The problem with the headline is that it's misleading. Fraud liability is not a specially negotiated deal with Apple, it's changing across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
What do you mean "of course" you are speaking nonsense, no at present its sometimes and always the acquirer who is liable for any fraud especially if the acquirer's system not the processor (the bank) is the one which is hacked. When credit cards are skimmed at the POS that is the acquirers fault as in the case of Target and HomeDepot
Until now, it's been the banks that have been largely responsible for taking the hit, unless they could prove negligence on the part of the retailer.
But this all changes in October of 2015, when the implementer with the lesser technology becomes responsible for chargebacks. If a retailer still uses swipe-and-sign but the customer had a chipped card, the retailer eats the cost of fraud. Conversely, if the retailer had a chip and/or NFC terminal (which are functionally one an the same) but the bank didn't issue a chipped card, the bank eats the cost of fraud.
It's good to know Apple Pay got support from these banks.
Yes, I'm glad to see that my bank, USAA, is one of the partners. Having been a customer for decades, I see USAA as distinctly different from some of the large monster mega-banks. USAA has earned my trust, so I will try out and support this new transaction system.
Apple was smart to partner with several banks. At startup, it is crucial for this type of payment system to gain wide acceptance. And the best way to do that is to partner with the established transaction processors and banks. The banks/processors are apparently embracing this and accepting Apple's cut (reported to be about 0.15% out of the total 3% or so) of the transaction fees. The value ApplePay adds, from the banks' perspective, is reduced fraud losses because of the added security. And hopefully there will be an increased volume of transactions because of consumers' perceptions of increased security.
In the long run, the system should gain wider acceptance if overall transaction costs are lowered, not only through increased security but in addition through competition for transactions. Why should the vendors (and ultimately the customers) pay high fees to to the likes of MasterCard, VISA and AMEX? Why couldn't Apple be the bank, i.e., front the funds, instead of the MasterCard bank? Apple, or another competitor, might decide to be the "bank". Of course, Apple may not want to do this. It's a different line of business, fraught with regulatory hurdles, and Apple may not have the management culture or expertise to do this well.
We live in interesting times. I hope Apple's system succeeds because it appears to completely cut out the wireless carriers, at least in terms of monetizing or profiting from the transactions. Considering their sordid history, I want the wireless carriers nowhere near my financial transactions, bank account, or credit card. Where is the value added? Why should the wireless carriers add additional fees or profit from them? The carriers are already exorbitantly paid for our wireless access and bandwidth. Their role should be reduced to "dumb pipes", with no ability to add costs to or profit from the content of the transmissions.
Verizon (and other carriers) partnered with other banks in the unfortunately-named "ISIS" point-of-sale payment system. This was later re-named "Softbank". There are a number of problems with this system, and I hope it fades away. For one thing, it gives the wireless carriers some degree of control (blocking a competing system from Google, for example), for no good reason.
I wish Apple and its banking partners well. Let the games begin ...
We're about to transition to an all-digital economy faster than anyone imagined.
Yeah, just wait ...
Some analysts are reporting teen interest in the Apple Watch are meh!
Just wait until the teens discover that they can use the Apple Watch to Buy Stuff -- in addition to all its new social capabilities.
But, But, But ... Teens don't have credit cards!
... but their parents do!
Mmm ...
How could it be arranged to allow teens to charge against their parent's credit cards ... Hopefully in pre-approved amounts and for designated purposes ... And maybe, even get detailed receipts ... Learn how to save, shop, discern, budget ...
Do you know anyone who could put together an offering like that ... Who can get multiple companies with complementing (but divergent) interests to work together to really satisfy a customer need ...
Soon, we'll have an off-the-shelf NFC POST terminal for less than $500 ... $300 ... Plug'N'play ... No installation, service, maintenance fees! Even the smallest Mom and Pop store, Flea-Market stall, Garage sale will have at least one of these.
Who wants the hassle and risk of messing with cash ... Trips to the bank ... waiting in line ...
