Arrogance strikes again! Ever tried double clicking the button on your Apple Watch? Regardless of your proximity to an NFC terminal, such an action causes the Apple Watch to enter into a state where it immediately (dare I say effortlessly?) registers with the contactless payment terminal and processes the transition.
Whoa, calm down dude. Of course you've got to double-press the bottom right button on the Watch; that was implied. I was simply pointing out that the POS terminal does not light up by itself, you've got to hold the Watch or the iPhone against it and then it lights up. Similarly, in response to an earlier poster, I was pointing out that the TouchID on the phone requires just a touch, not a press.
And who said that ApplePay was anything other than convenient!? It is the most remarkably convenient payment mechanism. You probably had trouble comprehending my post.
In southwestern PA where I live, I haven't found a single employee at a drive-through establishment who knows about it, including at a popular local Starbucks. I'm on the road a good deal, so Apple Pay would be brilliant for me if I could actually use it. The issue seems to be poorly paid and ill-trained employees. Perhaps if the chains ponied up a bit more with regard to wages, they could hire and retain better employees.
I am really late to the party but I felt like I had to create an account to respond to a few of the comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foad
This will change closer to the end of the year when the liability shift happens. Most banks are still in the middle of issuing chip based cards and most large retailers are still transitioning to newer terminals.
There are a fairly large minority of merchants in the US who really, really don't like Visa/MC at all though, so anything that makes card use more likely is a threat. For one thing, they seem to want all the benefits of taking cards (people spending more than with cash, getting people through lines faster and potentially saving money vs. having to handle physical cash) without having to pay a cent to the parties that make that possible. Some retailers are also very wary of anything that would take away control from them (mainly to track people without their consent), hence why we have stuff like CurrentC. I can easily see NFC acceptance at least not climbing any faster than it has once October hits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by konqerror
MasterCard's solution.
1. Merchants must install terminals period. No argument allowed.
3. Customers can now use it everywhere. Excuse gone.
2. Now banks will sign up because people want to spend their money with it.
Simple.
NFC's already well accepted in Europe, hence why doing such a mandate there isn't a big deal. Doing such a mandate in the US this soon would probably cause at least some retailers to revert to being cash only or to simply ignore the mandate. It's not like the major card brands do that good of a job at enforcing their rules anyway (example: the significant number of smaller merchants here that charge surcharges/minimums for both debit and credit cards when they're only allowed to do so for the latter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cropr
Apparently you don't have a clue about the security of electronic payments. There is absolutely no improvement whatsoever in terms of security if one compares Apple Pay with a chip card based payment (EMV). On the contrary, because there is an additional partner in the loop (Apple), one must assume that there is an increased exposure.
Of course in the US there are a lot a magstripe payments, so the security is indeed much better, but e.g. in Europe almost all card based payment are with a chip (the exceptions are mostly American visitors with magstripe only credit cards), so Apple Pay will have no impact on fraud in Europe
The US is getting chip too so by your logic people shouldn't bother with Apple/Android Pay here either. Chip enabled cards also don't help with Internet transactions while using Apple/Android Pay in-app does (as long as the online store has an app supporting either).
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG
Close to perfect timing for Apple Pay disparagements to start rising up. Google's updated payment system is close to being released. The same goes for Samsung's payment system. And, let us not forget about PayPal. Apple's competitors need to slow Apple down to help themselves look better. So they turn to yet another company to conduct another survey with the express intention to report declining use of Apple Pay. Watch for good news to be reported for and by Apple's competitors later this month.
I feel like PYMNTS (where this survey originally came from) has an anti-NFC bias in general, though I haven't figured out what they prefer instead yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
It helps in a couple of ways.
1) The retailer does not have your name linked to what you bought.
2) Your card data is not stored on their servers for hackers steal.
I've found it to be quite a bit slower. I attribute that to the extra trip the data makes to Apple servers before hitting the merchant gateway.
Honestly how hard is it to swipe your card? If you are using an iPhone, you still have to take it out of your pocket, touch the home button for a couple seconds and put it back in your pocket. It is literally the same motions. It is not about being easier since the transaction usually goes through before they get your purchases in the shopping bag either way. It is all about the security.
It's better with the Apple Watch, IMO. NFC in general is faster compared to chip transactions too. In theory the latter should only take a second or two longer vs. swiping but in my personal experience some take a lot longer to run those. You can also pre-authenticate with Touch ID while they're ringing up your items by opening Passbook and putting your thumb on the Home button with one of your credit/debit cards active, which should save time.
In southwestern PA where I live, I haven't found a single employee at a drive-through establishment who knows about it, including at a popular local Starbucks. I'm on the road a good deal, so Apple Pay would be brilliant for me if I could actually use it. The issue seems to be poorly paid and ill-trained employees. Perhaps if the chains ponied up a bit more with regard to wages, they could hire and retain better employees.
FWIW: Starbucks doesn't support Apple Pay for sales, just adding value to their system, their barcode club card. I expect they like the data they capture from their app and the various incentives from their "star" program.
FWIW: Starbucks doesn't support Apple Pay for sales, just adding value to their system, their barcode club card. I expect they like the data they capture from their app and the various incentives from their "star" program.
