100% of the two Android phones in my family are. 0% of the three Apples are…
There should be an emoji after that strawman.
~4 million Nexus 5s, ~3 millions Nexus 4s, however many gobs of Samsung Galaxies that have received updates since the S3…
With what Apple sells in their Christmas (fuçk every other religions event except for the Christian ones¡) Holiday quarter that seems like a very, very, very low number.
Just in the last week, I've traded contact info with three people via NFC. One dad from my kids' school, and two colleagues from another company.
And doesn't trading contact info mean you all had to also have KitKat installed, too?
I see you've waded into the Christmas quagmire again. I take it you're attempting to take this thread to 1,000 posts. ????
How if only Apple could invoke the same fight between ISPs. If there was competition they would have to improve service, reduce rates etc
Think of them as licensed monopolies. Municipalities often lease exclusive or semi-exclusive rights to a given company in exchange for deployment and maintenance of infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
In all honesty, I don't think that Apple wants to be in that business (heavy regulated) and compete with the banks ... yet.
Blah that is something that angers me. The amount of regulation leads to consolidation more than anything.
Is this you finally admitting ?Pay uses a representational CC number? Maybe there is hope for you after all.
I haven't denied any claims on how Apple Pay is going to work when it's released. It just doesn't matter. Someone steals my Android and uses it to make maybe one purchase before I send a text message from a borrowed phone, and Tasker wipes everything. I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company.
I haven't denied any claims on how Apple Pay is going to work when it's released. It just doesn't matter. Someone steals my Android and uses it to make maybe one purchase before I send a text message from a borrowed phone, and Tasker wipes everything. I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company.
Yes you did when you said ?Pay is no different than Google Wallet.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/150681/SolipsismX" style="display:inline-block;">@SolipsismX</a>
, he can pay for stuff with his phone now. That's not in dispute.
The added momentum from Apple Pay will drive even greater availability of terminals. Those terminals will work with his system, too.
That's all he's said (near as I can tell) and it's true. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
It's simple, his selfish mentality is "I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company [if my Android phone is stolen]," without any consideration as to who would be responsible, why they would want a more secure system to save billions per year in fraud, how Apple could offer them a more secure system, and how that added security would help lead to lower merchant rates thus sparking higher adoption among retailers, and potentially lowing costs for consumers to get their business in a market with a much lower rate of fraud.
It's simple, his selfish mentality is "I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company [if my Android phone is stolen]," without any consideration as to who would be responsible, why they would want a more secure system to save billions per year in fraud, how Apple could offer them a more secure system, and how that added security would help lead to lower merchant rates thus sparking higher adoption among retailers, and potentially lowing costs for consumers to get their business in a market with a much lower rate of fraud.
Just playing Devil's Advocate for a bit here, and substituting "me" for "him:"
How is it MY responsibility to manage risk for the banks? They've chosen to support the system I use. Nobody forced them. It isn't any worse than the credit card in my wallet. Why should I be held accountable for the level of risk the bank is willing to accept?
Your fee structure is YOUR problem, not mine. I think it's naive to believe that even EVERY Google Wallet user switching to Apple Pay will result in any reduction of end-user fees whatsoever. That means my choice of platform has zero impact on your life.
If you you think that your choice to use Apple Pay will help drive greater availability of suitable terminals, by all means, go ahead. I applaud your social-mindedness. Just don't tell me that my choice to simply continue using what already works for me makes a lick of difference to you, me, or anyone else.
In short, I don't buy your argument that it's my civic duty or corporate responsibility to use Apple Pay instead of Google Wallet!
In real life, I'll use Apple Pay just because I won't have to do anything -- it'll just slip invisibly into my existing way of doing things -- but I can't imagine why I should care if someone else chooses a different method of paying for their daily latté.
It's simple, his selfish mentality is "I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company [if my Android phone is stolen]," without any consideration as to who would be responsible, why they would want a more secure system to save billions per year in fraud, how Apple could offer them a more secure system, and how that added security would help lead to lower merchant rates thus sparking higher adoption among retailers, and potentially lowing costs for consumers to get their business in a market with a much lower rate of fraud.
