MCX CEO calls CurrentC exclusivity fines 'untrue,' responds to recent hack

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2014
During a press conference on Wednesday, MCX CEO Dekkers Davidson responded to criticism of the retail consortium's CurrentC system, saying merchant fines for using other payment solutions are untrue.




According to TechCrunch, Davidson denied claims that MCX partner merchants are contractually obligated to box out alternative payment methods like Apple Pay, saying "it's simply not true, there are no fines." A New York Times report on Tuesday cited unnamed sources as saying MCX retailers are fined if they accept any digital wallet other than CurrentC.

In fact, Davidson suggested CurrentC and Apple Pay may one day be offered side-by-side.

"In the future, that could be entirely possible...there will need to be two to three strong players in the ecosystem. One won't simply build the market," Davidson said. It is unclear if he envisions Apple Pay in MCX merchant stores, which would be a supposed breach of current contracts, or CurrentC in non-MCX outlets.

MCX is also not married to the idea of using QR codes as a method of data entry and may one day move to NFC if needed, Davidson said. The group is already working with merchants on other technologies, but chose to roll out the code-based system for wide compatibility. Assumedly, if consumers adopt NFC contactless systems, like Apple Pay, MCX will modify CurrentC in kind.

Finally, Davidson addressed the recent hack of CurrentC's pilot program. He said MCX anticipated attacks, which is why sensitive information is "securely" stored in the cloud, not on consumer devices.

"The hack reminds us that there are people that are motivated to steal information," Davidson said. "Our systems have been attacked repeatedly in the last 7 to 8 days. Clearly any type of attack or incident is one you have to learn from to get stronger and we will get stronger. [...] When you poke at a large ecosystem like that, you should expect attacks."

According to reports, the call was not open to live questions from journalists, with MCX instead fielding queries hand-picked from emails.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 66

    YOU'RE GOIN' DOWN IN FLAMES!  FLAMES, BUDDY!

     

    (channeling Bloom County)

  • Reply 2 of 66
    Mcx.. Stop the spin ..,U goofed by telling your retailors to block Applepay.
    Dont make it worse by insulting your customers inteligance!

    Stop this bs and let the consumer choose how he/ she wants to pay...
    Bully me away from my prefered choice and i go where my choice is welcomed!
    And believe you me... Im not the only one turning against you and your shortsighted tacticts !!!
  • Reply 3 of 66
    H
  • Reply 4 of 66
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,094member

    Bottom line, however, is not the technology but the intent. The CurrenC system seeks to bypass card processing fees. That’s why it was invented. That’s why it is being promoted. That’s why it demands you link your checking or savings account directly. So the technology won’t be the deciding factor as much as the idea of the CurrenC transaction dipping directly into your bank accounts. With a credit card you can float the purchase for a few weeks if you want to.

  • Reply 5 of 66

    These comments are dumb. He is addressing fines when the real pain is the retailers walking away from their $500K investment and all of that customer data... The issue blocking Apple Pay / Google Wallet is that MCX has an exclusivity deal as outlined by this guy in his blog post today. To say they may be able to offer the two side by side in the future is saying that they are probably going to have to cave on the current exclusivity agreements or the merchants will walk. 

     

    Quote: http://www.mcx.com/blog/answers-to-your-questions/


     When merchants choose to work with MCX, they choose to do so exclusively and we’re proud of the long list of merchants who have partnered with us. Importantly, if a merchant decides to stop working with MCX, there are no fines.


  • Reply 6 of 66
    df
  • Reply 7 of 66
    Blah, blah, blah!!
  • Reply 8 of 66
    lkrupp wrote: »
    Bottom line, however, is not the technology but the intent. The CurrenC system seeks to bypass card processing fees. That’s why it was invented. That’s why it is being promoted. That’s why it demands you link your checking or savings account directly. So the technology won’t be the deciding factor as much as the idea of the CurrenC transaction dipping directly into your bank accounts. With a credit card you can float the purchase for a few weeks if you want to.

    It is screwed up at so many levels it is beyond funny!
  • Reply 9 of 66
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member

    there you go. This topic is a little slow in AI.

    Sure, MCX expected the hacks...lol. I don't care whatever he said. I don't want my financial information with SSN and DL number stored on their Cloud. QR Code?, the last thing I want for mobile payments because the sequence of activities associated with it...what's it different from current Starbucks app? None.

