

The CEO said his company will also refund up to a full month of service fees. If a phone is unlocked, he says customers will be able to keep the interest-free payment plan at standard prices.

Though so far unsuccessful in court, disgruntled owners of  MacBook Pro laptops continue to flood social media with their expressions of outrage about what they regard as the expensive machines' substandard performance.

"I have the new 13" MacPro and even when it's plugged in, if you are using a site that is graphic intensive, it starts to drain battery power," a consumer named Sharon said in a ConsumerAffairs posting.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in California dismissed a suit filed by Alex Tomek, who alleged that in 2011, he bought a MacBook Pro based on Apple's claims of "huge leaps in performance."

But Tomek, whose suit sought class-action status, said he soon found the battery was not charging under certain conditions and that sometimes the machine was draining power from the battery even when it was plugged in. Eventually, it go so bad that Tomek said he had to stop working and turn the machine off to let it recharge.

Not enough power

Tomek's suit alleges that the 85-watt power adapter supplied with the machines is not up to the job of powering the the 2.3 gHz Intel Core 17 processor and its accompanying AMD Radeon graphics processor, despite Apple's advertising which promised that users would be able to "surf the web wirelessly for up to 7 hours on a single charge."

Tomek said consumers were complaining about the problem since the machines were released but received no satisfaction from Apple, which the suit alleges has "failed and refused and continues to faill and refuse to provide adequate customers service ... to cope with this defect."

In its defense, Apple argued that Tomek had failed to build a strong case for his assertion that Apple had intentionally misled purchasers. 

In dismissing the case, the judge wrote that the suit was "devoid of any facts demonstrating that Defendant ever represented to Plaintiff that the MacBook Pro's battery would not drain under certain circumstances, even if plugged into an external power source, resulting in a shutdown. In fact, Defendant's support representative told Plaintiff the battery drain was 'expected behavior.'"

Also, the judge noted, Apple claimed battery life would be "up to" seven hours, thus leaving itself considerable wiggle room. Tomek has the option to amend certain provisions of the suit and refile it.

If there was any remaining doubt that Apple and Google are now full-fledged competitors, it should be removed by the news that Apple is planning to dump Google Maps in its next operating system and on its iPhones, iPads and related gadgets.

Instead, Apple will be unveiling what insiders say is an "incredible" new in-house maps application that is said to be much cleaner, faster and more reliable than the current version.

AllThingsD, a Wall Street Journal publication, quotes an Apple insider as saying the new maps will “blow your head off.”

9to5Mac reported that the company has been combining services from subsidiary companies, Placebase, C3 Technologies, and Poly9 in order to develop its own maps service. The new version is expected to be launched when iOS 6 is announced, probably at an upcoming June conference.

Google Street View will also be replaced by an in-house version supplied by one of the many companies Apple has been acquiring lately.

There's also a 3D option built into the new maps app.  9to5Mac describes it as "beautiful, realistic graphics based on de-classified missile target algorithms."

Apple's stock price is down and there are fears that sales of iPhones and other iStuff may be slumping but you've got to give Apple credit for one thing: the company has good lawyers.

Just the other day, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the MacBook Pro drains its battery even when it's plugged in. The judge said Apple's promotional literature had never claimed the battery wouldn't go dead. Case dismissed.

And now, another judge has dismissed claims that Apple deceptively charges consumers for downloading the same song more than once. The judge said -- guess what? -- it's not deceptive because Apple discloses that multiple charges accompany multiple downloads.

Robert Herskowitz and Phoebe Juel had hoped to represent a class of customers who were charged for multiple downloads of the same song from iTunes.

Apple argued that the plaintiffs "do not and cannot point to any legal obligation requiring Apple to provide them with a second download of the same song free of charge. To the contrary, their agreement with Apple expressly bars that claim, and provided an express and exclusive remedy that plaintiffs ignore." That remedy is to contact Apple for assistance, Courthouse News Service reported.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed with Apple, noting that "the agreement in effect at the time of Juel's purchase contained an express provision that purchasers were not entitled to re-download a song free of charge."

