It took Apple nearly a year and a half to integrate Siri into iOS; they acquired that company in its entirety including a functional app.
They are trying to hire two senior level managers for very early positions (product director, first biz dev person). They would have to create a roadmap, find key business partners, then hire a team to create the architecture, build the software and framework, write an API, and incorporate with the rest of the operating system following a likely timetable for new functionality which would be a major iOS/OS X release.
I don't know if the fourteen months until WWDC 2015 is enough time to get all of that done. It seems unlikely.
It's not like the US mobile payments market is mature. There are a handful of markets (like Japan) where certain mobile payment systems are now entrenched, but that is not the case for most of the world.
Just because it look them that long to include Siri doesn't meant it wasn't ready. And Siri is still in beta so it's not a great analogy. Touch ID was a very fast turn around and helped lay the groundwork for authenticating payments via your fingerprint for ease of use.
Will I be able to classify a purchase and enter comments about what I bought at the time of purchase? If not, my iPhone will just be a heavier, clumsier version of the credit card I already have.
Maybe you will, but even if not, it will save you having to wait in line with all the legacy shoppers and their plastic-that-has-to-be-physically-swiped credit cards.
I suspect you will have the option, during purchase, of selecting/categorizing/identifying certain items: gift for John; for church outing (reimbursable); etc. Other, non-selected items can be categorized after the fact based on SKU. Then, at checkout, you will have the option of ingesting a full itemized receipt either wirelessly or via email.
In the case of grocery shopping (lots of items), you should get the UPC and price/discount/tax for each item. These could be matched against an available industry database for purposes of budget/expense reporting, comparison shopping, etc.
Just because it look them that long to include Siri doesn't meant it wasn't ready. And Siri is still in beta so it's not a great analogy. Touch ID was a very fast turn around and helped lay the groundwork for authenticating payments via your fingerprint for ease of use.
Siri is a great analogy, since we don't know how well the first generation of any new technology/feature will work, whether it be Google Wallet, Siri, Apple's mapping service, FaceTime, etc. Amusingly, you imply that Siri might have been ready before its actual launch, then in the following sentence you claim Siri is still beta although Apple itself does not describe it as such.
Touch ID still took a year after Authentec's acquisition, and like Siri, it was a shipping product. Note that Touch ID doesn't need to communicate to anyplace else, unlike a mobile payment system. Plus, if Touch ID fails, one still has the option of using the standard PIN.
As far as I know, Apple has not yet opened up Touch ID identification to third party developers for use with their apps. It is mostly valid for unlocking the screen, and optionally available for iTunes/App Store/iBookstore purchase identification. Touch ID cannot be used to valid purchase identity for the Apple Store app right now.
Game changer. Since Android so so unsecure the retail store will not allow simular payments.
In other news today, the New York Times, who's traditionally been anti-Apple (and likely sucking at Samsung's teat), released a comparison between the new Samsung Galaxy S5 and the seven-month-old Apple 5s announced the following results:
According to The New York Times, the brand new Galaxy S5 really doesn’t complete on any level with the iPhone 5s, which is nearly seven months old at this point.
“By just about every major measure you’ll care about, from speed to design to ease of use to the quality of its apps, Samsung’s phone ranks behind the iPhone, sometimes far behind,” Manjoo wrote. “If you’re looking for the best phone on the market right now, I’d recommend going with the iPhone 5S.”
I think they'll use BT. And as I stated some time ago (too lazy to repeat it all or search for it), I think your iPhone will be the POS terminal. No need for your personal information to be transferred to the store at all. Your iPhone will send a reference number (generated by Apple who will process payments directly without needing a middle-man like Moneris) to the store that the store can verify via an internally stored encryption key.
There's zero benefits to tapping your iPhone to make a payment over a regular credit card, and there's actually increased risk. Apple can reduce the risk and reduce merchant fees providing real advantages to everyone.
How is BT more secure than NFC?
BT's range is 10 meter versus NFC's 10 centimeter or 0.1 meter. That's a radius difference of 100 which makes the area of NFC 0.031 sq meters v. BT's 314.16 sq meters. That doesn't even consider height which isn't an issue with NFC but with BT that could mean someone on a floor or two above or below being able to capture BT data.
All the other features about encryption or using unique tokens instead of the card number can be done regardless of wireless connectivity.
I would like to Apple able to bypass credit card companies entirely. Square is having difficulty, so reported today, since they have to make a profit and pay credit card fees above that.