My selfish mentality? Do I have to lay out how we're all in this together and how much our first-world upper-middle class lifestyle if fubaring the rest of the planet? Especially in the area of electronics waste, particularly manufactured in China.
Sure, zero in on one issue, where if lightning strikes, Discover has to cover a $350 bill for a Yeti cooler at Academy b/c someone stole my phone, when I write them a $7K - $10K check every month. Poor Discover. Won't anyone think of the poor banks? They can figure out their own security, and they've been 100% fine with NFC to this point (evidenced by happily accepting payments). I'm funding it.
My selfish mentality? Do I have to lay out how we're all in this together and how much our first-world upper-middle class lifestyle if fubaring the rest of the planet? Especially in the area of electronics waste, particularly manufactured in China.
Sure, zero in on one issue, where if lightning strikes, Discover has to cover a $350 bill for a Yeti cooler at Academy b/c someone stole my phone, when I write them a $7K - $10K check every month. Poor Discover. Won't anyone think of the poor banks? They can figure out their own security, and they've been 100% fine with NFC to this point (evidenced by happily accepting payments). I'm funding it.
How long do you think CC companies will keep allowing Google Wallet to operate as existing when there is an alternative that is safer (read: cheaper) for them to operate. You may not care now, because you are protected, but what happens when companies start to not allow an inferior security model to continue?
As long as the security measures are not on par, you will see companies dissuading people from using the less secure, when a more secure is perfectly available. How will they dissuade you? That's not for me to say, but you can use your imagination, and they will be quite successful. Wallet better get more secure, or they face the wrath of these large banks.
How long do you think CC companies will keep allowing Google Wallet to operate as existing when there is an alternative that is safer (read: cheaper) for them to operate. You may not care now, because you are protected, but what happens when companies start to not allow an inferior security model to continue?
As long as the security measures are not on par, you will see companies dissuading people from using the less secure, when a more secure is perfectly available. How will they dissuade you? That's not for me to say, but you can use your imagination, and they will be quite successful. Wallet better get more secure, or they face the wrath of these large banks.
Care to illustrate how much Wallet's horrible security has cost the banks from fraud so far?
Aside from that, I'm not as tied to any one technology or company as most in this forum. If something breaks, I will move to something that isn't broken. I really don't care who makes it. I'm not trying to pass Wallet off as the ultimate solution. If it stops working, I'll use something else. Big whoop. It's not an arranged marriage or a hostage situation.
In short, I don't buy your argument that it's my civic duty or corporate responsibility to use Apple Pay instead of Google Wallet!
I have no idea what this means or you could have gotten that from my comments. This is about money, plain and simple.
Step 1: Apple devises a way to saves billions annually in fraudulent digital purchases.
Step 2: Apple convinces multinationals that their system is safe, probably also taking a fair amount of the risk in case their is a breach.
Step 3a: Numbers are crunched and multinationals find that can lower their merchant fees because of the massive costs reduced from less fraud which.
Step 3b: Apple takes their small cut which now behooves them to keep pushing the security because it's 1) a revenue stream, and 2) they are likely on the line for fraud via Apple's ?Pay system*.
Step 4: Additional savings likely pushed to merchants thereby spurring the desire for more retailers to adopt this system as it will save them money on merchant fees.
Conclusion: Merchants make money by saving money, Multinationals and banks make money by saving money, and Apple makes money.
Step 5 (Longterm Potential): These massively lowered fraud rates are so significant that the incentives to use a secure system like ?Pay (and whatever certified copy-cat system Google, Samsung or whomever comes up it) get given more prominence because, everyone wins except the thieves, that they can now compete to get more customers by lowering price points.
* Unlike what [@]waterrockets[/@] wants to believe since has stated he only cares about Google Wallet since that's what he uses, ignoring all advances to the ?Pay System that is so much more than simply sticking an NFC chip stuck into an iPhone.
Unlike what @waterrockets wants to believe since has stated he only cares about Google Wallet since that's what he uses, ignoring all advances to the ?Pay System that is so much more than simply sticking an NFC chip stuck into an iPhone.
I'm not ignoring any advances. They just don't affect me.
