Oh, wait, no, see, that’s not even remotely close to a valid response. Thanks for confirming my guess, though!
Yes of course you are right. You must always be right. Too painful to be wrong. You can choose to be as aware as much as you want to be of the effects of your existence. All and all I am just glad I am not you.
Add my name to the torrent of iPhone 6 users who will not use CurrentC and will not patronize these businesses any longer, until they wake-up and realize they are the poorer for their decision and change.
This seems to be a lot more about major retailers pushing back on credit card fees than trying to oppose Apple. ApplePay is just the last straw.
Then why not refuse to accept any cards with magnetic strips? If it's about fees and card-present fees are acceptable then ?Pay would be acceptable.
This is about not letting their service be marginalized to the point of irrelevance, despite see no other outcome than CurrentC not working in its current form, if and when it ever starts.
As you're a stickler for being accurate kent909 is correct, your body consumes the oxygen in the sense that it removes some of it from the air you inhale; your body isn't interested in the nitrogen and it's exhaled unchanged.
And your body will make use of that Cvs oxygen unless you hold your breath the entire time you're in the store.
Or wear a breathing apparatus. And that's not entirely correct, some nitrogen is absorbed by the bloodstream, it just isn't used.
Besides, I've never been in a CVS and don't plan to start any time soon.
Apple insider needs to do more research before they make an article that is being used to fan the fanboy fire. While I am sure these companies want to collect more information, that is not the complete story. There is also the little things of credit card fees that these merchants don't want to pay anymore. You see, Apple Pay still is a credit card transaction which means merchants will stay have to pay those banking fees on each transaction. On the other hand CurrentC is a direct withdrawal from the banking account so there are no banking fees. Maybe if Apple wanted to pay all the merchant fees then the merchant will push their standard. As it currently stands Apple would be the only beneficiary of Apple pay since it would more than likely become a Monopoly while the merchants would have to eat the fees. Once CurrentC roles out, and if it works, I predict more retailers jumping ship so that they can saving hundreds if not millions in credit card transaction fees that are paid to the banks.
EDIT: Example, Target and their Red card. That's attached to your bank account and they give 5% off of the purchase when used. They give that cash back as a incentive for using the card because each of those transactions on that card helps target avoid the bank fee.
Most merchants, specially large retailers, don't pay the credit card fee, their customers do. It's built into the cost of the goods they sell. Plus the cost of the CC fee is more than made up by the extra profit they get from selling goods to people that otherwise wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't use a CC or couldn't afford (at the time) if it weren't for the credit extended to them by a CC. And CC adds to consumers impulse buying. Merchants knows this.
I remember when Macy's once stopped accepting Visa and MasterCard (back in the 80's). They would only take their own Macy's Card and wanted you to sign up for one. This lasted a very short time as business dropped off significantly and they soon began accepting other CC's again. I also can't remember all the times I walked into a store, not really thinking of making any major purchase, and walked out with a big impulse purchase becasue it was on sale and I was able to use my CC. It's not that I couldn't afford it, but if it weren't for the CC, I would had had to take the time to transfer the money into my checking account before I can use a debit card (or write a check) as I didn't have the cash on hand. And by that time, I might have changed my mind about making the puchase.
So really, I don't think it's about the money they're losing paying the CC fee but the money they can make harvesting their customers data. Google has shown everyone that it's a very profitable business to get into.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
Sure, consumers, were they uniformly alert, informed, and discriminating would have a reason,
but quality and ease-of-use have never been a guarantee of success, and all those other entities are in a position,
in one way or another, to erect road-blocks, penalties, and disinformation galore...and, watching it slowly unfold,
I'm less sanguine about its widespread adoption than I was when I first heard about it.
...we'll see.
I beg to differ. If no one had anything to gain from Apply Pay, then why does it exist? Why would anyone participate in this new technology with the only hope to not piss of Apple and it's customers? The easiest way to not do that is to not participate.
Between issuers, merchants, and customers, each can gain from Apple Pay.