That is already part of the iTunes Store bubble with being able to use PayPal and debit cards. It wouldn't be difficult for Apple to add a checking or saving account directly which would also bypass American multinational financial services such as Visa MasterCard, Discover, etc. However, I don't think they will do that. I think they'll work with them.
The 'hijacker' would have to be in real close proximity. Basically a digital form of pickpocket.
With NFC, yes. I'm not sure if it was done via NFC or with BT to Google Wallet but in either case each should be unaccessible remotely by anyone. That should never be accessible until the user has verified their credentials and is actively trying to use it.
Just because it look them that long to include Siri doesn't meant it wasn't ready. And Siri is still in beta so it's not a great analogy. Touch ID was a very fast turn around and helped lay the groundwork for authenticating payments via your fingerprint for ease of use.
I think Apple designed the Secure Enclave on their A-series chips to handle more than just your fingerprint.
As far as I know, Apple has not yet opened up Touch ID identification to third party developers for use with their apps. It is mostly valid for unlocking the screen, and optionally available for iTunes/App Store/iBookstore purchase identification. Touch ID cannot be used to valid purchase identity for the Apple Store app right now.
You are absolutely correct. In fact, Apple's traditional path to allowing a new feature, like Siri or Touch ID, to be available to third-party apps is to open them to Apple apps first. I'm curious to see what WWDC announcements regarding Siri or Touch ID may be made on June 3rd.
BT's range is 10 meter versus NFC's 10 centimeter or 0.1 meter. That's a radius difference of 100 which makes the area of NFC 0.031 sq meters v. BT's 314.16 sq meters. That doesn't even consider height which isn't an issue with NFC but with BT that could mean someone on a floor or two above or below being able to capture BT data.
All the other features about encryption or using unique tokens instead of the card number can be done regardless of wireless connectivity.
PS: There is no tapping with NFC.
Nothing wireless is truly secure, so why not use the technology with extended range to allow additional features (like knowing you're approaching the cashier)?
My point is all current systems operate the same. You provide information to the merchant (and their POS terminal) to authorize the purchase. You can swipe your card, insert a chip card or tap your card. In all cases your credit card information is passed to the merchants terminal which then contacts the necessary processor to approve the payment. This requires you to trust the merchant and their system with your data.
In my system your iPhone is the POS terminal. A transaction looks like this:
- As you approach the cashier a connection is established over BT between you and the store.
- The store sends it's merchant ID and purchase price to your iPhone over BT.
- You authorize the purchase using TouchID and select which CC card (if you have several) you want to use.
- Your iPhone establishes a secure connection with Apple. Utilizing the encryption performance (800% faster than previous processors) of the 64bit A7 a very complex encrypted connection can be made. It should be noted that POS terminals often use ARM processors, but add a separate encryption processor to handle the math.
- All that gets sent to Apple is an identifier of which device is calling in, the merchant ID and price, and a token to identify which CC card to use.
- Apple approves the transaction and sends back an encrypted string of data which includes the merchant ID, the price and a reference number.
- Your iPhone sends this string to the merchant.
- The merchant terminal has a stored encryption key that only the store and Apple knows.The store decrypts the data to extract the reference number and verify that Apple did, in fact, authorize the payment. For further security, the store could make a request from Apple to check the reference number. Or, Apple could send one over the Internet at the exact same time and the terminal only has to compare the one from your iPhone to the one Apple sent.
- You leave with your goods.
Now if you can think of any way a hacker in the store is going to be able to get data by listening in to all the BT traffic so they can somehow fool the system to make purchases (which is always the end goal - to steal money) then I'd like to hear them.
Nothing wireless is truly secure, so why not use the technology with extended range to allow additional features (like knowing you're approaching the cashier)?
BT can still be used for additional features, like finding what are essentially iBeacons in your scenario, but that doesn't mean a wireless technology with a 10 meter radius is a better option than 10 centimeter range on a technology designed with a secure loop.
Again, using NFC doesn't mean that BT can't be used as an assist for the less secure part of the transaction.
My point is all current systems operate the same.
These technologies work very differently so it's irreverent to whatever PoS system may be in place. Would you be OK with WiFi being used over this system you envision? I wouldn't be. BT is more secure because it's more limiting in range and NFC limits this down to a near impossibility thus making it the best option for a secure wireless transfer of protected data between two points.
Just because Google and other Android-based vendors jumped on NFC before Apple doesn't mean we need to trash the technology.