Yes, but I can see them accepting NFC-based payments in the future since they will be able to use their store cards — which are just gift cards linked to an account — with the Wallet né Passbook app.
Not that they need to rush to add NFC terminals because their current cards with Passbook and geolocation when you arrive at your favorite store(s) but it would be a nice option to not need to turn on the display and then slide the pass on the lock screen to bring up the barcode.
Yes, but I can see them accepting NFC-based payments in the future since they will be able to use their store cards — which are just gift cards linked to an account — with the Wallet né Passbook app.
Not that they need to rush to add NFC terminals because their current cards with Passbook and geolocation when you arrive at your favorite store(s) but it would be a nice option to not need to turn on the display and then slide the pass on the lock screen to bring up the barcode.
True that shouldn't take much of a modification or they can piggy back like Wegman's does where after scanning (or detecting some other way) the club ID, I use NFC Apple Pay to pay for the transaction. They get their data, I get the security.
I have my doubts that the general public will be all that committed to Apple Pay or Android Pay or Whatever Pay. A recent article on an Android blog site noting the Android Pay imminent rollout had this to say, and I generally agree with the sentiments. I won't be leaving my wallet at home anytime soon:
[SIZE=4]"Android Pay pretty much really is just about paying for stuff. Loyalty cards and similar things may be integrated, but Pay is largely a rebrand of Wallet's NFC-based tap-to-pay functionality designed pretty expressly to ride the coattails of the launch of Apple Pay via a new logo that retailers can put on their credit card terminals (and have been)...
...would you want to use it?
This may seem like an obvious question to some. "Of course, it's cool!" But I really do think it's not so simple. Personally, NFC-based payments hold little actual interest for me outside of a few contexts. Vending machines, taxis, and other fully-automated transactions (like transit tickets) make perfect sense for NFC. Low-dollar transactions that you're just concerned with completing as quickly as humanly possible and preferably without having to pull out your wallet.
But NFC payments at a department store? When buying groceries? A convenience store? Even a fast food restaurant? I'm not sure I see the sell. Many times, I actively pick which card I use for a transaction based on rewards points or the type of spending I'm doing, and the idea of having to take out my phone, open the Android Pay app and then pick a card before I pay seems like a waste of time. It would almost certainly be slower than just taking out my wallet and swiping the card I want, and I don't really see any benefit to using Pay in these situations to begin with aside from novelty. I also don't see a situation where I leave home without my major credit cards or debit card - I simply wouldn't do it. I'm years away from trusting my phone to be 100% reliable to pay for things while I'm out, even independent of the adoption rate of tap-to-pay in actual stores. What if my battery dies? What if it just doesn't work? You can't "try another card" - if NFC payment fails, you can't pay. That would suck. And as to carrying a reduced number of cards... why? Sure, if my wallet gets stolen, I've got fewer cards to cancel, but the chance of this happening are extremely low, and the reduced "wallet bulk" would basically be negligible." [/SIZE] Edit: the associated poll results for the question "Will you use Android Pay it when it launches". Going by this alone you'd get the impression it will be immediately successful. I'm not convinced the usage will be as high as folks polled imply it will.
-54% said " Yes, definitely - I want to use my phone to tap to pay for EVERYTHING I can"
-26% went with "-Yes, but mostly just to try it. I'm not sure I'd make a habit out of it."
Just 20% expressed they'd be unlikely to give it a fair try.
I have my doubts that the general public will be all that committed to Apple Pay or Android Pay or Whatever Pay.
I don't.
I won't be leaving my wallet at home anytime soon:
1) Of course not, Apple only announced it less than a year ago. It'll take years before it reaches a point where leaving your physical credit and debit cards at home, in a safe, all the times will make sense. Anyone that thinks it can or should go from announcement to ubiquitous instantly isn't thinking it through.
2) There are certain places that take it where I have grabbed nothing but my phone because I knew I could pay with Apple Pay. And last month I ran to the post office after a workout where I didn't have my wallet (maybe my phone was in the car or dead—I forget) and then decided to hit Subway up. When I realized I didn't have my phone on me I realized I had my Watch on me and paid that way. It's a wonderful thing… save for burning x-calories in my workout and then probably consuming x-calories * 5 by eating Subway.
"Android Pay pretty much really is just about paying for stuff. Loyalty cards and similar things may be integrated, but Pay is largely a rebrand of Wallet's NFC-based tap-to-pay functionality designed pretty expressly to ride the coattails of the launch of Apple Pay via a new logo that retailers can put on their credit card terminals (and have been)…
If that's the case, and it's still going through Google's servers and there is still no representational card issued by your bank for that device then, yes, Android Pay will be a failure. I hope that's not the case because Android Pay needs to be on-board with a safe and convenient system that does it the right way. The way Apple presented to the world last year.
...would you want to use it?
This may seem like an obvious question to some. "Of course, it's cool!"
