It couldn't hurt too have the DOJ look into this strange case of competing merchants co-owning an entity that requires that they behave like a union to act together against credit card processors.
You want Eric Holder and the DoJ to sue Apple again?
MCX is on the brink of rolling out its own mobile payments competitor in 2015 called CurrentC, an app-based solution in development since 2012. CurrentC generates unique QR codes upon checkout, requiring users present their smartphone to a cashier. Alternatively, the point-of-sale terminal may also generate a code to be scanned by the customer.
Could CurrentC now utilise the TouchID API in it's app to provide an extra level of security? How would this then be different to ApplePay other than it's tokenization.
If it's an app-based solution Apple should just reject the CurrentC app in the App Store when it is launched LOL
Also can this app based form of payment be classed as in-app purchasing thus allowing Apple to take a percentage per sale?
I don't understand why anyone in the US, unless they cannot get a credit card due to poor credit, would choose to use a debit card over a credit card. Better points, better protection, and you get about a month's worth of free float. Just keep paying off your credit card online as soon as it reaches 10% of your credit limit, and it will start improving your credit too.
I prefer and use debit card much more than credit card. My debit card (also has visa logo on it) provides for fraud protection just the same. I don't need the free month float, and i don't have to remember to pay off my cc ever.
MCX is doing nothing illegal by finding partners who willingly agree to a contract.
Yes and Apple "was doing nothing illegal" when it had publishers agree to set their own book prices but not super discount to other resellers. How did that turn out, Apple has a government watchdog at their offices watching other contract negotiations plus had to pay a huge class action lawsuit damages claim. Agree the DOJ SHOULD INVESTIGATE.
So, if I understand the WalMart statement correctly, MCX has my best interests as a consumer at heart by:
- Forcing me to use only their product
- Forcing me to jump through a more cumbersome process
- Forcing me to use a system that is arguably less secure than a competing one
- Forcing me to tie the solution to my bank account, and
- Limiting my choice and flexibility in payment sources
Did I miss anything, there?
To pay with a credit card, you'll have to carry a Walmart store credit card. At that point they will no longer accept bank cards. Likewise for Best Buy, Target, etc.
I don't understand why anyone in the US, unless they cannot get a credit card due to poor credit, would choose to use a debit card over a credit card. Better points, better protection, and you get about a month's worth of free float. Just keep paying off your credit card online as soon as it reaches 10% of your credit limit, and it will start improving your credit too.
im in the USA, and I choose to give some key employees a debate card also. There are spend limits on it, and a very small limit on it for cash withdrawal. These debt cards also provide fraud and purchase protection, insurance if they rent a vehicle. I chose NOT to give my employees credit cards, since then I am required to give my bank personal guarantees (PG's), (since its revolving credit) which I won't do.
It very well could be, but remember that ?Pay isn't yet 10 days old and the number of iPhone 6 series devices is extremely low right now for the marketplace. I say let the retailers some time to see how they can skirt their MCX contract, but I think CurrentC only becomes an issue of real annoyance a year from now when there are 3 devices by Apple on the market, at least two more being made ready, millions of vendors (along with the 2015 law in the US for secure payments), and Apple wanting to push ?Pay to more countries. I really don't think CurrentC has any chance as it's currently setup.
It might be as simple as Google Wallet was never seen as a threat so it was never enforced by MCX.
Much of this might resolve itself. These contracts they've signed have a lifetime.
So, several things. Big retailers who have signed up have paid between $250,000-$500,000, depending on their size.
They have a three year contract, but a one year grace period during which they can bail out. Depending on when they signed, the grace period may still be in effect. But if they signed in 2012, that period is possibly over. I say possibly, because it isn't known if that period starts immediately upon signing up, or when the service starts. However it is, companies can opt out. Getting their money back is another thing.
So if Apple Pay looks to be gathering a lot of steam, and customers are expressing a lot of unhappiness about it not being supported, companies will, at some time, be allowed to drop out.
To pay with a credit card, you'll have to carry a Walmart store credit card. At that point they will no longer accept bank cards. Likewise for Best Buy, Target, etc.
