This just SCREAMS of desperation on the part of Google, because they got caught with their pants down when ?Pay was released, and has garnered so much positive attention and usage in such a short amount of time.
<p style="font-size:20px;line-height:normal;">???????????? Google and Samsung - the original "Monkey see, Monkey Do" companies, i.e., a couple of freankin' monkeys!</p>
You guys do know that Google Wallet has been doing NFC payments three years longer than Apple has, right? It came out in 2011. Even Softcard/ISIS has been around since 2012. At that time, everyone on this board was going on about how NFC was a bad technology, how it would never catch on, no one would ever want to use it, etc. How times have changed.
(And before you say anything about the secure element, tokenization, not going through an intermediary bank, etc., those things have all been done before as well)
I think you are over simplifying a lot here. The secure element of touch ID is incorporated into Apple's A7 and later chips not in the NFC chip. If touch ID is not necessary for ?Pay then why is ?Pay limited only to Apple products that have touch ID?
I'm not oversimplifying anything, but you're conflating things. Touch ID ? NFC. Yes, the Secure Enclave for Touch ID in on Apple's A-series SoC, but the Secure Element is on the NFC chip. The reason why ?Pay is only on devices with Touch ID is because ?Pay came after Touch ID.
Note that ?Pay is not on all devices with Touch ID, but that even the iPad, which has no NFC antenna(s), has an NFC chip specifically for ?Pay. Also note that ?Watch has no Touch ID but will have both the NFC chip and antenna(s) because that's needed for ?Pay, not Touch ID.
1) The Secure Element is built into the NFC chip. That isn't something Apple controls and has existed well before the iPhone 6 series.
2) The Touch ID biometric is a wonderful convenience, but it's not necessary for ?Pay (and all other NFC-based payments) since you can still authenticate using a PIN/passcode.
3) I wonder what patents Apple has with ?Pay's end-to-end solutions. With the bank it's basically an additional card tied to your account. I'd think that's more along the lines of a contract that would prevent banks from inking deals with others right now. In fact, if I were wanting to set this up I'd challenge Apple if they had a patent specifically for a representational number to be associated with my account as I know that's already been available with multiple cards on an account, albeit in a slightly different manner, but I'd say it's essential for security in a digital age, so at most I'd say such a patent would have to be under FRAND.
Just because Apple set up Apple Pay doesn't mean it just becomes a FRAND patent. It doesn't work that way. Only if Apple agree to use it as the standard, would that ever happen. Apple doesn't have to do that. Only if Apple thinks in the end they'll make more money licensing out to everyone. At which point you really couldn't call it Apple Pay anymore.
You guys do know that Google Wallet has been doing NFC payments three years longer than Apple has, right? It came out in 2011. Even Softcard/ISIS has been around since 2012. At that time, everyone on this board was going on about how NFC was a bad technology, how it would never catch on, no one would ever want to use it, etc. How times have changed.
(And before you say anything about the secure element, tokenization, not going through an intermediary bank, etc., those things have all been done before as well)
We were waiting for you. Thanks for obliging.
Yes, we know. But no, Google's implementation was neither good nor secure.
And wasn't it just a beta anyway? You know, because it was rushed out prematurely?
At that time, everyone on this board was going on about how NFC was a bad technology, how it would never catch on, no one would ever want to use it, etc.
That's not true. If you said most, I would agree, but certainly not everyone on this board.
(And before you say anything about the secure element, tokenization, not going through an intermediary bank, etc., those things have all been done before as well)
No one had all these features in one product. They could have, had their focus was on making their product better for the customer, but they didn't. Only Apple put all these available elements together into a great solution. They have a long history of this so you sit there and say Apple wasn't first to market in any one of these general concepts in an o themselves, but they were the first with a viable, secure solution that benefits everyone but those willing to commit fraud with your credentials.
That's not true. If you said most, I would agree, but certainly not everyone on this board.
Okay, nearly everyone. Better?
No one had all these features in one product. They could have, had their focus was on making their product better for the customer, but they didn't. Only Apple put all these available elements together into a great solution. They have a long history of this so you sit there and say Apple wasn't first to market in any one of these general concepts in an o themselves, but they were the first with a viable, secure solution that benefits everyone but those willing to commit fraud with your credentials.
That's not true, either. Softcard had all of those elements. GW did as well, before the carriers forced them to change it.
That's not true, either. Softcard had all of those elements. GW did as well, before the carriers forced them to change it.