The digital economy will be heavily used (tested) this holiday season, with rapidly accelerating growth through 2015 ...
We're about to transition to an all-digital economy faster than anyone imagined.
IMO with Apple now committed to mobile payments, and with a secure framework that the processors and banks are comfortable with, other mobile platforms will soon become part of the same payment canvas too. There was never going to be a general consensus until Apple was on board with their millions of dedicated users. Now the others like Android and WinMo, Verizon and PayPal, will be forced into playing by the same rules and using the same secure token methods. They really won't be given a choice to do things very much different, and that's a great thing.
Of course it falls on their shoulders. That is where it is today. Apple is bringing a better solution which will actually minimize their risk until next year when it shifts to the merchant receiving the payment if they are not using one of the chip and sign systems. Since Apple Pay uses your PIN or fingerprint it is probably just as good or better (due to rotating codes, etc) so this will likely meet the requirements so that merchants using Apple Pay won't be liable for transitions completed with Apple Pay. I look forward to having a phone or watch that can do this. I personally miss the chip and pin solution I used overseas.
What do you mean "of course" you are speaking nonsense, no at present its sometimes and always the acquirer who is liable for any fraud especially if the acquirer's system not the processor (the bank) is the one which is hacked. When credit cards are skimmed at the POS that is the acquirers fault as in the case of Target and HomeDepot
I think you are confusing a few things. Apple Pay will work as a "card present" transaction. Today, "card present" transaction liability falls on the issuing banks. "Card not present" transaction liability typically falls on the merchants. So liability has not changed on the same class of transaction under Apple Pay. The real story was that Apple Pay was to be considered "card present". That story came and went and then this liability stuff popped up, but it was already clear to anyone that understood what the "card present" classification meant.
The liability scheme in the US changes even more come October 2015 when the merchants must use EMV terminals and card issuers need to issue EMV capable cards. Whichever side that does not update their technology will assume the liability for card present swipe and sign transactions. My point secondary point was that Apple Pay will likely keep its "card present" status and the issuers will keep the liability since it is for all intents and purposes as secure as an EMV solution.
The Home Depot and Target examples have a problem. While you can try to put the liability on HD and Target, that is much harder to do in practice. Subsequent fraud committed with cards that were compromised in those hacks cannot be proved to be from the hacks and may have simply be stolen or skimmed cards. The liability on those is going to come down to card present or card not present and other factors to determine liability on subsequent transactions.
Of course it falls on their shoulders. That is where it is today. Apple is bringing a better solution which will actually minimize their risk until next year when it shifts to the merchant receiving the payment if they are not using one of the chip and sign systems. Since Apple Pay uses your PIN or fingerprint it is probably just as good or better (due to rotating codes, etc) so this will likely meet the requirements so that merchants using Apple Pay won't be liable for transitions completed with Apple Pay. I look forward to having a phone or watch that can do this. I personally miss the chip and pin solution I used overseas.
What do you mean "of course" you are speaking nonsense, no at present its sometimes and always the acquirer who is liable for any fraud especially if the acquirer's system not the processor (the bank) is the one which is hacked. When credit cards are skimmed at the POS that is the acquirers fault as in the case of Target and HomeDepot
I think you are confusing a few things. Apple Pay will work as a "card present" transaction. Today, "card present" transaction liability falls on the issuing banks. "Card not present" transaction liability typically falls on the merchants. So liability has not changed on the same class of transaction under Apple Pay. The real story was that Apple Pay was to be considered "card present". That story came and went and then this liability stuff popped up, but it was already clear to anyone that understood what the "card present" classification meant.
The liability scheme in the US changes even more come October 2015 when the merchants must use EMV terminals and card issuers need to issue EMV capable cards. Whichever side that does not update their technology will assume the liability for card present swipe and sign transactions. My point secondary point was that Apple Pay will likely keep its "card present" status and the issuers will keep the liability since it is for all intents and purposes as secure as an EMV solution.
