I'm surprised anyone is defending CVS under the rubric of "credit card fees," and only a few. Most of the usual forum contrarians are silent or agreeing that this is a dick move.
In a household with 2 adults and 3 teenagers, there are a lot of expenses -- any many not payable by credit cards ... school lunches, church donations ... Other purchases are not identifiable without an itemized receipt that may contain: food, TP (household supplies), cooking supplies, gifts (from who and/or for who), pet supplies, makeup, medicine, DVDs, sporting goods, personal care, clothing, school supplies, several iPhones and cases, cables, iTunes Gift Cards, etc. from the Apple Store ...
Lots of purchases are made by the kids who pay cash for everything, as they don't have credit cards.
In this environment, it is almost impossible to create a meaningful household (and by individual) budget without detailed receipts.
This does not mean you need to do this every month -- but doing it for 2-3 consecutive months does a reasonable job of capturing most of the data needed to create a budget.
Recently, my 18-year-old granddaughter was thinking about getting out on her own with some help from her parents (she works and goes to school)
It's amazing how useful a [reasnably] detailed budget is when planning for something like this.
What would be ideal for detail expense reporting and budgeting would be to
get itemized receipts, with UPCs, for every purchase in digital form with Apple Pay
have an app that categorizes these into expense categories by UPC
use the expense details/summaries to periodically generate a household and individual budgets
use the above expenses to generate summary performance against budget reports
I believe that one of the most important lessons that a parent can give to their children is: How money and credit works -- and how they can be used too your advantage ... realistic expense accounting and budgeting are integral to this.
None of which should be authorized as itemized deductions.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
That's not accurate at all. The multinationals and financial institutions (aka: credit card issues) didn't sign up for ?Pay because they were afraid to upset some rabid Apple fans. They signed up because it's the best way for them to make more profit. In this case, that means more profit from not having to reconcile billions annually in fraud claims. This is why Apple is able to get a taste of this while the fees despite it technically being a (physical) card not-present transaction and the financial institutions having to spend money in order to rejigger their backend to support ?Pay.
Of course CurrentC is about that. The thing is Apple worked out a lower transaction fee to use Apple Pay! Using a credit card is normally around 2.8% or a little more. Apple Pay from what I hear is 1.5% and Apple's tiny cut comes out of that. It's lower because of the security. Google Wallet though is no cheaper then a credit card.
Most businesses eat this transaction fee cost. A few don't like gas stations where they have a credit price and a cash price.
Most legit B&M retail locations will have a swiped card rate of around 1.5% plus or minus. It can depend on what industry they are, their history, etc. But that is a ballpark figure. It is not 2.8%. And even for swiped cards the rate can vary depending on what sort of card it is -- normal vs rewards vs foreign etc.
I don't believe Apple Pay transactions get a rate better than that retailers normal swiped rate. At least currently. If Apple Pay can show through an actual history of use that fraud is a lot less maybe retailers can push back and get lower rates than even the swiped rate. Who knows.
What Apple got through negotiations is the swiped card present rate for a transaction that actually is not the actual card.
That's not accurate at all. The multinationals and financial institutions (aka: credit card issues) didn't sign up for ?Pay because they were afraid to upset some rabid Apple fans. They signed up because it's the best way for them to make more profit. In this case, that means more profit from not having to reconcile billions annually in fraud claims. This is why Apple is able to get a taste of this while the fees despite it technically being a (physical) card not-present transaction and the financial institutions having to spend money in order to rejigger their backend to support ?Pay.
Also, financial institutions are expecting Apple Pay to convert a lot of cash transactions to credit card, further increasing their incomes. If Apple Pay is widely supported everywhere, I have a lot less reason to carry a wallet in addition to my cell phone, which means that scenarios in which I might have considered paying by cash, I will be forced to pay via Apple Pay.
Unlike the music industry, the financial industry is genuinely excited about Apple Pay (it doesn't hurt that Apple's competitors are all trying to cut them out while Apple is making them integral to its system).
Poorly worded article. As if Apple doesn't use ApplePay to collect data. It's part of playing the game, complaining about Apple here per se, but there isn't a pay service in existence today that doesn't collect and utilize user data. The article makes it seem as if CVS is blocking a system that doesn't collect any in order to install their own which will be performing a massive privacy breach.
Unlike the music industry, the financial industry is genuinely excited about Apple Pay (it doesn't hurt that Apple's competitors are all trying to cut them out while Apple is making them integral to its system).