Issuers are gambling that after wide adoption, they will vastly reduce fraudulent charges. Apple comes in and says that for 0.15% of the transaction, they have a much more secure system. The issuers stands to gain millions of dollars a year in fraudulent charges. (Hopefully over time as Apply Pay becomes more common. That is the risk they're taking.) That's a huge incentive for issuers to participate and I think this is why it was easy for Apple to partner with all the major banks and credit cards. Apple makes money, and the issuer loses less money. If the issuer loses less than they pay Apple, it's a win-win.
Consumers stand to gain from convenience, security, and anonymity.
Merchants stand to gain from security. And they have to do little to participate other than implement NFC systems. (Though that is not cheap but is not specific to Apple Pay.) Breeched systems such as what happened to Target and Home Depot would be no longer be an issue. Merchants gain a lot from not having to pay for fraudulent charges.
However what the merchants lose is the ability to track purchases through credit cards. Obviously for probably most retailers int he MCX network this disadvantage far outweighs the advantage of security, thus the Rite Aid and CVS retaliation.
This seems to be a lot more about major retailers pushing back on credit card fees than trying to oppose Apple.
Maybe.
But allow me to put on, for a moment, my Devil's Advocate hat.
The cost to the merchant (i.e. the "fee") is the same for an Apple Pay transaction and a credit-card transaction in the store. If the retailers are really wanting to push back on the fee then why are they still accepting credit cards? Why don't they insist on cash or debit ?? </hat>
I tend to agree with you - eliminating the fee is a major goal. But they've done a terrible job of execution on that strategy.
243 comments and counting. What better evidence of the primary driver of human existance than a topic that is about our desire and pursuit of aquiring more and more stuff and how we seek to make it faster and easier. Buy buy buy, consume consume consume. A society of coneheads.
so you make your own clothes and grow your own food, and comduct your own medicine? right?? right.
After his investigation of the app, Aude told me “CurrentC borders on the creepy line” due to it pulling health info. He also that found that its Terms Of Service leaves high liability for fraud to the user if someone else is able to get access to a user’s phone and make CurrentC payments
so you make your own clothes and grow your own food, and comduct your own medicine? right?? right.
Even if he does go full Ted Kaczynski (and then some) he'd still be consuming even if he isn't outright making a purchase with legal tender. One could even argue that to exist is to consume.
After his investigation of the app, Aude told me “CurrentC borders on the creepy line” due to it pulling health info. He also that found that its Terms Of Service leaves high liability for fraud to the user if someone else is able to get access to a user’s phone and make CurrentC payments
Thanks. That's the only the argument against CurrentC I need. Even Google Wallet has inherent fraud protection. If CurrentC wants to compete they'll have to cover fraudulent charges, which we both know will not happen.
Go download the app from the appstore. And give it a glowing review
Look, it boils down to this- Would you ever give your personal banking information to an app that has a 1-star average rating? How about to an app with an abundance of reviews that ridicule its safety procedures? Whether they're valid or not, it would give any rational customer cause for concern. Mark my words- You'll start to see this app advertised as a mobile payment solution for Everyone, not just people who bought the latest phones from Apple. But regardless of it's usability, no app is impervious to negative feedback. With the app's abismal ratings, who in their right mind would Dare trust it?
Consider the number of NFC-enabled devices that these companies are inhibiting. I don't anticipate that Android's app reviews will be much better than Apple's. And let's be honest. Apple and Android users make up... what, 90% of smartphone users? In a battle for mobile payment exclusivity, CurrenC has failed before it even launches.
These companies are about to relearn the hard way the unavoidable truth that the customer is always right. No matter how irritating or irksome it may be. Honestly, with the backlash they're about to recieve, I anticipate a reversal to this decision before the holiday season begins.. They're smart enoughto recognize that the casualties will likely be far greater than just a failed mobile payment app...
I was dismayed to hear that CVS has disabled ApplePay in your stores.
I fully understand CVS's desire to collect information regarding its customers and believe it is fair to offer customers incentives (The Carrot) to allow you to collect their information. I understand that your motivation in disabling ApplePay (The Stick) was to prevent the loss of your ability to track individual customer transactions. I am sure you performed a careful cost/benefit analysis regarding this decision.