The Home Depot and Target examples have a problem. While you can try to put the liability on HD and Target, that is much harder to do in practice. Subsequent fraud committed with cards that were compromised in those hacks cannot be proved to be from the hacks and may have simply be stolen or skimmed cards. The liability on those is going to come down to card present or card not present and other factors to determine liability on subsequent transactions.
AFAICT, the Apple Pay transaction will be better than a "card present" transaction -- because it can validate the cardholder's identity ... That should translate to less risk/costs for the bank, the processor, the merchant and the cardholder.
Growing up in the US, Macy's and Gimbel were two very competitive department store chains ... Always trying to one-up the other with sales, store windows ... A popular saying arose from this regarding a business not being open to discussing their plans in public, lest they lose a competitive edge: "Does Macy's tell Gimbels?".
Ahh ... The Sears catalog ... I, too, had a fascination for the women's unmentionables section ...
I thought it was only me, until I saw a TV interview of cartoonist Al Capp. He said that he was lustfully attracted by that section of the catalog -- and it provided inspiration for his later drawings of full-figured women in his comic strips ... Dailey Mae ... Appasionata Von Climax ...
It (the Sears catalog) was the Victoria's Secret of its day!
...yes it was! As well as Montgomery Wards... and then came JCPenneys... :wow:
Funny but true: my "graphic artist" career started from using Sears and the others as reference material for my pin-ups and cartoon portraits, which I sold for extra cartons of milk as early as the 3rd grade, and before I found my uncle's stash of PB... :err:
NOTE: I do believe it's now fact that Sears capitalized greatly due to it's women's undergarment section... and it wasn't too long ago that I read an ode to Sears from the purchasers of the Victoria Secrets brand... where they also stated that more than 50% of their catalog mailing list are sent to men.
IMO with Apple now committed to mobile payments, and with a secure framework that the processors and banks are comfortable with, other mobile platforms will soon become part of the same payment canvas too. There was never going to be a general consensus until Apple was on board with their millions of dedicated users. Now the others like Android and WinMo, Verizon and PayPal, will be forced into playing by the same rules and using the same secure token methods. They really won't be given a choice to do things very much different, and that's a great thing.
Only if Google can figure a way around Apple's patent(s), or if Apple licenses to Google (unlikely).
Growing up in the US, Macy's and Gimbel were two very competitive department store chains ... Always trying to one-up the other with sales, store windows ... A popular saying arose from this regarding a business not being open to discussing their plans in public, lest they lose a competitive edge: "Does Macy's tell Gimbels?".
Ahh ... The Sears catalog ... I, too, had a fascination for the women's unmentionables section ...
I thought it was only me, until I saw a TV interview of cartoonist Al Capp. He said that he was lustfully attracted by that section of the catalog -- and it provided inspiration for his later drawings of full-figured women in his comic strips ... Dailey Mae ... Appasionata Von Climax ...
It (the Sears catalog) was the Victoria's Secret of its day!
...yes it was! As well as Montgomery Wards... and then came JCPenneys... :wow:
Funny but true: my "graphic artist" career started from using Sears and the others as reference material for my pin-ups and cartoon portraits, which I sold for extra cartons of milk as early as the 3rd grade, and before I found my uncle's stash of PB... :err:
NOTE: I do believe it's now fact that Sears capitalized greatly due to it's women's undergarment section... and it wasn't too long ago that I read an ode to Sears from the purchasers of the Victoria Secrets brand... where they also stated that more than 50% of their catalog mailing list are sent to men.
Sorry, for the full re-quote showing the images again ... Yeah right!.
There are two women in our household -- my daughter and granddaughter. My daughter subscribes to the Victoria's Secret catalog.
I asked her to save these ... I use them to get a wood fire burning just right in our family room fireplace. They are compact, store in a minimal space and burn hot ...