In short, I don't buy your argument that it's my civic duty or corporate responsibility to use Apple Pay instead of Google Wallet!
I have no idea what this means or you could have gotten that from my comments. This is about money, plain and simple.
Step 1: Apple devises a way to saves billions annually in fraudulent digital purchases.
Step 2: Apple convinces multinationals that their system is safe, probably also taking a fair amount of the risk in case their is a breach.
Step 3a: Numbers are crunched and multinationals find that can lower their merchant fees because of the massive costs reduced from less fraud which.
Step 3b: Apple takes their small cut which now behooves them to keep pushing the security because it's 1) a revenue stream, and 2) they are likely on the line for fraud via Apple's ?Pay system*.
Step 4: Additional savings likely pushed to merchants thereby spurring the desire for more retailers to adopt this system as it will save them money on merchant fees.
Conclusion: Merchants make money by saving money, Multinationals and banks make money by saving money, and Apple makes money.
Step 5 (Longterm Potential): These massively lowered fraud rates are so significant that the incentives to use a secure system like ?Pay (and whatever certified copy-cat system Google, Samsung or whomever comes up it) get given more prominence because, everyone wins except the thieves, that they can now compete to get more customers by lowering price points.
* Unlike what @waterrockets wants to believe since has stated he only cares about Google Wallet since that's what he uses, ignoring all advances to the ?Pay System that is so much more than simply sticking an NFC chip stuck into an iPhone.
I understand all that. What my theoretical contrarian character was asking is why any of that matters to HIM? The benefits are all to the people he's paying. There's no pay-off for him. To him, the experience is the same whether he uses Google or Apple to pay. He (and I) refuse to believe that the any money saved by banks and retailers will find its way into our pockets. No cost cutting measure has ever had that effect before, and we have no reason to believe it will now.
The single biggest cost cutting measure in the history of banking was the introduction of the ATM. Did account fees and interest rates go down? Heck no, they added a NEW FEE for using the machines!
The bottom line is that for the user who is already using an existing NFC payment system, there's no incentive to switch to Apple Pay.
Comments
I see you've waded into the Christmas quagmire again. I take it you're attempting to take this thread to 1,000 posts. ????
But there are reports of retailers setting up NFC this week to support ?Pay. :???:
How if only Apple could invoke the same fight between ISPs. If there was competition they would have to improve service, reduce rates etc
Think of them as licensed monopolies. Municipalities often lease exclusive or semi-exclusive rights to a given company in exchange for deployment and maintenance of infrastructure.
In all honesty, I don't think that Apple wants to be in that business (heavy regulated) and compete with the banks ... yet.
Blah that is something that angers me. The amount of regulation leads to consolidation more than anything.
Link?
In any case, I would expect that Apple, banks and merchants are working balls-out to get ready for the initial availability/deployment of ApplePay ...
Logistically, this is a very involved (testing and debugging) rollout ... Mid-October is doable, but quite ambitious, IMO!
Apple / iTunes -- maybe 10,000 (with iP6 devices) ApplePay users out of 500 million.
Banks -- maybe 3-5
Merchants, say 2,000 of 220,000 vendor locations equipped for EMV.
Do you know anyone who can maanage that deployment -- in 2 weeks ... I don't!
... Other than the Grand old Duke of York.
Is this you finally admitting ?Pay uses a representational CC number? Maybe there is hope for you after all.
I haven't denied any claims on how Apple Pay is going to work when it's released. It just doesn't matter. Someone steals my Android and uses it to make maybe one purchase before I send a text message from a borrowed phone, and Tasker wipes everything. I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company.
Yes you did when you said ?Pay is no different than Google Wallet.
The moral of the story is that (as I've said already), Google Wallet works fine with NFC and your favorite credit card.
Nope.
I don't understand the argument here.
@SolipsismX, he can pay for stuff with his phone now. That's not in dispute.
The added momentum from Apple Pay will drive even greater availability of terminals. Those terminals will work with his system, too.
