Plenty of places don't take Discover, Amex - is there still Diner's Club??? - checks, large bills, etc.
No one's being successfully sued over any of that "exclusivity".
To me, it's a bit different - I can see how businesses can legally limit which cards they accept - among other things, there are cost differences that come into play.
Apple Pay is only a method to implement the transaction - presumably using cards accepted by the particular store.
I find it interesting how Apple is required to allow it's competitors to sell on the IOS devices, and yet CurrentC and it's consortium can limit who can access the NFC terminals.
Using Apple Pay, you're 100% Anonymous. They can't track you by your credit card anymore.
Depends on who you are referring to as "they", Sorry to say this, but you are not entirely correct, yes the retailer doesn't know, but the Credit Card company and issuing bank certainly does know your spending habits and they have known for years. Every transaction is recorded and kept, you see them on your statement. They sell that to the highest bidder and in case of the government and law enforcement they have to provide it. All that Apple has done is take the retailer out of the loop for now.
Apple's Passbook App supports loyalty cards, so presumably you can allow your transactions (without your credit card info) to be tracked in general, in return for discounts. Apple Pay also supports debit cards, so I don't see any need for another scheme that charges your bank account directly.
more than that, you can continue to use your "club" cards (or phone # ID) with ApplePay just like you do now at supermarkets, discount stores, etc. BEFORE the clerk totals your bill. even coupons. that gives the retailer the basic info they want, always has, just not all the extra financial info CurrentC requires from you too. all those who ignore this simple factoid, as if ApplePay means getting no store discounts at all, are just plain stupid or wilful liars. ApplePay doesn't stop anyone from using these current retailer setups at all.
@TonyPie do you not know that MCX (CurrentC) does not want to partner with any credit card companies, they want to pull the money from your purchases right out of you bank account, this way the merchant does not have to pay Visa, MasterCard and other Credit Card companies one red cent in fees.
Plenty of places don't take Discover, Amex - is there still Diner's Club??? - checks, large bills, etc.
No one's being successfully sued over any of that "exclusivity".
one business can decide not to take any cards, sure. a bunch of businesses (competitors at that) cant decide *together* to exclude another business. thats collusion. anti-trust, etc.
I believe the class-action suit isn't against the stores not accepting ApplePay as much as it's against MCX for banding together independent businesses in a type of cartel that outlaws other types of payment. Individual businesses can determine what types of payment other than cash they want to accept, but I don't believe a group of businesses can jointly discriminate against specific payment types. There is a big difference.
thats it, yeah. coincidentally its why apple got into trouble w/ the DOJ over the book pricing.
The cool thing about Whole Foods is that they know what Apple Pay is and even welcome it. The hemp sandal-wearing organic granola-eating cashiers are fully up to date on it.
Everything that has come out said it was a three year exclusivity deal.
Yes, but those contracts were signed when the CurrentC was first started - back in 2012. If the contract started the exclusivity from that time, and not from when the product goes live (which still hasn't happened yet), then those early adopters might be free in early 2015.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
How can they even have an expiring exclusivity agreement for something that is nothing but vaporware?
Why not? You can sign any kind of contract you like. I think it's stupid to handcuff yourself based on the promise of something yet to be developed, but not everybody agrees with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
How did CVS have NFC terminals active while also being under this exclusivity agreement?
As I understand it, the exclusivity is for mobile phone-based systems. An NFC-enabled credit card is different and is probably what the readers were originally meant for.
Google Wallet would violate that agreement. Only nobody cared because nobody uses Google Wallet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBDragon
... Using Apple Pay, you're 100% Anonymous. They can't track you by your credit card anymore. Your iPhone sends out a one time use token. Kind of worthless....
Not really. Apple Pay generates a 16-digit ID number similar to a credit card. That number is unique to your account and device, but it is the same for every transaction. (You can see the last 4 digits in Passbook if you look at your card's "Device Account Number"). The number is secure because it can't be used to move money without the one-use-token and the accompanying encryption, but it is an ID that can be used to track purchases made from your phone.
Of course, if you delete your card from Passbook and re-enroll your account, a new device account number will be generated, but who wants to do that for every purchase?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
... the retailer doesn't know, but the Credit Card company and issuing bank certainly does know your spending habits and they have known for years. Every transaction is recorded and kept, you see them on your statement. They sell that to the highest bidder and in case of the government and law enforcement they have to provide it.
Almost. The card company knows what merchant you visited and how much you paid him. They don't know what you actually purchased.
They will know that I spend $10 at Rite Aid, but they don't know if I bought cold medicine, beer, cosmetics or condoms. It's a trail, but not like the ones that merchants can generate when they pool their databases (which is, I'm sure, what MCX is really all about.)