But, when you use them to feed a fire, you can't just roll them up and stuff them in-between the logs. Rather, you must go through them page by page -- carefully crumbling them into a loose packet containing the proper amount of paper and air ... I find that the best results are attained when you tear out a page or two then [longingly] examine both sides of same before tenderly creating the packet to add to the fire.
I usually sit in front of the fireplace on a foot stool, a glass of wine or JD on the hearth, (maybe Ravel's Bolero on the Home Theater Stereo) -- dutifully, steadily stoking the fire to a flaming crescendo ...: devil:
Often. it will take 10 or 15 minutes until the fire is self-sustaining ... Sigh!
Mmm ... There's a touch of Autumn in the air -- I wonder if tonight would be good for the first VS ... er, ah ... Fire of the season
Sorry, for the full re-quote showing the images again ... Yeah right!.
There are two women in our household -- my daughter and granddaughter. My daughter subscribes to the Victoria's Secret catalog.
I asked her to save these ... I use them to get a wood fire burning just right in our family room fireplace. They are compact, store in a minimal space and burn hot ...
But, when you use them to feed a fire, you can't just roll them up and stuff them in-between the logs. Rather, you must go through them page by page -- carefully crumbling them into a loose packet containing the proper amount of paper and air ... I find that the best results are attained when you tear out a page or two then [longingly] examine both sides of same before tenderly creating the packet to add to the fire.
I usually sit in front of the fireplace on a foot stool, a glass of wine or JD on the hearth, (maybe Ravel's Bolero on the Home Theater Stereo) -- dutifully, steadily stoking the fire to a flaming crescendo ...: devil:
Often. it will take 10 or 15 minutes until the fire is self-sustaining ...
Mmm ... There's a touch of Autumn in the air -- I wonder if tonight would be good for the first VS ... er, ah Fire of the season
"...stoking the fire..." Is that what you kids call it these days? LOL!
Sorry, for the full re-quote showing the images again ... Yeah right!.
There are two women in our household -- my daughter and granddaughter. My daughter subscribes to the Victoria's Secret catalog.
I asked her to save these ... I use them to get a wood fire burning just right in our family room fireplace. They are compact, store in a minimal space and burn hot ...
But, when you use them to feed a fire, you can't just roll them up and stuff them in-between the logs. Rather, you must go through them page by page -- carefully crumbling them into a loose packet containing the proper amount of paper and air ... I find that the best results are attained when you tear out a page or two then [longingly] examine both sides of same before tenderly creating the packet to add to the fire.
I usually sit in front of the fireplace on a foot stool, a glass of wine or JD on the hearth, (maybe Ravel's Bolero on the Home Theater Stereo) -- dutifully, steadily stoking the fire to a flaming crescendo ...: devil:
Often. it will take 10 or 15 minutes until the fire is self-sustaining ...
Mmm ... There's a touch of Autumn in the air -- I wonder if tonight would be good for the first VS ... er, ah Fire of the season
"...stoking the fire..." Is that what you kids call it these days? LOL!
Oops ... Did I hit Submit on that -- I meant to hit Cancel.
Sorry, for the full re-quote showing the images again ... Yeah right!.
There are two women in our household -- my daughter and granddaughter. My daughter subscribes to the Victoria's Secret catalog.
I asked her to save these ... I use them to get a wood fire burning just right in our family room fireplace. They are compact, store in a minimal space and burn hot ...
But, when you use them to feed a fire, you can't just roll them up and stuff them in-between the logs. Rather, you must go through them page by page -- carefully crumbling them into a loose packet containing the proper amount of paper and air ... I find that the best results are attained when you tear out a page or two then [longingly] examine both sides of same before tenderly creating the packet to add to the fire.
I usually sit in front of the fireplace on a foot stool, a glass of wine or JD on the hearth, (maybe Ravel's Bolero on the Home Theater Stereo) -- dutifully, steadily stoking the fire to a flaming crescendo ...: devil:
Often. it will take 10 or 15 minutes until the fire is self-sustaining ... Sigh!