That's all he's said (near as I can tell) and it's true. I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
It's simple, his selfish mentality is "I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company [if my Android phone is stolen]," without any consideration as to who would be responsible, why they would want a more secure system to save billions per year in fraud, how Apple could offer them a more secure system, and how that added security would help lead to lower merchant rates thus sparking higher adoption among retailers, and potentially lowing costs for consumers to get their business in a market with a much lower rate of fraud.
It's simple, his selfish mentality is "I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company [if my Android phone is stolen]," without any consideration as to who would be responsible, why they would want a more secure system to save billions per year in fraud, how Apple could offer them a more secure system, and how that added security would help lead to lower merchant rates thus sparking higher adoption among retailers, and potentially lowing costs for consumers to get their business in a market with a much lower rate of fraud.
Just playing Devil's Advocate for a bit here, and substituting "me" for "him:"
How is it MY responsibility to manage risk for the banks? They've chosen to support the system I use. Nobody forced them. It isn't any worse than the credit card in my wallet. Why should I be held accountable for the level of risk the bank is willing to accept?
Your fee structure is YOUR problem, not mine. I think it's naive to believe that even EVERY Google Wallet user switching to Apple Pay will result in any reduction of end-user fees whatsoever. That means my choice of platform has zero impact on your life.
If you you think that your choice to use Apple Pay will help drive greater availability of suitable terminals, by all means, go ahead. I applaud your social-mindedness. Just don't tell me that my choice to simply continue using what already works for me makes a lick of difference to you, me, or anyone else.
In short, I don't buy your argument that it's my civic duty or corporate responsibility to use Apple Pay instead of Google Wallet!
In real life, I'll use Apple Pay just because I won't have to do anything -- it'll just slip invisibly into my existing way of doing things -- but I can't imagine why I should care if someone else chooses a different method of paying for their daily latté.
Yes you did when you said ?Pay is no different than Google Wallet.
At the practical level, there is no difference. I pay by tapping my phone on the happy box. So will you.
In a few months.
It's simple, his selfish mentality is "I'm not even responsible for that one purchase through my CC company [if my Android phone is stolen]," without any consideration as to who would be responsible, why they would want a more secure system to save billions per year in fraud, how Apple could offer them a more secure system, and how that added security would help lead to lower merchant rates thus sparking higher adoption among retailers, and potentially lowing costs for consumers to get their business in a market with a much lower rate of fraud.
My selfish mentality? Do I have to lay out how we're all in this together and how much our first-world upper-middle class lifestyle if fubaring the rest of the planet? Especially in the area of electronics waste, particularly manufactured in China.
Sure, zero in on one issue, where if lightning strikes, Discover has to cover a $350 bill for a Yeti cooler at Academy b/c someone stole my phone, when I write them a $7K - $10K check every month. Poor Discover. Won't anyone think of the poor banks? They can figure out their own security, and they've been 100% fine with NFC to this point (evidenced by happily accepting payments). I'm funding it.
My selfish mentality? Do I have to lay out how we're all in this together and how much our first-world upper-middle class lifestyle if fubaring the rest of the planet? Especially in the area of electronics waste, particularly manufactured in China.
Sure, zero in on one issue, where if lightning strikes, Discover has to cover a $350 bill for a Yeti cooler at Academy b/c someone stole my phone, when I write them a $7K - $10K check every month. Poor Discover. Won't anyone think of the poor banks? They can figure out their own security, and they've been 100% fine with NFC to this point (evidenced by happily accepting payments). I'm funding it.
How long do you think CC companies will keep allowing Google Wallet to operate as existing when there is an alternative that is safer (read: cheaper) for them to operate. You may not care now, because you are protected, but what happens when companies start to not allow an inferior security model to continue?
As long as the security measures are not on par, you will see companies dissuading people from using the less secure, when a more secure is perfectly available. How will they dissuade you? That's not for me to say, but you can use your imagination, and they will be quite successful. Wallet better get more secure, or they face the wrath of these large banks.
How long do you think CC companies will keep allowing Google Wallet to operate as existing when there is an alternative that is safer (read: cheaper) for them to operate. You may not care now, because you are protected, but what happens when companies start to not allow an inferior security model to continue?
As long as the security measures are not on par, you will see companies dissuading people from using the less secure, when a more secure is perfectly available. How will they dissuade you? That's not for me to say, but you can use your imagination, and they will be quite successful. Wallet better get more secure, or they face the wrath of these large banks.