Now if you can think of any way a hacker in the store is going to be able to get data by listening in to all the BT traffic so they can somehow fool the system to make purchases (which is always the end goal - to steal money) then I'd like to hear them.
"- Your iPhone establishes a secure connection with Apple. Utilizing the encryption performance (800% faster than previous processors) of the 64bit A7 a very complex encrypted connection can be made. It should be noted that POS terminals often use ARM processors, but add a separate encryption processor to handle the math.
- All that gets sent to Apple is an identifier of which device is calling in, the merchant ID and price, and a token to identify which CC card to use.
...
- Your iPhone sends this string to the merchant."
These would likely be the exploitable steps. Giving the purchaser that much of a crucial role in the transfer of data is a major drawback. Your system relies on the iPhone sending data to Apple and then the iPhone sending data to the merchant. These two processes give room for a hacker to make changes to what is being sent in order to exploit the system. As a merchant I would be hesitant to agree to a payment system which used the customer as the middle man in such a manner.
What's the big deal about using an iPhone to pay at a brick and mortar store? If Apple accepts a payment, they just have to turn around and bill your credit card through VISA or whoever. Why complicate matters? I can just use my VISA to start with.
Perhaps it makes sense for digital stuff you buy from Apple using Touch ID but groceries or gas…why?
If something goes wrong with fraud or stolen card, you still have to contact the bank. Why should people want to make Apple the middleman? And please don't tell me that you won't have to carry a wallet. You'll probably need to carry a wallet for as long as you live.
What's the big deal about using an iPhone to pay at a brick and mortar store? If Apple accepts a payment, they just have to turn around and bill your credit card through VISA or whoever. Why complicate matters? I can just use my VISA to start with.
Perhaps it makes sense for digital stuff you buy from Apple using Touch ID but groceries or gas…why?
If something goes wrong with fraud or stolen card, you still have to contact the bank. Why should people want to make Apple the middleman? And please don't tell me that you won't have to carry a wallet. You'll probably need to carry a wallet for as long as you live.
Using a digital wallet means:
It's centrally stored which means you can erase it all at once thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
Instead of giving a retailer your CC or debit number Apple could allow for unique ID for 1) that device, 2) that card/accunt, and 3) even that transaction thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
Even if the cards are stored directly on the device in the secure enclave they are more secure than simply printed on a card with your name and expiration date thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
So basically you get the convenience of having no exposed numbers or names, being able to not have to cancel cards if stolen and/or be able to do it in single swoop without trying to remember what was in your wallet and who issued them to you.
It's centrally stored which means you can erase it all at once thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
Instead of giving a retailer your CC or debit number Apple could allow for unique ID for 1) that device, 2) that card/accunt, and 3) even that transaction thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
Even if the cards are stored directly on the device in the secure enclave they are more secure than simply printed on a card with your name and expiration date thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
VISA is already universal. I'll keep using it until retailers start telling me they don't accept it. If it gets stolen they refund any fraudulent charges anyway.
Digital wallet might be convenient for governments, banks and retailers. It does nothing for regular citizens except take them on step closer to being chipped.
VISA is already universal. I'll keep using it until retailers start telling me they don't accept it. If it gets stolen they refund any fraudulent charges anyway.
Digital wallet might be convenient for governments, banks and retailers. It does nothing for regular citizens except take them on step closer to being chipped.
If you're using any sort of electronic transaction you're purchase is already tracked. If you're using a cellphone the whereabouts of that device are tracked. These technologies can't work without their locations being known. In fact, one of the safe guards in place with credit and debit cards is your card's number being used in strange place, in several places over a large distance in an unreasonably short time, and unusual purchase types that make these companies aware that your card may have been compromised.
It's centrally stored which means you can erase it all at once thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
Instead of giving a retailer your CC or debit number Apple could allow for unique ID for 1) that device, 2) that card/accunt, and 3) even that transaction thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
Even if the cards are stored directly on the device in the secure enclave they are more secure than simply printed on a card with your name and expiration date thereby making stealing it less fruitful.
VISA is already universal. I'll keep using it until retailers start telling me they don't accept it.
Not sure if you travel the world much, but there are many places which don't accept ANY credit cards. And places that do accept credit cards, often require the kind you don't have. For those reasons, I wouldn't call VISA universal.
Not sure if you travel the world much, but there are many places which don't accept ANY credit cards. And places that do accept credit cards, often require the kind you don't have. For those reason, I wouldn't call VISA universal.
In this context I think MC and Visa are considered universal.