This embodies what differentiates the average Android user v iOS, or Windows v Mac OS X I come across that are in the technology field. My decision making process on using a technology matters not on whether I think it's cool, but purely on whether is suits my specific needs. If, it suits my needs to a great extent, like Touch ID being extremely convenient while offering a fair amount of security and getting most of those 50% that never used even a simple PIN because it was too inconvenient to use one, then I might use the term "cool" to describe it, but that's a result of execution, not because it's simply new. Sketch on the Apple Watch? Gimmicky and of such limited use that its only use is for a lackluster demo station between watches. Not cool.
But I really do think it's not so simple. Personally, NFC-based payments hold little actual interest for me outside of a few contexts. Vending machines, taxis, and other fully-automated transactions (like transit tickets) make perfect sense for NFC. Low-dollar transactions that you're just concerned with completing as quickly as humanly possible and preferably without having to pull out your wallet.
I'm concerned with finishing all payment transactions as quickly as possible, but more importantly, as securely as possible, which is why Apple Pay is my preferred choice of payment, why I hope we see some advancements next week (or perhaps when the next Macs launch), why I want Android Pay et al. to slavishly copy Apple on this (which I don't doubt they will), and why I would like the banking industry to get off their asses by creating a new term that embodies what Apple Pay is — which isn't card not present or card present — and then giving merchants an incentive to get NFC-capable devices up and running so we can move to a safer and more secure "wallet free" society, because, yes, if you have to carry the same card that's in your iPhone in your wallet then if your wallet is lost of stolen the representational card number stored on your iPhone is then invalidated once you report your your card as lost or stolen. If your iPhone is lost or stolen, your physical card does not need to be reported as lost or stolen, you simply need to disconnect the representational card data from that device which you can do with a single click from iCloud.com.
But NFC payments at a department store? When buying groceries? A convenience store? Even a fast food restaurant?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Many times, I actively pick which card I use for a transaction based on rewards points or the type of spending I'm doing, and the idea of having to take out my phone, open the Android Pay app and then pick a card before I pay seems like a waste of time.
1) So picking a particular card from his wallet isn't a hassle but tapping a particular card from his phone will be a chore?
2) I guess Android could have a more complex system for accessing Android Pay, but with Apple Pay the cards will appear on screen as soon as your iPhone is in range. You can then put your thumb on the Home Button to verify the purchase with the default card or tap one of the other cards to use and then place your thumb on the Home Button. It's not only much easier and faster than pulling both out from the same pocket, but one is much more likely to have their phone in-hand. Have you seen people at restaurants? It's just a white glow on faces.
3) Because of the reward points, one thing I mentioned last year is getting the option to set the default card for that purchase based on the retailer and/or the type of retailer. For example, when getting gas it'll never be my default card, but I'd like the one I do use to come up because I set up 'gas station' to pull y-card every time, by default. Additionally, I requested being able to change the card image in case you have two cards that are very similar or the same style, even if they are just color changes of the same style.
It would almost certainly be slower than just taking out my wallet and swiping the card I want, and I don't really see any benefit to using Pay in these situations to begin with aside from novelty.
He's an idiot or a liar.
I also don't see a situation where I leave home without my major credit cards or debit card - I simply wouldn't do it. I'm years away from trusting my phone to be 100% reliable to pay for things while I'm out, even independent of the adoption rate of tap-to-pay in actual stores.
1) We're ALL years away before it goes from "Oh, you accept Apple Pay!" to "What do you mean you don't accept Apple Pay?!" as the fringe examples.
2) His first sentence he sees no situation and the next he sees the situation. OK, definitely an idiot.
What if my battery dies? What if it just doesn't work? You can't "try another card" - if NFC payment fails, you can't pay. That would suck. And as to carrying a reduced number of cards... why? Sure, if my wallet gets stolen, I've got fewer cards to cancel, but the chance of this happening are extremely low
1) You know what also sucks, not having your wallet for whatever reason, or the payment system not working. You know what's even worse, having to cancel your cards.
2) These facile "concerns" are similar to when the credit card came out. Not enough people are taking them! If the system's down and I don't have cash they'll make wash the dishes! It's slower than paying with cash (especially when they had to take a press of the card)! And, yet, here we is this douchebag championing credit cards as infallible but wondering if the same network that a physical credit card payment would traverse would be down for an NFC-based payment. Does he really believe the same POS system will have a faulty NFC system over a faulty magnetic roller, which has physical moving part? :no:
3) I'm more likely to remember to charge my phone than bring my wallet somewhere. While still rare, the bigger concern is if you drop your device which would then be the equivalent of dropping your wallet and having all your credit cards shatter inside your wallet. That's really the only benefit to the credit card longterm, but then the same can be said for cash, which still works when credit cards won't. Where again did he mention cash as being the best option? Oh, that's right, he didn't.
The reduced "wallet bulk" would basically be negligible."
I'm guessing this one of those guys that has 2" thick wallet full of pointless crap.
Bottomline: Apple did it right. This is here to stay. This is next stage in payments in the modern world, but this does not mean it will happen overnight, and, just like with credit cards today, we still have access to and use cash all the time. For a safe and convenient mobile payment system to win it doesn't mean credit/debit cards have to fail.
If that's the case, and it's still going through Google's servers and there is still no representational card issued by your bank for that device then, yes, Android Pay will be a failure. I hope that's not the case because Android Pay needs to be on-board with a safe and convenient system that does it the right way. The way Apple presented to the world last year.
I think they've always used a "representational card" Soli. Your actual credit card number was never shared with the retailer AFAIK. The current requirements BTW are largely dictated by Mastercard along with other somewhat less influential members of PCI as I understand it. Android Pay and Apple Pay will be nearly identical in the way they work from a consumer perspective.
I think they've always used a "representational card" Soli. Your actual credit card number was never shared with the retailer AFAIK. The current requirements BTW are largely dictated by Mastercard along with other somewhat less influential members of PCI as I understand it. Android Pay and Apple Pay will be nearly identical in the way they work from a consumer perspective.
You're saying that Google Wallet had partnered with all the banks years ago so that they could issue a credit card number alias to each device? Um, no.
You're saying that Google Wallet had partnered with all the banks years ago so that they could issue a credit card number alias to each device? Um, no.
It's exactly as I said unless you have something that shows otherwise and disagrees. Those using Google Wallet never shared their actual card with retailers. It's always used a representational number. Generally I think it's called tokenization isn't it, a unique card number standing in for the real one for each transaction?
It's exactly as I said unless you have something that shows otherwise and disagrees. Those using Google Wallet never shared their actual card with retailers. It's always used a representational number. Generally I think it's called tokenization isn't it, a unique card number standing in for the real one for each transaction?
Soli, you keep trying to toss in a qualifier, a particular bank partner, as tho that changes something. What do YOU believe it changes as regards a "representational card" that you mentioned earlier as far as a consumer is concerned? Perhaps that's why you think we're not communicating on the same wavelength.
EDIT: There's several banking industry articles that discuss Android Pay Soli. Have you read any of them? Just curious.
Soli, you keep trying to toss in a qualifier, a particular bank partner, as tho that changes something. What do YOU believe it changes as regards a "representational card" that you mentioned earlier as far as a consumer is concerned?
It means it's not going through Google! Google Wallet is not Android Pay. Google Wallet is not Apple Pay. Google Wallet is a failure because they treated the customer like they do with ads, as Eloi, instead of doing the right thing from the start, like Apple is doing with Apple Pay. That makes all the fucking difference in the world to a customer like me.
Once again, the bank issues a unique representational card for each device, as well as a new number for the same device if you were to destroy it and set it up again. This is not a one-time-use number, but is issued once per device. If you had read anything on Apple Pay you would see this data clear as day. It's even there right in Passbook for each card. Take a screenshot of the page, make a purchase, and then take another screenshot. The last 4 digits will not change until you destroy that info on the secure element.
Bottom line: ROUTING ALL YOUR PAYMENTS THROUGH GOOGLE IS NOT THE SAME AS APPLE PAY AND SHOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO ALL CUSTOMERS.
It means it's not going through Google! Google Wallet is not Android Pay. Google Wallet is not Apple Pay. Google Wallet is a failure because they treated the customer like they do with ads, as Eloi, instead of doing the right thing from the start, like Apple is doing with Apple Pay. That makes all the fucking difference in the world to a customer like me.
Once again, the bank issues a unique representational card for each device, as well as a new number for the same device if you were to destroy it and set it up again. This is not a one-time-use number, but is issued once per device. If you had read anything on Apple Pay you would see this data clear as day. It's even there right in Passbook for each card. Take a screenshot of the page, make a purchase, and then take another screenshot. The last 4 digits will not change until you destroy that info on the secure element.
Bottom line: ROUTING ALL YOUR PAYMENTS THROUGH GOOGLE IS NOT THE SAME AS APPLE PAY AND SHOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO ALL CUSTOMERS.
I know you think it should. It won't IMO because there's no big reason it should matter. Routing it thru Google matters not a whit to Joe Average. They have no idea how it gets from point A to B in the first place and really couldn't care less IMO as long as it works and is convenient. Whether payments get routed thru Apple, Google, the Federal Reserve or someone they've never heard of, or why it might matter anyway doesn't occur to them.
IMO Android Wallet didn't fail to gain traction because they "treated the customer as they do". They weren't doing anything to mistreat them unless you have something to point to. I'm not aware of Google Wallet serving up ads now and I doubt Android Pay will be any different. "Loyalty reward programs" in Android Pay is something different and probably coming to Apple Pay too. Yup, stores are gonna dangle carrots to track you anyway and neither Google nor Apple is going to prevent it since it would make their payment platforms less attractive to retailers and by extension many consumers with those loyalty programs (oooh, .10 off gas and a free Koozie!), the exact opposite of what they want to accomplish
IMHO Google Wallet's problems can be traced to two things: The carriers insistence they could take mobile payments for themselves and embed the secure element in a SIMcard they controlled instead of the way Google originally envisioned it as a separate secure hardware element in the NFC chip, ala Apple Pay. Four years ago ATT, Verizon and the rest were in a much stronger position and simply blocked the NFC secure element Google used from working over their networks. Secondly Google has no marketing chops whatsoever and did a piss-poor promotion of it. Simply partnering with Mastercard and VISA for secure NFC payments wasn't enough. They didn't have the market clout to bend the other players to their will. Apple does, at least now. Whether they would have four years ago? Dunno.
So now Google is piggy-backing on Apple's promotion, which is smart. Android Pay itself is not much different than what Google originally designed, and as would be expected. The mobile payment standards come from PCI/Mastercard/VISA who Google worked with to design Google Wallet. With the regulatory requirements now coming due for updating card-reading hardware coupled with the Apple Pay media blasts and Target/HomeDepot scare stories, and an assist from carriers realizing they weren't going to win, the timing is now right. Four years ago it wasn't.
Yeah it took Apple to show the way but not for the reasons you think IMHO.
With a chipcard payment I mean a contact based payment, like it is happening now in Europe.
Bear I mind that in a lot of Europeas countries one needs a chip card reader to do online credit card payments: card number, expiry date and CVC code are not sufficient.
Apparently you don't have a clue about the security of electronic payments. There is absolutely no improvement whatsoever in terms of security if one compares Apple Pay with a chip card based payment (EMV). On the contrary, because there is an additional partner in the loop (Apple), one must assume that there is an increased exposure.
Of course in the US there are a lot a magstripe payments, so the security is indeed much better, but e.g. in Europe almost all card based payment are with a chip (the exceptions are mostly American visitors with magstripe only credit cards), so Apple Pay will have no impact on fraud in Europe
This thread is probably dead now but I can't leave your comment unchallenged. Standard chip and pin and also contactless both pass the full card number, expiry date and CCV number unencrypted. In the case of contactless this is transmitted. This is how card skimmers work - routing the legitimate card reader through a second device down cable allows these details to be easily and quickly captured. In the case of contactless, devices to initiate and the capture the details - albeit from close range - are readily available. Apple Pay uses a one off tokenisation system and is therefore significantly more secure than standard chip and pin or contactless via a card.
This thread is probably dead now but I can't leave your comment unchallenged. Standard chip and pin and also contactless both pass the full card number, expiry date and CCV number unencrypted. In the case of contactless this is transmitted. This is how card skimmers work - routing the legitimate card reader through a second device down cable allows these details to be easily and quickly captured. In the case of contactless, devices to initiate and the capture the details - albeit from close range - are readily available. Apple Pay uses a one off tokenisation system and is therefore significantly more secure than standard chip and pin or contactless via a card.
:???:
According to Bank of America "The chip encrypts information to increase data security when making transactions at a chip-enabled terminal." Are you saying it's really NOT an encrypted transaction? I would have assumed that the new NFC readers mandated here in the US would incorporate P2PE. Perhaps they don't?
This thread is probably dead now but I can't leave your comment unchallenged. Standard chip and pin and also contactless both pass the full card number, expiry date and CCV number unencrypted. In the case of contactless this is transmitted. This is how card skimmers work - routing the legitimate card reader through a second device down cable allows these details to be easily and quickly captured. In the case of contactless, devices to initiate and the capture the details - albeit from close range - are readily available. Apple Pay uses a one off tokenisation system and is therefore significantly more secure than standard chip and pin or contactless via a card.
Absolutely untrue. A CCV is simply not used in a chip card payment, so how can it be transmitted. All other payment data is encrypted end to end from the chip card itself to the payment processor of VISA or another financial institution, this is how the EMV protocol is defined. An I am 100% sure, because I've been the project leader in various software projects handling these payments.
Absolutely untrue. A CCV is simply not used in a chip card payment, so how can it be transmitted. All other payment data is encrypted end to end from the chip card itself to the payment processor of VISA or another financial institution, this is how the EMV protocol is defined. An I am 100% sure, because I've been the project leader in various software projects handling these payments.
ok - let's say you are correct. If it's not transmitted then it's not necessary for a contactless purchase. Irrespective therefore of whether you are right or wrong (and I think you are wrong) the data necessary for a criminal to clone the card and make subsequent purchases is available. This is not the case for Apple Pay. Therefore, back to my point, Apple Pay is more secure than using a card and your argument that there were no security advantages from using Apple Pay is incorrect. Am I missing something? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-3094949
Comments
Whoa, calm down dude. Of course you've got to double-press the bottom right button on the Watch; that was implied. I was simply pointing out that the POS terminal does not light up by itself, you've got to hold the Watch or the iPhone against it and then it lights up. Similarly, in response to an earlier poster, I was pointing out that the TouchID on the phone requires just a touch, not a press.
And who said that ApplePay was anything other than convenient!? It is the most remarkably convenient payment mechanism. You probably had trouble comprehending my post.
I am really late to the party but I felt like I had to create an account to respond to a few of the comments.
Quote:
This will change closer to the end of the year when the liability shift happens. Most banks are still in the middle of issuing chip based cards and most large retailers are still transitioning to newer terminals.
There are a fairly large minority of merchants in the US who really, really don't like Visa/MC at all though, so anything that makes card use more likely is a threat. For one thing, they seem to want all the benefits of taking cards (people spending more than with cash, getting people through lines faster and potentially saving money vs. having to handle physical cash) without having to pay a cent to the parties that make that possible. Some retailers are also very wary of anything that would take away control from them (mainly to track people without their consent), hence why we have stuff like CurrentC. I can easily see NFC acceptance at least not climbing any faster than it has once October hits.
MasterCard's solution.
1. Merchants must install terminals period. No argument allowed.
3. Customers can now use it everywhere. Excuse gone.
2. Now banks will sign up because people want to spend their money with it.
Simple.
NFC's already well accepted in Europe, hence why doing such a mandate there isn't a big deal. Doing such a mandate in the US this soon would probably cause at least some retailers to revert to being cash only or to simply ignore the mandate. It's not like the major card brands do that good of a job at enforcing their rules anyway (example: the significant number of smaller merchants here that charge surcharges/minimums for both debit and credit cards when they're only allowed to do so for the latter).
Apparently you don't have a clue about the security of electronic payments. There is absolutely no improvement whatsoever in terms of security if one compares Apple Pay with a chip card based payment (EMV). On the contrary, because there is an additional partner in the loop (Apple), one must assume that there is an increased exposure.
Of course in the US there are a lot a magstripe payments, so the security is indeed much better, but e.g. in Europe almost all card based payment are with a chip (the exceptions are mostly American visitors with magstripe only credit cards), so Apple Pay will have no impact on fraud in Europe
The US is getting chip too so by your logic people shouldn't bother with Apple/Android Pay here either. Chip enabled cards also don't help with Internet transactions while using Apple/Android Pay in-app does (as long as the online store has an app supporting either).
Close to perfect timing for Apple Pay disparagements to start rising up. Google's updated payment system is close to being released. The same goes for Samsung's payment system. And, let us not forget about PayPal. Apple's competitors need to slow Apple down to help themselves look better. So they turn to yet another company to conduct another survey with the express intention to report declining use of Apple Pay. Watch for good news to be reported for and by Apple's competitors later this month.
I feel like PYMNTS (where this survey originally came from) has an anti-NFC bias in general, though I haven't figured out what they prefer instead yet.
It helps in a couple of ways.
1) The retailer does not have your name linked to what you bought.
2) Your card data is not stored on their servers for hackers steal.
I've found it to be quite a bit slower. I attribute that to the extra trip the data makes to Apple servers before hitting the merchant gateway.
Honestly how hard is it to swipe your card? If you are using an iPhone, you still have to take it out of your pocket, touch the home button for a couple seconds and put it back in your pocket. It is literally the same motions. It is not about being easier since the transaction usually goes through before they get your purchases in the shopping bag either way. It is all about the security.
It's better with the Apple Watch, IMO. NFC in general is faster compared to chip transactions too. In theory the latter should only take a second or two longer vs. swiping but in my personal experience some take a lot longer to run those. You can also pre-authenticate with Touch ID while they're ringing up your items by opening Passbook and putting your thumb on the Home button with one of your credit/debit cards active, which should save time.
In southwestern PA where I live, I haven't found a single employee at a drive-through establishment who knows about it, including at a popular local Starbucks. I'm on the road a good deal, so Apple Pay would be brilliant for me if I could actually use it. The issue seems to be poorly paid and ill-trained employees. Perhaps if the chains ponied up a bit more with regard to wages, they could hire and retain better employees.
FWIW: Starbucks doesn't support Apple Pay for sales, just adding value to their system, their barcode club card. I expect they like the data they capture from their app and the various incentives from their "star" program.
Yes, but I can see them accepting NFC-based payments in the future since they will be able to use their store cards — which are just gift cards linked to an account — with the Wallet né Passbook app.
Not that they need to rush to add NFC terminals because their current cards with Passbook and geolocation when you arrive at your favorite store(s) but it would be a nice option to not need to turn on the display and then slide the pass on the lock screen to bring up the barcode.
Yes, but I can see them accepting NFC-based payments in the future since they will be able to use their store cards — which are just gift cards linked to an account — with the Wallet né Passbook app.
Not that they need to rush to add NFC terminals because their current cards with Passbook and geolocation when you arrive at your favorite store(s) but it would be a nice option to not need to turn on the display and then slide the pass on the lock screen to bring up the barcode.
True that shouldn't take much of a modification or they can piggy back like Wegman's does where after scanning (or detecting some other way) the club ID, I use NFC Apple Pay to pay for the transaction. They get their data, I get the security.
[SIZE=4]"Android Pay pretty much really is just about paying for stuff. Loyalty cards and similar things may be integrated, but Pay is largely a rebrand of Wallet's NFC-based tap-to-pay functionality designed pretty expressly to ride the coattails of the launch of Apple Pay via a new logo that retailers can put on their credit card terminals (and have been)...
...would you want to use it?
This may seem like an obvious question to some. "Of course, it's cool!" But I really do think it's not so simple. Personally, NFC-based payments hold little actual interest for me outside of a few contexts. Vending machines, taxis, and other fully-automated transactions (like transit tickets) make perfect sense for NFC. Low-dollar transactions that you're just concerned with completing as quickly as humanly possible and preferably without having to pull out your wallet.
But NFC payments at a department store? When buying groceries? A convenience store? Even a fast food restaurant? I'm not sure I see the sell. Many times, I actively pick which card I use for a transaction based on rewards points or the type of spending I'm doing, and the idea of having to take out my phone, open the Android Pay app and then pick a card before I pay seems like a waste of time. It would almost certainly be slower than just taking out my wallet and swiping the card I want, and I don't really see any benefit to using Pay in these situations to begin with aside from novelty. I also don't see a situation where I leave home without my major credit cards or debit card - I simply wouldn't do it. I'm years away from trusting my phone to be 100% reliable to pay for things while I'm out, even independent of the adoption rate of tap-to-pay in actual stores. What if my battery dies? What if it just doesn't work? You can't "try another card" - if NFC payment fails, you can't pay. That would suck. And as to carrying a reduced number of cards... why? Sure, if my wallet gets stolen, I've got fewer cards to cancel, but the chance of this happening are extremely low, and the reduced "wallet bulk" would basically be negligible."
[/SIZE]
Edit: the associated poll results for the question "Will you use Android Pay it when it launches". Going by this alone you'd get the impression it will be immediately successful. I'm not convinced the usage will be as high as folks polled imply it will.
-54% said " Yes, definitely - I want to use my phone to tap to pay for EVERYTHING I can"
-26% went with "-Yes, but mostly just to try it. I'm not sure I'd make a habit out of it."
Just 20% expressed they'd be unlikely to give it a fair try.
I don't.
1) Of course not, Apple only announced it less than a year ago. It'll take years before it reaches a point where leaving your physical credit and debit cards at home, in a safe, all the times will make sense. Anyone that thinks it can or should go from announcement to ubiquitous instantly isn't thinking it through.
2) There are certain places that take it where I have grabbed nothing but my phone because I knew I could pay with Apple Pay. And last month I ran to the post office after a workout where I didn't have my wallet (maybe my phone was in the car or dead—I forget) and then decided to hit Subway up. When I realized I didn't have my phone on me I realized I had my Watch on me and paid that way. It's a wonderful thing… save for burning x-calories in my workout and then probably consuming x-calories * 5 by eating Subway.
If that's the case, and it's still going through Google's servers and there is still no representational card issued by your bank for that device then, yes, Android Pay will be a failure. I hope that's not the case because Android Pay needs to be on-board with a safe and convenient system that does it the right way. The way Apple presented to the world last year.
This embodies what differentiates the average Android user v iOS, or Windows v Mac OS X I come across that are in the technology field. My decision making process on using a technology matters not on whether I think it's cool, but purely on whether is suits my specific needs. If, it suits my needs to a great extent, like Touch ID being extremely convenient while offering a fair amount of security and getting most of those 50% that never used even a simple PIN because it was too inconvenient to use one, then I might use the term "cool" to describe it, but that's a result of execution, not because it's simply new. Sketch on the Apple Watch? Gimmicky and of such limited use that its only use is for a lackluster demo station between watches. Not cool.
I'm concerned with finishing all payment transactions as quickly as possible, but more importantly, as securely as possible, which is why Apple Pay is my preferred choice of payment, why I hope we see some advancements next week (or perhaps when the next Macs launch), why I want Android Pay et al. to slavishly copy Apple on this (which I don't doubt they will), and why I would like the banking industry to get off their asses by creating a new term that embodies what Apple Pay is — which isn't card not present or card present — and then giving merchants an incentive to get NFC-capable devices up and running so we can move to a safer and more secure "wallet free" society, because, yes, if you have to carry the same card that's in your iPhone in your wallet then if your wallet is lost of stolen the representational card number stored on your iPhone is then invalidated once you report your your card as lost or stolen. If your iPhone is lost or stolen, your physical card does not need to be reported as lost or stolen, you simply need to disconnect the representational card data from that device which you can do with a single click from iCloud.com.
Yes, yes, yes, and yes.
1) So picking a particular card from his wallet isn't a hassle but tapping a particular card from his phone will be a chore?
2) I guess Android could have a more complex system for accessing Android Pay, but with Apple Pay the cards will appear on screen as soon as your iPhone is in range. You can then put your thumb on the Home Button to verify the purchase with the default card or tap one of the other cards to use and then place your thumb on the Home Button. It's not only much easier and faster than pulling both out from the same pocket, but one is much more likely to have their phone in-hand. Have you seen people at restaurants? It's just a white glow on faces.
3) Because of the reward points, one thing I mentioned last year is getting the option to set the default card for that purchase based on the retailer and/or the type of retailer. For example, when getting gas it'll never be my default card, but I'd like the one I do use to come up because I set up 'gas station' to pull y-card every time, by default. Additionally, I requested being able to change the card image in case you have two cards that are very similar or the same style, even if they are just color changes of the same style.
He's an idiot or a liar.
1) We're ALL years away before it goes from "Oh, you accept Apple Pay!" to "What do you mean you don't accept Apple Pay?!" as the fringe examples.
2) His first sentence he sees no situation and the next he sees the situation. OK, definitely an idiot.
1) You know what also sucks, not having your wallet for whatever reason, or the payment system not working. You know what's even worse, having to cancel your cards.