Mmm ... There's a touch of Autumn in the air -- I wonder if tonight would be good for the first VS ... er, ah ... Fire of the season
.... and a bit of 80's 70's(!) nostalgia for "10", Dudley Moore, John Gielgud (that was "Arthur"!)... and the lovely Bo Derrick prancing across the beach.... all to Ravel's Bolero.... right? Yes. Autumn is in the air.... what a great time of year to reminisce.
A what the heck... here's something to print out and add to your "Flames of Erotica"... 'cause I just burned this post! Reminiscing would help if I didn't get my facts all screwed up!
Sorry, for the full re-quote showing the images again ... Yeah right!.
There are two women in our household -- my daughter and granddaughter. My daughter subscribes to the Victoria's Secret catalog.
I asked her to save these ... I use them to get a wood fire burning just right in our family room fireplace. They are compact, store in a minimal space and burn hot ...
But, when you use them to feed a fire, you can't just roll them up and stuff them in-between the logs. Rather, you must go through them page by page -- carefully crumbling them into a loose packet containing the proper amount of paper and air ... I find that the best results are attained when you tear out a page or two then [longingly] examine both sides of same before tenderly creating the packet to add to the fire.
I usually sit in front of the fireplace on a foot stool, a glass of wine or JD on the hearth, (maybe Ravel's Bolero on the Home Theater Stereo) -- dutifully, steadily stoking the fire to a flaming crescendo ...: devil:
Often. it will take 10 or 15 minutes until the fire is self-sustaining ... Sigh!
Mmm ... There's a touch of Autumn in the air -- I wonder if tonight would be good for the first VS ... er, ah ... Fire of the season
.... and a bit of 80's 70's(!) nostalgia for "10", Dudley Moore, John Gielgud (that was "Arthur"!)... and the lovely Bo Derrick prancing across the beach.... all to Ravel's Bolero.... right? Yes. Autumn is in the air.... what a great time of year to reminisce.
A what the heck... here's something to print out and add to your "Flames of Erotica"... 'cause I just burned this post! Reminiscing would help if I didn't get my facts all screwed up!
Only if Google can figure a way around Apple's patent(s), or if Apple licenses to Google (unlikely).
It won't require the use of Apple patents. Of course Apple will try to claim as much of their implementation as they're allowed to, which only makes sense of course.
What Apple has done is created a really nice mobile payment solution using standards and soon-to-be-standards dictated by the big banks and payment processors. Those folks have been pushing for and testing tokenization of payments for quite some time. What Apple has wisely added to the mix is TouchID, which helps verify the identity of the person authorizing the payment. For now other vendors can't offer the same verification tool, advantage Apple. It's also a more profitable solution for Apple, which at the end of the day is what most business is all about.
Comments
The problem with the headline is that it's misleading. Fraud liability is not a specially negotiated deal with Apple, it's changing across the board.
Quote:
What do you mean "of course" you are speaking nonsense, no at present its sometimes and always the acquirer who is liable for any fraud especially if the acquirer's system not the processor (the bank) is the one which is hacked. When credit cards are skimmed at the POS that is the acquirers fault as in the case of Target and HomeDepot
Until now, it's been the banks that have been largely responsible for taking the hit, unless they could prove negligence on the part of the retailer.
But this all changes in October of 2015, when the implementer with the lesser technology becomes responsible for chargebacks. If a retailer still uses swipe-and-sign but the customer had a chipped card, the retailer eats the cost of fraud. Conversely, if the retailer had a chip and/or NFC terminal (which are functionally one an the same) but the bank didn't issue a chipped card, the bank eats the cost of fraud.
More details here: http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/02/06/october-2015-the-end-of-the-swipe-and-sign-credit-card/
It's good to know Apple Pay got support from these banks.
Yes, I'm glad to see that my bank, USAA, is one of the partners. Having been a customer for decades, I see USAA as distinctly different from some of the large monster mega-banks. USAA has earned my trust, so I will try out and support this new transaction system.
