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.....
do you not see why this is? you used a debut/credit card -- i.e., a Visa Checkcard or similar. the terminal simply cannot know whether you use to use the credit card capability of the card or the debit, and they're two different systems. thus the prompt. and since you picked debit, it had to ask you for the pin.
try it w/ a straight credit card and you'll experience the difference.
do you not see why this is? you used a debut/credit card -- i.e., a Visa Checkcard or similar. the terminal simply cannot know whether you use to use the credit card capability of the card or the debit, and they're two different systems. thus the prompt. and since you picked debit, it had to ask you for the pin.
try it w/ a straight credit card and you'll experience the difference.
I did, but BJ's wholesale does not accept my visa (i.e. credit)cards - only master card, so the iPhone just buzzed said ok, but there was no way to conclude the transaction. ( the default card in my iPhone remained a debit card)
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.
Bet it isn't - we'll see.
This is a business war, and there will be sides, and that will be allowed.
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.
Exactly -- collusion is the issue. If the DOJ could go after Apple for iBooks, surely this is worth a look...
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".
I'm guessing it goes something like this...
CVS, you take Visa and MasterCard, correct?
Yes.
And you accept these transactions when a customer presents his physical card at the register, do you not?
Yes, we do.
And your pharmacy takes orders for prescriptions over the phone, does it not?
Yes, it does.
And your pharmacy accepts credit card payments over the phone, so called card-not-present transactions, does it not?
Yes, it does.
But you do not accept card-not-present transactions via the ApplePay mechanism, is that true?
Yes, it's true.
Even though you have equipment in place to readily accept such transactions?
Yes.
And you did accept such transactions prior to the introduction of the Apple Pay mechanism, so called Google Wallet transactions?
Yes.
But you then ceased to accept such transactions shortly after the introduction of the ApplePay mechanism?
Yes.
We find that you have engaged in anti-competitive behavior against Apple. You may pay your fine at the clerk's desk on your way out. Court dismissed.
Exactly -- collusion is the issue. If the DOJ could go after Apple for iBooks, surely this is worth a look...
I see no problem with iBookstore, CurrentC, or iTunes Store, for that matter. Furthermore, I wish none of this every had to wasted tax payer money. I think CurrentC is fundamentally flawed like all pre-?Pay attempts at mobile payments in the US, but we don't need to do anything as the free market will decide. Or rather, the free market already decided, we just need time for the loser to realize they've been fatally wounded.
I was at my local Sprouts market today and their credit card terminal accepts ApplePay. It had the logo and everything! I don't have an iPhone 6 or I would have tested it out. Cool though. Not a merchant listed on the Apple site. Just another place to go to avoid the vendors that are in contract with CurrentC!
do you not see why this is? you used a debut/credit card -- i.e., a Visa Checkcard or similar. the terminal simply cannot know whether you use to use the credit card capability of the card or the debit, and they're two different systems. thus the prompt. and since you picked debit, it had to ask you for the pin.
try it w/ a straight credit card and you'll experience the difference.
I decided to stop for chicken nuggets at McDonald's on my way home.... Same iphone, same default debit card and even tough the drive through server had not seen it used before, apple pay worked flawlessly, no need to enter a pin on their machine, and they accept debit and credit cards
Applepay should work the same, regardless of the store, and not a different method sometimes
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.
I think you have them backwards. The last 4 digits of the DAN are visible in Passbook, and I see them printed on my receipts in the same location where my card number used to be printed. That is the number that the merchants think is a card number, and since it is tied to the device, not the transaction, it can be used to track your purchases.
Nobody has yet said what the token looks like. Given the fact that it is a cryptographic digest of many aspects of the transaction, it is probably much bigger than a 16-digit card number. If they are using (for example) a SHA-256 hash, then the resulting 256-bit digest string equates to a 78-digit decimal number - over 4 times the length of a credit card number.
They can't track you by your credit card anymore. Your iPhone sends out a one time use token. Kind of worthless. All they get is your money. The only way anyone can track you is if you use a Rewards card like Amazon Chase MasterCard. Then Amazon knows what you're doing, but you're getting points and whatnot to use it. So it's a trade off. Other wise the only person that knows about your transactions is the bank that issued you your card.
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.
I think the big gorilla in the room is ApplePay is here now and CurrentC is still off in the future "some unannounced time". All that need to happen is to have one of the big backers jump ship and the party's over for CurrentC.
I predict that will happen before the Christmas season gets rolling... THIS month.
Indeed! And three for Apple who focuses on the end user the most!
As long as CurrentC, Google, and the stores are focused on sucking something out of the deal, they lost the war before it started. If you re-read the goals of CurrentC there was not a single mention of how it would serve the end user. Pure fail.
