Consortium behind Apple Pay competitor CurrentC replaces CEO

Posted:
in General Discussion edited April 2015
The Merchant Customer Exchange, better known by its acronym MCX, announced on Tuesday that it has named payments expert Brian V. Mooney as interim CEO, replacing former chief executive Dekkers Davidson.




According to MCX, Mooney most recently served as CEO and board member of Bank of America Merchant Services.

The executive level shakeup comes as MCX inches closer to throwing its hat into the mobile payments ring with CurrentC, which is planned to go live at major partner retailers including Walmart and The Gap sometime this year. The as-yet-unreleased solution will face stiff competition from the likes of Apple Pay, which has seen decent adoption since its release in October.

MCX made headlines last year when members CVS and Rite Aid switched off Apple Pay compatibility at point of sale terminals just after the service launched. The move was later attributed to contractual obligations that forbid companies under the MCX umbrella from using alternative mobile payment services.

Facing criticism for limiting customer choice, then-CEO Davidson said such protections are necessary for a successful CurrentC rollout, adding that the exclusivity period would be "measured in months, not years."

"I would observe parenthetically that I don't think too many people complained when Apple went to market with the exclusive that you could only buy it at AT&T, which was the case for a while, and I think that was a reasonable business decision that Apple made," Davidson said at the time.

Today's news comes after Apple CEO Tim Cook dropped a bombshell during a quarterly earnings conference call on Monday, saying major MCX member Best Buy will roll out in-store Apple Pay support later this year. It is not known at this time if other retailers have plans to follow suit.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 31
    And still, this is the only place I have seen anything about CurrentC. If it weren't for competition with ApplePay, nobody would even know about it.
  • Reply 2 of 31
    mechanicmechanic Posts: 805member
    Ah MCX can't die fast enough. Having trouble on the home front, Gee thats too bad.
  • Reply 3 of 31
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,655member
    CurrentC already got breached, and they care nothing about consumer privacy. The CEO gets the boot too? Oh yeah, this sounds like a consortium I'd trust with my financial data... NOT!

    CurrentC is a joke.
  • Reply 4 of 31
    adrayvenadrayven Posts: 460member
    CurrentC puts all liability onto the consumer. CurrentC gets breached again, any bank account data gets taken and pulled from accounts, thats on the consumer. Says so right on the website.

    The banks won't cover you because you bypassed their regular security measures by allowing a direct draft account... They'll just look at you funny and tell you it's not their fault you authorized CurrentC a blank check.
  • Reply 5 of 31
    Just another piece of information which points to the highly probable case that this effort is not to be taken seriously.
  • Reply 6 of 31
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,198member

    CurrentC = DOA

  • Reply 7 of 31
    CurrentC's raison d'etre is to not pay transaction fees to the credit card companies. CurrentC wants access to your bank account so it can wire the money out of it immediately.

    To adopt this philosophy is to not see the forest for the trees. A TREMENDOUS amount of money is spent every day by people who don't have money. How is this possible? Credit cards. If we were to eliminate the ability for consumers to go into debt to purchase the things they want, you would see the bottom fall right out of these retailers who are backing CurrentC.

    CurrentC has managed to accomplish four major things so far: 1.) leak data 2.) completely erode any consumer confidence in their brand 3.) piss people off 4.) make executives at Visa, MasterCard, Amex, and Apple bellow with laughter.
  • Reply 8 of 31
    They don't think too many ppl complained when iPhone was only through AT&T? I'm not an American, but that seemed to be a huge factor early on... I think that hurt iPhone initial adoption, and massively helped at&t which seemed to be a dog losing ground rapidly.

    This firing of the ceo is the official beginning of the end for this mcx outfit.

    Too bad as their currentc was so cleverly named... I for one was looking forward to playing QR ping pong with cashiers...
  • Reply 9 of 31
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,269member
    They don't think too many ppl complained when iPhone was only through AT&T? I'm not an American, but that seemed to be a huge factor early on... I think that hurt iPhone initial adoption, and massively helped at&t which seemed to be a dog losing ground rapidly.

    Dekker's was a false comparison. Demand for iPhones today blinds us to what supply and demand were like in the early years. Apple had just about enough capacity to keep up with one carrier. It was a beautiful plan driven by necessity, but the exclusivity also worked to Apple's benefit as much as AT&T's.

    Dekker's business decision was to turn customers away from making purchases through an established secure system with limitless capacity. There was no physical reason why they couldn't have left the ?Pay switch on.
  • Reply 10 of 31
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NailedToTheX View Post



    They don't think too many ppl complained when iPhone was only through AT&T? I'm not an American, but that seemed to be a huge factor early on... I think that hurt iPhone initial adoption, and massively helped at&t which seemed to be a dog losing ground rapidly.

