1) Have to disagree with you. Apple Pay IS a perfect fit for a country where almost everything is chip and pin/NFC, regardless of bank support. That's the point. Everything else is in place EXCEPT the banks.
2) Again, disagreed. The UK has it, China is getting it, yet nothing from Canada yet- even though everything from the language, to the payment infrastructure, to the banking system, is MOST similar to the US. So yes, it is frustrating, and logically speaking, Canada should have been supported at the same time as, or right after the US. Obviously this isn't Apple's fault, but it's normal to be frustrated at the situation.
The holdup is the fees, guaranteed. Canadian banks are so greedy, continuing to increase fees while reporting record profits year after year. It's bat-shit crazy! Do you believe that it costs me... a sole proprietor, $200 for a business check book with 100 checks (spelled for our friendly US readers), and then when those checks are deposited, it costs even more money? Double-dipping!
Having NFC-capable terminals in place does NOT mean Apple Pay is ready to go in your country. This is not debatable.
Be patient. Apple Pay will come.
While this is true, you are obfuscating the point. Apple Pay will be ready for 90% of merchants (or more) in my home town once the banks (or whomever) allow it overnight. That is an important part of the narrative. That is not debatable.
While this is true, you are obfuscating the point. Apple Pay will be ready for 90% of merchants (or more) in my home town once the banks (or whomever) allow it overnight. That is an important part of the narrative. That is not debatable.
I not only didn't obfuscate that point, but clearly addressed it in a previous comment to you, but, again, Apple Pay can NOT work without the banks supporting it, regardless of the duration or saturation level of NFC-capable terminals in your country. That argument is pointless to getting Apple Pay off the ground. Why? Because it matters nothing to a bank that you have 70% or 90% of retailers with NFC-capable terminals.
If you people really want a shitty system that uses NFC then you should have been using Google Wallet this whole time. You get NFC-based payments and the banks don't have to be involved. However, if you want a secure system that keeps your personal data with the bank then be patient. This is a complex system requiring many moving parts in which Apple has no control to work together. It takes time!
Banking in Canada is subject to more regulation than the US. Like Tulkas has pointed out, there are less than 10 big banks in Canada ( maybe 150 inc Credit Unions total), but they account for more than 80% of market share and are present in all provinces in the country. They have way more clout as a result, that's why they got together and hired a consulting firm to represent them and their interests.
The banks are on the hook for any fraud, Apple just takes their percentage and hands off issues to the banks and merchants. In addition banks/merchants loose customer data that they use/sell, so this was less of a good deal for the banks. So Apple Pay as TD have proved, will come, but on their terms.
As others have stated, it's a minor banking improvement for Canadians, it was a huge security leap for Americans.
And the NFC stickers in Canada, they're getting phased out because of lack of adoption/security risk.
I not only didn't obfuscate that point, but clearly addressed it in a previous comment to you, but, again, Apple Pay can NOT work without the banks supporting it, regardless of the duration or saturation level of NFC-capable terminals in your country. That argument is pointless to getting Apple Pay off the ground. Why? Because it matters nothing to a bank that you have 70% or 90% of retailers with NFC-capable terminals.
If you people really want a shitty system that uses NFC then you should have been using Google Wallet this whole time. You get NFC-based payments and the banks don't have to be involved. However, if you want a secure system that keeps your personal data with the bank then be patient. This is a complex system requiring many moving parts in which Apple has no control to work together. It takes time!
Those are two different discussions and you are the only one still making the banks-not-on-board one. We know that. We agree with it.
I agree it means nothing to the banks, or, well, it would if ApplePay were a huge success, which its not. It means a lot to the customers. Sorry if I wasn't clear but the fact the banks aren't supporting is frustrating to us customers because if they did we could use it everywhere right away, so it would be a huge difference, compared with areas of the states, which had it already even though almost no one (it seemed) accepted it. You can certainly see the irony (especially considering they jumped on board forward thinking security features as compared to other parts of the world).