Visa: The company reported being accepted in over 170 countries by more than 30 million merchants. They also claimed that cardmembers could get ATM cash advances at over 1.4 million locations across the globe.
MasterCard: They claim to be accepted in 210 countries “and territories” at over 28 million merchants. Their network of ATMs reportedly consists of around 1.5 million locations.
A key component of the digital wallet is convenience.
The driving force to the mobile payment adoption in Japan was the functionality of Mobile Suica (the card that covers much of Greater Tokyo's public transit systems) added to NTT DoCoMo cellphones. Today, the Osaifu-keitai system covers movie/event tickets, loyalty cards, grocery stores, etc.
Public transit use in the USA is not as widespread as in many other countries, so mobile payment systems have a more difficult task at getting the US consumer's mindshare. Sure, they can go after the large metropolitan transit networks, but more likely they will need to find business partners in other realms, such as Starbucks, university cafeteria plan systems, payment processing systems like Verifone.
One thing for sure, mobile payment systems won't replace completely eliminate credit cards or cash. There will always be places that don't accept mobile payments, or need a backup if the system is down. What it does do is eliminate 5, 10, 20 cards from your wallet.
Today, the Clipper Card (SF Bay Area transit card) covers eight local transit agencies and also is valid for parking in some places. You no longer need to keep a bunch of different tickets, each one for a separate transit system, each one needing reloading at a different ticket vending machine terminal.
Likewise, if I go get coffee, then drop by the drugstore, grocery, and public library, why should I have to fish around for four ID cards plus a credit card?
If you're using any sort of electronic transaction you're purchase is already tracked. If you're using a cellphone the whereabouts of that device are tracked. These technologies can't work without their locations being known. In fact, one of the safe guards in place with credit and debit cards is your card's number being used in strange place, in several places over a large distance in an unreasonably short time, and unusual purchase types that make these companies aware that your card may have been compromised.
I am not against them knowing where and when although I do object to relying on a single entity for all transactions.
In some ways the digital wallet might be considerably less secure than actual cards. For example, until digital wallet is as ubiquitous as credit cards the bank is still going to issue a physical card. If you leave that card in a drawer in your house it is perhaps less safe than if it was in your pocket. A repairman, a housekeeper, or teenager might find it and you wouldn't notice it until your statement arrived. I'd rather have the only copy of my credit card in my pocket. Of course if you bought a safe you could store your extra plastic in there but not everyone has a safe.
Another thing that seems like it would be problematic is when you need two cards with the same account with different names. Currently it works fine and I'm sure they have already worked that out but getting the whole thing set up on each phone is probably a nightmare for the technically challenged, where as sticking a new card in your wallet is a no brainer.
Comments
Just because it look them that long to include Siri doesn't meant it wasn't ready. And Siri is still in beta so it's not a great analogy. Touch ID was a very fast turn around and helped lay the groundwork for authenticating payments via your fingerprint for ease of use.
I suspect you will have the option, during purchase, of selecting/categorizing/identifying certain items: gift for John; for church outing (reimbursable); etc. Other, non-selected items can be categorized after the fact based on SKU. Then, at checkout, you will have the option of ingesting a full itemized receipt either wirelessly or via email.
In the case of grocery shopping (lots of items), you should get the UPC and price/discount/tax for each item. These could be matched against an available industry database for purposes of budget/expense reporting, comparison shopping, etc.
Just because it look them that long to include Siri doesn't meant it wasn't ready. And Siri is still in beta so it's not a great analogy. Touch ID was a very fast turn around and helped lay the groundwork for authenticating payments via your fingerprint for ease of use.
Siri is a great analogy, since we don't know how well the first generation of any new technology/feature will work, whether it be Google Wallet, Siri, Apple's mapping service, FaceTime, etc. Amusingly, you imply that Siri might have been ready before its actual launch, then in the following sentence you claim Siri is still beta although Apple itself does not describe it as such.
Touch ID still took a year after Authentec's acquisition, and like Siri, it was a shipping product. Note that Touch ID doesn't need to communicate to anyplace else, unlike a mobile payment system. Plus, if Touch ID fails, one still has the option of using the standard PIN.
As far as I know, Apple has not yet opened up Touch ID identification to third party developers for use with their apps. It is mostly valid for unlocking the screen, and optionally available for iTunes/App Store/iBookstore purchase identification. Touch ID cannot be used to valid purchase identity for the Apple Store app right now.