Unfortunately, CVS has chosen to to use stick not the carrot with regard to ApplePay.
I can not support your decision as I find it to be disrespectful.
I will be be transferring my prescriptions and other purchases to other pharmacies.
I hope CVS reconsiders its policy regarding ApplePay and your customers privacy choices.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
Sure, consumers, were they uniformly alert, informed, and discriminating would have a reason,
but quality and ease-of-use have never been a guarantee of success, and all those other entities are in a position,
in one way or another, to erect road-blocks, penalties, and disinformation galore...and, watching it slowly unfold,
I'm less sanguine about its widespread adoption than I was when I first heard about it.
...we'll see.
Indeed.
It’s a shame that Apple didn't bypass the cards completely. That would have been a truly comprehensive revolution of the payment system, the sort of thing that Steve Jobs would have done. In my opinion, they should have created a new payment system that linked directly with your bank account and incurred no charges for either consumers and either minimal charges or none for merchants.
As it is, there is not a lot of incentive for merchants, because they still have significant card fees to pay.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
Sure, consumers, were they uniformly alert, informed, and discriminating would have a reason,
but quality and ease-of-use have never been a guarantee of success, and all those other entities are in a position,
in one way or another, to erect road-blocks, penalties, and disinformation galore...and, watching it slowly unfold,
I'm less sanguine about its widespread adoption than I was when I first heard about it.
...we'll see.
Consumers benefit from ?Pay due to convenience, security and privacy
Merchants benefit from ?Pay due to lower credit card fees
Banks benefit from ?Pay due to decreased fraud
But merchants also lose lots of valuable data which they get through card payments outside Apple Pay.
Chip and pin negates the consumer advantages you cite. The data loss negates slightly lower card fees. Fraud is a much smaller issue with chip and pin.
These companies are about to relearn the hard way...
This sort of reminds me of the DIVX fiasco of the late 90s. At least in terms of customer acceptance (yes, CurrentC doesn't manufacture anything, but they are similarly trying to "pull a fast one" on the consumer). I wonder how closely history will repeat itself...
As for myself, yeah, I've already downloaded, rated, and deleted this steaming pile.
Comments
Yes of course you are right. You must always be right. Too painful to be wrong. You can choose to be as aware as much as you want to be of the effects of your existence. All and all I am just glad I am not you.
Then why not refuse to accept any cards with magnetic strips? If it's about fees and card-present fees are acceptable then ?Pay would be acceptable.
This is about not letting their service be marginalized to the point of irrelevance, despite see no other outcome than CurrentC not working in its current form, if and when it ever starts.
Or wear a breathing apparatus. And that's not entirely correct, some nitrogen is absorbed by the bloodstream, it just isn't used.
Besides, I've never been in a CVS and don't plan to start any time soon.
Then why are credit cards still accepted by those retailers?
Apple insider needs to do more research before they make an article that is being used to fan the fanboy fire. While I am sure these companies want to collect more information, that is not the complete story. There is also the little things of credit card fees that these merchants don't want to pay anymore. You see, Apple Pay still is a credit card transaction which means merchants will stay have to pay those banking fees on each transaction. On the other hand CurrentC is a direct withdrawal from the banking account so there are no banking fees. Maybe if Apple wanted to pay all the merchant fees then the merchant will push their standard. As it currently stands Apple would be the only beneficiary of Apple pay since it would more than likely become a Monopoly while the merchants would have to eat the fees. Once CurrentC roles out, and if it works, I predict more retailers jumping ship so that they can saving hundreds if not millions in credit card transaction fees that are paid to the banks.
Source: http://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2014/10/26/1029604_drugstores-cvs-and-rite-aid-ditch-apple-pay-as-payment-option.html
EDIT: Example, Target and their Red card. That's attached to your bank account and they give 5% off of the purchase when used. They give that cash back as a incentive for using the card because each of those transactions on that card helps target avoid the bank fee.