If it was grandfathered then they could have kept the NFC terminals without risking fines. Why do something so anti-consumer?
Well maybe. But I guess that they couldn't find any other way to prevent Apple Pay. After all, neither CVS not Rite-Aid did anything to enable it - it "just worked". So even though PayPass/payWave had been grandfathered (it seems), they felt that they couldn't continue to have Apple Pay work. Or something like that.
i hope so, but i got to try it out for the first time today and it was more involved than i realized.
Went with the wife to BJ's Wholesale - 'watch this i said as i attempted to pay' so you hold the phone near the nfc, with your finger on the fingerprint, and iPhone vibrates and says done, WOW....BUT then the stupid terminal is still prompting me for a payment method - so i have to press debit, then I have to enter the PIN on the terminal, before the sale concluded. Apparently, not all nfc terminals work this way but surely the method of the customer should remain consistent - this was just as involved as swiping the card.....
I wondered if there might be anti-trust issues here. I guess I'm not the only person to wonder that.
That's nothing new and no surprise. Americans are known for their highly opportunistic lawyers.
The fact that CVS and Rite Aid did this at the same time smells of collusion in the same way gas stations all raise their prices on the same day. It may just be a coincidence, but someone had to have told both of these companies to pull the NFC payments to have done it at the same time, and I'd bet money on it being someone at MCX over-reaching.
The fact is, every company that has NFC terminals and accepts Debit/Credit Cards can support Apple Pay.
How things work out in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and Korea may determine how fast banks in other countries jump on board. Japan and Korea have had RFID/NFC cards for ages, so it's been business as usual for quite a while now. One key thing about making Tourism easier is NOT having to buy stuff in the country you are visiting just to use things the citizens of that country already use.
For Americans visiting foreign countries, paying with a swipe card will result in grumbling about liability and will likely be refused at smaller shops. NFC, is much easier to accept. For Foreigners visiting the US, NFC payment Kiosks are preferred. Those with chip+pin cards and no NFC have to resort to using the swipe card, and thus exposing themselves to higher fraud risks. The Target example is a great example of a data leak caused by storing card numbers.
Which comes back to the point about MCX. Absolutely useless for foreigners to use. Foreigners can't open bank accounts easily, and most of them require keeping several hundred to thousands of dollars in them to not be closed. Completely doable if you cross-border shop a lot. Completely insane otherwise.
To get a "prepaid data" sim to use in the US I had to:
1. Withdraw 50$
2. Go buy a Prepaid credit card, losing 20% (or roughly the same I'd have lost converting USD to CAD back to USD again using my CAD card) of the value
3. Put the prepaid sim in and switch it to US app store
4. Give the address of the Hotel I'm staying at because, why the hell do I have to do this every time.
The point of contention every time is that US payment systems are so bloody braindead that they won't even accept USD cards unless the zip code is valid, which it won't be for Canadian Issued cards or US issued cards with Canadian billing addresses.
Apple Pay can potentially fix all of this by making the tokenization be the verification step instead of zip codes or pin numbers.
Not really. Apple Pay generates a 16-digit ID number similar to a credit card. That number is unique to your account and device, but it is the same for every transaction. (You can see the last 4 digits in Passbook if you look at your card's "Device Account Number"). The number is secure because it can't be used to move money without the one-use-token and the accompanying encryption, but it is an ID that can be used to track purchases made from your phone.
Of course, if you delete your card from Passbook and re-enroll your account, a new device account number will be generated, but who wants to do that for every purchase?
not quite right. there are two relevant numbers in Apple Pay -- the DAN, which is unique to your device, and the token, which is a one-off generated for the transaction. both are sent to the issuing bank at auth, but the merchant only retains the token, because they think its a credit card number. thus, they cannot track your transactions by this token because its always changing.
Comments
Can't see how that would have legs.
Plenty of places don't take Discover, Amex - is there still Diner's Club??? - checks, large bills, etc.
No one's being successfully sued over any of that "exclusivity".
To me, it's a bit different - I can see how businesses can legally limit which cards they accept - among other things, there are cost differences that come into play.
Apple Pay is only a method to implement the transaction - presumably using cards accepted by the particular store.
I find it interesting how Apple is required to allow it's competitors to sell on the IOS devices, and yet CurrentC and it's consortium can limit who can access the NFC terminals.
Using Apple Pay, you're 100% Anonymous. They can't track you by your credit card anymore.