NO way they will only accept plastic if you have a walmart store credit card... they would not last the week.
MCX is doing nothing illegal by finding partners who willingly agree to a contract.
Possibly not now, however, depending on the trade and competition laws in various jurusdictions, it can become illegal if the contract results in a substantial lessening of competition in the particular market, based on an assessment by the relevant market regulator.
Edit: Thankfully, NFC payment facilities are far too ingrained across all Australian retail and hospitality markets for this situation with MCX/CurrentC to ever see the light of day. Apple Pay should be pretty seamless if/when it launches in Australia.
Yes and Apple "was doing nothing illegal" when it had publishers agree to set their own book prices but not super discount to other resellers. How did that turn out, Apple has a government watchdog at their offices watching other contract negotiations plus had to pay a huge class action lawsuit damages claim. Agree the DOJ SHOULD INVESTIGATE.
That foolishness didn't warrant a waste of tax dollars either.
Could CurrentC now utilise the TouchID API in it's app to provide an extra level of security? How would this then be different to ApplePay other than it's tokenization.
If it's an app-based solution Apple should just reject the CurrentC app in the App Store when it is launched LOL
Also can this app based form of payment be classed as in-app purchasing thus allowing Apple to take a percentage per sale?
No, it can't. It's completely different. First of all it goes around the credit card companies. It requires you to put your checking account number into the app, where it's encrypted. It requires you to put your social security number into the app, where that is also encrypted. Your name and address are also within the app. The information about the sale goes to not only the merchant, but it's sent to a company that pushes Ads. It tracks you from store to store, if they use this system.
It shares info with the app developers among others. For some reason it pulls health info from your phones, if present, and shares that too. While you can opt out of some of the sharing, and must opt into even more, there's is some you can't opt out of, such as the health info, and others.
It does use loyalty cards, and discounts.
In this system, you, the customer, are responsible for much of the fraud. In Apple's system, Apple has agreed to be responsible.
We don't know what, if any of this will change before it comes out. Possibly there will be some changes in response to Apple Pay, but who knows?
That's brilliant. I hope they both do it, though I highly doubt Google would.
The brilliance in this comes from playing the same card that MCX has. What MCX is doing is blatantly anti-consumer because it forces them to use an arguably inferior product if they want to make mobile payments. So they have no effective grounds to argue against the removal of their app from the store; if they attempt to argue that it limits consumer choice, all that will do is cast a harsh light on their own actions, which do exactly that.
I love it.
Great points all around. Looks like that will surely happen. Even if only Apple refuses that's enough to some of these stores to really hurt as retail data clearly shows Apple owners expendable income is so much higher - proven in one retail study after another - Apple users spend more at retail and online - period. Not only can Apple kick them off iOS they can in fact pull back merchandise and favor their competitors easily.
The chief reason that Walmart etc are squeeze playing Apple is they want to circumvent the processing fees and clearing houses - obviously by Amex, Visa, and MC standing behind Apple - there is a huge fight shaping up with Apple now a dog in.. The fight I mean.
Since this system requires an app from the App Store, which is already there, though it only works for a few people for testing, and in the Google Play store, I wonder if both Apple and Google could tell MCX that if they keep their requirement that their NFC payment systems on the terminals refuse other forms of NFC payment, that they, Apple and Google, will remove the apps from their stores.
If they could do that, it would kill this before it begins. I'm not sure of the legality of this. And. It's too late at night to speak to someone who does.
I guarantee you that Apple has already told MCX this.
It wouldn't be Tim Cook calling up MCX and saying "we're going to block your App before CurrentC ever gets going and you'll be dead in the water." MCX could then turn around and claim Apple was threatening them which doesn't make Apple look good.
I'd bet cold, hard cash that Apple lawyers have chatted with MCX lawyers and explained the situation to them in confidence. The "situation" being something like: "Do you expect Apple to host your CurrentC App in their App Store when you refuse to let Apple Pay in yours?"
