It's interesting what Apple will do as they certainly seem to be interested in getting into payments, with the goal of having transactions through their network be counted eventually as card present vs. card not present. So Apple has a pretty big uphill challenge to convince card issuers around the world that whatever they release (say touchID + your card on file with Apple) is strong enough to be considered card present to merchants.
Square may help with eventually with the long tail of merchant acceptance of any new payment model, but doesn't help with the initial challenge of convincing card issuers to accept liability.
This acquisition doesn't seem to make much sense right now outside of "our products both come in white and kind of look similar".
On a slightly different note, I'd love to see Apple bypass the cc companies altogether and mainstreaming an alternative such as Dwolla. I can't see them doing it but it would be truly disruptive and upend the CC industry.
Serious question - how does this help consumers? Dwolla is nothing more than a service that directly access your bank account and transfers funds. It doesn't extend credit AFAIK nor does it give the same protection as credit cards. For merchants, debit card processing (which isn't that different) is already cheap.
How does not having credit (for responsible users) + strong liability protection help you as a consumer?
Cook could give him a role like Bob Mansfield working on special projects. Apple has a pretty lean executive team. How much time do they have to think about big picture stuff? When Cook fired Forstall he didn't replace him, he just added more work to the existing executive team. I'm sure right now Ive and Federighi are knee deep in iOS 8, OSX (9to5Mac says one of Ive's top priorities right now is a redesign of OSX) and new hardware. Cue has all of iTunes, App Store, maps, Siri, Apple TV and Apple's professional apps. How much time does he really have to think about a future mobile payments system? And honestly I don't see Cook as the big picture guy, I still see him as the one making sure the trains run on time and everyone is moving in the same direction. I think Cook could find a role for Dorsey (if he wanted it).
I'm not sure I like the sound of this. OS X is already a solid Unix system with a polished GUI. What needs to change?
I do not follow the payment processing industry, so my question he is how does Square make its money, do they just make the hardware and software to allow for a credit card transaction or do they also get a % of the transaction for processing it for the account holder. I believe Verifone today how have the majority of the POS systems which process you debt card and CC get a % of the transaction.
If Square makes money this way then it maybe worth $8B if not it another over prices deal for a software and hardware manufacture with limits market. Merchants usually buy once and use for a long time before upgrading. This is not a consumer product it is B2B not B2C which apple is in.
Ops, did not read the last line of the article, looks like Square does get a cut, This could be very profitable.
And the chances of that happening are??? We've heard exactly one rumor (from the WSJ) about Apple's mobile payments plans and it didn't sound like anything that would be happening soon.
... and, of course, the WSJ has been bang on concerning anything Apple.
This is one thing that frustrates me about Apple. There have been so many companies they could (should) have bought but didn't. Many of those companies have either ended up in a major competitors hands, or are providing services for them that rival Apple's own, that came first.
The idea that Apple would buy a company to keep it out of a competitors hands would be old line business. Businesses have been doing that for two centuries. When I mention the list of companies, I almost want to cry!
This is another. All of their terminals use iPads. I don't even know how many tens, or hundreds of thousands use iPhones. If Google buys them, what will happen to that? Will they all move to Android?
People who are concerned by the cost of these companies forget that even $8 billion is just one quarter's cash flow for Apple, even less. It's hardly a hardship.
Serious question - how does this help consumers? Dwolla is nothing more than a service that directly access your bank account and transfers funds. It doesn't extend credit AFAIK nor does it give the same protection as credit cards. For merchants, debit card processing (which isn't that different) is already cheap.
How does not having credit (for responsible users) + strong liability protection help you as a consumer?
For merchants debit card processing is cheap but not so for cc processing. Afaik online merchants tend not to take debit cards. In the end any cost incurred in the transaction chain will be paid for by the consumer. You are right about a service like Dwolla not extending credit and that is a worthwhile service I guess, though millions would probably disagree. The rate that Visa charges is about 19%. I am no fan of credit card companies and prefer to use my debit cards whenever possible.
... and, of course, the WSJ has been bang on concerning anything Apple.
When's the last time Apple announced something big where there were no rumors about it beforehand? I'd love it if Apple would throw a bomb at WWDC and announce something big that no one was expecting. But I don't see it happening.
What would really make me dance is to see Google buy Square for >$8 billion and then have Apple unveil a killer system of its own.
Not for me. Square is a very successful company. It exclusively uses iPads for cash registers. This is opening up a lot of areas for Apple. For Apple to have to do it all from scratch is mind boggling! And there's no need. Why give Google another advantage? This is almost petty cash for Apple. They shouldn't miss another opportunity.
I don't think it would matter all that much. He'd be unlikely to stay there for any appreciable time anyway. Do any of the founders of companies snatched up by Apple still work for them? Maybe there's a couple but IMO entrepreneurs don't often make a good fit with large established companies and their hierarchy.
Many stay for years. That's all Apple needs. They aren't needed forever. And once a company is established, with technology that works, it isn't the founder that's needed anyway, because Apple has a different direction for that company than the founder did as an independant factor. Sometimes, keeping the founder is a hinderance.
I can't see Square being a worthwhile investment unless they have some IP that Apple can't find an alternative for and Square wouldn't licence. Considering there are other companies doing the same thing and Square aren't suing, I'm guessing the IP is elsewhere and Square just licence it themselves.
All Apple need to do is package their version of PayPal Here, make it work nicely and they'll be away. If they could do a tie in with PayPal so you could iMoney to a PayPal account and vice versa, they'd have it all sewn up.
Not for me. Square is a very successful company. It exclusively uses iPads for cash registers. This is opening up a lot of areas for Apple. For Apple to have to do it all from scratch is mind boggling! And there's no need. Why give Google another advantage? This is almost petty cash for Apple. They shouldn't miss another opportunity.
Square is too American. Just like Coin. The tool only accepts CC swipes. Rest of the world already uses chips to authenticate credit card transactions. Apple is not going to buy a technology that is only working in one country, and even there will soon become obsolete.
Can't see any value Square would bring to Apple. Let Google buy them.
Nope! This would transfer all of the good will Apple has received from companies and individuals using Square with Apple products to Google. Bad idea. If Google moved everything g to Android, no matter what people here think of Android, all of those companies and individuals would eventually have to move from Apple products to Google related products, which is likely one major reason why Google might buy this. It would be a seismic shift. Right now, Apple is the one moving into the payments area through Square, but that will end. And when will Apple,s own solution be ready? Who knows?
This is one thing that frustrates me about Apple. There have been so many companies they could (should) have bought but didn't. Many of those companies have either ended up in a major competitors hands, or are providing services for them that rival Apple's own, that came first.
The idea that Apple would buy a company to keep it out of a competitors hands would be old line business. Businesses have been doing that for two centuries. When I mention the list of companies, I almost want to cry!
This is another. All of their terminals use iPads. I don't even know how many tens, or hundreds of thousands use iPhones. If Google buys them, what will happen to that? Will they all move to Android?
People who are concerned by the cost of these companies forget that even $8 billion is just one quarter's cash flow for Apple, even less. It's hardly a hardship.
yeah I don't get why people are so eager to see Google buy everything up. I figured Apple would never acquire Nest because they don't need the hardware expertise and probably weren't interested in having Tony Fadell back. But if Apple was looking at Square there's obviously something they felt was valuable. And in the current climate you're not going to get a company for cheap. So you either pay up or someone else will.
Square is too American. Just like Coin. The tool only accepts CC swipes. Rest of the world already uses chips to authenticate credit card transactions. Apple is not going to buy a technology that is only working in one country, and even there will soon become obsolete.
So that's why Apple is rushing to make iTunes Radio available across the globe.
I don't think so. I see Square everywhere I go. I don't see another payment system anywhere. Every vendor I talk to about it is happy with it. Having it fall into Google's hands rather than Apple's hands would be a major shift. So yes, the implications are mind boggling.
Square is too American. Just like Coin. The tool only accepts CC swipes. Rest of the world already uses chips to authenticate credit card transactions. Apple is not going to buy a technology that is only working in one country, and even there will soon become obsolete.
I doubt that. Even the EU says their system hasn't been very effective. And then, if they have to, you don't think Square could upgrade their hardware and software? Of course they could. I wouldn't be surprised if they've been investigating it for some time.
Comments
It's interesting what Apple will do as they certainly seem to be interested in getting into payments, with the goal of having transactions through their network be counted eventually as card present vs. card not present. So Apple has a pretty big uphill challenge to convince card issuers around the world that whatever they release (say touchID + your card on file with Apple) is strong enough to be considered card present to merchants.
Square may help with eventually with the long tail of merchant acceptance of any new payment model, but doesn't help with the initial challenge of convincing card issuers to accept liability.
This acquisition doesn't seem to make much sense right now outside of "our products both come in white and kind of look similar".
Exactly.
On a slightly different note, I'd love to see Apple bypass the cc companies altogether and mainstreaming an alternative such as Dwolla. I can't see them doing it but it would be truly disruptive and upend the CC industry.
Serious question - how does this help consumers? Dwolla is nothing more than a service that directly access your bank account and transfers funds. It doesn't extend credit AFAIK nor does it give the same protection as credit cards. For merchants, debit card processing (which isn't that different) is already cheap.
How does not having credit (for responsible users) + strong liability protection help you as a consumer?
Cook could give him a role like Bob Mansfield working on special projects. Apple has a pretty lean executive team. How much time do they have to think about big picture stuff? When Cook fired Forstall he didn't replace him, he just added more work to the existing executive team. I'm sure right now Ive and Federighi are knee deep in iOS 8, OSX (9to5Mac says one of Ive's top priorities right now is a redesign of OSX) and new hardware. Cue has all of iTunes, App Store, maps, Siri, Apple TV and Apple's professional apps. How much time does he really have to think about a future mobile payments system? And honestly I don't see Cook as the big picture guy, I still see him as the one making sure the trains run on time and everyone is moving in the same direction. I think Cook could find a role for Dorsey (if he wanted it).
I'm not sure I like the sound of this. OS X is already a solid Unix system with a polished GUI. What needs to change?
I do not follow the payment processing industry, so my question he is how does Square make its money, do they just make the hardware and software to allow for a credit card transaction or do they also get a % of the transaction for processing it for the account holder. I believe Verifone today how have the majority of the POS systems which process you debt card and CC get a % of the transaction.
If Square makes money this way then it maybe worth $8B if not it another over prices deal for a software and hardware manufacture with limits market. Merchants usually buy once and use for a long time before upgrading. This is not a consumer product it is B2B not B2C which apple is in.
Ops, did not read the last line of the article, looks like Square does get a cut, This could be very profitable.
And the chances of that happening are??? We've heard exactly one rumor (from the WSJ) about Apple's mobile payments plans and it didn't sound like anything that would be happening soon.
... and, of course, the WSJ has been bang on concerning anything Apple.
This is one thing that frustrates me about Apple. There have been so many companies they could (should) have bought but didn't. Many of those companies have either ended up in a major competitors hands, or are providing services for them that rival Apple's own, that came first.
The idea that Apple would buy a company to keep it out of a competitors hands would be old line business. Businesses have been doing that for two centuries. When I mention the list of companies, I almost want to cry!
This is another. All of their terminals use iPads. I don't even know how many tens, or hundreds of thousands use iPhones. If Google buys them, what will happen to that? Will they all move to Android?
People who are concerned by the cost of these companies forget that even $8 billion is just one quarter's cash flow for Apple, even less. It's hardly a hardship.
Serious question - how does this help consumers? Dwolla is nothing more than a service that directly access your bank account and transfers funds. It doesn't extend credit AFAIK nor does it give the same protection as credit cards. For merchants, debit card processing (which isn't that different) is already cheap.
How does not having credit (for responsible users) + strong liability protection help you as a consumer?
For merchants debit card processing is cheap but not so for cc processing. Afaik online merchants tend not to take debit cards. In the end any cost incurred in the transaction chain will be paid for by the consumer. You are right about a service like Dwolla not extending credit and that is a worthwhile service I guess, though millions would probably disagree. The rate that Visa charges is about 19%. I am no fan of credit card companies and prefer to use my debit cards whenever possible.
Not for me. Square is a very successful company. It exclusively uses iPads for cash registers. This is opening up a lot of areas for Apple. For Apple to have to do it all from scratch is mind boggling! And there's no need. Why give Google another advantage? This is almost petty cash for Apple. They shouldn't miss another opportunity.
Many stay for years. That's all Apple needs. They aren't needed forever. And once a company is established, with technology that works, it isn't the founder that's needed anyway, because Apple has a different direction for that company than the founder did as an independant factor. Sometimes, keeping the founder is a hinderance.
I can't see Square being a worthwhile investment unless they have some IP that Apple can't find an alternative for and Square wouldn't licence. Considering there are other companies doing the same thing and Square aren't suing, I'm guessing the IP is elsewhere and Square just licence it themselves.
All Apple need to do is package their version of PayPal Here, make it work nicely and they'll be away. If they could do a tie in with PayPal so you could iMoney to a PayPal account and vice versa, they'd have it all sewn up.
Not for me. Square is a very successful company. It exclusively uses iPads for cash registers. This is opening up a lot of areas for Apple. For Apple to have to do it all from scratch is mind boggling! And there's no need. Why give Google another advantage? This is almost petty cash for Apple. They shouldn't miss another opportunity.
Mind boggling?
That's a bit of hyperbole.
Square is too American. Just like Coin. The tool only accepts CC swipes. Rest of the world already uses chips to authenticate credit card transactions. Apple is not going to buy a technology that is only working in one country, and even there will soon become obsolete.
Nope! This would transfer all of the good will Apple has received from companies and individuals using Square with Apple products to Google. Bad idea. If Google moved everything g to Android, no matter what people here think of Android, all of those companies and individuals would eventually have to move from Apple products to Google related products, which is likely one major reason why Google might buy this. It would be a seismic shift. Right now, Apple is the one moving into the payments area through Square, but that will end. And when will Apple,s own solution be ready? Who knows?
But Square's is simple, easy and elegant.
I don't think so. I see Square everywhere I go. I don't see another payment system anywhere. Every vendor I talk to about it is happy with it. Having it fall into Google's hands rather than Apple's hands would be a major shift. So yes, the implications are mind boggling.
I doubt that. Even the EU says their system hasn't been very effective. And then, if they have to, you don't think Square could upgrade their hardware and software? Of course they could. I wouldn't be surprised if they've been investigating it for some time.