Care to illustrate how much Wallet's horrible security has cost the banks from fraud so far?
Aside from that, I'm not as tied to any one technology or company as most in this forum. If something breaks, I will move to something that isn't broken. I really don't care who makes it. I'm not trying to pass Wallet off as the ultimate solution. If it stops working, I'll use something else. Big whoop. It's not an arranged marriage or a hostage situation.
I have no idea what this means or you could have gotten that from my comments. This is about money, plain and simple.
Step 1: Apple devises a way to saves billions annually in fraudulent digital purchases.
Step 2: Apple convinces multinationals that their system is safe, probably also taking a fair amount of the risk in case their is a breach.
Step 3a: Numbers are crunched and multinationals find that can lower their merchant fees because of the massive costs reduced from less fraud which.
Step 3b: Apple takes their small cut which now behooves them to keep pushing the security because it's 1) a revenue stream, and 2) they are likely on the line for fraud via Apple's ?Pay system*.
Step 4: Additional savings likely pushed to merchants thereby spurring the desire for more retailers to adopt this system as it will save them money on merchant fees.
Conclusion: Merchants make money by saving money, Multinationals and banks make money by saving money, and Apple makes money.
Step 5 (Longterm Potential): These massively lowered fraud rates are so significant that the incentives to use a secure system like ?Pay (and whatever certified copy-cat system Google, Samsung or whomever comes up it) get given more prominence because, everyone wins except the thieves, that they can now compete to get more customers by lowering price points.
* Unlike what [@]waterrockets[/@] wants to believe since has stated he only cares about Google Wallet since that's what he uses, ignoring all advances to the ?Pay System that is so much more than simply sticking an NFC chip stuck into an iPhone.
Unlike what @waterrockets wants to believe since has stated he only cares about Google Wallet since that's what he uses, ignoring all advances to the ?Pay System that is so much more than simply sticking an NFC chip stuck into an iPhone.
I'm not ignoring any advances. They just don't affect me.
In short, I don't buy your argument that it's my civic duty or corporate responsibility to use Apple Pay instead of Google Wallet!
I have no idea what this means or you could have gotten that from my comments. This is about money, plain and simple.
Step 1: Apple devises a way to saves billions annually in fraudulent digital purchases.
Step 2: Apple convinces multinationals that their system is safe, probably also taking a fair amount of the risk in case their is a breach.
Step 3a: Numbers are crunched and multinationals find that can lower their merchant fees because of the massive costs reduced from less fraud which.
Step 3b: Apple takes their small cut which now behooves them to keep pushing the security because it's 1) a revenue stream, and 2) they are likely on the line for fraud via Apple's ?Pay system*.
Step 4: Additional savings likely pushed to merchants thereby spurring the desire for more retailers to adopt this system as it will save them money on merchant fees.
Conclusion: Merchants make money by saving money, Multinationals and banks make money by saving money, and Apple makes money.
Step 5 (Longterm Potential): These massively lowered fraud rates are so significant that the incentives to use a secure system like ?Pay (and whatever certified copy-cat system Google, Samsung or whomever comes up it) get given more prominence because, everyone wins except the thieves, that they can now compete to get more customers by lowering price points.
* Unlike what @waterrockets wants to believe since has stated he only cares about Google Wallet since that's what he uses, ignoring all advances to the ?Pay System that is so much more than simply sticking an NFC chip stuck into an iPhone.
I understand all that. What my theoretical contrarian character was asking is why any of that matters to HIM? The benefits are all to the people he's paying. There's no pay-off for him. To him, the experience is the same whether he uses Google or Apple to pay. He (and I) refuse to believe that the any money saved by banks and retailers will find its way into our pockets. No cost cutting measure has ever had that effect before, and we have no reason to believe it will now.
The single biggest cost cutting measure in the history of banking was the introduction of the ATM. Did account fees and interest rates go down? Heck no, they added a NEW FEE for using the machines!
The bottom line is that for the user who is already using an existing NFC payment system, there's no incentive to switch to Apple Pay.