I don't think it matters if it's legal or not. What matters is if MCX believes Apple if they say they'll block the CurrentC App. Apple could simply block CurrentC and take their chances in court.
Besides, it would be a good precedent setting case for Apple to decide once and for all if Apple has the right to control what Apps get into the store they created and own.
Or do to MCX what Samsung did to them - tie things up in court so long that they're no longer relevant by the time things are settled.
It always matters if it's legal. The first thing they will do is go to their lawyers to find out. You can't bluff at this level. If it's legal, they can do it, if not, then they can't.
It would be a very bad idea for Apple to take that concept into court. Right now, Apple has control. If it goes to court, and Apple loses, then Apple will have no control, and every bit of junk and malware will enter the system. Apple is too smart to take the risk.
While appreciating the implicit satisfaction of removing the App, why bother?
As it stands, the app - ratings and comments are off the wrong end of the scale anyway, stands as a constant embarrassment and reminder of how MCX management totally fscked up. :smokey:
Same goes for Google.
I don't know what any of the ratings mean, as the system won't be online until next year. Right now, it's in beta for a small number of testers. A lot of it could change between now and then.
No, it’s perfectly fine for them to do it. They have every right not to accept types of payment, just as they have every right not to accept payment at all and go bankrupt.
I would have thought that the choice should rest with the consumer. If consumer wishes to open up their checking account to Mcx then that's fine fire up the currentC app and pay directly. Perhaps get a 1% discount for using that form of payment and the retailer avoids the other 1or 2% fee by not having to use the credit card network for the transaction. If the consumer wish to use his/her credit card or debit card they don't get the 1percent discount. Seems like a good solution to the problem to me
I would have thought that the choice should rest with the consumer. If consumer wishes to open up their checking account to Mcx then that's fine fire up the currentC app and pay directly. Perhaps get a 1% discount for using that form of payment and the retailer avoids the other 1or 2% fee by not having to use the credit card network for the transaction. If the consumer wish to use his/her credit card or debit card they don't get the 1percent discount. Seems like a good solution to the problem to me
Fair enough.
But having to give up your SSN and driver license info as part of the deal ? For their big-database-in-the-cloud ??
I do not share your "good opinion" vibe. I'm not criticizing others for it - but it's not for me.
Sounds like a socialist government program... If something is so great, there should be no reason to make it mandatory?
There is no such thing as a 100% capitalist system. There have to be protections to protect the consumer from unscrupulous greedy companies. Just as there is no 100% socialist system. What we live is a mix of socialism and captalism - the question is how many controls do we need in place to take advnage of the benefits of each, Screaming "socialism" when you don't agree with law is not very productive and adds nothing to the conversation
err.. that info is given to every recipient of a check. Has been for almost for over 60 years.
True but You are missing one rather important difference With a check no one can usually intecept it only the person who gets the check can see that information. With electronic transmission a hacker can skim or get that data by hacking into the servers. So your point that the data on the old fashioned paper check has always been "in the clear " is not really true!
When and where did I scream socialism because I didn't agree with a law? There is no law being discussed here. You are right, though. We live in a mix of socialism and capitalism and because of it, you are forced to fit into a specific mold that may not be of your own making. Some people are happy with that.
I don't feel the need for protection from unscrupulous greedy companies. It's unfortunate that so many people need the assistance of the government to help them make wise personal decisions. True capitalism gives me choices. I may not like the choice, but I have a choice. In Socialism, you don't have a choice. You must participate for it to work.
So, I stand by my original statement. If CurrentC is so great that consumers should flock to its usage and companies want the benefits that it provides, there should be no reason to specify or enforce its singularity requirements.
But having to give up your SSN and driver license info as part of the deal ? For their big-database-in-the-cloud ??
I do not share your "good opinion" vibe. I'm not criticizing others for it - but it's not for me.
Yes I Agree with you about handing over that data but do you think Apple's servers have your credit card and SS# stored any safer than MCX.
Apple does have a credit card number. And that's subject to credit-card rules for unauthorized use. But no debit card, or ACH access.
And certainly not my SSN
Apple isn't ecactly all that well know for reliability in its data centers, now is it?