When you look at Apple's history of successful services that required partners most started off with one to just a couple partners but are now the de facto in their market category. ?Pay came out of the gate supporting 80% of the US' banking customers. I simply can't see a future where ?Pay-like services are available and in 90% of the businesses that currently take CCs in the US within 3 years.
Most legit B&M retail locations will have a swiped card rate of around 1.5% plus or minus. It can depend on what industry they are, their history, etc. But that is a ballpark figure. It is not 2.8%. And even for swiped cards the rate can vary depending on what sort of card it is -- normal vs rewards vs foreign etc.
I don't believe Apple Pay transactions get a rate better than that retailers normal swiped rate. At least currently. If Apple Pay can show through an actual history of use that fraud is a lot less maybe retailers can push back and get lower rates than even the swiped rate. Who knows.
What Apple got through negotiations is the swiped card present rate for a transaction that actually is not the actual card.
There is some confusion about the rates, because no one really knows what they actually are. I think there are a few things that happened:
1) Apple managed to get Apple Pay considered as card present so retailers pay the lower card present fee.
2) Apple managed to get a cut out of that card present rate (of about 0.15%). In other words, the banks expect Apple Pay to be even more secure than regular card present transactions, and are letting Apple get a cut of the fraud savings (rather than passing it onto the retailer).
3) This is where I think a lot of the confusion comes from. In addition to the above, I think Apple also simultaneously negotiated a lower rate that they pay the CC companies and the banks for customer transactions in Apple Retail Stores, Apple Store online, and Apple's various App and Media stores online. This rate may also possibly extend to Apple Pay online but I am not sure how that is structured.
We get it 1. your a luddite writing this with wood block stamps and a mallet. OR perhaps 2. your just a troll looking for insignificant arguments that have nothing to do with this subject. I'm voting 2.
I work selling retail printers - the real problem is not TOO MUCH use.... it's too little. People let printers sit for weeks unused, ink dries up in the print heads and then it's useless, often damaging the printer as much as the cartridge.
In this way, Laser is superior in that it can sit for weeks or months.
I tell people to try and print something every week or so - just a line of each color (CKMY). The small use of ink saves tons of dried, head-damaged 70% full cartridges.
In a joint press announcement, Walmart, BestBuy, CVS, RiteAid and other members of the CurrentC mobile payment consortium:
Due to the overwhelming requests to use Apple Pay ... we have decided to close our doors to all customers until CurrentC is available, some time in 2015. While this may have a minor impact on earnings through the holiday season -- we are looking forward to a robust Cinco De Mayo in 2015 ... or, maybe Halloween 2015 ...
... And in a further development, CVS announced that it is restricting payment by purchasers with cash unless customers are willing to show the store clerk their drivers license or state-issued photo ID, their email address, Social Security number, mother's hat size, and any test results in the last six months for hematocrit, blood sugar, STDs and [males only] sperm count.
Poorly worded article. As if Apple doesn't use ApplePay to collect data. It's part of playing the game, complaining about Apple here per se, but there isn't a pay service in existence today that doesn't collect and utilize user data. The article makes it seem as if CVS is blocking a system that doesn't collect any in order to install their own which will be performing a massive privacy breach.
Eh. Not.
1) Apple has clearly stated they do not track your purchases through ?Pay.
2) Yes, CVS tracks your purchases. With the CVS rewards card I don't mind because they give me coupons for things I buy and sometimes I may want to buy, as well as frequently giving straight up credit to be used in the store as well as 20-40% off coupons for entire purchases.
3) Yes, CurrentC is designed to track your purchases. This is the nature of their service.
There is some confusion about the rates, because no one really knows what they actually are. I think there are a few things that happened:
1) Apple managed to get Apple Pay considered as card present so retailers pay the lower card present fee.
2) Apple managed to get a cut out of that card present rate (of about 0.15%). In other words, the banks expect Apple Pay to be even more secure than regular card present transactions, and are letting Apple get a cut of the fraud savings (rather than passing it onto the retailer).
3) This is where I think a lot of the confusion comes from. In addition to the above, I think Apple also simultaneously negotiated a lower rate that they pay the CC companies and the banks for customer transactions in Apple Retail Stores, Apple Store online, and Apple's various App and Media stores online. This rate may also possibly extend to Apple Pay online but I am not sure how that is structured.
