‘Samsung Pay Mini’ App Rejected By Apple, Focus Shifted to Android

If past rumours indicated anything, it was Samsung had plans to launch a new mobile payment application, dubbed “Samsung Pay Mini,” in January. The app should have made its debut on both iOS and Android, but as it turns out, however, the new app will not be available for iOS in the foreseeable future.

Samsung_Logo.svg.png

According to a report from ETNews (via MacRumors), Samsung’s new payment app, which was supposed to be launched on iOS as well, was rejected by Apple from being published in the App Store for reasons that are not yet known.

“Samsung confirmed Apple’s rejection and said it will not resubmit the app, but rather focus solely on Android ahead of its expected launch at CES 2017 in the first week of January,” reads the report.

Reasons for the rejection were not made public, but we can safely assume that Apple wants to keep Apple Pay the main go-to app for mobile payments on its own OS. Despite the fact that “Samsung Pay Mini” will be focused only on online payments, unlike Apple’s solution, which can completely replace your physical cards, it’s highly likely that Apple wouldn’t want a competitor in its own ecosystem.

“Samsung Pay Mini” is still reportedly coming to Android, most likely some time next month. The application will be the first step by the South Korean company towards extending its mobile payments support to other brands of phones, and not just its own.

Tests have already been carried out with local credit card providers, so it is certain that the app is launching in South Korea at some point, but Samsung has yet to let the world know which other markets it will target.

Last month, Samsung Pay made its beta debut in Canada, in a limited roll out to CIBC customers only.

World-traveling, tech-savvy, music-producing writer obsessed with all things Apple, video games, and the finer things in life, e.g. mezcal and tacos. When I'm not writing I'm exploring new places, eating new foods, and generally trying to be a decent human.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Too bad Apple doesn’t have the “courage” to face the competition.

  • FragilityG4

    Pretty lame Milhouse.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Not sure about how “lame” it is, but it’s certainly true.

  • FragilityG4

    It was in reference to the joke.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Well, the joke drew you in and gave you a chance to make a little joke yourself, so I’ll call that a success. But now that I have your attention, let’s go back to the story – doesn’t it appear that Apple lacks the confidence to pit Apple Pay against the competition? I use Apple Pay all the time and I don’t think they would need to worry. But they’re too scared.

  • FragilityG4

    I highly doubt Apple is scared of anyone. It’s not like they’re trying to get Apple Pay into the google store.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Well, if they are not afraid of the competition from Samsung, then why don’t they just allow their app on the store then?

  • FragilityG4

    The more relevant question is why should they?

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    You’re changing the question, but I’ll answer yours – because they asked developers to submit apps to their store. Thant’s why.

  • FragilityG4

    I’m not changing anything, I’m just asking the more relevant question. Apple reserves the right to reject apps as they see fit. To me, you believe that Apple should encourage competition against themselves just for the sake of competition. Having said that, it’s not like Samsung Pay is out of reach. People are able to purchase Samsung phones for the feature, much like purchasing an Apple phone for Apple Pay. Should google demand that Apple make an Apple Pay app for android? With all due respect, your argument has no merit.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    First of all, yes, you did avoid answering the question and you did present another one you liked better. That’s fine. This method of argumentation is good enough for politicians to win elections, so how can I argue with that.

    Secondly, I think you missed my point – Apple decided to describe itself as “courageous”. Not business savvy, not pragmatic, not user-centered, but courageous. This action is not courageous. That’s all I’m saying.

    Of course they are allowed to reject apps “as they see fit” (ones that scare them are fair game). I’m not the one that is calling on Apple to be courageous. I understand that they want to make money, even at the expense of giving their users choice. That’s a business decision they are free to make. But I wouldn’t call it courageous.

  • FragilityG4

    The courageous comment was in reference to removing the headphone jack. Steve Jobs once said iPod would never be on PC. Should we all be mad at him for changing his mind because it made more business sense? You still have not presented a valid argument why they should allow the app in the App Store. As far as I can see it’s because you want to be satisfied that they back up their courage line that was made to an unrelated topic. And your claim that I deflect from your question again has no merit because the absolute most relevant question is why they should allow it. Your arguments are sideways. You offer nothing but circular logic. This conversation should end because you are clearly reacting with emotion based on Internet gossip of one particular statement that was made about one particular situation that you have now drawn out as a somewhat of a mission statement for the company going forward. Finally again, it was a lame joke. Don’t pound your fists too hard on your desk ????
    Peace.

  • Aleks Oniszczak

    Ok, thanks for the lively debate. I understand that your perspective is that their courage comment is isolated to headphone jacks while I view it more as a general bravado in their keynotes such as when they introduced the newest Mac Pro with “Can’t innovate anymore, my ass!” See you later Bart!

  • FragilityG4

    Eat my shorts and don’t have a cow ????