Most merchants, specially large retailers, don't pay the credit card fee, their customers do. It's built into the cost of the goods they sell. Plus the cost of the CC fee is more than made up by the extra profit they get from selling goods to people that otherwise wouldn't have bought it if they couldn't use a CC or couldn't afford (at the time) if it weren't for the credit extended to them by a CC. And CC adds to consumers impulse buying. Merchants knows this.
I remember when Macy's once stopped accepting Visa and MasterCard (back in the 80's). They would only take their own Macy's Card and wanted you to sign up for one. This lasted a very short time as business dropped off significantly and they soon began accepting other CC's again. I also can't remember all the times I walked into a store, not really thinking of making any major purchase, and walked out with a big impulse purchase becasue it was on sale and I was able to use my CC. It's not that I couldn't afford it, but if it weren't for the CC, I would had had to take the time to transfer the money into my checking account before I can use a debit card (or write a check) as I didn't have the cash on hand. And by that time, I might have changed my mind about making the puchase.
So really, I don't think it's about the money they're losing paying the CC fee but the money they can make harvesting their customers data. Google has shown everyone that it's a very profitable business to get into.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
Sure, consumers, were they uniformly alert, informed, and discriminating would have a reason,
but quality and ease-of-use have never been a guarantee of success, and all those other entities are in a position,
in one way or another, to erect road-blocks, penalties, and disinformation galore...and, watching it slowly unfold,
I'm less sanguine about its widespread adoption than I was when I first heard about it.
...we'll see.
I beg to differ. If no one had anything to gain from Apply Pay, then why does it exist? Why would anyone participate in this new technology with the only hope to not piss of Apple and it's customers? The easiest way to not do that is to not participate.
Between issuers, merchants, and customers, each can gain from Apple Pay.
Issuers are gambling that after wide adoption, they will vastly reduce fraudulent charges. Apple comes in and says that for 0.15% of the transaction, they have a much more secure system. The issuers stands to gain millions of dollars a year in fraudulent charges. (Hopefully over time as Apply Pay becomes more common. That is the risk they're taking.) That's a huge incentive for issuers to participate and I think this is why it was easy for Apple to partner with all the major banks and credit cards. Apple makes money, and the issuer loses less money. If the issuer loses less than they pay Apple, it's a win-win.
Consumers stand to gain from convenience, security, and anonymity.
Merchants stand to gain from security. And they have to do little to participate other than implement NFC systems. (Though that is not cheap but is not specific to Apple Pay.) Breeched systems such as what happened to Target and Home Depot would be no longer be an issue. Merchants gain a lot from not having to pay for fraudulent charges.
However what the merchants lose is the ability to track purchases through credit cards. Obviously for probably most retailers int he MCX network this disadvantage far outweighs the advantage of security, thus the Rite Aid and CVS retaliation.
I am wondering whether banks will block CurrentC users forcing a major change in the implementation of this stupid and time-consuming method.
I can't think of a way for banks to know (possibly because lots of details about CurrentC are not yet known).
But I'm getting the feeling that it will be a train wreck in slow motion. Prepare the popcorn.
This seems to be a lot more about major retailers pushing back on credit card fees than trying to oppose Apple.
Maybe.
But allow me to put on, for a moment, my Devil's Advocate hat.
The cost to the merchant (i.e. the "fee") is the same for an Apple Pay transaction and a credit-card transaction in the store. If the retailers are really wanting to push back on the fee then why are they still accepting credit cards? Why don't they insist on cash or debit ?? </hat>
I tend to agree with you - eliminating the fee is a major goal. But they've done a terrible job of execution on that strategy.
so you make your own clothes and grow your own food, and comduct your own medicine? right?? right.
He won't answer.
I can see that as a possibility, but I can't find any info that backs that up.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/25/currentc/
Even if he does go full Ted Kaczynski (and then some) he'd still be consuming even if he isn't outright making a purchase with legal tender. One could even argue that to exist is to consume.