And people were saying Apple Pay wasn't going to have an impact. Boy were they wrong. It's caused two retailers who previously used to accept NFC to specifically turn the feature off. It's made a lot of people aware of CurrentC and how crappy it really is. And it's the hottest topic of conversation on all tech blogs.
It’s a shame that Apple didn't bypass the cards completely. That would have been a truly comprehensive revolution of the payment system, the sort of thing that Steve Jobs would have done. In my opinion, they should have created a new payment system that linked directly with your bank account and incurred no charges for either consumers and either minimal charges or none for merchants.
As it is, there is not a lot of incentive for merchants, because they still have significant card fees to pay.
Yes, Jobs totally would have done that, just like how they cut out the music industry entirely and did deals with artists themselves, and opened recording studios, and all that good stuff.
Or how Apple started their own cell phone service to bypass AT&T, Verizon, and the rest of those guys. Or like how Apple created their own ISP (yes, I know they did, but Jobs wasn't there). /s
Your system sounds like Google Wallet. Which failed, in case you hadn't noticed, because no one supported it.
It’s a shame that Apple didn't bypass the cards completely. That would have been a truly comprehensive revolution of the payment system, the sort of thing that Steve Jobs would have done. In my opinion, they should have created a new payment system that linked directly with your bank account and incurred no charges for either consumers and either minimal charges or none for merchants.
As it is, there is not a lot of incentive for merchants, because they still have significant card fees to pay.
Tim Cook was asked this exact question in that Charlie Rose interview and he said the fact is people love their credit cards. Hence why CurrentC also supports credit cards and most merchants do as well. If you think Steve Jobs would have been able to get people to give up their credit cards you're smoking something. And as others have pointed out there's very little that Steve really revolutionized. Record companies still exist and so do phone companies like AT&T and Verizon. If anyone is revolutionizing that space it's the CEO of T-Mobile.
When you look at Apple's history of successful services that required partners most started off with one to just a couple partners but are now the de facto in their market category. ?Pay came out of the gate supporting 80% of the US' banking customers. I simply can't see a future where ?Pay-like services are available and in 90% of the businesses that currently take CCs in the US within 3 years.
Comments
I'm surprised anyone is defending CVS under the rubric of "credit card fees," and only a few. Most of the usual forum contrarians are silent or agreeing that this is a dick move.
They are building a CVS a block away from me. Walgreens is 9 blocks away.
Guess which one I'm going to?
None of which should be authorized as itemized deductions.
Just launch ApplePay in Australia already - It's rare to find an EFTPOS terminal that isn't PayPass/PayWave equipped!
That's not accurate at all. The multinationals and financial institutions (aka: credit card issues) didn't sign up for ?Pay because they were afraid to upset some rabid Apple fans. They signed up because it's the best way for them to make more profit. In this case, that means more profit from not having to reconcile billions annually in fraud claims. This is why Apple is able to get a taste of this while the fees despite it technically being a (physical) card not-present transaction and the financial institutions having to spend money in order to rejigger their backend to support ?Pay.
How has that worked out for everyone else who has tried? Cook very directly said why that was a failed model.
Most legit B&M retail locations will have a swiped card rate of around 1.5% plus or minus. It can depend on what industry they are, their history, etc. But that is a ballpark figure. It is not 2.8%. And even for swiped cards the rate can vary depending on what sort of card it is -- normal vs rewards vs foreign etc.
I don't believe Apple Pay transactions get a rate better than that retailers normal swiped rate. At least currently. If Apple Pay can show through an actual history of use that fraud is a lot less maybe retailers can push back and get lower rates than even the swiped rate. Who knows.
What Apple got through negotiations is the swiped card present rate for a transaction that actually is not the actual card.
That's not accurate at all. The multinationals and financial institutions (aka: credit card issues) didn't sign up for ?Pay because they were afraid to upset some rabid Apple fans. They signed up because it's the best way for them to make more profit. In this case, that means more profit from not having to reconcile billions annually in fraud claims. This is why Apple is able to get a taste of this while the fees despite it technically being a (physical) card not-present transaction and the financial institutions having to spend money in order to rejigger their backend to support ?Pay.
Also, financial institutions are expecting Apple Pay to convert a lot of cash transactions to credit card, further increasing their incomes. If Apple Pay is widely supported everywhere, I have a lot less reason to carry a wallet in addition to my cell phone, which means that scenarios in which I might have considered paying by cash, I will be forced to pay via Apple Pay.
Unlike the music industry, the financial industry is genuinely excited about Apple Pay (it doesn't hurt that Apple's competitors are all trying to cut them out while Apple is making them integral to its system).