MCX would then very clearly understand that Apple controls their fate, but they would never be allowed to mention it to anyone or slag Apple in public.
I firmly believe there are two possible outcomes:
CurrentC dies before it ever gets off the ground because MCX is fully aware Apple will shut out their App from the App Store. Why spend even more money on something that requires Apples "permission" to even work?
CurrentC makes it to market, AND Apple Pay gets turned back on, as this is a condition Apple requires before they will host the CurrentC App. Of course, this won't exist in writing anywhere, but will be understood by both parties.
If this was true, why was Google wallet allowed before? They probably get fined for making transactions with non-cash that they cannot provide transaction data to MCX. The lack of data is what scares an organization created to exchange data between merchants. The fees has always been step two in thier plan.
If I had to guess, I'd say that this restriction only kicks in (contractually) once their system goes live next year. They blocked all NFC now because of the momentum APay is going to generate (along with Google Wallet and SoftCard) between now and then. The service hasn't been live for a whole week, and look at the uproar. Can you imagine what would've happened if they accepted payments until their service launched in 2015?? If I'm MCX I'm looking at APay and saying to myself "If we kill it now, at least CurrentC has a sliver of a chance to take hold. If we wait until we launch, we're toast."
TBH, they're probably toast anyway. At least doing this might give their solution something resembling a fighting chance.
So, if I understand the WalMart statement correctly, MCX has my best interests as a consumer at heart by:
- Forcing me to use only their product
- Forcing me to jump through a more cumbersome process
- Forcing me to use a system that is arguably less secure than a competing one
- Forcing me to tie the solution to my bank account, and
- Limiting my choice and flexibility in payment sources
Did I miss anything, there?
As a matter of fact:
- Forcing me to use a system that is definitely less secure than a competing one
- No protection in the event of fraudulent charges
I guarantee you that Apple has already told MCX this.
It wouldn't be Tim Cook calling up MCX and saying "we're going to block your App before CurrentC ever gets going and you'll be dead in the water." MCX could then turn around and claim Apple was threatening them which doesn't make Apple look good.
I'd bet cold, hard cash that Apple lawyers have chatted with MCX lawyers and explained the situation to them in confidence. The "situation" being something like: "Do you expect Apple to host your CurrentC App in their App Store when you refuse to let Apple Pay in yours?"
MCX would then very clearly understand that Apple controls their fate, but they would never be allowed to mention it to anyone or slag Apple in public.
I firmly believe there are two possible outcomes:
CurrentC dies before it ever gets off the ground because MCX is fully aware Apple will shut out their App from the App Store. Why spend even more money on something that requires Apples "permission" to even work?
CurrentC makes it to market, AND Apple Pay gets turned back on, as this is a condition Apple requires before they will host the CurrentC App. Of course, this won't exist in writing anywhere, but will be understood by both parties.
I wouldn't guarantee this because we don't know yet if that would be legal. I haven't seen anything written about that possibility, either in the business web sites, or in the legal web sites. I suggested it, but only when I speak to someone who will know, hopefully tomorrow, will I have a useful opinion. None of our statements here are worth anything other than for speculation, unless someone here can state that they are an attorney in this area of practice.
MCX is doing nothing illegal by finding partners who willingly agree to a contract.
And just about any terms that someone agrees to under contract are enforceable. It was really a poor decision for these companies to put all their eggs into one basket and agree to the high penalties. The contracts do have an end date, though. These companies will have to determine if it's worth it to breach the agreement. Alternatively, the companies might have some success if they present a unified front and attempt to renegotiate the contracts.
It's pretty funny to see them outsmart themselves, though.
Consumers will ultimately vote with their wallets or should I say smart phones. No need to threaten lawsuits or investigations. I for one will seek out merchants that offer Apple Pay and only use my debit card. Basically turning my smartphone into digital cash...
Comments
You can request that President Obama order a DOJ investigation of MCX for possible illegal anti-competetive collusion by signing this petition:
http://wh.gov/icBmj
It couldn't hurt too have the DOJ look into this strange case of competing merchants co-owning an entity that requires that they behave like a union to act together against credit card processors.