Apple was smart to partner with several banks. At startup, it is crucial for this type of payment system to gain wide acceptance. And the best way to do that is to partner with the established transaction processors and banks. The banks/processors are apparently embracing this and accepting Apple's cut (reported to be about 0.15% out of the total 3% or so) of the transaction fees. The value ApplePay adds, from the banks' perspective, is reduced fraud losses because of the added security. And hopefully there will be an increased volume of transactions because of consumers' perceptions of increased security.
In the long run, the system should gain wider acceptance if overall transaction costs are lowered, not only through increased security but in addition through competition for transactions. Why should the vendors (and ultimately the customers) pay high fees to to the likes of MasterCard, VISA and AMEX? Why couldn't Apple be the bank, i.e., front the funds, instead of the MasterCard bank? Apple, or another competitor, might decide to be the "bank". Of course, Apple may not want to do this. It's a different line of business, fraught with regulatory hurdles, and Apple may not have the management culture or expertise to do this well.
We live in interesting times. I hope Apple's system succeeds because it appears to completely cut out the wireless carriers, at least in terms of monetizing or profiting from the transactions. Considering their sordid history, I want the wireless carriers nowhere near my financial transactions, bank account, or credit card. Where is the value added? Why should the wireless carriers add additional fees or profit from them? The carriers are already exorbitantly paid for our wireless access and bandwidth. Their role should be reduced to "dumb pipes", with no ability to add costs to or profit from the content of the transmissions.
Verizon (and other carriers) partnered with other banks in the unfortunately-named "ISIS" point-of-sale payment system. This was later re-named "Softbank". There are a number of problems with this system, and I hope it fades away. For one thing, it gives the wireless carriers some degree of control (blocking a competing system from Google, for example), for no good reason.
I wish Apple and its banking partners well. Let the games begin ...
Yeah, just wait ...
Some analysts are reporting teen interest in the Apple Watch are meh!
Just wait until the teens discover that they can use the Apple Watch to Buy Stuff -- in addition to all its new social capabilities.
But, But, But ... Teens don't have credit cards!
... but their parents do!
Mmm ...
How could it be arranged to allow teens to charge against their parent's credit cards ... Hopefully in pre-approved amounts and for designated purposes ... And maybe, even get detailed receipts ... Learn how to save, shop, discern, budget ...
Do you know anyone who could put together an offering like that ... Who can get multiple companies with complementing (but divergent) interests to work together to really satisfy a customer need ...
Soon, we'll have an off-the-shelf NFC POST terminal for less than $500 ... $300 ... Plug'N'play ... No installation, service, maintenance fees! Even the smallest Mom and Pop store, Flea-Market stall, Garage sale will have at least one of these.
Who wants the hassle and risk of messing with cash ... Trips to the bank ... waiting in line ...
The digital economy will be heavily used (tested) this holiday season, with rapidly accelerating growth through 2015 ...
I give it 18 months!
Of course it falls on their shoulders. That is where it is today. Apple is bringing a better solution which will actually minimize their risk until next year when it shifts to the merchant receiving the payment if they are not using one of the chip and sign systems. Since Apple Pay uses your PIN or fingerprint it is probably just as good or better (due to rotating codes, etc) so this will likely meet the requirements so that merchants using Apple Pay won't be liable for transitions completed with Apple Pay. I look forward to having a phone or watch that can do this. I personally miss the chip and pin solution I used overseas.
What do you mean "of course" you are speaking nonsense, no at present its sometimes and always the acquirer who is liable for any fraud especially if the acquirer's system not the processor (the bank) is the one which is hacked. When credit cards are skimmed at the POS that is the acquirers fault as in the case of Target and HomeDepot
I think you are confusing a few things. Apple Pay will work as a "card present" transaction. Today, "card present" transaction liability falls on the issuing banks. "Card not present" transaction liability typically falls on the merchants. So liability has not changed on the same class of transaction under Apple Pay. The real story was that Apple Pay was to be considered "card present". That story came and went and then this liability stuff popped up, but it was already clear to anyone that understood what the "card present" classification meant.