I guess you're thinking about the recent "nude photos" thing. That was an account hack, not a data center breach. If you know of a data center breach on Apple then please let us know. As far as I know, there has been no data center breach. This may sound like a subtlety but it's actually a critical difference. An account hack is a breach of the credentials that you have chosen to protect your now, individual data. A data center breach is one where data for many people can be compromised, and where you have no control over the protection.
When and where did I scream socialism because I didn't agree with a law? There is no law being discussed here. You are right, though. We live in a mix of socialism and capitalism and because of it, you are forced to fit into a specific mold that may not be of your own making. Some people are happy with that.
I don't feel the need for protection from unscrupulous greedy companies. It's unfortunate that so many people need the assistance of the government to help them make wise personal decisions. True capitalism gives me choices. I may not like the choice, but I have a choice. In Socialism, you don't have a choice. You must participate for it to work.
So, I stand by my original statement. If CurrentC is so great that consumers should flock to its usage and companies want the benefits that it provides, there should be no reason to specify or enforce its singularity requirements.
I take my statement back sorry, I just get really fed up with some people using arguments like socialismm to back up their views. It's so simplistic and superficial.
The topic is very complicated and we all know most of the arguments for and against it. Personally my view is we live in a society where we try to make it as democratic as possible. though I think the balance has shifted far too much in the direction of well funded elites and corporations.
I agree with you about having choice and not needing assistance however it is really hard most of the time to know what corporations are up to and hiding from us, so I prefer to err on the side of more contol over them than less. Also corporations have the ability never to die and as such giving them the same rights as persons without the death penalty and imprisonment is problematic on so many levels, if they murder people it is morally wrong in my opinion to allow them to continue operating because it sends the wrong message to other corporations.
For example if a Motor Company sells a car that kills people due a defect in design , the responsible officers and people who designed it should in my view be put on trial for murder be it pre meditated, or manslaughter. If found guilty the same tests are used to put them to death should be used if it was pre-meditated especially if they knew about it and hid the fact! and done willfully
The whole point of having laws is 1) to punish people for felonies and 2) to send a message to other who might try the same thing right?
I agree with you that corporations should be allowed to die. Sept 11, 2001, United allowed terrorists on their airplanes that allowed mass murder to the highest degree. Were they held responsible? No, they were given a free pass. If they'd been allowed to fail, another airline would have picked up their loss and would have guaranteed that their planes fly safely. Why? Because failure to do so would be corporate death, something that business owners and stock holder wish to avoid. A corporation would have then fought to provide safe and efficient travel at the expense of the corporation who died a death of incompetence. Instead, we bailed them out and said it's ok, we won't let you fall.
Motor companies are the same way. Instead of letting a company die because they no longer create a product that people want, we bail them out letting them know that they're too big to fail. Had Ford and GM failed, their patents would have been sold to new investors with new ideas creating a multitude of free enterprise opportunities to replace the two. Instead, we prop them up and eliminate the opportunities that the next Henry Ford could have found.
I agree, if a corporation's leadership is found guilty of knowingly conspiring to create a product that may purposefully or knowingly cause death or hardship, they should be held responsible for it. There are numerous laws on the books that enforce that. Unless, however, they are given a free pass as we've seen so many times over the last 10 years. It's not the consumer that props these companies up directly; it's the people we elect who decide to do it on our behalf.
If you want to prevent a company from getting too big or gaining too much power, give them the opportunity to fail. Success and failure will drive a company to do great things, but if they aren't allowed to fail and lose everything they've built for themselves and their investors they lose their sense of responsibility and ethics.
Anyway, we're way off topic and for that I apologize. This will be my last post on this thread.
it seems like a very good and thorough protection. I keep only about half that amount in the current account used by the debit cards - but did you mention 100k because of FDIC limits, since thats now $250k per account type per customer.
Please remember, and this was the main reason I posted earlier - to warn people - is because the blurbs you posted are only meaningful in the context of trusting your bank to abide by and continue those terms. You are NOT protected legally through federal law when you use a debit card. End of story. You ARE protected by federal law when you use credit cards. For many people, especially those with low assets, this may be an acceptable risk to get whatever "rewards" (all BS as far as I'm concerned) they get with a given account/card. For others, they should really be looking carefully at the differences.
FWIW, I did not use the $100k figure for any reason other than to pull a large number out of my head.