  • Reply 10 of 66
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

    Bottom line, however, is not the technology but the intent. The CurrenC system seeks to bypass card processing fees. That’s why it was invented. That’s why it is being promoted. That’s why it demands you link your checking or savings account directly. So the technology won’t be the deciding factor as much as the idea of the CurrenC transaction dipping directly into your bank accounts. With a credit card you can float the purchase for a few weeks if you want to.


    and that's a beauty of using CC, right? especially if you know your CC closing date, you can charge more right after that day and get maximum grace period like up to 60 days...hell yeah, someone loans you money without interest for 60 days, why not take it, right?

  • Reply 11 of 66
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

     

    These comments are dumb. He is addressing fines when the real pain is the retailers walking away from their $500K investment and all of that customer data... The issue blocking Apple Pay / Google Wallet is that MCX has an exclusivity deal as outlined by this guy in his blog post today. To say they may be able to offer the two side by side in the future is saying that they are probably going to have to cave on the current exclusivity agreements or the merchants will walk. 

     


    "There are no fines" in plain English, you can interpret it as: "There is only one fine"

  • Reply 12 of 66
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member

    Finally, he dumped everything on Merchant...lol like Merchant chose not to use NFC based payments. What a dumb comment! I'm not sure how Rite-Aid and CVS feel after this.

  • Reply 13 of 66
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    So what is the protection for the costumer if they get hack and all of those bank account # ssn and dl get stolen?

    Edit: "securely protected on the cloud" dont make me laugh!
  • Reply 14 of 66
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 3,976member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by idrey View Post



    So what is the protection for the costumer if they get hack and all of those bank account # ssn and dl getstolen?



    Edit: "securely protected on the cloud" dont make me laugh!

    I hope you meant "customer". The protection is on the banks, not MCX.

  • Reply 15 of 66
    stompystompy Posts: 336member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


     


    "it's simply not true, there are no fines." A New York Times report on Tuesday cited unnamed sources as saying MCX retailers are fined if they accept any digital wallet other than CurrentC.



    In fact, Davidson suggested CurrentC and Apple Pay may one day be offered side-by-side.



    "In the future, that could be entirely possible...



    According to reports, the call was not open to live questions from journalists, with MCX instead fielding queries hand-picked from emails.

    These look suspiciously like weasel words to me. Davidson has stated that partners can leave MCX anytime they wish, that there are no fines for using competing mobile payments. Now he states that "in the future," CurrentC and Apple Pay could be "side-by-side".

     

    Any of the following things could be true, and wouldn't contradict what Davidson said.

     

    1. Merchants currently under MCX contract can choose fines or dissolving their MCX ties.

    2. The "fine" is that merchants don't get ANY of their fees back. The costs are sunk.

    3. MCX has "encouraged" merchants to band together, now more than ever, for the promised land is nigh. Stay strong! We'll beat them yet!

  • Reply 16 of 66
    Hey, if MCX is giving the merchant the option of supporting other payment solutions alongside CurrentC, fine! Knock yourselves out. Like it or not, CurrentC really does make sense from a retailer's perspective. And I'm sure there may even be Some customers who prefer using it... maybe. Just don't restrict My freedom of choice. That's the only turnoff I've had do far with this whole CurrentC debate. Make it worth my while, Then I may choose to consider using it. Not before.
  • Reply 17 of 66
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by fallenjt View Post

     

    there you go. This topic is a little slow in AI.

    Sure, MCX expected the hacks...lol. I don't care whatever he said. I don't want my financial information with SSN and DL number stored on their Cloud. QR Code?, the last thing I want for mobile payments because the sequence of activities associated with it...what's it different from current Starbucks app? None.


     

    If they were expecting the hacks, you would think they would have been hardening their APIs and improving their security. "Secure Cloud" must have a different meaning to them. 

  • Reply 18 of 66

    And now the careful capitulation begins "look we can co-exist together, especially if I say our name with theirs" ... keep stepping

  • Reply 19 of 66
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    fallenjt wrote: »
    I hope you meant "customer". The protection is on the banks, not MCX.

    Yeap! Sorry no proof reading! ????

    Yeah, the banks, but to what extend?
  • Reply 20 of 66
    It's all damage control with these guys.
Sign In or Register to comment.