That's the universal logo for all contactless payments regardless of the company.
Right, I don't think anyone was disputing that.
As far as the merchant is concerned, they're all essentially the same thing.
Up until now the same type of communication (i.e.: magnetic strip, NFC, manually inputting a card number) have resulted in the merchant's fees being the same, but the rumours are Apple was able to command a lower than card present fee for merchants for using ?Pay because of the inherently better end-to-end safety and security. Since this is not present in any other NFC-based system I don't see why other devices using NFC will be able to get anything other than the current card not present fees for using NFC, which could result in a mercahnts not wanting to allow those devices just as merchants don't want to take Discover or Amex because of various fees.
How they might go about excluding other devices is another issue. You can train someone to see if it's an iPhone but there is too much user error. Perhaps the unique NFC address has an Apple-only identifier (like a MAC address vendor range) that the merchant's device can identify. The point is, if there is a lot of money to be gained or lost by excluding certain payment options that will be addressed by most vendors as a rule of economics.
Not a different poster* on AI so much as people in pretty much every (if not every) article I've read about ?Pay on other sites, especially if they aren't specifically tech-based sites.Most notably the NYTimes.
* I disagreed with [@]NexusPhan[/@] in that thread but I seem to recall that we were using different definitions. I don't recall coming away thinking he was an unreasonable person like the countless posters in those NYT comments I linked to.
Thanks for the clarification. I should have let you reply first anyway.
BTW: I enjoyed the debate on the other thread between you and NexusPhan and learned a lot from both of your stances, and absolutely didn't mean anything against NexusPhan by replying here. In fact, even if he was a tough, he was more than civilized and I upped his rep for his post thanking you for the same.
1. Google stores your credit card numbers. Apple Pay does not. Thieves like the NSA can break into Google's cloud servers and take your credit card numbers. This is impossible with Apple Pay since Apple Pay stores no credit card numbers.
2. Google tries to eliminate credit card companies by creating its own credit card number to replace all of your credit card numbers. This is why Google Wallet is so unpopular with credit card companies. Apple Pay does not compete with the credit card companies at all, it works with them. This is why so many companies have decided to work with Apple. Apple reduces their risk of fraud. And Apple insures their businesses continue. And Apple increases the likelihood that their business grows. Even MasterCard itself paid for huge ads touting and encouraging the use of Apple Pay. That is how excited credit card companies are about Apple Pay.
3. Google stores information on ALL of your purchases on Google Wallet - so it can track your activities and sell the information to advertisers. Apple does not store information about your purchases. it doesn't sell information about you to advertisers.
While Apple Pay doesn't store credit card numbers in Apple's servers, the system is still only as secure as its weakest link. Why go after Apple or Google when you can hit the banks themselves, as some people did to JP Morgan recently?
While Apple Pay doesn't store credit card numbers in Apple's servers, the system is still only as secure as its weakest link. Why go after Apple or Google when you can hit the banks themselves, as some people did to JP Morgan recently?
That's true in some general concept but I don't understand how this relates to ?Pay since hitting the banks has always been an option. Note that hitting the bank is unlikely going to be targeted assault on a single user as is the case when someone steals your wallet.
I'd say the reasons for not going after a bank as opposed to some drunk, sick, naive, lost or whatever individual on the street is clear.
Right, I don't think anyone was disputing that.
Up until now the same type of communication (i.e.: magnetic strip, NFC, manually inputting a card number) have resulted in the merchant's fees being the same, but the rumours are Apple was able to command a lower than card present fee for merchants for using ?Pay because of the inherently better end-to-end safety and security. Since this is not present in any other NFC-based system I don't see why other devices using NFC will be able to get anything other than the current card not present fees for using NFC, which could result in a mercahnts not wanting to allow those devices just as merchants don't want to take Discover or Amex because of various fees.
How they might go about excluding other devices is another issue. You can train someone to see if it's an iPhone but there is too much user error. Perhaps the unique NFC address has an Apple-only identifier (like a MAC address vendor range) that the merchant's device can identify. The point is, if there is a lot of money to be gained or lost by excluding certain payment options that will be addressed by most vendors as a rule of economics.