The judge noted that Apple's Terms and Conditions state that "products may be downloaded only once and cannot be replaced if lost for any reason." 

In both cases, the plaintiffs have the opportunity to amend their original complaints.

New computer, no songs

Sometimes, of course, hanging onto your iTunes titles is easier said than done. Ellen of Grand Island, N.Y., said in a ConsumerAffairs postingthat she bought a new desktop computer last November.

"When I went to transfer the 30-plus songs I had purchased on iTunes, the songs disappeared," she said. "Thus began the saga of over 10 hours spent  responding to emails, over 3 hrs on the phone with their support team. None of their steps worked to retrieve my already paid for songs!"

"I believe this is a ruse to get customers to buy songs over and over to increase their revenue," Ellen groused. "This borders on greed to me."

It's not just music that sometimes strikes a sour note wit Apple customers. Lynn of Hot Springs, Ark., tried to buy two audio books that she could listen to during an upcoming road trip. But Lynn, who said she has limited vision and is not very computer-savvy, soon found that only one of the books would play.

"After hours of searching and struggling to read and understand all the help webpages, I finally managed to speak directly to an Itunes customer service person. They were unable to figure out the problem and furnished phone number for Apple," Lynn said. "The Apple rep immediately told me that I had purchased an "iBook", not an audio book. They suggested I contact iTunes for solution."

Lynn did that, but didn't get much in the way of results. iTunes refused to credit her for the mistaken purchase.

"They did not care about honest mistakes, being blind in one eye, being over 65 and not the best on a computer. Their customer support was not to soothe or assist the customer," she said.  "I may have only spent a few hundred a year with iTunes and they won't miss my business, all over a $12.00 book."

Earlier this month, Apple unveiledits latest-gen iPhone 6 and first-gen iWatch, and also officially discontinued its iPod family of MP3 players.

Though iPods were undeniably cutting-edge technology when the first one was released in 2001, by 2014 they were officially obsolete. But their legacy lives on, especially in the decade-old anti-trust class action suit Apple's faced over them.

Courthouse News reported today that last week, a federal judge denied Apple's attempt to exclude a certain expert witness chosen by the plaintiffs in that suit. (The judge also denied the plaintiffs' attempt to exclude the testimony of Apple's chosen counter-witnesses, so it's hard to say which side, if any, “won” this latest round in the legal battle.)

Apple released its first iPod player in 2001. What's the difference between an iPod and a non-Apple MP3 player? Not much, except that iPods were Apple-branded, and could only play Apple-branded MP3 files — in other words, if the iTunes store didn't offer a particular song, your iPod couldn't play it.

Disharmonious

In July 2004, the RealNetworks company put out a product called Harmony, a workaround allowing iPod owners to play any MP3 files, not just Apple-branded ones, on their devices.

On July 29, 2004, Apple released a statement suggesting RealNetworks was engaged in criminal hacking activity:

“We are stunned that RealNetworks has adopted the tactics and ethics of a hacker to break into the iPod, and we are investigating the implications of their actions under the DMCA and other laws. We strongly caution Real and their customers that when we update our iPod software from time to time it is highly likely that Real's Harmony technology will cease to work with current and future iPods.”

Sure enough, in December 2004 Apple quietly updated its iPod software so that music from RealNetworks could no longer play on iPods — which also meant many iPod owners suddenly found they couldn't listen to their own music libraries anymore.

So in early 2005, an iPod-owning Apple customer named Thomas Slattery filed a class-action suit against the company, claiming that its policy of limiting iPod owners to iTunes music violated federal anti-trust and California's state unfair-competition laws.

An amended suit filed in 2007 with different lead plaintiffs also says that Apple's actions limited iPod owners to songs from the iPod store.

