or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by plovell

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...
A new crowd of wall-huggers. Too funny for words !
 Yep - you don't know what to say.
 Apple will probably be more than a little unhappy about this. 
 The reports I have seen suggest three things:1. the fee is lower - merchants will love that2. Apple gets to keep a piece of that fee, and assumes some of the fraud risk3. card-present and not-present (i.e. on-line) transactions have the same fee, not different (as happens today) Merchants in the U.S. do not check signatures (when I recently used my U.S. card in England and Germany - it worked OK and the merchants checked every time). And so there's fraud but the fee is...
Apple will not be a bank but might well buy one. That way the bank gets regulated but Apple does not.   The important thing to remember is that banking is not Apple's business, and the banking business can be treacherous (you can ask GE about that). Apple would probably prefer not to do banking, but will do it if it's the only way to get where they want to be.    With regard to Apple getting a better deal but accepting part of the risk - my guess is that Apple would...
I've been predicting this for weeks - naysayers be damned.   Apple has security on the transaction so can argue for a lower transaction fee with the banks and card issuers. And then will probably provide - or maybe insist upon - an indemnity against fraud. The reason for insisting is that Apple can afford to - it'll be free (or almost so).    But Samsung, on the other hand, will try to follow Apple. But while they have copied the look of iPhone, they haven't copied the...
 @Bore: you should focus on the "essence", and you have not so far. The essence is that Apple's security on the iPhone and access to protected information on iPhone is second to none. The hoopla is that some peoples' accounts seem to have been compromised because of shortcomings with password/security-questions (which are industry standard). Why were they hacked? Purely because their personal info (photos etc) are valuable, unlike yours and mine.  And I suspect that some...
News about today says that Apple has negotiated deals with card issuers and banks for favorable terms for its yet-to-be-announced payment system. No surprise. And also that Apple will get to keep "a piece of the action". Also - no surprise.   What I expect is that Apple will offer to, or perhaps, insist on indemnifying the issuers/banks against fraud. Why would Apple do this? Because it will put Samsung is a very, very bad place. Sam is trying to copy Apple and so far it...
New Posts  All Forums: