For signup, though, there is obviously a step through Apple's servers. How else can a signup get from your phone to the card issuer? But for purchase transactions, your phone is dealing with the merchant and the merchant handles it.
For signup, sure, that just makes sense. It's possible for this to be all internal to the device where Passbook holds the specific authentication options and information for every bank and card, but that sounds just as problematic to me as 1) making the single point-of-failure for Apple Pay failing everywhere in the world at once if their servers go down, 2) causing a slowdown in payment speed by having it all route through Apple (possibly all though a single country like with BBM) and 3) the whole security option that I can't imagine banks or customers would be OK with, hence a major part of Google Wallet's expected failure.
... a major part of Google Wallet's expected failure.
Your comment about Google Wallet reminds me that, in that case, all transactions rather obviously have to go through Google. That's because it's Google that pays the merchant, and your credit card then reimburses Google. The reason for this is that GW came along before EMV had done tokenization (and other reasons too, I guess).
I wonder what the new xxx-Pay systems will be like (e.g. Samsung Pay, etc). Will they use tokenization if possible? Does anyone other than the bank and card issuer get to see or keep your transaction data?
From Apple's site: Payment transactions are between you, the merchant, and your bank.
If that's not accurate then I suggest we all sign for a class action lawsuit.
You and Plovall may be spot on, but I'm reading things differently than you. I don't see anywhere that Apple claims no data goes thru their servers, tho thy make a point of saying they don't keep any transaction information..
Bt the way, I did find the reference I was remembering from a while back, and while Apple's contract with banks requires Apple have access to a whole lot of transaction information it doesn't say anything about the initial transaction going thru Apple. I'm trying to locate the contract itself and will link it if I do.
Your comment about Google Wallet reminds me that, in that case, all transactions rather obviously have to go through Google. That's because it's Google that pays the merchant, and your credit card then reimburses Google. The reason for this is that GW came along before EMV had done tokenization (and other reasons too, I guess).
I wonder what the new xxx-Pay systems will be like (e.g. Samsung Pay, etc). Will they use tokenization if possible? Does anyone other than the bank and card issuer get to see or keep your transaction data?
Even without EMV in place Google still could have stored the actual card data on the SE and used NFC and a passcode to bring up and allow for a payment to occur on the device without going through Google and Bancorp's servers. Basically the same thing they have now but without using Google as an intermediary between the merchant and your bank.
"Issuers must also be ready to submit a twice-yearly accounting to Apple to verify the fees it owes the company, and if Apple isn’t satisfied with the issuer’s bookkeeping it may subject the issuer to an audit. The issuer must also submit “frequent reports” to Apple giving its cards’ Apple Pay transaction statistics."
If all transactions were going through Apple then why would they need to have the financial institutions submit records for Apple to look over for potential illicit discrepancies? The transactions going through Apple would all the evidence Apple would need to charge the banks their fees. It would be indisputable, except for potential chargebacks that were done with the physical card.
"Issuers must also be ready to submit a twice-yearly accounting to Apple to verify the fees it owes the company, and if Apple isn’t satisfied with the issuer’s bookkeeping it may subject the issuer to an audit. The issuer must also submit “frequent reports” to Apple giving its cards’ Apple Pay transaction statistics."
If all transactions were going through Apple then why would they need to have the financial institutions submit records for Apple to look over for potential illicit discrepancies? The transactions going through Apple would all the evidence Apple would need to charge the banks their fees. It would be indisputable, except for potential chargebacks that were done with the physical card.
I do get it Soli. You and Plovell may well be correct and me wrong. I still do think it's possible the transaction flows thru Apple, even if no data is collected from it. What would Apple have that would lead them to believe a banks' fee accounting might be wrong if they didn't have some idea of what transactions flowed from Apple devices to that bank? What I can find so far is definitely on your side tho.
I do get it Soli. You and Plovell may well be correct and me wrong. I still do think it's possible the transaction flows thru Apple, even if no data is collected from it. What would Apple have that would lead them to believe a banks' fee accounting might be wrong if they didn't have some idea of what transactions flowed from Apple devices to that bank? What I can find so far is definitely on your side tho.
To be clear, I'm not discounting the possibility that they record something and I really hate how companies can't be more plain spoken about shit to remove any miscommunication.
From Apple's site: Payment transactions are between you, the merchant, and your bank.
If that's not accurate then I suggest we all sign for a class action lawsuit.
Maybe we just all need to differentiate between the cash transaction, which I doubt would go through Apple as this would probably require them to obtain a banking license; and transaction data, ie just information about the transaction, which they probably do obtain to audit and quality control the service.
Yes, I will do what I can to prevent people like you from trolling the forum by talking out your ass.
Since your big angry post was so specked with spittle and bile that it became an incoherent mass of spelling and grammatical bilge, you'll forgive me for not taking your accusation that I talk out of my ass particularly seriously. Calm down and be polite, no one is right all the time.
Someone blatantly lying is now simply being incorrect on occasion? :no:
Are you two still arguing over my wrong description of how to switch credit cards? Two days ago? I made a mistake, I was corrected (thank you btw), get over it. I am probably not the only one who made the mistake, the rest of my post is correct. This is a forum for nerds and Apple fanboys that has no impact on the real world. No one takes anything on this forum seriously, it's just an exchange of views and experiences. No market-moving information is shared, no thought leadership that has any impact on anything. Some interesting thoughts and divergent opinions make for interesting reading, and sometimes, some people make mistakes. Please move on.
^ I'm on your side. I don't think mistakes should be met with scorn and accusations of deliberate deception.
I know and I agree. But in the card switching, it was a genuine mistake, I thought that was the only way to do it. I need to check whether the lock screen switch really works.
Ultimately, in the UK, because of the £20 limit, the fact that contactless terminals are not always immediately identifiable, and in many cases the need to ask the cashier to enable the card reader, ApplePay is not so convenient on the iPhone compared to using a card. It would be good to hear from other UK users (I have never seen anyone but me use it, and this is London, where everyone has an iPhone).
Now, Apple Watch to pay for the tube IS a great feature....
It's no big deal, so an Apple service is not that great (in one country) and has a low adoption rate. So what, the notion that they find it difficult to come up with something that "moves the needle" is generally accepted: look at the share price.
I am sure they will some day. But for now, my experience seems to show that most readers have to be enabled by clicking a button on the cash register. In many small shops, and in restaurants, the amount actually has to be keyed in separately into the Credit card terminal by the cashier! The register and the cc terminal are not connected at all.
The POS system we use, you click EFTPOS as method of payment, it turns on the terminal with tap, swipe or insert.
Smaller places with less advanced systems may have to go through manual entry but large retailers don't.
This post is very out of tune for you, you are usually quite professional. I never said AP does not work, I just said that in the UK, the payment process is not slick. I cast no blame. Indeed, I said it's great to pay for the tube.
The other thing is that in the UK, it is still limited to £20, so it's just not that great.
In Australia the limit is $100 for pinless, above that you are also required to enter a PIN after tapping.
Apple pay does represent a free ride for Apple. It can only work at all by piggybacking on the costly infrastructure put in place and paid for by the banks. Saying Apple built up a service is like saying a hitchhiker grew a thumb. Apple Pay only adds value in countries like the US where the electronic payment systems currently in use are insecure and outdated. We are talking about Australia where this is absolutely not the case and hasn't been for a long time.
What value does Apple Pay add in Australia that you think justifies Apple taking a substantial cut of transaction fees?
If by "banks" you mean "fees levied on customers".
Comments
For signup, sure, that just makes sense. It's possible for this to be all internal to the device where Passbook holds the specific authentication options and information for every bank and card, but that sounds just as problematic to me as 1) making the single point-of-failure for Apple Pay failing everywhere in the world at once if their servers go down, 2) causing a slowdown in payment speed by having it all route through Apple (possibly all though a single country like with BBM) and 3) the whole security option that I can't imagine banks or customers would be OK with, hence a major part of Google Wallet's expected failure.
... a major part of Google Wallet's expected failure.
Your comment about Google Wallet reminds me that, in that case, all transactions rather obviously have to go through Google. That's because it's Google that pays the merchant, and your credit card then reimburses Google. The reason for this is that GW came along before EMV had done tokenization (and other reasons too, I guess).
I wonder what the new xxx-Pay systems will be like (e.g. Samsung Pay, etc). Will they use tokenization if possible? Does anyone other than the bank and card issuer get to see or keep your transaction data?
You and Plovall may be spot on, but I'm reading things differently than you. I don't see anywhere that Apple claims no data goes thru their servers, tho thy make a point of saying they don't keep any transaction information..
Bt the way, I did find the reference I was remembering from a while back, and while Apple's contract with banks requires Apple have access to a whole lot of transaction information it doesn't say anything about the initial transaction going thru Apple. I'm trying to locate the contract itself and will link it if I do.
http://digitaltransactions.net/news/story/Issuers_-Apple-Pay-Pact-Assigns-Remarkable-Authority-to-Card-Networks-As-Well-As-Apple
Even without EMV in place Google still could have stored the actual card data on the SE and used NFC and a passcode to bring up and allow for a payment to occur on the device without going through Google and Bancorp's servers. Basically the same thing they have now but without using Google as an intermediary between the merchant and your bank.
Note the following paragraph from your link:
If all transactions were going through Apple then why would they need to have the financial institutions submit records for Apple to look over for potential illicit discrepancies? The transactions going through Apple would all the evidence Apple would need to charge the banks their fees. It would be indisputable, except for potential chargebacks that were done with the physical card.
To be clear, I'm not discounting the possibility that they record something and I really hate how companies can't be more plain spoken about shit to remove any miscommunication.
Maybe we just all need to differentiate between the cash transaction, which I doubt would go through Apple as this would probably require them to obtain a banking license; and transaction data, ie just information about the transaction, which they probably do obtain to audit and quality control the service.
Someone blatantly lying is now simply being incorrect on occasion? :no:
Are you two still arguing over my wrong description of how to switch credit cards? Two days ago? I made a mistake, I was corrected (thank you btw), get over it. I am probably not the only one who made the mistake, the rest of my post is correct. This is a forum for nerds and Apple fanboys that has no impact on the real world. No one takes anything on this forum seriously, it's just an exchange of views and experiences. No market-moving information is shared, no thought leadership that has any impact on anything. Some interesting thoughts and divergent opinions make for interesting reading, and sometimes, some people make mistakes. Please move on.
^ I'm on your side. I don't think mistakes should be met with scorn and accusations of deliberate deception.
Ultimately, in the UK, because of the £20 limit, the fact that contactless terminals are not always immediately identifiable, and in many cases the need to ask the cashier to enable the card reader, ApplePay is not so convenient on the iPhone compared to using a card. It would be good to hear from other UK users (I have never seen anyone but me use it, and this is London, where everyone has an iPhone).
Now, Apple Watch to pay for the tube IS a great feature....
It's no big deal, so an Apple service is not that great (in one country) and has a low adoption rate. So what, the notion that they find it difficult to come up with something that "moves the needle" is generally accepted: look at the share price.
I am sure they will some day. But for now, my experience seems to show that most readers have to be enabled by clicking a button on the cash register. In many small shops, and in restaurants, the amount actually has to be keyed in separately into the Credit card terminal by the cashier! The register and the cc terminal are not connected at all.
The POS system we use, you click EFTPOS as method of payment, it turns on the terminal with tap, swipe or insert.
Smaller places with less advanced systems may have to go through manual entry but large retailers don't.
This post is very out of tune for you, you are usually quite professional. I never said AP does not work, I just said that in the UK, the payment process is not slick. I cast no blame. Indeed, I said it's great to pay for the tube.
The other thing is that in the UK, it is still limited to £20, so it's just not that great.
In Australia the limit is $100 for pinless, above that you are also required to enter a PIN after tapping.
Apple pay does represent a free ride for Apple. It can only work at all by piggybacking on the costly infrastructure put in place and paid for by the banks. Saying Apple built up a service is like saying a hitchhiker grew a thumb. Apple Pay only adds value in countries like the US where the electronic payment systems currently in use are insecure and outdated. We are talking about Australia where this is absolutely not the case and hasn't been for a long time.
What value does Apple Pay add in Australia that you think justifies Apple taking a substantial cut of transaction fees?
If by "banks" you mean "fees levied on customers".
Banks don't pay for anything, we do.