I agree it takes time. But its because Canadian bank monopolies are either stupid or playing hardball (or both, or worse) that we don't have it; there is no real fundamental reason this shouldn't have been available day 1 if it was possible in the US (which, i think, has way more banks, people, state laws, etc.)
Those are two different discussions and you are the only one still making the banks-not-on-board one. We know that. We agree with it.
I agree it means nothing to the banks, or, well, it would if ApplePay were a huge success, which its not. It means a lot to the customers. Sorry if I wasn't clear but the fact the banks aren't supporting is frustrating to us customers because if they did we could use it everywhere right away, so it would be a huge difference, compared with areas of the states, which had it already even though almost no one (it seemed) accepted it. You can certainly see the irony (especially considering they jumped on board forward thinking security features as compared to other parts of the world).
I agree it takes time. But its because Canadian bank monopolies are either stupid or playing hardball (or both, or worse) that we don't have it; there is no real fundamental reason this shouldn't have been available day 1 if it was possible in the US (which, i think, has way more banks, people, state laws, etc.)
If you "got it," you wouldn't keep getting to restate how the lack of banks is the issue. It does NOTHING for customers if there are no banks supporting it, which is why so many people are bellyaching about the lack of Apple Pay despite the support by retailers in their respective countries.
Furthermore, you're mentioning Canadian bank monopolies—which I know nothing about—but I have to assume that any additional hurdles to Apple Pay in Canada would be known by Apple, which makes it even more of a head scratcher that anyone in the know would be dumbfounded by Apple Pay's lack of growth in Canada in just one year after its announcement. In the same sentence you mention monopolies, being stupid and playing hardball, and then state there is no reason it shouldn't be available today.You literally had just stated the reasons!
The banks formed a cartel specifically to negotiate Apple's entry into the Canadian payment scene.
Apple can't negotiate with the banks individually to get the best terms or quickest access. This is intentional. By monopolizing access to the Canadian payments system through this cartel, they ensure that no one, Apple or otherwise, is allowed to come here nor to negotiate terms with separate businesses separately. Stronger united than apart. The benefit of a cartel.
So, when TD or any of them signs a deal with Apple, they all will, since it's one deal negotiated with all of them together. And until they all get the deal that benefits them all, none of them will sign. Not because of interac, but because that's the reason they created the cartel.
How is it irrevelant? Their gateway to payment is INTERAC, so you think there was not ALREADY an agreement within that organistion which they founded, develloped (put their money out to build) and lets face it, control before even talking to Apple.
It is absurd to think there is no link.
============
The god damn head office of INTERAC is right next to RBC and founded by 4 of the 6 on this list in 1983.
- On Interact's 14 member board there is
Essentially permanent members (notice who is on this list...)
- Nearly all deposits in Canada
- BMO
- National Bank
- Laurentian
- Desjardins
- RBC
- Scotia
- TD Canada
- CIBC
Changes once in a while
+ 2 smaller credit unions : Central 1, Credit union Central of Canada
*** Don't have deposits, gateway to them
+ 1 payment processing service for merchants : Global payments
+ 1 payment processing service online : Paymentech
+ 1 involved in the payment infrastructure business: Directcash payments (ATM and terminals)
+ 1 large Canadian company : Suncor
==========
INTERAC is the access their controlling, not some new payment network their somehow creating.
They have the deposits and they control the board of INTERAC, simple as that.
How is it irrevelant? Their gateway to payment is INTERAC, so you think there was not ALREADY an agreement within that organistion which they founded, develloped (put their money out to build) and lets face it, control before even talking to Apple.
It is absurd to think there is no link.
============
The god damn head office of INTERAC is right next to RBC and founded by 4 of the 6 on this list in 1983.
- On Interact's 14 member board there is
Essentially permanent members (notice who is on this list...)