You want Eric Holder and the DoJ to sue Apple again?
Could CurrentC now utilise the TouchID API in it's app to provide an extra level of security? How would this then be different to ApplePay other than it's tokenization.
If it's an app-based solution Apple should just reject the CurrentC app in the App Store when it is launched LOL
Also can this app based form of payment be classed as in-app purchasing thus allowing Apple to take a percentage per sale?
I don't understand why anyone in the US, unless they cannot get a credit card due to poor credit, would choose to use a debit card over a credit card. Better points, better protection, and you get about a month's worth of free float. Just keep paying off your credit card online as soon as it reaches 10% of your credit limit, and it will start improving your credit too.
I prefer and use debit card much more than credit card. My debit card (also has visa logo on it) provides for fraud protection just the same. I don't need the free month float, and i don't have to remember to pay off my cc ever.
Yes and Apple "was doing nothing illegal" when it had publishers agree to set their own book prices but not super discount to other resellers. How did that turn out, Apple has a government watchdog at their offices watching other contract negotiations plus had to pay a huge class action lawsuit damages claim. Agree the DOJ SHOULD INVESTIGATE.
When stores
So, if I understand the WalMart statement correctly, MCX has my best interests as a consumer at heart by:
- Forcing me to use only their product
- Forcing me to jump through a more cumbersome process
- Forcing me to use a system that is arguably less secure than a competing one
- Forcing me to tie the solution to my bank account, and
- Limiting my choice and flexibility in payment sources
Did I miss anything, there?
To pay with a credit card, you'll have to carry a Walmart store credit card. At that point they will no longer accept bank cards. Likewise for Best Buy, Target, etc.
I don't understand why anyone in the US, unless they cannot get a credit card due to poor credit, would choose to use a debit card over a credit card. Better points, better protection, and you get about a month's worth of free float. Just keep paying off your credit card online as soon as it reaches 10% of your credit limit, and it will start improving your credit too.
im in the USA, and I choose to give some key employees a debate card also. There are spend limits on it, and a very small limit on it for cash withdrawal. These debt cards also provide fraud and purchase protection, insurance if they rent a vehicle. I chose NOT to give my employees credit cards, since then I am required to give my bank personal guarantees (PG's), (since its revolving credit) which I won't do.
Much of this might resolve itself. These contracts they've signed have a lifetime.
So, several things. Big retailers who have signed up have paid between $250,000-$500,000, depending on their size.
They have a three year contract, but a one year grace period during which they can bail out. Depending on when they signed, the grace period may still be in effect. But if they signed in 2012, that period is possibly over. I say possibly, because it isn't known if that period starts immediately upon signing up, or when the service starts. However it is, companies can opt out. Getting their money back is another thing.
So if Apple Pay looks to be gathering a lot of steam, and customers are expressing a lot of unhappiness about it not being supported, companies will, at some time, be allowed to drop out.
When stores
To pay with a credit card, you'll have to carry a Walmart store credit card. At that point they will no longer accept bank cards. Likewise for Best Buy, Target, etc.
NO way they will only accept plastic if you have a walmart store credit card... they would not last the week.
MCX is doing nothing illegal by finding partners who willingly agree to a contract.
Possibly not now, however, depending on the trade and competition laws in various jurusdictions, it can become illegal if the contract results in a substantial lessening of competition in the particular market, based on an assessment by the relevant market regulator.
Edit: Thankfully, NFC payment facilities are far too ingrained across all Australian retail and hospitality markets for this situation with MCX/CurrentC to ever see the light of day. Apple Pay should be pretty seamless if/when it launches in Australia.
That's an interesting notion.
That foolishness didn't warrant a waste of tax dollars either.
No, it can't. It's completely different. First of all it goes around the credit card companies. It requires you to put your checking account number into the app, where it's encrypted. It requires you to put your social security number into the app, where that is also encrypted. Your name and address are also within the app. The information about the sale goes to not only the merchant, but it's sent to a company that pushes Ads. It tracks you from store to store, if they use this system.