Depends on who you are referring to as "they", Sorry to say this, but you are not entirely correct, yes the retailer doesn't know, but the Credit Card company and issuing bank certainly does know your spending habits and they have known for years. Every transaction is recorded and kept, you see them on your statement. They sell that to the highest bidder and in case of the government and law enforcement they have to provide it. All that Apple has done is take the retailer out of the loop for now.
How did CVS have NFC terminals active while also being under this exclusivity agreement? Something doesn't add up in this story.
They were probably active for PayPass/payWave and those were grandfathered. And maybe Google Wallet also was grandfathered - I'm just speculating.
Whatever it was, it didn't get enough attention for anyone to do anything about it. It just didn't matter. Then ...
BOOM
... Apple made a big splash. And the actions of CVS and Rite-Aid are a huge vote of confidence in its success.
Ha! it's CurrentC that is going to "expire" in months, not years. it's already DOA.
Apple's Passbook App supports loyalty cards, so presumably you can allow your transactions (without your credit card info) to be tracked in general, in return for discounts. Apple Pay also supports debit cards, so I don't see any need for another scheme that charges your bank account directly.
more than that, you can continue to use your "club" cards (or phone # ID) with ApplePay just like you do now at supermarkets, discount stores, etc. BEFORE the clerk totals your bill. even coupons. that gives the retailer the basic info they want, always has, just not all the extra financial info CurrentC requires from you too. all those who ignore this simple factoid, as if ApplePay means getting no store discounts at all, are just plain stupid or wilful liars. ApplePay doesn't stop anyone from using these current retailer setups at all.
One could definitely argue that, but the inclusion of "not years" would imply that it's under 1 year (or perhaps 2 years, for the plural).
@TonyPie do you not know that MCX (CurrentC) does not want to partner with any credit card companies, they want to pull the money from your purchases right out of you bank account, this way the merchant does not have to pay Visa, MasterCard and other Credit Card companies one red cent in fees.
But that would then also be "years"...so, 23 months anyone?
I was trying to make a joke, where "months" sounds shorter than "years" (even if it is still 36 months). Common politician tactic.
I guess I shouldn't say it will expire in weeks (156 weeks).
Can't see how that would have legs.
Plenty of places don't take Discover, Amex - is there still Diner's Club??? - checks, large bills, etc.
No one's being successfully sued over any of that "exclusivity".
one business can decide not to take any cards, sure. a bunch of businesses (competitors at that) cant decide *together* to exclude another business. thats collusion. anti-trust, etc.
I believe the class-action suit isn't against the stores not accepting ApplePay as much as it's against MCX for banding together independent businesses in a type of cartel that outlaws other types of payment. Individual businesses can determine what types of payment other than cash they want to accept, but I don't believe a group of businesses can jointly discriminate against specific payment types. There is a big difference.
thats it, yeah. coincidentally its why apple got into trouble w/ the DOJ over the book pricing.
The cool thing about Whole Foods is that they know what Apple Pay is and even welcome it. The hemp sandal-wearing organic granola-eating cashiers are fully up to date on it.
Everything that has come out said it was a three year exclusivity deal.
Yes, but those contracts were signed when the CurrentC was first started - back in 2012. If the contract started the exclusivity from that time, and not from when the product goes live (which still hasn't happened yet), then those early adopters might be free in early 2015.
How can they even have an expiring exclusivity agreement for something that is nothing but vaporware?
Why not? You can sign any kind of contract you like. I think it's stupid to handcuff yourself based on the promise of something yet to be developed, but not everybody agrees with me.
How did CVS have NFC terminals active while also being under this exclusivity agreement?
As I understand it, the exclusivity is for mobile phone-based systems. An NFC-enabled credit card is different and is probably what the readers were originally meant for.
Google Wallet would violate that agreement. Only nobody cared because nobody uses Google Wallet.
Originally Posted by JBDragon
... Using Apple Pay, you're 100% Anonymous. They can't track you by your credit card anymore. Your iPhone sends out a one time use token. Kind of worthless....
Not really. Apple Pay generates a 16-digit ID number similar to a credit card. That number is unique to your account and device, but it is the same for every transaction. (You can see the last 4 digits in Passbook if you look at your card's "Device Account Number"). The number is secure because it can't be used to move money without the one-use-token and the accompanying encryption, but it is an ID that can be used to track purchases made from your phone.
Of course, if you delete your card from Passbook and re-enroll your account, a new device account number will be generated, but who wants to do that for every purchase?
... the retailer doesn't know, but the Credit Card company and issuing bank certainly does know your spending habits and they have known for years. Every transaction is recorded and kept, you see them on your statement. They sell that to the highest bidder and in case of the government and law enforcement they have to provide it.