In other news today, the New York Times, who's traditionally been anti-Apple (and likely sucking at Samsung's teat), released a comparison between the new Samsung Galaxy S5 and the seven-month-old Apple 5s announced the following results:
According to The New York Times, the brand new Galaxy S5 really doesn’t complete on any level with the iPhone 5s, which is nearly seven months old at this point.
“By just about every major measure you’ll care about, from speed to design to ease of use to the quality of its apps, Samsung’s phone ranks behind the iPhone, sometimes far behind,” Manjoo wrote. “If you’re looking for the best phone on the market right now, I’d recommend going with the iPhone 5S.”
How is BT more secure than NFC?
BT's range is 10 meter versus NFC's 10 centimeter or 0.1 meter. That's a radius difference of 100 which makes the area of NFC 0.031 sq meters v. BT's 314.16 sq meters. That doesn't even consider height which isn't an issue with NFC but with BT that could mean someone on a floor or two above or below being able to capture BT data.
All the other features about encryption or using unique tokens instead of the card number can be done regardless of wireless connectivity.
PS: There is no tapping with NFC.
That is already part of the iTunes Store bubble with being able to use PayPal and debit cards. It wouldn't be difficult for Apple to add a checking or saving account directly which would also bypass American multinational financial services such as Visa MasterCard, Discover, etc. However, I don't think they will do that. I think they'll work with them.
With NFC, yes. I'm not sure if it was done via NFC or with BT to Google Wallet but in either case each should be unaccessible remotely by anyone. That should never be accessible until the user has verified their credentials and is actively trying to use it.
I think Apple designed the Secure Enclave on their A-series chips to handle more than just your fingerprint.
You are absolutely correct. In fact, Apple's traditional path to allowing a new feature, like Siri or Touch ID, to be available to third-party apps is to open them to Apple apps first. I'm curious to see what WWDC announcements regarding Siri or Touch ID may be made on June 3rd.
My point is all current systems operate the same. You provide information to the merchant (and their POS terminal) to authorize the purchase. You can swipe your card, insert a chip card or tap your card. In all cases your credit card information is passed to the merchants terminal which then contacts the necessary processor to approve the payment. This requires you to trust the merchant and their system with your data.
In my system your iPhone is the POS terminal. A transaction looks like this:
- As you approach the cashier a connection is established over BT between you and the store.
- The store sends it's merchant ID and purchase price to your iPhone over BT.
- You authorize the purchase using TouchID and select which CC card (if you have several) you want to use.
- Your iPhone establishes a secure connection with Apple. Utilizing the encryption performance (800% faster than previous processors) of the 64bit A7 a very complex encrypted connection can be made. It should be noted that POS terminals often use ARM processors, but add a separate encryption processor to handle the math.
- All that gets sent to Apple is an identifier of which device is calling in, the merchant ID and price, and a token to identify which CC card to use.
- Apple approves the transaction and sends back an encrypted string of data which includes the merchant ID, the price and a reference number.
- Your iPhone sends this string to the merchant.
- The merchant terminal has a stored encryption key that only the store and Apple knows.The store decrypts the data to extract the reference number and verify that Apple did, in fact, authorize the payment. For further security, the store could make a request from Apple to check the reference number. Or, Apple could send one over the Internet at the exact same time and the terminal only has to compare the one from your iPhone to the one Apple sent.
- You leave with your goods.
Now if you can think of any way a hacker in the store is going to be able to get data by listening in to all the BT traffic so they can somehow fool the system to make purchases (which is always the end goal - to steal money) then I'd like to hear them.
BT can still be used for additional features, like finding what are essentially iBeacons in your scenario, but that doesn't mean a wireless technology with a 10 meter radius is a better option than 10 centimeter range on a technology designed with a secure loop.
Again, using NFC doesn't mean that BT can't be used as an assist for the less secure part of the transaction.
These technologies work very differently so it's irreverent to whatever PoS system may be in place. Would you be OK with WiFi being used over this system you envision? I wouldn't be. BT is more secure because it's more limiting in range and NFC limits this down to a near impossibility thus making it the best option for a secure wireless transfer of protected data between two points.
Just because Google and other Android-based vendors jumped on NFC before Apple doesn't mean we need to trash the technology.
But let me guess: now is the right time to push Bitcoin?
Now if you can think of any way a hacker in the store is going to be able to get data by listening in to all the BT traffic so they can somehow fool the system to make purchases (which is always the end goal - to steal money) then I'd like to hear them.
"- Your iPhone establishes a secure connection with Apple. Utilizing the encryption performance (800% faster than previous processors) of the 64bit A7 a very complex encrypted connection can be made. It should be noted that POS terminals often use ARM processors, but add a separate encryption processor to handle the math.