Stymied

As of earlier this year, the plaintiffs intended for Stanford economist Roger Noll to offer testimony claiming two basic things: one, that the Apple software updates limiting iPods to playing iTunes music made it “more costly” for an iPod user to switch to a different brand of MP3 player, since it was so difficult to get songs that could be played on all devices. Noll also planned to testify that Apple's software “encouraged” iPod owners to only buy songs from iTunes.

As a result of these (apparently self-evident) claims, Noll further intended to testify that as a result of this effective monopoly, Apple was able to charge more for its devices, for a total of $305 million in damages to consumers.

Of course, experts hired by Apple for the defense disagree with Noll's analysis.

Apple's attorneys sought to exclude Noll's testimony, and the plaintiffs in turn sought to exclude the testimony of Apple's counter-experts, but last week, as Courthouse News reported, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers denied both motions.

Poor Apple. On Monday, the company officially launchedApple Pay, its long-awaited mobile-payment system promising greater security than credit or debit-card payment systems thanks to the process of “tokenization” (which basically means that even if a hacker does successfully break into a retailer's database, or plant malware on a store's cash registers, he won't be able to steal anything useful, only a now-worthless authentication token).

So Apple launched its new era of secure reliable mobile payment on Monday, and the very next day it started getting bad publicity over a serious glitch that wasn't even Apple's fault but Bank of America's, which double-charged certain customers for anything they bought with Aple Pay.

“Problems with #ApplePay - it looks like my @bankofamerica account was double charged by @Walgreens” one man Tweeted on the morning of Oct. 21.

The next morning, CNN Money published a story by tech reporter Samuel Burke, who mentioned being “among the first people to try out Apple Pay the moment it came available on Monday” and said he was double-charged for every purchase he made with Apple Pay.

Since his Apple Pay account was tied to a debit account through Bank of America, he called BoA “and they assured me it was a problem on Apple Pay's end. That seemed feasible, because all of the purchases I made without Apple Pay were only charged one time.”

Sounded feasible but turned out to be false; later that morning, a Bank of America spokesperson publicly admitted and apologized for an unspecifid glitch in Bank of America's software that resulted in double-billed charges for about 1,000 account-holders.

But Bank of America also promised to refund all double charges, so by the standards of contemporary problems with non-cash payment systems, this Apple Pay double-billing business proved to be only a minor inconvenience.

That said: if your mobile wallet is tied to your Bank of America account, you might want to hold off on using Apple Pay until this glitch is fixed.

After an extended period of protest from privacy advocates and Apple, it looks like the FBI won’t be needing the tech company’s assistance in unlocking the iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters. According to a Reuters report, the agency reported on Monday that it had successfully gained access to the phone.

The successful hacking attempt brings to an end a legal battle that had been escalating in the privacy community. Until Monday, Apple had strongly denounced a court order that would have forced engineers to create a backdoor so that the feds could access the phone.

“From the beginning, we objected to the FBI’s demand that Apple build a back door into the iPhone because we believed it was wrong and would set a dangerous precedent. . . As a result of the government’s dismissal, neither of these occurred. This case should never have been brought,” said Apple in a statement.

Privacy concerns

Unfortunately, the dismissal of this case does not necessarily put consumer fears about privacy to rest. A clear line has been drawn in the sand between law enforcement and tech industry experts; the former believes that not having access to encrypted data will hamper criminal investigations, while the latter believe that undermining security features puts everyone at risk.

Members of the tech industry also believe that giving in to such demands would give the judicial system too much power. In essence, the courts would be able to turn private companies into their agents in order to obtain information.

This isn’t to say that tech companies are completely unwilling to help police investigate crimes – they just aren’t comfortable with lowering their own security features in order to give agencies like the FBI the level of access that it wants.

“We will continue to help law enforcement with their investigations, as we have done all along, and we will continue to increase the security of our products as the threats and attacks on our data become more frequent and more sophisticated,” said Apple.