Thanks. That's the only the argument against CurrentC I need. Even Google Wallet has inherent fraud protection. If CurrentC wants to compete they'll have to cover fraudulent charges, which we both know will not happen.
Look, it boils down to this- Would you ever give your personal banking information to an app that has a 1-star average rating? How about to an app with an abundance of reviews that ridicule its safety procedures? Whether they're valid or not, it would give any rational customer cause for concern. Mark my words- You'll start to see this app advertised as a mobile payment solution for Everyone, not just people who bought the latest phones from Apple. But regardless of it's usability, no app is impervious to negative feedback. With the app's abismal ratings, who in their right mind would Dare trust it?
Consider the number of NFC-enabled devices that these companies are inhibiting. I don't anticipate that Android's app reviews will be much better than Apple's. And let's be honest. Apple and Android users make up... what, 90% of smartphone users? In a battle for mobile payment exclusivity, CurrenC has failed before it even launches.
These companies are about to relearn the hard way the unavoidable truth that the customer is always right. No matter how irritating or irksome it may be. Honestly, with the backlash they're about to recieve, I anticipate a reversal to this decision before the holiday season begins.. They're smart enoughto recognize that the casualties will likely be far greater than just a failed mobile payment app...
I was dismayed to hear that CVS has disabled ApplePay in your stores.
I fully understand CVS's desire to collect information regarding its customers and believe it is fair to offer customers incentives (The Carrot) to allow you to collect their information. I understand that your motivation in disabling ApplePay (The Stick) was to prevent the loss of your ability to track individual customer transactions. I am sure you performed a careful cost/benefit analysis regarding this decision.
Unfortunately, CVS has chosen to to use stick not the carrot with regard to ApplePay.
I can not support your decision as I find it to be disrespectful.
I will be be transferring my prescriptions and other purchases to other pharmacies.
I hope CVS reconsiders its policy regarding ApplePay and your customers privacy choices.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
Sure, consumers, were they uniformly alert, informed, and discriminating would have a reason,
but quality and ease-of-use have never been a guarantee of success, and all those other entities are in a position,
in one way or another, to erect road-blocks, penalties, and disinformation galore...and, watching it slowly unfold,
I'm less sanguine about its widespread adoption than I was when I first heard about it.
...we'll see.
Indeed.
It’s a shame that Apple didn't bypass the cards completely. That would have been a truly comprehensive revolution of the payment system, the sort of thing that Steve Jobs would have done. In my opinion, they should have created a new payment system that linked directly with your bank account and incurred no charges for either consumers and either minimal charges or none for merchants.
As it is, there is not a lot of incentive for merchants, because they still have significant card fees to pay.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, that nobody, but nobody in the business world,
has any reason to help give Apple any piece of this colossal pie - not merchants, not issuing banks,
not competing NFC-pay approaches, not any of the credit card issuers.
The only motivation any of them have, is to ensure they don't piss off any Apple-lovers
by being seen to be a factor in ?Pay's failure.
Sure, consumers, were they uniformly alert, informed, and discriminating would have a reason,
but quality and ease-of-use have never been a guarantee of success, and all those other entities are in a position,
in one way or another, to erect road-blocks, penalties, and disinformation galore...and, watching it slowly unfold,
I'm less sanguine about its widespread adoption than I was when I first heard about it.
...we'll see.
Consumers benefit from ?Pay due to convenience, security and privacy
Merchants benefit from ?Pay due to lower credit card fees
Banks benefit from ?Pay due to decreased fraud
But merchants also lose lots of valuable data which they get through card payments outside Apple Pay.
Chip and pin negates the consumer advantages you cite. The data loss negates slightly lower card fees. Fraud is a much smaller issue with chip and pin.
These companies are about to relearn the hard way...
This sort of reminds me of the DIVX fiasco of the late 90s. At least in terms of customer acceptance (yes, CurrentC doesn't manufacture anything, but they are similarly trying to "pull a fast one" on the consumer). I wonder how closely history will repeat itself...
As for myself, yeah, I've already downloaded, rated, and deleted this steaming pile.