2) These facile "concerns" are similar to when the credit card came out. Not enough people are taking them! If the system's down and I don't have cash they'll make wash the dishes! It's slower than paying with cash (especially when they had to take a press of the card)! And, yet, here we is this douchebag championing credit cards as infallible but wondering if the same network that a physical credit card payment would traverse would be down for an NFC-based payment. Does he really believe the same POS system will have a faulty NFC system over a faulty magnetic roller, which has physical moving part? :no:
3) I'm more likely to remember to charge my phone than bring my wallet somewhere. While still rare, the bigger concern is if you drop your device which would then be the equivalent of dropping your wallet and having all your credit cards shatter inside your wallet. That's really the only benefit to the credit card longterm, but then the same can be said for cash, which still works when credit cards won't. Where again did he mention cash as being the best option? Oh, that's right, he didn't.
I'm guessing this one of those guys that has 2" thick wallet full of pointless crap.
Bottomline: Apple did it right. This is here to stay. This is next stage in payments in the modern world, but this does not mean it will happen overnight, and, just like with credit cards today, we still have access to and use cash all the time. For a safe and convenient mobile payment system to win it doesn't mean credit/debit cards have to fail.
You're saying that Google Wallet had partnered with all the banks years ago so that they could issue a credit card number alias to each device? Um, no.
:beats head on counter:
EDIT: There's several banking industry articles that discuss Android Pay Soli. Have you read any of them? Just curious.
It means it's not going through Google! Google Wallet is not Android Pay. Google Wallet is not Apple Pay. Google Wallet is a failure because they treated the customer like they do with ads, as Eloi, instead of doing the right thing from the start, like Apple is doing with Apple Pay. That makes all the fucking difference in the world to a customer like me.
Once again, the bank issues a unique representational card for each device, as well as a new number for the same device if you were to destroy it and set it up again. This is not a one-time-use number, but is issued once per device. If you had read anything on Apple Pay you would see this data clear as day. It's even there right in Passbook for each card. Take a screenshot of the page, make a purchase, and then take another screenshot. The last 4 digits will not change until you destroy that info on the secure element.
Bottom line: ROUTING ALL YOUR PAYMENTS THROUGH GOOGLE IS NOT THE SAME AS APPLE PAY AND SHOULD MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO ALL CUSTOMERS.
IMO Android Wallet didn't fail to gain traction because they "treated the customer as they do". They weren't doing anything to mistreat them unless you have something to point to. I'm not aware of Google Wallet serving up ads now and I doubt Android Pay will be any different. "Loyalty reward programs" in Android Pay is something different and probably coming to Apple Pay too. Yup, stores are gonna dangle carrots to track you anyway and neither Google nor Apple is going to prevent it since it would make their payment platforms less attractive to retailers and by extension many consumers with those loyalty programs (oooh, .10 off gas and a free Koozie!), the exact opposite of what they want to accomplish
IMHO Google Wallet's problems can be traced to two things: The carriers insistence they could take mobile payments for themselves and embed the secure element in a SIMcard they controlled instead of the way Google originally envisioned it as a separate secure hardware element in the NFC chip, ala Apple Pay. Four years ago ATT, Verizon and the rest were in a much stronger position and simply blocked the NFC secure element Google used from working over their networks. Secondly Google has no marketing chops whatsoever and did a piss-poor promotion of it. Simply partnering with Mastercard and VISA for secure NFC payments wasn't enough. They didn't have the market clout to bend the other players to their will. Apple does, at least now. Whether they would have four years ago? Dunno.
So now Google is piggy-backing on Apple's promotion, which is smart. Android Pay itself is not much different than what Google originally designed, and as would be expected. The mobile payment standards come from PCI/Mastercard/VISA who Google worked with to design Google Wallet. With the regulatory requirements now coming due for updating card-reading hardware coupled with the Apple Pay media blasts and Target/HomeDepot scare stories, and an assist from carriers realizing they weren't going to win, the timing is now right. Four years ago it wasn't.
Yeah it took Apple to show the way but not for the reasons you think IMHO.
:???:
According to Bank of America "The chip encrypts information to increase data security when making transactions at a chip-enabled terminal." Are you saying it's really NOT an encrypted transaction? I would have assumed that the new NFC readers mandated here in the US would incorporate P2PE. Perhaps they don't?
This thread is probably dead now but I can't leave your comment unchallenged. Standard chip and pin and also contactless both pass the full card number, expiry date and CCV number unencrypted. In the case of contactless this is transmitted. This is how card skimmers work - routing the legitimate card reader through a second device down cable allows these details to be easily and quickly captured. In the case of contactless, devices to initiate and the capture the details - albeit from close range - are readily available. Apple Pay uses a one off tokenisation system and is therefore significantly more secure than standard chip and pin or contactless via a card.
Absolutely untrue. A CCV is simply not used in a chip card payment, so how can it be transmitted. All other payment data is encrypted end to end from the chip card itself to the payment processor of VISA or another financial institution, this is how the EMV protocol is defined. An I am 100% sure, because I've been the project leader in various software projects handling these payments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-3094949