It shares info with the app developers among others. For some reason it pulls health info from your phones, if present, and shares that too. While you can opt out of some of the sharing, and must opt into even more, there's is some you can't opt out of, such as the health info, and others.
It does use loyalty cards, and discounts.
In this system, you, the customer, are responsible for much of the fraud. In Apple's system, Apple has agreed to be responsible.
We don't know what, if any of this will change before it comes out. Possibly there will be some changes in response to Apple Pay, but who knows?
Great points all around. Looks like that will surely happen. Even if only Apple refuses that's enough to some of these stores to really hurt as retail data clearly shows Apple owners expendable income is so much higher - proven in one retail study after another - Apple users spend more at retail and online - period. Not only can Apple kick them off iOS they can in fact pull back merchandise and favor their competitors easily.
The chief reason that Walmart etc are squeeze playing Apple is they want to circumvent the processing fees and clearing houses - obviously by Amex, Visa, and MC standing behind Apple - there is a huge fight shaping up with Apple now a dog in.. The fight I mean.
Since this system requires an app from the App Store, which is already there, though it only works for a few people for testing, and in the Google Play store, I wonder if both Apple and Google could tell MCX that if they keep their requirement that their NFC payment systems on the terminals refuse other forms of NFC payment, that they, Apple and Google, will remove the apps from their stores.
If they could do that, it would kill this before it begins. I'm not sure of the legality of this. And. It's too late at night to speak to someone who does.
I guarantee you that Apple has already told MCX this.
It wouldn't be Tim Cook calling up MCX and saying "we're going to block your App before CurrentC ever gets going and you'll be dead in the water." MCX could then turn around and claim Apple was threatening them which doesn't make Apple look good.
I'd bet cold, hard cash that Apple lawyers have chatted with MCX lawyers and explained the situation to them in confidence. The "situation" being something like: "Do you expect Apple to host your CurrentC App in their App Store when you refuse to let Apple Pay in yours?"
MCX would then very clearly understand that Apple controls their fate, but they would never be allowed to mention it to anyone or slag Apple in public.
I firmly believe there are two possible outcomes:
CurrentC dies before it ever gets off the ground because MCX is fully aware Apple will shut out their App from the App Store. Why spend even more money on something that requires Apples "permission" to even work?
CurrentC makes it to market, AND Apple Pay gets turned back on, as this is a condition Apple requires before they will host the CurrentC App. Of course, this won't exist in writing anywhere, but will be understood by both parties.
No more so than the Amazon app, or the eBay app, or the hundreds of other merchant apps in the App Store.
If this was true, why was Google wallet allowed before? They probably get fined for making transactions with non-cash that they cannot provide transaction data to MCX. The lack of data is what scares an organization created to exchange data between merchants. The fees has always been step two in thier plan.
If I had to guess, I'd say that this restriction only kicks in (contractually) once their system goes live next year. They blocked all NFC now because of the momentum APay is going to generate (along with Google Wallet and SoftCard) between now and then. The service hasn't been live for a whole week, and look at the uproar. Can you imagine what would've happened if they accepted payments until their service launched in 2015?? If I'm MCX I'm looking at APay and saying to myself "If we kill it now, at least CurrentC has a sliver of a chance to take hold. If we wait until we launch, we're toast."
TBH, they're probably toast anyway. At least doing this might give their solution something resembling a fighting chance.
As a matter of fact:
- Forcing me to use a system that is definitely less secure than a competing one
- No protection in the event of fraudulent charges
I wouldn't guarantee this because we don't know yet if that would be legal. I haven't seen anything written about that possibility, either in the business web sites, or in the legal web sites. I suggested it, but only when I speak to someone who will know, hopefully tomorrow, will I have a useful opinion. None of our statements here are worth anything other than for speculation, unless someone here can state that they are an attorney in this area of practice.
It's pretty funny to see them outsmart themselves, though.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
I firmly believe every member of the consortium knows CurrentC is a TurKey and should be slaughtered for Thanksgiving.