- Nearly all deposits in Canada
- BMO
- National Bank
- Laurentian
- Desjardins
- RBC
- Scotia
- TD Canada
- CIBC
Changes once in a while
+ 2 smaller credit unions : Central 1, Credit union Central of Canada
*** Don't have deposits, gateway to them
+ 1 payment processing service for merchants : Global payments
+ 1 payment processing service online : Paymentech
+ 1 involved in the payment infrastructure business: Directcash payments (ATM and terminals)
+ 1 large Canadian company : Suncor
==========
INTERAC is the access their controlling, not some new payment network their somehow creating.
They have the deposits and they control the board of INTERAC, simple as that.
All of that is true. Interact exists in order for the banks to have a common, standard network for moving and accessing funds. Great. And if Apple Pay were to come here, it would work with that networks. Great.
None of which has anything to do with each bank signing an agreement with Apple to support their credit card being added to Apple Pay. That doesn't require Interact per se, that requires each bank to sign an agreement, which happens only after negotiation.
When Apple moved into the US, they held discussions with each bank. They were able to get the terms they wanted from those banks that were eager to sign on. Those banks that balked at Apple's terms did not sign on immediately, but once they saw the popularity and heard the customer demand, more and more eventually conceded and accepted Apple's terms. That can't happen in Canada. Apple's can't divide and conquer here because of the cartel they formed for negotiations.
Could the banks have used their control of Interac to influence negotiations? Yes, probably (barring any anti-trust provisions they agreed to when they created it). But in this case, they needed to something more directly involved in the negotiations, and that would be the negotiators themselves. They negotiate as a single entity so there is no threat of Apple enticing some in order to win the others separately.
So, yes, Interact is an interesting variable and will be a part of the Apple Pay mechanism, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of which banks will sign on and when. That is controlled by the cartel which was created for that very reason even though Interact already existed. That's why it exists.
All of that is true. Interact exists in order for the banks to have a common, standard network for moving and accessing funds. Great. And if Apple Pay were to come here, it would work with that networks. Great.
None of which has anything to do with each bank signing an agreement with Apple to support their credit card being added to Apple Pay. That doesn't require Interact per se, that requires each bank to sign an agreement, which happens only after negotiation.
When Apple moved into the US, they held discussions with each bank. They were able to get the terms they wanted from those banks that were eager to sign on. Those banks that balked at Apple's terms did not sign on immediately, but once they saw the popularity and heard the customer demand, more and more eventually conceded and accepted Apple's terms. That can't happen in Canada. Apple's can't divide and conquer here because of the cartel they formed for negotiations.
Could the banks have used their control of Interac to influence negotiations? Yes, probably (barring any anti-trust provisions they agreed to when they created it). But in this case, they needed to something more directly involved in the negotiations, and that would be the negotiators themselves. They negotiate as a single entity so there is no threat of Apple enticing some in order to win the others separately.
So, yes, Interact is an interesting variable and will be a part of the Apple Pay mechanism, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of which banks will sign on and when. That is controlled by the cartel which was created for that very reason even though Interact already existed. That's why it exists.
Man, someone who has no basis in logic or fact for his argument saying something is irrelevant!
Unbelievable! You have some chutzpah buddy.
Build your argument on facts or dessist calling someone else's argument irrelevant; simple as that.
Still being asked for a PIN when I try to use Apple Pay with my debit card at my local Rite Aid. Not sure if it's the hardware or the employee training. Annoying either way. Haven't been able to get an answer from them.
You still have to sign also if using a Credit card at places. I think in time this will go away. Right not at places if you don't go over a limit of say $40, you don't have to enter a Pin at like McDonalds. Since Apple Pay is new, things are still set for the old way of doing things. I think that will change in time. Why use a Pin or sign when you're already being checked by a Finger Print. The banks have to get used to this.
You're wrong. Merchants are blocking it. They are afraid of making credit card use too easy, over cash and debit. They are also afraid that the cut given to Apple will be used as justification to raise credit fees. For a contactless card, there's absolutely no difference on the bank side, the bank processes it exactly the same as a magnetic or chip transaction.
Apple's cut is TINY!!! With all the fraud that's going on, costing banks billions, anything to cut that way down is a huge savings and what little they pay out to Apple, will more then make up for in the savings from far less fraud. Zero reason to raise fee's!!!