Google Wallet is the same as any other transaction to the merchant (meaning it is the same cost to them as a credit or debit card).
People have been claiming that ApplePay will be cheaper due to Apple's negotiations with banks on the backend, however, is there any evidence that it will actually be cheaper for merchants? My guess is that Apple will charge the same fee as any other credit card fee and pocket the difference.?
My guess is that Apple will charge the same fee as any other credit card fee and pocket the difference.?
Apple is not the middleman for ?Pay. Any negotiated payment for saving the financial institutions billions per year in frauduleant charges would comes as a shared profit payout from the financial institutions based on however the contracts were drawn up.
Apple is not the middleman for ?Pay. Any negotiated payment for saving the financial institutions billions per year in frauduleant charges would comes as a shared profit payout from the financial institutions based on however the contracts were drawn up.
You're right about that. That slipped my mind. Don't get me wrong here as I'm extremely excited about Apple Pay. It's the single biggest feature I've been wanting from Apple for years as, my hope is, it's going to spur greater adoption of mobile payments as a whole.
To the point that retailers will opt for Apple Pay only because of the "lower rate". You're saying that out of all the 220,000 retailers that Apple says will be able to be used at and Google Wallet and others already work at, that they will just stop accepting them and only opt for Apple Pay? What about Visa Paywave and MasterCard Paypass? They use the same NFC as all others including Apple Pay and already work in those places now. Retailers will stop taking them as well? I just don't see retailers blocking out all others, which I don't think they can, and only going with Apple Pay. I mean, it's Visa and MasterCard that control all this as they are the ones that came up with the rules.
In addition, I thought NFC payments is not what apple made deals with merchants for... they made the deals for single click check out (sort of how certain merchants accept paypal) so you can open an app, pay and pickup or have your goods delivered...?
You're saying that out of all the 220,000 retailers that Apple says will be able to be used at and Google Wallet and others already work at, that they will just stop accepting them and only opt for Apple Pay?
Not at all. I'm not even suggesting that anyone will opt out of ?Pay, I'm saying that the possibility is there because the merchant can always choose. If, for example, ?Pay is better than card present fees and all other NFC payments charge card not-present fees because everyone else's NFC doesn't have the same fraud protection as ?Pay, then it's not impossible for a merchant to say no to a sale by that method if they think they can make a little more with present debit/credit card, which I assume people will still carry as a general rule. Again, I'm not saying this will happen but it very well could happen.
Not at all. I'm not even suggesting that anyone will opt out of ?Pay, I'm saying that the possibility is there because the merchant can always choose. If, for example, ?Pay is better than card present fees and all other NFC payments charge card not-present fees because everyone else's NFC doesn't have the same fraud protection as ?Pay, then it's not impossible for a merchant to say no to a sale by that method if they think they can make a little more with present debit/credit card, which I assume people will still carry as a general rule. Again, I'm not saying this will happen but it very well could happen.
Gotcha. Makes sense with what you're trying to say. The possibility is there yes but I don't believe it'll happen as there are too many other companies doing the same thing. It's one thing for a retailer to not accept Amex because they still take Visa/MC. It's a whole other thing to only accept just one way of NFC and non of the others.
Comments
Right, I don't think anyone was disputing that.
Up until now the same type of communication (i.e.: magnetic strip, NFC, manually inputting a card number) have resulted in the merchant's fees being the same, but the rumours are Apple was able to command a lower than card present fee for merchants for using ?Pay because of the inherently better end-to-end safety and security. Since this is not present in any other NFC-based system I don't see why other devices using NFC will be able to get anything other than the current card not present fees for using NFC, which could result in a mercahnts not wanting to allow those devices just as merchants don't want to take Discover or Amex because of various fees.
How they might go about excluding other devices is another issue. You can train someone to see if it's an iPhone but there is too much user error. Perhaps the unique NFC address has an Apple-only identifier (like a MAC address vendor range) that the merchant's device can identify. The point is, if there is a lot of money to be gained or lost by excluding certain payment options that will be addressed by most vendors as a rule of economics.
Thanks for the clarification. I should have let you reply first anyway.