- All that gets sent to Apple is an identifier of which device is calling in, the merchant ID and price, and a token to identify which CC card to use.
...
- Your iPhone sends this string to the merchant."
These would likely be the exploitable steps. Giving the purchaser that much of a crucial role in the transfer of data is a major drawback. Your system relies on the iPhone sending data to Apple and then the iPhone sending data to the merchant. These two processes give room for a hacker to make changes to what is being sent in order to exploit the system. As a merchant I would be hesitant to agree to a payment system which used the customer as the middle man in such a manner.
What's the big deal about using an iPhone to pay at a brick and mortar store? If Apple accepts a payment, they just have to turn around and bill your credit card through VISA or whoever. Why complicate matters? I can just use my VISA to start with.
Perhaps it makes sense for digital stuff you buy from Apple using Touch ID but groceries or gas…why?
If something goes wrong with fraud or stolen card, you still have to contact the bank. Why should people want to make Apple the middleman? And please don't tell me that you won't have to carry a wallet. You'll probably need to carry a wallet for as long as you live.
Using a digital wallet means:
So basically you get the convenience of having no exposed numbers or names, being able to not have to cancel cards if stolen and/or be able to do it in single swoop without trying to remember what was in your wallet and who issued them to you.
VISA is already universal. I'll keep using it until retailers start telling me they don't accept it. If it gets stolen they refund any fraudulent charges anyway.
Digital wallet might be convenient for governments, banks and retailers. It does nothing for regular citizens except take them on step closer to being chipped.
If you're using any sort of electronic transaction you're purchase is already tracked. If you're using a cellphone the whereabouts of that device are tracked. These technologies can't work without their locations being known. In fact, one of the safe guards in place with credit and debit cards is your card's number being used in strange place, in several places over a large distance in an unreasonably short time, and unusual purchase types that make these companies aware that your card may have been compromised.
Goto Fail, GnuTLS, HeartBleed. Now isn't the best time to push this.
But let me guess: now is the right time to push Bitcoin?
those that want to play with fire, are welcome to it. My understanding is that this is intended to be mainstream.
VISA is already universal. I'll keep using it until retailers start telling me they don't accept it.
Not sure if you travel the world much, but there are many places which don't accept ANY credit cards. And places that do accept credit cards, often require the kind you don't have. For those reasons, I wouldn't call VISA universal.
In this context I think MC and Visa are considered universal.
A key component of the digital wallet is convenience.
The driving force to the mobile payment adoption in Japan was the functionality of Mobile Suica (the card that covers much of Greater Tokyo's public transit systems) added to NTT DoCoMo cellphones. Today, the Osaifu-keitai system covers movie/event tickets, loyalty cards, grocery stores, etc.
Public transit use in the USA is not as widespread as in many other countries, so mobile payment systems have a more difficult task at getting the US consumer's mindshare. Sure, they can go after the large metropolitan transit networks, but more likely they will need to find business partners in other realms, such as Starbucks, university cafeteria plan systems, payment processing systems like Verifone.
One thing for sure, mobile payment systems won't replace completely eliminate credit cards or cash. There will always be places that don't accept mobile payments, or need a backup if the system is down. What it does do is eliminate 5, 10, 20 cards from your wallet.
Today, the Clipper Card (SF Bay Area transit card) covers eight local transit agencies and also is valid for parking in some places. You no longer need to keep a bunch of different tickets, each one for a separate transit system, each one needing reloading at a different ticket vending machine terminal.
Likewise, if I go get coffee, then drop by the drugstore, grocery, and public library, why should I have to fish around for four ID cards plus a credit card?
I am not against them knowing where and when although I do object to relying on a single entity for all transactions.
In some ways the digital wallet might be considerably less secure than actual cards. For example, until digital wallet is as ubiquitous as credit cards the bank is still going to issue a physical card. If you leave that card in a drawer in your house it is perhaps less safe than if it was in your pocket. A repairman, a housekeeper, or teenager might find it and you wouldn't notice it until your statement arrived. I'd rather have the only copy of my credit card in my pocket. Of course if you bought a safe you could store your extra plastic in there but not everyone has a safe.
Another thing that seems like it would be problematic is when you need two cards with the same account with different names. Currently it works fine and I'm sure they have already worked that out but getting the whole thing set up on each phone is probably a nightmare for the technically challenged, where as sticking a new card in your wallet is a no brainer.