The liability scheme in the US changes even more come October 2015 when the merchants must use EMV terminals and card issuers need to issue EMV capable cards. Whichever side that does not update their technology will assume the liability for card present swipe and sign transactions. My point secondary point was that Apple Pay will likely keep its "card present" status and the issuers will keep the liability since it is for all intents and purposes as secure as an EMV solution.
The Home Depot and Target examples have a problem. While you can try to put the liability on HD and Target, that is much harder to do in practice. Subsequent fraud committed with cards that were compromised in those hacks cannot be proved to be from the hacks and may have simply be stolen or skimmed cards. The liability on those is going to come down to card present or card not present and other factors to determine liability on subsequent transactions.
AFAICT, the Apple Pay transaction will be better than a "card present" transaction -- because it can validate the cardholder's identity ... That should translate to less risk/costs for the bank, the processor, the merchant and the cardholder.
...yes it was! As well as Montgomery Wards... and then came JCPenneys... :wow:
Funny but true: my "graphic artist" career started from using Sears and the others as reference material for my pin-ups and cartoon portraits, which I sold for extra cartons of milk as early as the 3rd grade, and before I found my uncle's stash of PB... :err:
NOTE: I do believe it's now fact that Sears capitalized greatly due to it's women's undergarment section... and it wasn't too long ago that I read an ode to Sears from the purchasers of the Victoria Secrets brand... where they also stated that more than 50% of their catalog mailing list are sent to men.
Only if Google can figure a way around Apple's patent(s), or if Apple licenses to Google (unlikely).
Sorry, for the full re-quote showing the images again ... Yeah right!.
There are two women in our household -- my daughter and granddaughter. My daughter subscribes to the Victoria's Secret catalog.
I asked her to save these ... I use them to get a wood fire burning just right in our family room fireplace. They are compact, store in a minimal space and burn hot ...
But, when you use them to feed a fire, you can't just roll them up and stuff them in-between the logs. Rather, you must go through them page by page -- carefully crumbling them into a loose packet containing the proper amount of paper and air ... I find that the best results are attained when you tear out a page or two then [longingly] examine both sides of same before tenderly creating the packet to add to the fire.
I usually sit in front of the fireplace on a foot stool, a glass of wine or JD on the hearth, (maybe Ravel's Bolero on the Home Theater Stereo) -- dutifully, steadily stoking the fire to a flaming crescendo ...: devil:
Often. it will take 10 or 15 minutes until the fire is self-sustaining ... Sigh!
Mmm ... There's a touch of Autumn in the air -- I wonder if tonight would be good for the first VS ... er, ah ... Fire of the season
"...stoking the fire..." Is that what you kids call it these days? LOL!
Oops ... Did I hit Submit on that -- I meant to hit Cancel.
80's70's(!) nostalgia for "10", Dudley Moore,John Gielgud(that was "Arthur"!)... and the lovely Bo Derrick prancing across the beach.... all to Ravel's Bolero.... right? Yes. Autumn is in the air.... what a great time of year to reminisce.A what the heck... here's something to print out and add to your "Flames of Erotica"... 'cause I just burned this post! Reminiscing would help if I didn't get my facts all screwed up!
Ahh ... Bo Derek ...
She certainly pushed all the right buttons!
It won't require the use of Apple patents. Of course Apple will try to claim as much of their implementation as they're allowed to, which only makes sense of course.
What Apple has done is created a really nice mobile payment solution using standards and soon-to-be-standards dictated by the big banks and payment processors. Those folks have been pushing for and testing tokenization of payments for quite some time. What Apple has wisely added to the mix is TouchID, which helps verify the identity of the person authorizing the payment. For now other vendors can't offer the same verification tool, advantage Apple. It's also a more profitable solution for Apple, which at the end of the day is what most business is all about.