BTW: I enjoyed the debate on the other thread between you and NexusPhan and learned a lot from both of your stances, and absolutely didn't mean anything against NexusPhan by replying here. In fact, even if he was a tough, he was more than civilized and I upped his rep for his post thanking you for the same.
NOT Google Wallet at all.
1. Google stores your credit card numbers. Apple Pay does not. Thieves like the NSA can break into Google's cloud servers and take your credit card numbers. This is impossible with Apple Pay since Apple Pay stores no credit card numbers.
2. Google tries to eliminate credit card companies by creating its own credit card number to replace all of your credit card numbers. This is why Google Wallet is so unpopular with credit card companies. Apple Pay does not compete with the credit card companies at all, it works with them. This is why so many companies have decided to work with Apple. Apple reduces their risk of fraud. And Apple insures their businesses continue. And Apple increases the likelihood that their business grows. Even MasterCard itself paid for huge ads touting and encouraging the use of Apple Pay. That is how excited credit card companies are about Apple Pay.
3. Google stores information on ALL of your purchases on Google Wallet - so it can track your activities and sell the information to advertisers. Apple does not store information about your purchases. it doesn't sell information about you to advertisers.
While Apple Pay doesn't store credit card numbers in Apple's servers, the system is still only as secure as its weakest link. Why go after Apple or Google when you can hit the banks themselves, as some people did to JP Morgan recently?That's true in some general concept but I don't understand how this relates to ?Pay since hitting the banks has always been an option. Note that hitting the bank is unlikely going to be targeted assault on a single user as is the case when someone steals your wallet.
I'd say the reasons for not going after a bank as opposed to some drunk, sick, naive, lost or whatever individual on the street is clear.
Google Wallet is the same as any other transaction to the merchant (meaning it is the same cost to them as a credit or debit card).
People have been claiming that ApplePay will be cheaper due to Apple's negotiations with banks on the backend, however, is there any evidence that it will actually be cheaper for merchants? My guess is that Apple will charge the same fee as any other credit card fee and pocket the difference.?
Apple is not the middleman for ?Pay. Any negotiated payment for saving the financial institutions billions per year in frauduleant charges would comes as a shared profit payout from the financial institutions based on however the contracts were drawn up.
Apple is not the middleman for ?Pay. Any negotiated payment for saving the financial institutions billions per year in frauduleant charges would comes as a shared profit payout from the financial institutions based on however the contracts were drawn up.
You're right about that. That slipped my mind. Don't get me wrong here as I'm extremely excited about Apple Pay. It's the single biggest feature I've been wanting from Apple for years as, my hope is, it's going to spur greater adoption of mobile payments as a whole.
To the point that retailers will opt for Apple Pay only because of the "lower rate". You're saying that out of all the 220,000 retailers that Apple says will be able to be used at and Google Wallet and others already work at, that they will just stop accepting them and only opt for Apple Pay? What about Visa Paywave and MasterCard Paypass? They use the same NFC as all others including Apple Pay and already work in those places now. Retailers will stop taking them as well? I just don't see retailers blocking out all others, which I don't think they can, and only going with Apple Pay. I mean, it's Visa and MasterCard that control all this as they are the ones that came up with the rules.
In addition, I thought NFC payments is not what apple made deals with merchants for... they made the deals for single click check out (sort of how certain merchants accept paypal) so you can open an app, pay and pickup or have your goods delivered...?
Not at all. I'm not even suggesting that anyone will opt out of ?Pay, I'm saying that the possibility is there because the merchant can always choose. If, for example, ?Pay is better than card present fees and all other NFC payments charge card not-present fees because everyone else's NFC doesn't have the same fraud protection as ?Pay, then it's not impossible for a merchant to say no to a sale by that method if they think they can make a little more with present debit/credit card, which I assume people will still carry as a general rule. Again, I'm not saying this will happen but it very well could happen.
Gotcha. Makes sense with what you're trying to say. The possibility is there yes but I don't believe it'll happen as there are too many other companies doing the same thing. It's one thing for a retailer to not accept Amex because they still take Visa/MC. It's a whole other thing to only accept just one way of NFC and non of the others.
Ha ha! This is now how I picture you... although you need to go BIGGER....
[VIDEO]