Comments
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.....
do you not see why this is? you used a debut/credit card -- i.e., a Visa Checkcard or similar. the terminal simply cannot know whether you use to use the credit card capability of the card or the debit, and they're two different systems. thus the prompt. and since you picked debit, it had to ask you for the pin.
try it w/ a straight credit card and you'll experience the difference.
How did CVS have NFC terminals active while also being under this exclusivity agreement? Something doesn't add up in this story.
something does not add up- if they let google wallet go but pulled the plug only when apple came- there might be a lawsuit there.
oh wait...
http://www.classactionlawyers.com/blog/2014/11/3/after-blocking-apple-pay-schubert-firm-launches-antitrust-investigation-into-cvs-and-rite-aid-pharmacies
do you not see why this is? you used a debut/credit card -- i.e., a Visa Checkcard or similar. the terminal simply cannot know whether you use to use the credit card capability of the card or the debit, and they're two different systems. thus the prompt. and since you picked debit, it had to ask you for the pin.
try it w/ a straight credit card and you'll experience the difference.
I did, but BJ's wholesale does not accept my visa (i.e. credit)cards - only master card, so the iPhone just buzzed said ok, but there was no way to conclude the transaction. ( the default card in my iPhone remained a debit card)
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.
Bet it isn't - we'll see.
This is a business war, and there will be sides, and that will be allowed.
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.
Exactly -- collusion is the issue. If the DOJ could go after Apple for iBooks, surely this is worth a look...
I'm guessing it goes something like this...
CVS, you take Visa and MasterCard, correct?
Yes.
And you accept these transactions when a customer presents his physical card at the register, do you not?
Yes, we do.
And your pharmacy takes orders for prescriptions over the phone, does it not?
Yes, it does.
And your pharmacy accepts credit card payments over the phone, so called card-not-present transactions, does it not?
Yes, it does.
But you do not accept card-not-present transactions via the ApplePay mechanism, is that true?
Yes, it's true.
Even though you have equipment in place to readily accept such transactions?
Yes.
And you did accept such transactions prior to the introduction of the Apple Pay mechanism, so called Google Wallet transactions?
Yes.
But you then ceased to accept such transactions shortly after the introduction of the ApplePay mechanism?
Yes.
We find that you have engaged in anti-competitive behavior against Apple. You may pay your fine at the clerk's desk on your way out. Court dismissed.
I see no problem with iBookstore, CurrentC, or iTunes Store, for that matter. Furthermore, I wish none of this every had to wasted tax payer money. I think CurrentC is fundamentally flawed like all pre-?Pay attempts at mobile payments in the US, but we don't need to do anything as the free market will decide. Or rather, the free market already decided, we just need time for the loser to realize they've been fatally wounded.
I understand the thinking that drives both that suit and this one, but neither should have happened as neither are anti-competitive.
I was at my local Sprouts market today and their credit card terminal accepts ApplePay. It had the logo and everything! I don't have an iPhone 6 or I would have tested it out. Cool though. Not a merchant listed on the Apple site. Just another place to go to avoid the vendors that are in contract with CurrentC!
Applepay should work the same, regardless of the store, and not a different method sometimes
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".
I'm guessing it goes something like this...
>>>verbiage<<<
And I'm suggesting it may be more like this:
"Why have you chosen to limit payment methods to exclude ?Pay?"
"Your honor, it suits our business model better to have a partnership with >insert any name but ?Pay<...
We find we have a more vertical, seamless integration.
We also used to sell Bob's Peanut Butter Cups, but now we only sell Reese's...
We used to sell RC Cola, but now we only sell Coke and Pepsi...
And we've replaced numerous premium brands with our own generics...
And those choices are ours to make for reasons of profitability."
...Case dismissed.
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.
I think you have them backwards. The last 4 digits of the DAN are visible in Passbook, and I see them printed on my receipts in the same location where my card number used to be printed. That is the number that the merchants think is a card number, and since it is tied to the device, not the transaction, it can be used to track your purchases.
Nobody has yet said what the token looks like. Given the fact that it is a cryptographic digest of many aspects of the transaction, it is probably much bigger than a 16-digit card number. If they are using (for example) a SHA-256 hash, then the resulting 256-bit digest string equates to a 78-digit decimal number - over 4 times the length of a credit card number.
Just a matter of time.
I think the big gorilla in the room is ApplePay is here now and CurrentC is still off in the future "some unannounced time". All that need to happen is to have one of the big backers jump ship and the party's over for CurrentC.
I predict that will happen before the Christmas season gets rolling... THIS month.
Indeed! And three for Apple who focuses on the end user the most!
As long as CurrentC, Google, and the stores are focused on sucking something out of the deal, they lost the war before it started. If you re-read the goals of CurrentC there was not a single mention of how it would serve the end user. Pure fail.
I was just at BJ's in Virginia Beach. Didn't think their terminals were NFC...