Please remember, and this was the main reason I posted earlier - to warn people - is because the blurbs you posted are only meaningful in the context of trusting your bank to abide by and continue those terms. You are NOT protected legally through federal law when you use a debit card. End of story. You ARE protected by federal law when you use credit cards. For many people, especially those with low assets, this may be an acceptable risk to get whatever "rewards" (all BS as far as I'm concerned) they get with a given account/card. For others, they should really be looking carefully at the differences.
FWIW, I did not use the $100k figure for any reason other than to pull a large number out of my head.
yes - understood - and i agree- its still protected, at least for me, but not protected by GOVT.
I mentioned the $100K since I have met people that think that the FDIC has been put back to that original amount (pre-crash)
The two local grocery stores for me are Target and Publix. I'm not getting my groceries from Kroger. Nope.
I would suggest, in lieu of a boycott that no one will notice, you contact those stores and express your displeasure. I did.
However, if this continues, I intend to just write checks at these stores. I'm guessing they hate dealing with checks as much as I do.
Nope, that's the wrong attitude. Writing checks gives them the best rate for processing transactions. If you want to hurt them, pay with a credit card every time and make them pay an extra 2-3% in operating costs.
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.
No they don't unless you sign for each transaction, in which case it is treated as a credit transaction to the merchant. If you are just using your pin, you aren't guaranteed those same protections,
When you sign for your purchases, you get security protections that help prevent, detect and resolve fraud. Many rewards programs also require you to sign to collect rewards points. However, if you PIN for your Visa Debit card transactions, you may not receive the same security protections for Visa Debit card transactions not processed by Visa.
If MCX were an independent entity then perhaps there would not be a problem; however, MCX is CO-OWNED by the very merchants who are members. In fact, they describe themselves as the first "merchant-owned mobile commerce network".
<snip>
That certainly smells illegal to me. Perhaps you are correct that it is not, but by signing the petition, you are simply asking the DOJ to investigate it and verify that nothing illegal is happening here. It could be that Walmart's lawyers are so good that they found a way to collude with their competitors without actually violating the law. If so, that sucks for the consumer. But the DOJ should be protecting the consumer from this sort of collusive behavior. So I am asking folks to sign the petititon and ask the DOJ to decide.
I am sure that the consortium was setup specifically to make sure that it did not break any anti-trust laws. In my industry, the major players also formed a consortium and as long as it is run as a separate entity that has its own management, there is nothing for the DOJ or SEC to investigate. With the Walmart lawyers, I have no doubt they set it up properly.
If they weren't allowed to use 3rd party payment systems, why were they allowing Google Wallet prior to the shut-down last week?
Probably it was because Google Wallet was there first and was sort-of "grandfathered". It is always tough to remove an existing capability when a "new thing" arrives.
Moreover, CurrentC wasn't "live" yet so no-one paid attention.
Comments
It always matters if it's legal. The first thing they will do is go to their lawyers to find out. You can't bluff at this level. If it's legal, they can do it, if not, then they can't.
It would be a very bad idea for Apple to take that concept into court. Right now, Apple has control. If it goes to court, and Apple loses, then Apple will have no control, and every bit of junk and malware will enter the system. Apple is too smart to take the risk.
I don't know what any of the ratings mean, as the system won't be online until next year. Right now, it's in beta for a small number of testers. A lot of it could change between now and then.
own currency?
I would have thought that the choice should rest with the consumer. If consumer wishes to open up their checking account to Mcx then that's fine fire up the currentC app and pay directly. Perhaps get a 1% discount for using that form of payment and the retailer avoids the other 1or 2% fee by not having to use the credit card network for the transaction. If the consumer wish to use his/her credit card or debit card they don't get the 1percent discount. Seems like a good solution to the problem to me
Fair enough.
But having to give up your SSN and driver license info as part of the deal ? For their big-database-in-the-cloud ??
I do not share your "good opinion" vibe. I'm not criticizing others for it - but it's not for me.
Fair enough.
But having to give up your SSN and driver license info as part of the deal ? For their big-database-in-the-cloud ??
I do not share your "good opinion" vibe. I'm not criticizing others for it - but it's not for me.
Yes I Agree with you about handing over that data but do you think Apple's servers have your credit card and SS# stored any safer than MCX.
Apple isn't ecactly all that well know for reliability in its data centers, now is it?
Sounds like a socialist government program... If something is so great, there should be no reason to make it mandatory?
There is no such thing as a 100% capitalist system. There have to be protections to protect the consumer from unscrupulous greedy companies. Just as there is no 100% socialist system. What we live is a mix of socialism and captalism - the question is how many controls do we need in place to take advnage of the benefits of each, Screaming "socialism" when you don't agree with law is not very productive and adds nothing to the conversationerr.. that info is given to every recipient of a check. Has been for almost for over 60 years.
True but You are missing one rather important difference With a check no one can usually intecept it only the person who gets the check can see that information. With electronic transmission a hacker can skim or get that data by hacking into the servers. So your point that the data on the old fashioned paper check has always been "in the clear " is not really true!It will be interesting to see WalMart's sales for the quarter when they stop taking credit cards. Very interesting.
Will never happen. the poor need credit cards to get byWhen and where did I scream socialism because I didn't agree with a law? There is no law being discussed here. You are right, though. We live in a mix of socialism and capitalism and because of it, you are forced to fit into a specific mold that may not be of your own making. Some people are happy with that.
I don't feel the need for protection from unscrupulous greedy companies. It's unfortunate that so many people need the assistance of the government to help them make wise personal decisions. True capitalism gives me choices. I may not like the choice, but I have a choice. In Socialism, you don't have a choice. You must participate for it to work.
So, I stand by my original statement. If CurrentC is so great that consumers should flock to its usage and companies want the benefits that it provides, there should be no reason to specify or enforce its singularity requirements.
Quote:
Fair enough.
But having to give up your SSN and driver license info as part of the deal ? For their big-database-in-the-cloud ??
I do not share your "good opinion" vibe. I'm not criticizing others for it - but it's not for me.
Yes I Agree with you about handing over that data but do you think Apple's servers have your credit card and SS# stored any safer than MCX.Apple does have a credit card number. And that's subject to credit-card rules for unauthorized use. But no debit card, or ACH access.
And certainly not my SSN
When and where did I scream socialism because I didn't agree with a law? There is no law being discussed here. You are right, though. We live in a mix of socialism and capitalism and because of it, you are forced to fit into a specific mold that may not be of your own making. Some people are happy with that.
I don't feel the need for protection from unscrupulous greedy companies. It's unfortunate that so many people need the assistance of the government to help them make wise personal decisions. True capitalism gives me choices. I may not like the choice, but I have a choice. In Socialism, you don't have a choice. You must participate for it to work.
So, I stand by my original statement. If CurrentC is so great that consumers should flock to its usage and companies want the benefits that it provides, there should be no reason to specify or enforce its singularity requirements.
I take my statement back sorry, I just get really fed up with some people using arguments like socialismm to back up their views. It's so simplistic and superficial.The topic is very complicated and we all know most of the arguments for and against it. Personally my view is we live in a society where we try to make it as democratic as possible. though I think the balance has shifted far too much in the direction of well funded elites and corporations.
I agree with you about having choice and not needing assistance however it is really hard most of the time to know what corporations are up to and hiding from us, so I prefer to err on the side of more contol over them than less. Also corporations have the ability never to die and as such giving them the same rights as persons without the death penalty and imprisonment is problematic on so many levels, if they murder people it is morally wrong in my opinion to allow them to continue operating because it sends the wrong message to other corporations.
For example if a Motor Company sells a car that kills people due a defect in design , the responsible officers and people who designed it should in my view be put on trial for murder be it pre meditated, or manslaughter. If found guilty the same tests are used to put them to death should be used if it was pre-meditated especially if they knew about it and hid the fact! and done willfully
The whole point of having laws is
1) to punish people for felonies and
2) to send a message to other who might try the same thing right?
I agree with you that corporations should be allowed to die. Sept 11, 2001, United allowed terrorists on their airplanes that allowed mass murder to the highest degree. Were they held responsible? No, they were given a free pass. If they'd been allowed to fail, another airline would have picked up their loss and would have guaranteed that their planes fly safely. Why? Because failure to do so would be corporate death, something that business owners and stock holder wish to avoid. A corporation would have then fought to provide safe and efficient travel at the expense of the corporation who died a death of incompetence. Instead, we bailed them out and said it's ok, we won't let you fall.
Motor companies are the same way. Instead of letting a company die because they no longer create a product that people want, we bail them out letting them know that they're too big to fail. Had Ford and GM failed, their patents would have been sold to new investors with new ideas creating a multitude of free enterprise opportunities to replace the two. Instead, we prop them up and eliminate the opportunities that the next Henry Ford could have found.
I agree, if a corporation's leadership is found guilty of knowingly conspiring to create a product that may purposefully or knowingly cause death or hardship, they should be held responsible for it. There are numerous laws on the books that enforce that. Unless, however, they are given a free pass as we've seen so many times over the last 10 years. It's not the consumer that props these companies up directly; it's the people we elect who decide to do it on our behalf.
If you want to prevent a company from getting too big or gaining too much power, give them the opportunity to fail. Success and failure will drive a company to do great things, but if they aren't allowed to fail and lose everything they've built for themselves and their investors they lose their sense of responsibility and ethics.
Anyway, we're way off topic and for that I apologize. This will be my last post on this thread.
it seems like a very good and thorough protection. I keep only about half that amount in the current account used by the debit cards - but did you mention 100k because of FDIC limits, since thats now $250k per account type per customer.
Please remember, and this was the main reason I posted earlier - to warn people - is because the blurbs you posted are only meaningful in the context of trusting your bank to abide by and continue those terms. You are NOT protected legally through federal law when you use a debit card. End of story. You ARE protected by federal law when you use credit cards. For many people, especially those with low assets, this may be an acceptable risk to get whatever "rewards" (all BS as far as I'm concerned) they get with a given account/card. For others, they should really be looking carefully at the differences.
FWIW, I did not use the $100k figure for any reason other than to pull a large number out of my head.
Please remember, and this was the main reason I posted earlier - to warn people - is because the blurbs you posted are only meaningful in the context of trusting your bank to abide by and continue those terms. You are NOT protected legally through federal law when you use a debit card. End of story. You ARE protected by federal law when you use credit cards. For many people, especially those with low assets, this may be an acceptable risk to get whatever "rewards" (all BS as far as I'm concerned) they get with a given account/card. For others, they should really be looking carefully at the differences.
FWIW, I did not use the $100k figure for any reason other than to pull a large number out of my head.
yes - understood - and i agree- its still protected, at least for me, but not protected by GOVT.
I mentioned the $100K since I have met people that think that the FDIC has been put back to that original amount (pre-crash)
The two local grocery stores for me are Target and Publix. I'm not getting my groceries from Kroger. Nope.
I would suggest, in lieu of a boycott that no one will notice, you contact those stores and express your displeasure. I did.
However, if this continues, I intend to just write checks at these stores. I'm guessing they hate dealing with checks as much as I do.
Nope, that's the wrong attitude. Writing checks gives them the best rate for processing transactions. If you want to hurt them, pay with a credit card every time and make them pay an extra 2-3% in operating costs.
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.
No they don't unless you sign for each transaction, in which case it is treated as a credit transaction to the merchant. If you are just using your pin, you aren't guaranteed those same protections,
http://usa.visa.com/personal/personal-cards/debit-cards/faq.jsp#anchor_2
If MCX were an independent entity then perhaps there would not be a problem; however, MCX is CO-OWNED by the very merchants who are members. In fact, they describe themselves as the first "merchant-owned mobile commerce network".
<snip>
Petition is here: http://wh.gov/icBmj
You can email the DOJ at: [email protected]
I am sure that the consortium was setup specifically to make sure that it did not break any anti-trust laws. In my industry, the major players also formed a consortium and as long as it is run as a separate entity that has its own management, there is nothing for the DOJ or SEC to investigate. With the Walmart lawyers, I have no doubt they set it up properly.
It will be interesting to see WalMart's sales for the quarter when they stop taking credit cards. Very interesting.
Walmart is not stopping credit card use, they are just stopping electronic touch payments by credit card. You can still have them swipe the stripe.
If they weren't allowed to use 3rd party payment systems, why were they allowing Google Wallet prior to the shut-down last week?
Probably it was because Google Wallet was there first and was sort-of "grandfathered". It is always tough to remove an existing capability when a "new thing" arrives.
Moreover, CurrentC wasn't "live" yet so no-one paid attention.