Consortium behind Apple Pay competitor CurrentC replaces CEO

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 31
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,096member

    For Cingular / AT&T see wikipedia

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Mobility

     

    Old AT&T wireless got bought up by Cingular / Cingular parents but CIngular got bought by AT&T and then rebranded.  This happened right before the roll out of the iPhone.

  • Reply 22 of 31
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    kibitzer wrote: »

    The exclusive connection between Apple and Cingular during the iPhone development phase was greatly driven by the need for secrecy. Steve Jobs trusted one carrier - Cingular - not to spill the beans before he was ready to announce the iPhone.

    http://archive.fortune.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm

    That was the perfect cooperative work. Is a shame att sucks. I remember they promised doble the bars and deliver half ????.
  • Reply 23 of 31
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    chadbag wrote: »
    For Cingular / AT&T see wikipedia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility

    Old AT&T wireless got bought up by Cingular / Cingular parents but CIngular got bought by AT&T and then rebranded.  This happened right before the roll out of the iPhone.

    :/ complicated. Couldn't they just make one transaction? Much easier lol
  • Reply 24 of 31
    Back to CurrentC.... CVS pissed me off by blocking Apple Pay on fully functioning NFC terminals.

    I've moved several hundred patients Rx revenue streams away from CVS and into Walgreens (plus some pt's who switched to places like Costco and other non-CurrentC vendors.)

    Just a little effort explaining why, and pt's are happy to switch. Took me 20 min to train the staff. Hey CVS: look what happens when you piss off the medical team.
  • Reply 25 of 31
    idrey wrote: »
    :/ complicated. Couldn't they just make one transaction? Much easier lol

    There was a year or so between Cingular buying the mobile division of ATT and ATT then buying the whole of Cingular and integrating it back to ATT. It is likely that they did not plan to do it all along, but maybe certain people did as I am sure it resulted in nice fees for M&A investment bankers.
  • Reply 26 of 31

    Buh-bye, spyware crapola CurrentC.

  • Reply 27 of 31
    I'm so anxious to give Target direct access to my bank account! And just think -- I can use their card at those wonderfully secure gas pumps too!!!

    As soon as a lot of gas stations start processing ApplePay, I believe its use will skyrocket. A recent survey here in C. Florida found many gas stations with rogue card readers. Bad, but at least you have the card company's protection. With ApplePay, the thieves get squadouch!
  • Reply 28 of 31
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,599member
    I feel bad for this guy. Brian V. Mooney , he made a bad decision moving away from Bank of America to this cluster F. Than again he looks like he ready to retire, and maybe he got them to pay him some big $ and he will milk it for as long as he can then retire.
  • Reply 29 of 31
    Regarding Apple and ATT, his analogy is totally inapt. When Apple gave ATT the exclusive, it did NOT say that ATT could carry only Apple iPhones. ATT could carry any brand it wanted. Apart from antitrust issues, contractually speaking, the consortium could say we will rollout with CVS and not Walgreens. Nobody would be complaining about that. That limits the availability of your own product. What they are doing is limiting the availability of someone else's product. Hardly the same.
  • Reply 30 of 31
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LighteningKid View Post

     

    I think it's the wrong argument, anyway. iPhone only being available on AT&T is a product only available from a single provider - but the issue under discussion is the opposite. If it were the former issue, it would be like saying "CurrentC is only available from a few retailers during the expansion period", which is something I think consumers understand completely. What's really happening is the latter, opposite issue, which is "retailers we partner with are only allowed to use CurrentC". That's less acceptable, and the proper analogy would actually be if Apple had forced AT&T to offer only iPhone for the first 6 months it was on the market, and remove all the other smartphones that were available at the time.


    Exactly, and thank you for posting this so I didn't have to.

     

    What's wrong with logic in this world?!?!  First, someone is dumb enough to present this terribly, obviously, broken analogy in the first place, and then several people bite on it, respond to it, and don't notice it's broken?  Criminy!

  • Reply 31 of 31
    CurrentC is based upon the ENORMOUS assumption that banks won't start imposing fees for direct account debiting such as this. I can see banks waiting for a critical mass of dependency upon direct debiting to be in place to then start charging for it.

    Everything about CurrentC smacks of an adolescent-level mentality of trying to get away with something.
Sign In or Register to comment.