Think about the implications here. Why should Apple get into payments? A business they have no expertise in, that is nothing like any business they have expertise in, and that is only barely tangentially related to products they make?
More so, payments is all wrong for apple. Payments is about boring stuff like consistency, robustness, and low overhead. That's not what Apple is about. Apple is about melding good quality software with compelling aesthetics and design. Because software construction is very difficult to merge well with aesthetics and design they have a key advantage over many of their competitors. And they use that advantage to make products that people are hugely enthusiastic about and willing to pay high prices to purchase, providing high profit margins to Apple. This is precisely the opposite of what's needed for payments. Apple would need to dumb a huge amount of money to develop a payments system, and it would need to grow a very anti-Apple sort of team within Apple to be able to be competitive. The chances that they'd screw it up and lose their investment are high. The chances that they'd ruin their brand and cause a diminution of their core business is also high (imagine if people thought about the Apple brand the way people think about Paypal, or Bank of America).
In short, this idea makes no more sense than saying that Apple should run a nationwide chain of taco trucks.
"Think about the implications here. Why should Apple get into payments? A business they have no expertise in, that is nothing like any business they have expertise in, and that is only barely tangentially related to products they make?"
Just like they never had expertise in telephones, yet managed to completely shut that game down.
"More so, payments is all wrong for apple. Payments is about boring stuff like consistency, robustness, and low overhead. That's not what Apple is about…"
iTools, .Mac, MobileMe, iCloud. Email, Calendaring, Cloud storage, etc. Apple has been providing unsexy "consistent, robust, low overhead" services for years.
They had expertise in portable electronics, small form factor high performance computing devices, dealing with the music industry, etc. In contrast, the ability to support voice calls and the ability to negotiate with phone companies are very closely related to things Apple had already done, already had expertise in, or could easily tackle.
As for the applications and services you list below, all of these pale in comparison to payments. Even cloud storage is a completely different beast than payments. Also, all of these things are value-add propositions which help sell Apple's extremely high markup other products.
Again, payments are a whole different ballgame. Payments are not about aesthetics or design or UI excellence, they're about robustness, reliability, fraud reduction, low overhead, and regulatory compliance.
Also, the idea that Apple could roll out a high-markup (10%) payments system and have it succeed in the marketplace is sheer and utter fantasy. Paypal is relatively cost competitive with merchant accounts precisely because cost of payments is the name of the game, every 1% matters when you're a business.
They didn't have experience in telephones, but they did have experience in building desirable hardware. And especially in pocketable devices. A phone was the natural evolution of the iPod.
All the examples of unsexy products you cited kind of suck. Apple does do boring stuff, but they arent very good at it.
Trust for quality, and their userbase is okay with paying a premium. In a way, they are dumb if they don't try, though they might not want to dilute their brand, and there are potential risks. Plus, the payment game is changing so rapidly, it doesn't necessarily make sense to divert people's attention to it.
Think about the implications here. Why should Apple get into payments? A business they have no expertise in, that is nothing like any business they have expertise in, and that is only barely tangentially related to products they make?
More so, payments is all wrong for apple. Payments is about boring stuff like consistency, robustness, and low overhead. That's not what Apple is about. Apple is about melding good quality software with compelling aesthetics and design. Because software construction is very difficult to merge well with aesthetics and design they have a key advantage over many of their competitors. And they use that advantage to make products that people are hugely enthusiastic about and willing to pay high prices to purchase, providing high profit margins to Apple. This is precisely the opposite of what's needed for payments. Apple would need to dumb a huge amount of money to develop a payments system, and it would need to grow a very anti-Apple sort of team within Apple to be able to be competitive. The chances that they'd screw it up and lose their investment are high. The chances that they'd ruin their brand and cause a diminution of their core business is also high (imagine if people thought about the Apple brand the way people think about Paypal, or Bank of America).
In short, this idea makes no more sense than saying that Apple should run a nationwide chain of taco trucks.