Man, someone who has no basis in logic or fact for his argument saying something is irrelevant!
Unbelievable! You have some chutzpah buddy.
Build your argument on facts or dessist calling someone else's argument irrelevant; simple as that.
I'm ignoring your flapping gums from now on.
Facts are best used when they are relevant. The Earth is round. That's a fact too, but irrelevant to the discussion. duh.
I mentioned the fact that the banks formed a cartel for negotiating with Apple. You mentioned interact in order to try to dispute this fact, which is an interesting point, but not relevant to the fact that they still decided that they needed to form this cartel. I guess it is relevant as far as showing that Interac is not enough.
Interac, in and of itself, does not mean that every major bank will support Apple Pay. Each bank will support Apple pay for their cards, if and only if they agree to allow Apple to support their cards. That happens regardless of the existence of Interact. Interact existing is nice because the network will already exist. But BMO could sign on without RBC or CIBC, etc, with or without Interact. And that is exactly why they formed a new consortium to negotiate with Apple, to prevent any one bank signing on with Apple without agreement from their peers first.
Let's see if you understand yet...in light of interac, why is it, do you think, the banks felt the need to form new consortium/cartel to handle negotiations with Apple?
If you "got it," you wouldn't keep getting to restate how the lack of banks is the issue. It does NOTHING for customers if there are no banks supporting it, which is why so many people are bellyaching about the lack of Apple Pay despite the support by retailers in their respective countries.
Furthermore, you're mentioning Canadian bank monopolies—which I know nothing about—but I have to assume that any additional hurdles to Apple Pay in Canada would be known by Apple, which makes it even more of a head scratcher that anyone in the know would be dumbfounded by Apple Pay's lack of growth in Canada in just one year after its announcement. In the same sentence you mention monopolies, being stupid and playing hardball, and then state there is no reason it shouldn't be available today.You literally had just stated the reasons!
I'm not dumbfounded, i'm annoyed. Essentially you are arguing with yourself. I'll make it easy
I AGREE WITH YOU
it is still stupid. We can't kvetch because there is a stupid, but logical reason for something?
You still have to sign also if using a Credit card at places. I think in time this will go away. Right not at places if you don't go over a limit of say $40, you don't have to enter a Pin at like McDonalds. Since Apple Pay is new, things are still set for the old way of doing things. I think that will change in time. Why use a Pin or sign when you're already being checked by a Finger Print. The banks have to get used to this.
$25-50 actually depending on the card type and store.
Comments
1) Have to disagree with you. Apple Pay IS a perfect fit for a country where almost everything is chip and pin/NFC, regardless of bank support. That's the point. Everything else is in place EXCEPT the banks.
2) Again, disagreed. The UK has it, China is getting it, yet nothing from Canada yet- even though everything from the language, to the payment infrastructure, to the banking system, is MOST similar to the US. So yes, it is frustrating, and logically speaking, Canada should have been supported at the same time as, or right after the US. Obviously this isn't Apple's fault, but it's normal to be frustrated at the situation.
The holdup is the fees, guaranteed. Canadian banks are so greedy, continuing to increase fees while reporting record profits year after year. It's bat-shit crazy! Do you believe that it costs me... a sole proprietor, $200 for a business check book with 100 checks (spelled for our friendly US readers), and then when those checks are deposited, it costs even more money? Double-dipping!
Having NFC-capable terminals in place does NOT mean Apple Pay is ready to go in your country. This is not debatable.
Be patient. Apple Pay will come.
While this is true, you are obfuscating the point. Apple Pay will be ready for 90% of merchants (or more) in my home town once the banks (or whomever) allow it overnight. That is an important part of the narrative. That is not debatable.
I not only didn't obfuscate that point, but clearly addressed it in a previous comment to you, but, again, Apple Pay can NOT work without the banks supporting it, regardless of the duration or saturation level of NFC-capable terminals in your country. That argument is pointless to getting Apple Pay off the ground. Why? Because it matters nothing to a bank that you have 70% or 90% of retailers with NFC-capable terminals.
If you people really want a shitty system that uses NFC then you should have been using Google Wallet this whole time. You get NFC-based payments and the banks don't have to be involved. However, if you want a secure system that keeps your personal data with the bank then be patient. This is a complex system requiring many moving parts in which Apple has no control to work together. It takes time!
Banking in Canada is subject to more regulation than the US. Like Tulkas has pointed out, there are less than 10 big banks in Canada ( maybe 150 inc Credit Unions total), but they account for more than 80% of market share and are present in all provinces in the country. They have way more clout as a result, that's why they got together and hired a consulting firm to represent them and their interests.
The banks are on the hook for any fraud, Apple just takes their percentage and hands off issues to the banks and merchants. In addition banks/merchants loose customer data that they use/sell, so this was less of a good deal for the banks. So Apple Pay as TD have proved, will come, but on their terms.
As others have stated, it's a minor banking improvement for Canadians, it was a huge security leap for Americans.
And the NFC stickers in Canada, they're getting phased out because of lack of adoption/security risk.
I not only didn't obfuscate that point, but clearly addressed it in a previous comment to you, but, again, Apple Pay can NOT work without the banks supporting it, regardless of the duration or saturation level of NFC-capable terminals in your country. That argument is pointless to getting Apple Pay off the ground. Why? Because it matters nothing to a bank that you have 70% or 90% of retailers with NFC-capable terminals.
If you people really want a shitty system that uses NFC then you should have been using Google Wallet this whole time. You get NFC-based payments and the banks don't have to be involved. However, if you want a secure system that keeps your personal data with the bank then be patient. This is a complex system requiring many moving parts in which Apple has no control to work together. It takes time!
Those are two different discussions and you are the only one still making the banks-not-on-board one. We know that. We agree with it.
I agree it means nothing to the banks, or, well, it would if ApplePay were a huge success, which its not. It means a lot to the customers. Sorry if I wasn't clear but the fact the banks aren't supporting is frustrating to us customers because if they did we could use it everywhere right away, so it would be a huge difference, compared with areas of the states, which had it already even though almost no one (it seemed) accepted it. You can certainly see the irony (especially considering they jumped on board forward thinking security features as compared to other parts of the world).
I agree it takes time. But its because Canadian bank monopolies are either stupid or playing hardball (or both, or worse) that we don't have it; there is no real fundamental reason this shouldn't have been available day 1 if it was possible in the US (which, i think, has way more banks, people, state laws, etc.)
If you "got it," you wouldn't keep getting to restate how the lack of banks is the issue. It does NOTHING for customers if there are no banks supporting it, which is why so many people are bellyaching about the lack of Apple Pay despite the support by retailers in their respective countries.
Furthermore, you're mentioning Canadian bank monopolies—which I know nothing about—but I have to assume that any additional hurdles to Apple Pay in Canada would be known by Apple, which makes it even more of a head scratcher that anyone in the know would be dumbfounded by Apple Pay's lack of growth in Canada in just one year after its announcement. In the same sentence you mention monopolies, being stupid and playing hardball, and then state there is no reason it shouldn't be available today.You literally had just stated the reasons!
That's actually entirely irrelevant to my point. The recently formed cartel has nothing to do with the history of interac.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canadas-banks-form-consortium-to-deal-with-apple-pay-reports/article24004338/
The banks formed a cartel specifically to negotiate Apple's entry into the Canadian payment scene.
Apple can't negotiate with the banks individually to get the best terms or quickest access. This is intentional. By monopolizing access to the Canadian payments system through this cartel, they ensure that no one, Apple or otherwise, is allowed to come here nor to negotiate terms with separate businesses separately. Stronger united than apart. The benefit of a cartel.
So, when TD or any of them signs a deal with Apple, they all will, since it's one deal negotiated with all of them together. And until they all get the deal that benefits them all, none of them will sign. Not because of interac, but because that's the reason they created the cartel.
How is it irrevelant? Their gateway to payment is INTERAC, so you think there was not ALREADY an agreement within that organistion which they founded, develloped (put their money out to build) and lets face it, control before even talking to Apple.
It is absurd to think there is no link.
============
The god damn head office of INTERAC is right next to RBC and founded by 4 of the 6 on this list in 1983.
- On Interact's 14 member board there is
Essentially permanent members (notice who is on this list...)
- Nearly all deposits in Canada
- BMO
- National Bank
- Laurentian
- Desjardins
- RBC
- Scotia
- TD Canada
- CIBC
Changes once in a while
+ 2 smaller credit unions : Central 1, Credit union Central of Canada
*** Don't have deposits, gateway to them
+ 1 payment processing service for merchants : Global payments
+ 1 payment processing service online : Paymentech
+ 1 involved in the payment infrastructure business: Directcash payments (ATM and terminals)
+ 1 large Canadian company : Suncor
==========
INTERAC is the access their controlling, not some new payment network their somehow creating.
They have the deposits and they control the board of INTERAC, simple as that.
How is it irrevelant? Their gateway to payment is INTERAC, so you think there was not ALREADY an agreement within that organistion which they founded, develloped (put their money out to build) and lets face it, control before even talking to Apple.
It is absurd to think there is no link.
============
The god damn head office of INTERAC is right next to RBC and founded by 4 of the 6 on this list in 1983.
- On Interact's 14 member board there is
Essentially permanent members (notice who is on this list...)
- Nearly all deposits in Canada
- BMO
- National Bank
- Laurentian
- Desjardins
- RBC
- Scotia
- TD Canada
- CIBC
Changes once in a while
+ 2 smaller credit unions : Central 1, Credit union Central of Canada
*** Don't have deposits, gateway to them
+ 1 payment processing service for merchants : Global payments
+ 1 payment processing service online : Paymentech
+ 1 involved in the payment infrastructure business: Directcash payments (ATM and terminals)
+ 1 large Canadian company : Suncor
==========
INTERAC is the access their controlling, not some new payment network their somehow creating.
They have the deposits and they control the board of INTERAC, simple as that.
All of that is true. Interact exists in order for the banks to have a common, standard network for moving and accessing funds. Great. And if Apple Pay were to come here, it would work with that networks. Great.
None of which has anything to do with each bank signing an agreement with Apple to support their credit card being added to Apple Pay. That doesn't require Interact per se, that requires each bank to sign an agreement, which happens only after negotiation.
When Apple moved into the US, they held discussions with each bank. They were able to get the terms they wanted from those banks that were eager to sign on. Those banks that balked at Apple's terms did not sign on immediately, but once they saw the popularity and heard the customer demand, more and more eventually conceded and accepted Apple's terms. That can't happen in Canada. Apple's can't divide and conquer here because of the cartel they formed for negotiations.
Could the banks have used their control of Interac to influence negotiations? Yes, probably (barring any anti-trust provisions they agreed to when they created it). But in this case, they needed to something more directly involved in the negotiations, and that would be the negotiators themselves. They negotiate as a single entity so there is no threat of Apple enticing some in order to win the others separately.
So, yes, Interact is an interesting variable and will be a part of the Apple Pay mechanism, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of which banks will sign on and when. That is controlled by the cartel which was created for that very reason even though Interact already existed. That's why it exists.
All of that is true. Interact exists in order for the banks to have a common, standard network for moving and accessing funds. Great. And if Apple Pay were to come here, it would work with that networks. Great.
None of which has anything to do with each bank signing an agreement with Apple to support their credit card being added to Apple Pay. That doesn't require Interact per se, that requires each bank to sign an agreement, which happens only after negotiation.
When Apple moved into the US, they held discussions with each bank. They were able to get the terms they wanted from those banks that were eager to sign on. Those banks that balked at Apple's terms did not sign on immediately, but once they saw the popularity and heard the customer demand, more and more eventually conceded and accepted Apple's terms. That can't happen in Canada. Apple's can't divide and conquer here because of the cartel they formed for negotiations.
Could the banks have used their control of Interac to influence negotiations? Yes, probably (barring any anti-trust provisions they agreed to when they created it). But in this case, they needed to something more directly involved in the negotiations, and that would be the negotiators themselves. They negotiate as a single entity so there is no threat of Apple enticing some in order to win the others separately.
So, yes, Interact is an interesting variable and will be a part of the Apple Pay mechanism, but it is irrelevant to the discussion of which banks will sign on and when. That is controlled by the cartel which was created for that very reason even though Interact already existed. That's why it exists.
Man, someone who has no basis in logic or fact for his argument saying something is irrelevant!
Unbelievable! You have some chutzpah buddy.
Build your argument on facts or dessist calling someone else's argument irrelevant; simple as that.
I'm ignoring your flapping gums from now on.
Still being asked for a PIN when I try to use Apple Pay with my debit card at my local Rite Aid. Not sure if it's the hardware or the employee training. Annoying either way. Haven't been able to get an answer from them.
You still have to sign also if using a Credit card at places. I think in time this will go away. Right not at places if you don't go over a limit of say $40, you don't have to enter a Pin at like McDonalds. Since Apple Pay is new, things are still set for the old way of doing things. I think that will change in time. Why use a Pin or sign when you're already being checked by a Finger Print. The banks have to get used to this.
You're wrong. Merchants are blocking it. They are afraid of making credit card use too easy, over cash and debit. They are also afraid that the cut given to Apple will be used as justification to raise credit fees. For a contactless card, there's absolutely no difference on the bank side, the bank processes it exactly the same as a magnetic or chip transaction.
Apple's cut is TINY!!! With all the fraud that's going on, costing banks billions, anything to cut that way down is a huge savings and what little they pay out to Apple, will more then make up for in the savings from far less fraud. Zero reason to raise fee's!!!
Facts are best used when they are relevant. The Earth is round. That's a fact too, but irrelevant to the discussion. duh.
I mentioned the fact that the banks formed a cartel for negotiating with Apple. You mentioned interact in order to try to dispute this fact, which is an interesting point, but not relevant to the fact that they still decided that they needed to form this cartel. I guess it is relevant as far as showing that Interac is not enough.
Interac, in and of itself, does not mean that every major bank will support Apple Pay. Each bank will support Apple pay for their cards, if and only if they agree to allow Apple to support their cards. That happens regardless of the existence of Interact. Interact existing is nice because the network will already exist. But BMO could sign on without RBC or CIBC, etc, with or without Interact. And that is exactly why they formed a new consortium to negotiate with Apple, to prevent any one bank signing on with Apple without agreement from their peers first.
Let's see if you understand yet...in light of interac, why is it, do you think, the banks felt the need to form new consortium/cartel to handle negotiations with Apple?
If you "got it," you wouldn't keep getting to restate how the lack of banks is the issue. It does NOTHING for customers if there are no banks supporting it, which is why so many people are bellyaching about the lack of Apple Pay despite the support by retailers in their respective countries.
Furthermore, you're mentioning Canadian bank monopolies—which I know nothing about—but I have to assume that any additional hurdles to Apple Pay in Canada would be known by Apple, which makes it even more of a head scratcher that anyone in the know would be dumbfounded by Apple Pay's lack of growth in Canada in just one year after its announcement. In the same sentence you mention monopolies, being stupid and playing hardball, and then state there is no reason it shouldn't be available today.You literally had just stated the reasons!
I'm not dumbfounded, i'm annoyed. Essentially you are arguing with yourself. I'll make it easy
I AGREE WITH YOU
it is still stupid. We can't kvetch because there is a stupid, but logical reason for something?
You still have to sign also if using a Credit card at places. I think in time this will go away. Right not at places if you don't go over a limit of say $40, you don't have to enter a Pin at like McDonalds. Since Apple Pay is new, things are still set for the old way of doing things. I think that will change in time. Why use a Pin or sign when you're already being checked by a Finger Print. The banks have to get used to this.
$25-50 actually depending on the card type and store.