Almost. The card company knows what merchant you visited and how much you paid him. They don't know what you actually purchased.
They will know that I spend $10 at Rite Aid, but they don't know if I bought cold medicine, beer, cosmetics or condoms. It's a trail, but not like the ones that merchants can generate when they pool their databases (which is, I'm sure, what MCX is really all about.)
thats it, yeah. coincidentally its why apple got into trouble w/ the DOJ over the book pricing.
Not quite. It was the cooperation between Apple and some publishers to RAISE the pricing of e-books.
If it was grandfathered then they could have kept the NFC terminals without risking fines. Why do something so anti-consumer?
If it was grandfathered then they could have kept the NFC terminals without risking fines. Why do something so anti-consumer?
Well maybe. But I guess that they couldn't find any other way to prevent Apple Pay. After all, neither CVS not Rite-Aid did anything to enable it - it "just worked". So even though PayPass/payWave had been grandfathered (it seems), they felt that they couldn't continue to have Apple Pay work. Or something like that.
Whatever it was, it was dumb. Still is.
Used Apple Pay at Whole Foods a couple times.
its the future. PERIOD.
i hope so, but i got to try it out for the first time today and it was more involved than i realized.
Went with the wife to BJ's Wholesale - 'watch this i said as i attempted to pay' so you hold the phone near the nfc, with your finger on the fingerprint, and iPhone vibrates and says done, WOW....BUT then the stupid terminal is still prompting me for a payment method - so i have to press debit, then I have to enter the PIN on the terminal, before the sale concluded. Apparently, not all nfc terminals work this way but surely the method of the customer should remain consistent - this was just as involved as swiping the card.....
That's nothing new and no surprise. Americans are known for their highly opportunistic lawyers.
The fact that CVS and Rite Aid did this at the same time smells of collusion in the same way gas stations all raise their prices on the same day. It may just be a coincidence, but someone had to have told both of these companies to pull the NFC payments to have done it at the same time, and I'd bet money on it being someone at MCX over-reaching.
The fact is, every company that has NFC terminals and accepts Debit/Credit Cards can support Apple Pay.
How things work out in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and Korea may determine how fast banks in other countries jump on board. Japan and Korea have had RFID/NFC cards for ages, so it's been business as usual for quite a while now. One key thing about making Tourism easier is NOT having to buy stuff in the country you are visiting just to use things the citizens of that country already use.
For Americans visiting foreign countries, paying with a swipe card will result in grumbling about liability and will likely be refused at smaller shops. NFC, is much easier to accept. For Foreigners visiting the US, NFC payment Kiosks are preferred. Those with chip+pin cards and no NFC have to resort to using the swipe card, and thus exposing themselves to higher fraud risks. The Target example is a great example of a data leak caused by storing card numbers.
Which comes back to the point about MCX. Absolutely useless for foreigners to use. Foreigners can't open bank accounts easily, and most of them require keeping several hundred to thousands of dollars in them to not be closed. Completely doable if you cross-border shop a lot. Completely insane otherwise.
To get a "prepaid data" sim to use in the US I had to:
1. Withdraw 50$
2. Go buy a Prepaid credit card, losing 20% (or roughly the same I'd have lost converting USD to CAD back to USD again using my CAD card) of the value
3. Put the prepaid sim in and switch it to US app store
4. Give the address of the Hotel I'm staying at because, why the hell do I have to do this every time.
The point of contention every time is that US payment systems are so bloody braindead that they won't even accept USD cards unless the zip code is valid, which it won't be for Canadian Issued cards or US issued cards with Canadian billing addresses.
Apple Pay can potentially fix all of this by making the tokenization be the verification step instead of zip codes or pin numbers.
Not really. Apple Pay generates a 16-digit ID number similar to a credit card. That number is unique to your account and device, but it is the same for every transaction. (You can see the last 4 digits in Passbook if you look at your card's "Device Account Number"). The number is secure because it can't be used to move money without the one-use-token and the accompanying encryption, but it is an ID that can be used to track purchases made from your phone.
Of course, if you delete your card from Passbook and re-enroll your account, a new device account number will be generated, but who wants to do that for every purchase?
not quite right. there are two relevant numbers in Apple Pay -- the DAN, which is unique to your device, and the token, which is a one-off generated for the transaction. both are sent to the issuing bank at auth, but the merchant only retains the token, because they think its a credit card number. thus, they cannot track your transactions by this token because its always changing.
Not quite. It was the cooperation between Apple and some publishers to RAISE the pricing of e-books.
thats what I'm referring to -- the collusion, orchestrated by apple, which got them into trouble. that was the judge's finding, anyway.