Poorly worded article. As if Apple doesn't use ApplePay to collect data. It's part of playing the game, complaining about Apple here per se, but there isn't a pay service in existence today that doesn't collect and utilize user data. The article makes it seem as if CVS is blocking a system that doesn't collect any in order to install their own which will be performing a massive privacy breach.
Eh. Not.
When you look at Apple's history of successful services that required partners most started off with one to just a couple partners but are now the de facto in their market category. ?Pay came out of the gate supporting 80% of the US' banking customers. I simply can't see a future where ?Pay-like services are available and in 90% of the businesses that currently take CCs in the US within 3 years.
Most legit B&M retail locations will have a swiped card rate of around 1.5% plus or minus. It can depend on what industry they are, their history, etc. But that is a ballpark figure. It is not 2.8%. And even for swiped cards the rate can vary depending on what sort of card it is -- normal vs rewards vs foreign etc.
I don't believe Apple Pay transactions get a rate better than that retailers normal swiped rate. At least currently. If Apple Pay can show through an actual history of use that fraud is a lot less maybe retailers can push back and get lower rates than even the swiped rate. Who knows.
What Apple got through negotiations is the swiped card present rate for a transaction that actually is not the actual card.
There is some confusion about the rates, because no one really knows what they actually are. I think there are a few things that happened:
1) Apple managed to get Apple Pay considered as card present so retailers pay the lower card present fee.
2) Apple managed to get a cut out of that card present rate (of about 0.15%). In other words, the banks expect Apple Pay to be even more secure than regular card present transactions, and are letting Apple get a cut of the fraud savings (rather than passing it onto the retailer).
3) This is where I think a lot of the confusion comes from. In addition to the above, I think Apple also simultaneously negotiated a lower rate that they pay the CC companies and the banks for customer transactions in Apple Retail Stores, Apple Store online, and Apple's various App and Media stores online. This rate may also possibly extend to Apple Pay online but I am not sure how that is structured.
We get it 1. your a luddite writing this with wood block stamps and a mallet. OR perhaps 2. your just a troll looking for insignificant arguments that have nothing to do with this subject. I'm voting 2.
I work selling retail printers - the real problem is not TOO MUCH use.... it's too little. People let printers sit for weeks unused, ink dries up in the print heads and then it's useless, often damaging the printer as much as the cartridge.
In this way, Laser is superior in that it can sit for weeks or months.
I tell people to try and print something every week or so - just a line of each color (CKMY). The small use of ink saves tons of dried, head-damaged 70% full cartridges.
Sorry that was for "ibeam"
... And in a further development, CVS announced that it is restricting payment by purchasers with cash unless customers are willing to show the store clerk their drivers license or state-issued photo ID, their email address, Social Security number, mother's hat size, and any test results in the last six months for hematocrit, blood sugar, STDs and [males only] sperm count.
1) Apple has clearly stated they do not track your purchases through ?Pay.
2) Yes, CVS tracks your purchases. With the CVS rewards card I don't mind because they give me coupons for things I buy and sometimes I may want to buy, as well as frequently giving straight up credit to be used in the store as well as 20-40% off coupons for entire purchases.
3) Yes, CurrentC is designed to track your purchases. This is the nature of their service.
Sounds about right.
And people were saying Apple Pay wasn't going to have an impact. Boy were they wrong. It's caused two retailers who previously used to accept NFC to specifically turn the feature off. It's made a lot of people aware of CurrentC and how crappy it really is. And it's the hottest topic of conversation on all tech blogs.
Yes, Jobs totally would have done that, just like how they cut out the music industry entirely and did deals with artists themselves, and opened recording studios, and all that good stuff.
Or how Apple started their own cell phone service to bypass AT&T, Verizon, and the rest of those guys. Or like how Apple created their own ISP (yes, I know they did, but Jobs wasn't there). /s
Your system sounds like Google Wallet. Which failed, in case you hadn't noticed, because no one supported it.
Tim Cook was asked this exact question in that Charlie Rose interview and he said the fact is people love their credit cards. Hence why CurrentC also supports credit cards and most merchants do as well. If you think Steve Jobs would have been able to get people to give up their credit cards you're smoking something. And as others have pointed out there's very little that Steve really revolutionized. Record companies still exist and so do phone companies like AT&T and Verizon. If anyone is revolutionizing that space it's the CEO of T-Mobile.
I agree with that except I bet it is sooner.