    I think it's the wrong argument, anyway. iPhone only being available on AT&T is a product only available from a single provider - but the issue under discussion is the opposite. If it were the former issue, it would be like saying "CurrentC is only available from a few retailers during the expansion period", which is something I think consumers understand completely. What's really happening is the latter, opposite issue, which is "retailers we partner with are only allowed to use CurrentC". That's less acceptable, and the proper analogy would actually be if Apple had forced AT&T to offer only iPhone for the first 6 months it was on the market, and remove all the other smartphones that were available at the time.

  • Reply 11 of 31
    adrayven wrote: »
    CurrentC puts all liability onto the consumer. CurrentC gets breached again, any bank account data gets taken and pulled from accounts, thats on the consumer. Says so right on the website.

    The banks won't cover you because you bypassed their regular security measures by allowing a direct draft account... They'll just look at you funny and tell you it's not their fault you authorized CurrentC a blank check.

    No wonder Walmart was all for MCX...they could pick up a fraction of a point of profit by shedding fraud liability... Dumb, badly-dressed fat people would suffer, but then Walmart never cared about them anyway...
  • Reply 12 of 31
    I'm not okay with letting merchants access my bank account. These retailers may over charge you, and the credit cards are a layer of protection. You can call the credit card company and cancel the charge. Without that you have nothing. When CurrentC takes the money out, it's gone. It's the retailers. And good luck getting them to give it back.

    Compare that to Apple Pay. It's a tokenized system that's protected by your fingerprint with a layer of protection from the credit card company. Plus, you don't have to wake your phone to use it. And being a marketing powerhouse with a proven customer satisfaction track record like Apple has, which one do you think will take off?
  • Reply 13 of 31
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,306member
    sflocal wrote: »
    CurrentC already got breached, and they care nothing about consumer privacy. The CEO gets the boot too? Oh yeah, this sounds like a consortium I'd trust with my financial data... NOT!

    CurrentC is a joke.

    Sounds like a misspelled blackcurrant drink! :D
  • Reply 14 of 31
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    Wasn't it Cingular who adopted the iPhone first, who than got bought off by att? And wasn't Cingular the only ones who gave iPhone a try with apple's terms? And then every phone company were trying to jump in the iPhone bandwagon. And then they had to pay a lot of money. And wasn't the iPhone a revolutionary product? My point is STFU! you are not Apple and your product is not the iPhone! So drop dead already!
  • Reply 15 of 31

    Dekkers rubs his hands together with glee. Yessss! They're arguing about AT&T instead of CurrentC! I've deflected criticism! Muwahahahaha!

  • Reply 16 of 31
    jm6032jm6032 Posts: 147member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by idrey View Post



    Wasn't it Cingular who adopted the iPhone first,

    My recollection is that is was Cingular. Actually, it's still Cingular. They bought AT&T and changed their name.

  • Reply 17 of 31
    chadbagchadbag Posts: 1,096member
    idrey wrote: »
    Wasn't it Cingular who adopted the iPhone first, who than got bought off by att? And wasn't Cingular the only ones who gave iPhone a try with apple's terms? And then every phone company were trying to jump in the iPhone bandwagon. And then they had to pay a lot of money. And wasn't the iPhone a revolutionary product? My point is STFU! you are not Apple and your product is not the iPhone! So drop dead already!

    No. Cingular had already been bought by att (or bought att and changed name to att) before the iPhone came out. It was an att deal from the start
  • Reply 18 of 31
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    jm6032 wrote: »
    My recollection is that is was Cingular. Actually, it's still Cingular. They bought AT&T and changed their name.
    Oh! I thought att bought Cingular. They messed me up by changing their name. Thanks!
  • Reply 19 of 31
    idreyidrey Posts: 640member
    chadbag wrote: »
    No. Cingular had already been bought by att (or bought att and changed name to att) before the iPhone came out. It was an att deal from the start

    Ok who bought who? Now I am confused ????
  • Reply 20 of 31
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,113member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by idrey View Post



    Wasn't it Cingular who adopted the iPhone first, who than got bought off by att? And wasn't Cingular the only ones who gave iPhone a try with apple's terms? And then every phone company were trying to jump in the iPhone bandwagon. And then they had to pay a lot of money. And wasn't the iPhone a revolutionary product? My point is STFU! you are not Apple and your product is not the iPhone! So drop dead already!



    The exclusive connection between Apple and Cingular during the iPhone development phase was greatly driven by the need for secrecy. Steve Jobs trusted one carrier - Cingular - not to spill the beans before he was ready to announce the iPhone.

     

    http://archive.fortune.com/2007/01/10/commentary/lewis_fortune_iphone.fortune/index.htm

Sign In or Register to comment.