You're saying that Softcard got with multinationals and banks in order to have them change their back-end system so that a representational card number could be stored on a per device basis, and then gave the banks control over the authentication when each physical card was to be used to get the representational card number from the financial institution directly so that only the bank and the bank customer were in the loop for this process so that even if the device was stolen or the number intercepted by a retail employee or in some other way during a payment that the number wouldn't be useful to them? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
Depends on what you consider as a secure element as touch ID places the fingerprint information locally in a secure location on the Apple A7 or later chips.
You're saying that Softcard got with multinationals and banks in order to have them change their back-end system so that a representational card number could be stored on a per device basis, and then gave the banks control over the authentication when each physical card was to be used to get the representational card number from the financial institution directly so that only the bank and the bank customer were in the loop for this process so that even if the device was stolen or the number intercepted by a retail employee or in some other way during a payment that the number wouldn't be useful to them? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
Ah, using strong language always makes your argument stronger! Nicely done.
Anyway, yes, Softcard did do that. The downside is that the list of supported banks wasn't very huge, but they had some of the big ones. I know American Express and Chase were on board because I used both of them with it with the phone I used to have at the time Softcard was in its prime. The transaction showed up as a normal Amex or Chase transaction with no intermediary, and you'd even get the category rewards that you'd normally get for using the card at a certain merchant. Transactions did use the secure element (in fact, the entire battle between Google and the carriers was over the use of the secure element), and it was tokenized, and it did keep the merchants out of the loop.
But don't take my word for it. Here are some links:
Softcard is safer than a traditional wallet. It doesn’t need to leave the consumer’s hand during the transaction, and it allows for layers of safety features to be added to a payment, including but not limited to:
Softcard PIN protection
Remote activation and suspension of consumer’s Softcard via one phone call to their wireless carrier or one click on paywithisis.com.
Dynamic CVV, a unique ID that is sent with each transaction
What does Softcard do with the data in the app?
Softcard does not receive or intercept transaction data for the cards that consumers load onto their Softcard apps.
When a consumer performs a transaction with the Softcard app, what does Softcard see?
Softcard does not receive or intercept transaction data for the cards that consumers load onto their Softcard apps.
Does Softcard store cardholder transaction data?
No, Softcard does not store cardholder transaction data. Further, payment card information is stored in the Secure Element, and is not capable of being transmitted until Softcard is opened and a payment card is selected.
Do I have fraud protection when consumers pay with Softcard?
Merchants and consumers benefit from the same level of fraud protection as they do with traditional cards.
How is data transmitted in the customer’s payment transaction?
Softcard uses Near Field Communication (NFC) technology to transmit information between a consumer’s smartphone and the merchant’s contactless payment terminal. NFC is a technology that allows for transactions, data exchange and wireless connections between two devices in close proximity to each other.
During a payment transaction, the customer’s credit card issuing bank sends payment credentials to the Trusted Service Manager (TSM), which then transfers the information to the mobile phone’s Secure Element, a chip inside Softcard ready smartphones that is designed to safely store a consumer’s sensitive payment card information. The payment credentials are sent to the contactless payment terminal when the phone is tapped at a distance of 1.5 inches or less.
Secure element
Payment information is stored on a special chip in your phone. This chip is designed specifically for the Softcard app and restricts unauthorized access.
Protective ID
A unique transaction ID is sent with each payment, making it more difficult to counterfeit your card.
The Secure Element - The portion of the Softcard SIM card dedicated to safe payment, loyalty card, and other credential storage and processing. Because the SE is not integrated into the device, other applications are unable to access information stored here.
To use Softcard, you need a secure SIM card that can store your financial information so that only the Softcard app can access it. (You can request one from your carrier, assuming your phone is Softcard-compatible.) For each transaction, a one-use token is created so that your card details are not sent to the merchant. Like Google Wallet, a PIN protects the use of the app.
Apple does bring something new to the table, which is their marketing muscle. This is important for the purposes of getting more banks on board, as well as getting merchants to accept it, and yes, that's a big thing. The state of wireless payments is unquestionably much better than it was before Apple Pay was released. However, all the technology behind this has existed already for some time.
You are incorrect. They both use tokens, but Apple Pay uses network tokenization where you bank/issuer is the one who issues the tokens. Google Wallet does not.
Apple Pay is superior to Google Wallet, LoopPay and Softcard since only Apple Pay is currently using the latest EMVco teoknization technology.
Correct apple pay is superior because the bank is the end point that decodes the token
With Google the Google servers in between the customer and the bank can decode the token and get access to customer data which of course as we all know they will sell to the highest bidder and because the Google server is decoding too there is more vulnerability to attack. In this way apple pay is more secure. End of debate.
You guys do know that Google Wallet has been doing NFC payments three years longer than Apple has, right? It came out in 2011. Even Softcard/ISIS has been around since 2012. At that time, everyone on this board was going on about how NFC was a bad technology, how it would never catch on, no one would ever want to use it, etc. How times have changed.
(And before you say anything about the secure element, tokenization, not going through an intermediary bank, etc., those things have all been done before as well)
L O L!!!
Yeah that's why Giggle is shaking and rushing to buy softcard and hoping to catch up to ?Pay!!
Take your iPhoney and get out of here. No one cares about Goog Wallet, not even Sammy!!!!
With this much rushing and even more fragmentation from android's biggest manufacturer, Imagine the mess android will be next year!!
Ah, using strong language always makes your argument stronger! Nicely done.
Fuçk yeah it does.
Anyway, yes, Softcard did do that. The downside is that the list of supported banks wasn't very huge, but they had some of the big ones. I know American Express and Chase were on board because I used both of them with it with the phone I used to have at the time Softcard was in its prime. The transaction showed up as a normal Amex or Chase transaction with no intermediary, and you'd even get the category rewards that you'd normally get for using the card at a certain merchant. Transactions did use the secure element (in fact, the entire battle between Google and the carriers was over the use of the secure element), and it was tokenized, and it did keep the merchants out of the loop.
But don't take my word for it. Here are some links:
No!
Apple does bring something new to the table, which is their marketing muscle. This is important for the purposes of getting more banks on board, as well as getting merchants to accept it, and yes, that's a big thing. The state of wireless payments is unquestionably much better than it was before Apple Pay was released. However, all the technology behind this has existed already for some time.
That's right, whenever Apple is successful it because they only know how to market¡ :rolleyes:
I did not notice anyone saying if Google and Softcard put out product, what is the fees. You can bet that if they are working with the Telco on this they will want a cut of the processing fee as well as google. Remember what the Banks and CC companies said about the Apple solution it was not present as a new monetizing system. They said they everyone one else solution was done in such a way they wanted a cut of the transactions, yeah we know apple is getting 0.15% which basically covers the cost to operate the system, but the Banks will save fraud.
Also as some pointed out there you do not need data service for the Apple solution to work. Once the CC is set up on your phone, it works whether data is working or not since the security chip is the one creating the unique token for each transaction which is based on the seed token that was generated by the bank when the card was initially set up.
Base on what others here share about the google/softcard solution, the tokenization is done in real time between the phone and Google, and then google reached out to your checking account or CC company. They will still be collecting information on your purchasing habits and it appears they will also share that information with the Telco as well.
Also when you use the touch ID to process the payment it does not unlock phone, the phone stays locked and this is based on my experience. With google even if you disable the timeout, you have to completely unlock the phone to make it work.
Google's business model always seems to be beholden to the carriers. Why is that?
Apple, not so much.
Android was ALWAYS about adding "value" to the carriers and OEM. Watch the original 30 minute video Google did when they introduced Android 7-8 years back. I watched it and thought: "SHOVEL WARE".
Comments
(And before you say anything about the secure element, tokenization, not going through an intermediary bank, etc., those things have all been done before as well)
I'm not oversimplifying anything, but you're conflating things. Touch ID ? NFC. Yes, the Secure Enclave for Touch ID in on Apple's A-series SoC, but the Secure Element is on the NFC chip. The reason why ?Pay is only on devices with Touch ID is because ?Pay came after Touch ID.
Note that ?Pay is not on all devices with Touch ID, but that even the iPad, which has no NFC antenna(s), has an NFC chip specifically for ?Pay. Also note that ?Watch has no Touch ID but will have both the NFC chip and antenna(s) because that's needed for ?Pay, not Touch ID.
Just because Apple set up Apple Pay doesn't mean it just becomes a FRAND patent. It doesn't work that way. Only if Apple agree to use it as the standard, would that ever happen. Apple doesn't have to do that. Only if Apple thinks in the end they'll make more money licensing out to everyone. At which point you really couldn't call it Apple Pay anymore.
You guys do know that Google Wallet has been doing NFC payments three years longer than Apple has, right? It came out in 2011. Even Softcard/ISIS has been around since 2012. At that time, everyone on this board was going on about how NFC was a bad technology, how it would never catch on, no one would ever want to use it, etc. How times have changed.
