or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

Xcode is easy. It already does both x86 and ARM. But getting major apps recompiled is insufficient. Just with the PPC -> x86 transition, this would need Rosetta. That was built by Transitive and licensed by Apple, but the company was acquired and the new owners did not want to renew the license. It's interesting that the new owner just happens to be IBM. With whom Apple recently made a deal. Very interesting indeed.
The terminal upgrade is ALREADY required, and under way. The driving force behind it is the switch to chip cards. After October 2015, any merchant still using swipe cards will be liable for fraud loss - not the bank. And these terminals will include NFC (many trade articles already confirm this). That does NOT mean that you will be able to use ApplePay at all of them - that requires agreements, and software in the merchant system. But the terminals will be capable of...
There's a difference between chip+PIN and paywave, and that is that paywave isn't authenticated (i.e. no PIN). So the transaction limit is lower. The advantage of chip cards is that the information on the chip can't be copied, as happens a lot with today's mag-stripe cards. And the paywave implementation in the U.S. is such that the card info can actually be read at a distance of about 3 feet (1 m.) with a sensitive antenna. That info can then go onto a mag stripe card and...
The current NFC usage is PIN-less and therefore has low limits. As far as we know, ApplePay is ALWAYS authenticated so I do not expect that the "pay wave" limits will be in effect. I can't believe that Apple would ever agree to such a limitation given the security in ApplePay.
We don't know yet but if the terminals have NFC hardware then it should be easy. It would just require software changes to the merchant and bank systems. If those terminals do not support NFC then that would be a problem. But what I hear from friends outside the U.S. is that NFC is common. However, I expect that Apple will take a while to roll this out to other countries. One reason is because there are agreements that must be negotiated. A second reason is to give the...
I've seen reports (Bank Innovations, for one) that said that Apple would pick up some of the fraud liability. Not all, but some, as part of the deal. Of course, the banks are ultimately on the hook for fraud. But the deal might include some contribution from Apple (hold back part of the fee). But we don't know - either way could be right.
This is the problem of the record labels. They control the copyrights, country by country. This is part of the reason EU has pushed for EU-wide licensing but it hasn't happened yet.
Apple gets a portion of the fee and, in return, accepts some of the liability for fraud.   Because the security is good, fraud should be quite low. Hopefully zero.    But what this does is create a competitive weapon against Samsung which so far doesn't have a decent fingerprint reader of secure enclave. If Samsung wants to copy this then they will have to do a much better job than they've done so far. Even then it will take time. Or Samsung could copy the deal Apple...
You're right - banks and FIs will not pay twice. But it does seem that Apple has a deal, if this is to be believed ... For the sake of discussion, let's assume it's accurate. This might be incorrect and we'll find out on Tuesday. For this discussion I'm accepting it. The number of CC transactions to be done by iPhone may be a minority but it'll be non-trivial. Reducing fraud...
Providing security and reducing fraud, that's what. Banks and FIs aren't going to pay for a different conduit - that's true. But they will pay for reduction in fraud, and increased security. One very visible example of this is that new cards have chips, and virtually all POS terminals will be replaced by this time next year. Very expensive. So why? Just 'cos chips look cool? No - because they reduce card-cloning which is much of the fraud today. Banks and FIs are paying to...
New Posts  All Forums: