Others are also looking to enter the e-wallet market in 2015. What Apple don't appear to be doing yet is advancing ApplePay outside the USA.
About 8 years ago I was given a few shares in UK based Prego International Ltd www.goprego.com Its main business is "marketing of MasterCard prepared cards principally to migrant workers employed in overseas territories who typically remit up to 75% of wages back to their families" (Annual report 2014). The reports refers to "In this fast moving market segment, e-wallet solutions such as ApplePay... the company took a decision in the third quarter of 2014 ... development of its own virtual payroll & e-wallet solution, taking what we do with cards and putting the solution into customers' phones and computers. When it is released later in 2015, this will be the first of a series of online solutions to customers needs." The company already has an infrastructure including iOS and Android Pay2Go Mobile Apps. Its core markets are stated as Malaysia, Singapore and Norway.
It seems to me that ApplePay will not yet become the main e-payments system across the world as Apple is unlikely to have the ability to establish ApplePay everywhere and because at the moment a premium iPhone is unaffordable for much of the population in many countries. So perhaps over the next 2 - 5 years there will be a number of different e-payment options before consolidation of the market starts. The question is, will this be lead by banks or by technology companies?
This does not sound very convenient. I would not mind linking my bank account to it (it is linked to PayPal, is there a difference), but the payment process itself seems awkward. Take a picture of a QR code off a terminal? And then how does the merchant know the payment is approved? In order for this to happen, the payment processing would have to happen on the customer side, with a notification being sent at the end to the merchant as confirmation, ie multiple points of potential failure, as opposed to one point of failure on traditional terminals.
The difference being that with PayPal, your name and accounts are kept in a more secure sever (at least I hope), so that even if hackers got in, they would still have a hard time linking users with their accounts and passwords. Plus PayPal will absorb any unauthorized charges to your account. I don't think you can really say that about Rite Aid or CVS servers. When Target got hacked, I was issued a new card, with a new account number, in less than a month because the hackers got enough personal information off the Target server to make a fraudulent CC using my name and account.
The question is, do you really want to trust the security of a retailer server, with your name and bank account info. It's one thing to have your CC on their servers because fraudulent charges will most likely be absorbed by your CC issuer. But who will cover your drained bank account when the retailer server is compromised?
Sounds fucking amazing. I've always wanted to take photos of QR codes at checkout, and directly connect my bank account to this service. Very consumer focused. Where do I signup?
Right! LOL
So instead of just waiting for five minutes for the old lady to write a check, as occasionally happens now, we can look forward to her trying to work the camera. Ha!
p.s. I am not being sexist or ageist here, just commenting on my actual experience. I have never ever in the last ten years had to wait for anyone to write a check other than old ladies for some reason that escapes me.
So instead of just waiting for five minutes for the old lady to write a check, as occasionally happens now, we can look forward to her trying to work the camera. Ha!
p.s. I am not being sexist or ageist here, just commenting on my actual experience. I have never ever in the last ten years had to wait for anyone to write a check other than old ladies for some reason that escapes me.
Which is slower?
A) Waiting for them to write a check Waiting while they go thru their pennies, nickels and dimes to come up with the exact change.
p.s.: I'm not being sexist or ageist either but the change thing drives me batty sometimes.
These folks require DIRECT access to your bank account, via "Automated ClearingHouse" (ACH) mechanism. Not a debit card, which admittedly has a little protection.
The difference being that with PayPal, your name and accounts are kept in a more secure sever (at least I hope), so that even if hackers got in, they would still have a hard time linking users with their accounts and passwords. Plus PayPal will absorb any unauthorized charges to your account. I don't think you can really say that about Rite Aid or CVS servers. When Target got hacked, I was issued a new card, with a new account number, in less than a month because the hackers got enough personal information off the Target server to make a fraudulent CC using my name and account.
The question is, do you really want to trust the security of a retailer server, with your name and bank account info. It's one thing to have your CC on their servers because fraudulent charges will most likely be absorbed by your CC issuer. But who will cover your drained bank account when the retailer server is compromised?
Maybe I don't understand how this is meant to work. It is not well described. But I read it as stating that my bank account is linked up with the payment provider. When I purchase something, I scan an IR code that, presumably, contains the purchase amount and merchant details as well as a merchant code (one-time?). My phone then sends this information to the payment provider who confirms the transaction and credits the merchant account.
Presumably, the IR code includes the merchant details so the payment provider sends the confirmation to him. Interesting, but relies on a mobile data connection from my phone to the payments provider. Just seems odd. And long-winded. And slow.
the QR code is a huge target for the black hats(IMHO).
how long before the POS systems get hacked and a sublte change introduced into the QR Code that could...
1)Divert the $$$ for the transaction away from the Store Bank into an account in say China????
2) change the ammount from say $10 to $10.01 and divert that to an offshore account. Small enough difference so that challenging in in Store is not worth the trouble but multiplied be a few tens of millions of transactino and you get s lot of money from your hack.
good luck trying to get your funds back from this bunch of crooks.
The difference being that with PayPal, your name and accounts are kept in a more secure sever (at least I hope), so that even if hackers got in, they would still have a hard time linking users with their accounts and passwords. Plus PayPal will absorb any unauthorized charges to your account. I don't think you can really say that about Rite Aid or CVS servers. When Target got hacked, I was issued a new card, with a new account number, in less than a month because the hackers got enough personal information off the Target server to make a fraudulent CC using my name and account.
The question is, do you really want to trust the security of a retailer server, with your name and bank account info. It's one thing to have your CC on their servers because fraudulent charges will most likely be absorbed by your CC issuer. But who will cover your drained bank account when the retailer server is compromised?
Maybe I don't understand how this is meant to work. It is not well described. But I read it as stating that my bank account is linked up with the payment provider. When I purchase something, I scan an IR code that, presumably, contains the purchase amount and merchant details as well as a merchant code (one-time?). My phone then sends this information to the payment provider who confirms the transaction and credits the merchant account.
Presumably, the IR code includes the merchant details so the payment provider sends the confirmation to him. Interesting, but relies on a mobile data connection from my phone to the payments provider. Just seems odd. And long-winded. And slow.
But maybe I just misunderstood.
DavidW's description is not correct - your banking details are not held at the retail server but by CurrentC. It's unclear whether the retailer holds some data that could be used to compromise your account but at least it's not the banking info directly.
That said, it's of little comfort. The CurrentC servers were hacked some time ago, a detail that MCX brushed off as inconsequential. But actually it's hugely important, as the CurrentC servers are the ones that initiate ACH transactions against your bank account - with little authentication and essentially no limits. That is really scary because there is no protection against fraud, as there is with credit cards. If those CurrentC payment servers are compromised, your bank account could be drained and you have no recourse. There's no way that I will accept that risk, especially where there is no benefit (the benefit goes to CurrentC/MCX, Wal-Mart, CVS etc)
Should be called outdated C. ApplePay is more secure, and no personal info is given out. The so called competitor collects your data and is no better than swiping your credit or debit card the way it is now.
Actually it's far worse! Not only don't you have protection under law like you do with a credit card where you're only liable for fraud up to $50, though I've never even paid that and I've had fraud on my credit card for the last 3 years, you don't have that kind of protection with money withdrawn directly from your bank account. Hell go look up issues people have had with Paypal and linking their bank account to that. Don't do it!!! Use your credit card only!!!
CurrectC is designed to also spy on your shopping habits much worse then the tracking they've done using credit cards. It's one of the huge benefits for the merchants. Apple Pay, they have nothing!!! They can't track you as there's nothing to track you by. They can't store your credit card number in some large database that ends up getting hacked. Not having to pay a transaction fee is good for them, BAD for you!!!! If they don't like the 2-3% cost, raise the prices, or charge a transaction fee. Many gas stations for example have a CASH price and a CREDIT price. Others just charges a flat fee to use a card.
While I think the transaction fee's are one issue they don't like, I think more important is all the data they'd collect on you that's even more valuable to them that they really want and won;t have none of that with Apple Pay or Google Wallet or Samscum pay.
What I want to know is who at CVS, Rite-Aid, Best Buy and Walmart thought this was a better idea than Apple Pay, and any other payment form for that matter, including the venerable credit card.
The people in charge of collecting and using customer data, none of which they have access to (as I understand it) with Apple Pay versus their system.
The people in charge of collecting and using customer data, none of which they have access to (as I understand it) with Apple Pay versus their system.
Many retailers have loyalty programs which they do tie-in with your Apple Pay purchase. Beware too of the off-the-cuff "could I get your phone number" request from the cashier.
Many retailers have loyalty programs which they do tie-in with your Apple Pay purchase. Beware too of the off-the-cuff "could I get your phone number" request from the cashier.
I thought that must be the case, but I have seen my local grocer drift away from their loyalty card so my guess is there's an opinion out there a straight up card account is superior somehow.
I thought that must be the case, but I have seen my local grocer drift away from their loyalty card so my guess is there's an opinion out there a straight up card account is superior somehow.
There were sources reporting Apple was working on an ApplePay bundled loyalty program too which would perhaps fill in the missing shopper data the retailers want.
Many retailers have loyalty programs which they do tie-in with your Apple Pay purchase. Beware too of the off-the-cuff "could I get your phone number" request from the cashier.
Yes! This is one of the stupidest things I see, week in and week out.
Raise your hands people, how many of you give your phone #s to cashiers when they ask? If so, WHY?!?!
There's no benefit to doing so, and you're giving them what amounts these days to a "personal tracking ID #". WHY?
There were sources reporting Apple was working on an ApplePay bundled loyalty program too which would perhaps fill in the missing shopper data the retailers want.
Yeah, and this sucks, but so many people fall into this trap and the retailers so desperately want this data, that it doesn't surprise me.
Cynically raking in ipo $$$$ all the while knowing they are ultimately going to fail.
Going to take a whole heap of lipstick to smarten this pig up.
There should be some fall out over this if it pans out that way. Can't see it happening any other way tho' - fail.
Who'd invest in CurrentC anyhow ?
Yeah, they're not going public so don't waste your time looking for a conspiracy that isn't there. They are funded by the retailers directly. You think Walmart is going to just give up a fight against credit cards? Not a chance.
This does not sound very convenient. I would not mind linking my bank account to it (it is linked to PayPal, is there a difference), but the payment process itself seems awkward. Take a picture of a QR code off a terminal? And then how does the merchant know the payment is approved? In order for this to happen, the payment processing would have to happen on the customer side, with a notification being sent at the end to the merchant as confirmation, ie multiple points of potential failure, as opposed to one point of failure on traditional terminals.
Ever use the Starbucks app? It's the exact same process. QR code is on the phone, but you have more payment steps because it's not just a Starbucks gift card to pay with.
Comments
Others are also looking to enter the e-wallet market in 2015. What Apple don't appear to be doing yet is advancing ApplePay outside the USA.
About 8 years ago I was given a few shares in UK based Prego International Ltd www.goprego.com Its main business is "marketing of MasterCard prepared cards principally to migrant workers employed in overseas territories who typically remit up to 75% of wages back to their families" (Annual report 2014). The reports refers to "In this fast moving market segment, e-wallet solutions such as ApplePay... the company took a decision in the third quarter of 2014 ... development of its own virtual payroll & e-wallet solution, taking what we do with cards and putting the solution into customers' phones and computers. When it is released later in 2015, this will be the first of a series of online solutions to customers needs." The company already has an infrastructure including iOS and Android Pay2Go Mobile Apps. Its core markets are stated as Malaysia, Singapore and Norway.
It seems to me that ApplePay will not yet become the main e-payments system across the world as Apple is unlikely to have the ability to establish ApplePay everywhere and because at the moment a premium iPhone is unaffordable for much of the population in many countries. So perhaps over the next 2 - 5 years there will be a number of different e-payment options before consolidation of the market starts. The question is, will this be lead by banks or by technology companies?
How will the rest of the world take to CurrentC?
As the US is just catching up with us here in Europe (chip & pin) IMHO the odds of this becoming usable outside the US are about 1,000,000/1
Apple will be launching applePay over here soon. Where are the plans to roll out CurrentC to other countries?
If I were going to put any $$$ into their IPO then I'd need to know this sort of thing in advance.
Apple is a global company and thinks globally. The majority of US Companies hardy think of doing business outside their state let alone abroad.
For example,
Materials for the extension to my home that was completed last October came from 4 different countries including Canada.
The companies involved were not huge but shipping wasn't a problem.
Then I try to use a non NY originating Credit Card in NYC and it is refused. They only took cards issued on NY banks.
See the difference?
This does not sound very convenient. I would not mind linking my bank account to it (it is linked to PayPal, is there a difference), but the payment process itself seems awkward. Take a picture of a QR code off a terminal? And then how does the merchant know the payment is approved? In order for this to happen, the payment processing would have to happen on the customer side, with a notification being sent at the end to the merchant as confirmation, ie multiple points of potential failure, as opposed to one point of failure on traditional terminals.
The difference being that with PayPal, your name and accounts are kept in a more secure sever (at least I hope), so that even if hackers got in, they would still have a hard time linking users with their accounts and passwords. Plus PayPal will absorb any unauthorized charges to your account. I don't think you can really say that about Rite Aid or CVS servers. When Target got hacked, I was issued a new card, with a new account number, in less than a month because the hackers got enough personal information off the Target server to make a fraudulent CC using my name and account.
The question is, do you really want to trust the security of a retailer server, with your name and bank account info. It's one thing to have your CC on their servers because fraudulent charges will most likely be absorbed by your CC issuer. But who will cover your drained bank account when the retailer server is compromised?
So instead of just waiting for five minutes for the old lady to write a check, as occasionally happens now, we can look forward to her trying to work the camera. Ha!
p.s. I am not being sexist or ageist here, just commenting on my actual experience. I have never ever in the last ten years had to wait for anyone to write a check other than old ladies for some reason that escapes me.
A) Waiting for them to write a check
p.s.: I'm not being sexist or ageist either but the change thing drives me batty sometimes.
NO way I'll be signing up for this cr4p.
These folks require DIRECT access to your bank account, via "Automated ClearingHouse" (ACH) mechanism. Not a debit card, which admittedly has a little protection.
And they've been hacked already.
To me this is a really bad combination.
The difference being that with PayPal, your name and accounts are kept in a more secure sever (at least I hope), so that even if hackers got in, they would still have a hard time linking users with their accounts and passwords. Plus PayPal will absorb any unauthorized charges to your account. I don't think you can really say that about Rite Aid or CVS servers. When Target got hacked, I was issued a new card, with a new account number, in less than a month because the hackers got enough personal information off the Target server to make a fraudulent CC using my name and account.
The question is, do you really want to trust the security of a retailer server, with your name and bank account info. It's one thing to have your CC on their servers because fraudulent charges will most likely be absorbed by your CC issuer. But who will cover your drained bank account when the retailer server is compromised?
Maybe I don't understand how this is meant to work. It is not well described. But I read it as stating that my bank account is linked up with the payment provider. When I purchase something, I scan an IR code that, presumably, contains the purchase amount and merchant details as well as a merchant code (one-time?). My phone then sends this information to the payment provider who confirms the transaction and credits the merchant account.
Presumably, the IR code includes the merchant details so the payment provider sends the confirmation to him. Interesting, but relies on a mobile data connection from my phone to the payments provider. Just seems odd. And long-winded. And slow.
But maybe I just misunderstood.
the QR code is a huge target for the black hats(IMHO).
how long before the POS systems get hacked and a sublte change introduced into the QR Code that could...
1)Divert the $$$ for the transaction away from the Store Bank into an account in say China????
2) change the ammount from say $10 to $10.01 and divert that to an offshore account. Small enough difference so that challenging in in Store is not worth the trouble but multiplied be a few tens of millions of transactino and you get s lot of money from your hack.
good luck trying to get your funds back from this bunch of crooks.
The difference being that with PayPal, your name and accounts are kept in a more secure sever (at least I hope), so that even if hackers got in, they would still have a hard time linking users with their accounts and passwords. Plus PayPal will absorb any unauthorized charges to your account. I don't think you can really say that about Rite Aid or CVS servers. When Target got hacked, I was issued a new card, with a new account number, in less than a month because the hackers got enough personal information off the Target server to make a fraudulent CC using my name and account.
The question is, do you really want to trust the security of a retailer server, with your name and bank account info. It's one thing to have your CC on their servers because fraudulent charges will most likely be absorbed by your CC issuer. But who will cover your drained bank account when the retailer server is compromised?
Maybe I don't understand how this is meant to work. It is not well described. But I read it as stating that my bank account is linked up with the payment provider. When I purchase something, I scan an IR code that, presumably, contains the purchase amount and merchant details as well as a merchant code (one-time?). My phone then sends this information to the payment provider who confirms the transaction and credits the merchant account.
Presumably, the IR code includes the merchant details so the payment provider sends the confirmation to him. Interesting, but relies on a mobile data connection from my phone to the payments provider. Just seems odd. And long-winded. And slow.
But maybe I just misunderstood.
DavidW's description is not correct - your banking details are not held at the retail server but by CurrentC. It's unclear whether the retailer holds some data that could be used to compromise your account but at least it's not the banking info directly.
That said, it's of little comfort. The CurrentC servers were hacked some time ago, a detail that MCX brushed off as inconsequential. But actually it's hugely important, as the CurrentC servers are the ones that initiate ACH transactions against your bank account - with little authentication and essentially no limits. That is really scary because there is no protection against fraud, as there is with credit cards. If those CurrentC payment servers are compromised, your bank account could be drained and you have no recourse. There's no way that I will accept that risk, especially where there is no benefit (the benefit goes to CurrentC/MCX, Wal-Mart, CVS etc)
Should be called outdated C. ApplePay is more secure, and no personal info is given out. The so called competitor collects your data and is no better than swiping your credit or debit card the way it is now.
Actually it's far worse! Not only don't you have protection under law like you do with a credit card where you're only liable for fraud up to $50, though I've never even paid that and I've had fraud on my credit card for the last 3 years, you don't have that kind of protection with money withdrawn directly from your bank account. Hell go look up issues people have had with Paypal and linking their bank account to that. Don't do it!!! Use your credit card only!!!
CurrectC is designed to also spy on your shopping habits much worse then the tracking they've done using credit cards. It's one of the huge benefits for the merchants. Apple Pay, they have nothing!!! They can't track you as there's nothing to track you by. They can't store your credit card number in some large database that ends up getting hacked. Not having to pay a transaction fee is good for them, BAD for you!!!! If they don't like the 2-3% cost, raise the prices, or charge a transaction fee. Many gas stations for example have a CASH price and a CREDIT price. Others just charges a flat fee to use a card.
While I think the transaction fee's are one issue they don't like, I think more important is all the data they'd collect on you that's even more valuable to them that they really want and won;t have none of that with Apple Pay or Google Wallet or Samscum pay.
What I want to know is who at CVS, Rite-Aid, Best Buy and Walmart thought this was a better idea than Apple Pay, and any other payment form for that matter, including the venerable credit card.
The people in charge of collecting and using customer data, none of which they have access to (as I understand it) with Apple Pay versus their system.
Many retailers have loyalty programs which they do tie-in with your Apple Pay purchase. Beware too of the off-the-cuff "could I get your phone number" request from the cashier.
I thought that must be the case, but I have seen my local grocer drift away from their loyalty card so my guess is there's an opinion out there a straight up card account is superior somehow.
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2015/01/26/the-next-step-for-the-mobile-wallet-loyalty-programs/
There were sources reporting Apple was working on an ApplePay bundled loyalty program too which would perhaps fill in the missing shopper data the retailers want.
Yes! This is one of the stupidest things I see, week in and week out.
Raise your hands people, how many of you give your phone #s to cashiers when they ask? If so, WHY?!?!
There's no benefit to doing so, and you're giving them what amounts these days to a "personal tracking ID #". WHY?
Even giving "just" your zip code is bad enough.
http://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/28lj72/ysk_why_cashiers_ask_for_your_zip_code/
http://business.time.com/2013/07/11/when-retailer-asks-can-i-have-your-zip-code-just-say-no/
For those that think this stuff is no big deal, here's a great read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-habits.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1
Yeah, and this sucks, but so many people fall into this trap and the retailers so desperately want this data, that it doesn't surprise me.
Going public at same time lol
Cynically raking in ipo $$$$ all the while knowing they are ultimately going to fail.
Going to take a whole heap of lipstick to smarten this pig up.
There should be some fall out over this if it pans out that way. Can't see it happening any other way tho' - fail.
Who'd invest in CurrentC anyhow ?
Yeah, they're not going public so don't waste your time looking for a conspiracy that isn't there. They are funded by the retailers directly. You think Walmart is going to just give up a fight against credit cards? Not a chance.
This does not sound very convenient. I would not mind linking my bank account to it (it is linked to PayPal, is there a difference), but the payment process itself seems awkward. Take a picture of a QR code off a terminal? And then how does the merchant know the payment is approved? In order for this to happen, the payment processing would have to happen on the customer side, with a notification being sent at the end to the merchant as confirmation, ie multiple points of potential failure, as opposed to one point of failure on traditional terminals.
Ever use the Starbucks app? It's the exact same process. QR code is on the phone, but you have more payment steps because it's not just a Starbucks gift card to pay with.