(And before you say anything about the secure element, tokenization, not going through an intermediary bank, etc., those things have all been done before as well)
We were waiting for you. Thanks for obliging.
Yes, we know. But no, Google's implementation was neither good nor secure.
And wasn't it just a beta anyway? You know, because it was rushed out prematurely?
That's not true. If you said most, I would agree, but certainly not everyone on this board.
No one had all these features in one product. They could have, had their focus was on making their product better for the customer, but they didn't. Only Apple put all these available elements together into a great solution. They have a long history of this so you sit there and say Apple wasn't first to market in any one of these general concepts in an o themselves, but they were the first with a viable, secure solution that benefits everyone but those willing to commit fraud with your credentials.
That's not true, either. Softcard had all of those elements. GW did as well, before the carriers forced them to change it.
Yes.
You're saying that Softcard got with multinationals and banks in order to have them change their back-end system so that a representational card number could be stored on a per device basis, and then gave the banks control over the authentication when each physical card was to be used to get the representational card number from the financial institution directly so that only the bank and the bank customer were in the loop for this process so that even if the device was stolen or the number intercepted by a retail employee or in some other way during a payment that the number wouldn't be useful to them? BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
Depends on what you consider as a secure element as touch ID places the fingerprint information locally in a secure location on the Apple A7 or later chips.
I am curious and this is not snark: can the iPhone 6/+ make calls and browse the web simultaneously on CDMA carriers?
Anyway, yes, Softcard did do that. The downside is that the list of supported banks wasn't very huge, but they had some of the big ones. I know American Express and Chase were on board because I used both of them with it with the phone I used to have at the time Softcard was in its prime. The transaction showed up as a normal Amex or Chase transaction with no intermediary, and you'd even get the category rewards that you'd normally get for using the card at a certain merchant. Transactions did use the secure element (in fact, the entire battle between Google and the carriers was over the use of the secure element), and it was tokenized, and it did keep the merchants out of the loop.
But don't take my word for it. Here are some links:
Apple does bring something new to the table, which is their marketing muscle. This is important for the purposes of getting more banks on board, as well as getting merchants to accept it, and yes, that's a big thing. The state of wireless payments is unquestionably much better than it was before Apple Pay was released. However, all the technology behind this has existed already for some time.
Correct apple pay is superior because the bank is the end point that decodes the token
With Google the Google servers in between the customer and the bank can decode the token and get access to customer data which of course as we all know they will sell to the highest bidder and because the Google server is decoding too there is more vulnerability to attack. In this way apple pay is more secure. End of debate.
Great, guys! They were first. First. FIRST. FIRST. We got it. And we're very impressed.
Now, go away.
>>>a bank and mobster are the same
You mean, they aren't?
>>>I am curious and this is not snark: can the iPhone 6/+ make calls and browse the web simultaneously on CDMA carriers?
No, I do not believe so. I can't do that on my Virgin Mobile phone. I think Verizon has the same problem.
That's been available for years on Verizon. If the iPhone still can't support SV&D it's because they don't have the proper HW (i.e.: enough antennas).
The water must be good in that river of denial.
L O L!!!
Yeah that's why Giggle is shaking and rushing to buy softcard and hoping to catch up to ?Pay!!
Take your iPhoney and get out of here. No one cares about Goog Wallet, not even Sammy!!!!
With this much rushing and even more fragmentation from android's biggest manufacturer, Imagine the mess android will be next year!!
Fuçk yeah it does.
No!
That's right, whenever Apple is successful it because they only know how to market¡ :rolleyes:
Also as some pointed out there you do not need data service for the Apple solution to work. Once the CC is set up on your phone, it works whether data is working or not since the security chip is the one creating the unique token for each transaction which is based on the seed token that was generated by the bank when the card was initially set up.
Base on what others here share about the google/softcard solution, the tokenization is done in real time between the phone and Google, and then google reached out to your checking account or CC company. They will still be collecting information on your purchasing habits and it appears they will also share that information with the Telco as well.
Also when you use the touch ID to process the payment it does not unlock phone, the phone stays locked and this is based on my experience. With google even if you disable the timeout, you have to completely unlock the phone to make it work.
Android was ALWAYS about adding "value" to the carriers and OEM. Watch the original 30 minute video Google did when they introduced Android 7-8 years back. I watched it and thought: "SHOVEL WARE".