Again, if the bank issuing the card has not upgraded the card to a chip card, then there's no liability for the transaction by the merchant. I presume there's going to be some software in the new terminals that will recognize a swiped card contains a chip and forces the consumer to insert the card instead, otherwise what's the point? I currently have in my possession four credit cards without a chip which were recently issued. The experts think it will take up to a year or more for the banks to replace all the mag-stripe cards with chip cards. I asked my bank when they would be upgraded and they did not know.
From the beginning of the transaction, there is communication between the chip card and the device in both directions. There's quite a lot going on in this step, but we'll focus on three major functions.
First, the terminal has to determine whether the card is a magnetic stripe card or a chip card.
Typically, the terminal begins by reading the magnetic stripe (because the assumption today is that all cards have a magnetic stripe). By interrogating the service code in the magnetic stripe data, the terminal determines whether the card is a magnetic stripe card or a chip card. If it's a chip card, the terminal then has to try to read the chip. If the terminal can't read the chip, the terminal follows the applicable rules and regulations to determine how to proceed at this point: either to "fall back" and generate a magnetic stripe transaction, or to stop the transaction. For our example, we'll assume the terminal was able to successfully read the chip.
SC: Service Code. 3 digits:
Digit 1 (most significant): Interchange and technology:
0: Reserved for future use by ISO.
1: Available for international interchange.
2: Available for international interchange and with integrated circuit, which should be used for the financial transaction when feasible.
3: Reserved for future use by ISO.
4: Reserved for future use by ISO.
5: Available for national interchange only, except under bilateral agreement. 6: Available for national interchange only, except under bilateral agreement, and with integrated circuit, which should be used for the financial transaction when feasible.
7: Not available for general interchange, except under bilateral agreement.
8: Reserved for future use by ISO.
9: Test.
Digit 2: Authorization processing:
0: Transactions are authorized following the normal rules.
1: Reserved for future use by ISO.
2: Transactions are authorized by issuer and should be online.
3: Reserved for future use by ISO.
4: Transactions are authorized by issuer and should be online, except under bilateral agreement.
5: Reserved for future use by ISO.
6: Reserved for future use by ISO.
7: Reserved for future use by ISO.
8: Reserved for future use by ISO.
9: Reserved for future use by ISO.
Digit 3 (least significant): Range of services and PIN requirements:
0: No restrictions and PIN required.
1: No restrictions.
2: Goods and services only (no cash).
3: ATM only and PIN required.
4: Cash only.
5: Goods and services only (no cash) and PIN required.
6: No restrictions and require PIN when feasible.
7: Goods and services only (no cash) and require PIN when feasible.
8: Reserved for future use by ISO.
9: Reserved for future use by ISO.
As far as naming their payment service they could have named it something original if they didn't want to continue their blatant and boring Apple aping. They could have called it TouchWiz Payments for instance.
Samsung's strategy is not so much coming up with their own stuff as throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Samsung doesn't care if it works, they like piggybacking on someone else's marketing, guess it saves them money, that's the reason they called it Samsung Pay, because if people see it, they'll think they'll be getting the same when they buy their phones... Only to find out later it is absolute crapola.
"MST Is MORE Secure Than Traditional Magnetic Strip Tech
Though the MST tech in Samsung Pay communicates with the same magnetic strip PoS readers many retailers have been using for years, the Samsung Pay app introduces a new step in the process, called "tokenization," which improves and enhances the overall security of your payment information.
In simple terms, the Samsung Pay app embeds your payment information in a secure token that's sent to the PoS readers instead of your actual payment card data, so retailers (and fraudsters who hack them) never have direct access to that information. Your payment information is never stored on your device, either."
The problem is that most fandroids even though praise Samsung, would never trust android enough to put their financial information in their phone. I heard that from multiple fandroids who never wanted to use iPhone. Let's say StageFreight...oh yeah...I would never trust android in a million years.
What most of them secretly long for is to get Apple's latest best ideas, design, and features from someone else for less, so they don't have to buy from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foggyhill
Samsung doesn't care if it works, they like piggybacking on someone else's marketing, guess it saves them money, that's the reason they called it Samsung Pay, because if people see it, they'll think they'll be getting the same when they buy their phones... Only to find out later it is absolute crapola.
I was joking before that they would call it "S-Pay" (or spay, LOL). But no, they weren't joking.
i can't run this on an iPhone so it's hardly a competitor. Companion is more like it. Apple Pay for folks using Apple phones and Samsung Pay for folks running Samsung. It's only an issue if Apple patented their system and it's not FRAND and Samsung did the exact same system infringing on Apple IP. Otherwise we should be praising them for wanting to see their users benefit from such transactions
i can't run this on an iPhone so it's hardly a competitor. Companion is more like it. Apple Pay for folks using Apple phones and Samsung Pay for folks running Samsung. It's only an issue if Apple patented their system and it's not FRAND and Samsung did the exact same system infringing on Apple IP. Otherwise we should be praising them for wanting to see their users benefit from such transactions
The Apple Pay system is not entirely unique. Essentially the only part that makes it "Apple Pay" and not something else is how the Secure Element works.
The current alternative "Softcard (formerly known as ISIS)" has been bought by Google, relies on Host Card Emulation. LoopPay is closer to in "theory" to what looks like Apple Pay (contactlesss) payments (and was ... and still is marketed as Apple-only) and isn't secure at all because it stores the card information on the device.
So Apple Pay works like this:
- unlock the secure element with your fingerprint, pay at the contactless NFC terminal, No internet access required on your device.
Where as Softcard and earlier Google Wallet implementations require internet access on the device because the "secure element" is stored in the cloud. Good idea in theory. In practice it's phenomenally stupid to save your credit card numbers "in the cloud" or any service that has free reign to charge the card.
LoopPay's "contactless" mechanic is simply playing back the card number to the magstripe reader head. This is even less secure than the card, because the merchant has no idea what you're doing and you could be using any card that has been stored on the device/cloud.
Like... to be entirely honest... any kind of payment method that requires the device to have an internet connection, is dead on arrival. That includes things like CurrentC.
So this system will be totally useless outside the states. If your using a EU bank card in Europe you can no longer swipe it. The till machine has to read the chip.
And since Samsung pay doesn't do this then it is dead in Europe.
Tried my UK apple pay for the first time on the watch was surprised on how fast it is. Can't wait to try it on the tube next time I'm in London!
Not entirely true. Samsung Pay combines both Loop Pay and Android Pay in one I believe. Loop Pay is pretty much useless for sure since it uses magnetic field just like traditional card swipe...well with added encryption called MST. Android Pay, however, will work just like Apple Pay since their frameworks are almost the same except some differences in implementation: Apple Pay uses in-device Secure Element for tokenization while Android Pay does that on the cloud...even though they also store some token codes locally in case no network's available. Android Pay doesn't require fingerprint to authentication while Apple Pay does.
The Apple Pay system is not entirely unique. Essentially the only part that makes it "Apple Pay" and not something else is how the Secure Element works.
The current alternative "Softcard (formerly known as ISIS)" has been bought by Google, relies on Host Card Emulation. LoopPay is closer to in "theory" to what looks like Apple Pay (contactlesss) payments (and was ... and still is marketed as Apple-only) and isn't secure at all because it stores the card information on the device.
So Apple Pay works like this:
- unlock the secure element with your fingerprint, pay at the contactless NFC terminal, No internet access required on your device.
Where as Softcard and earlier Google Wallet implementations require internet access on the device because the "secure element" is stored in the cloud. Good idea in theory. In practice it's phenomenally stupid to save your credit card numbers "in the cloud" or any service that has free reign to charge the card. Actually, Softcard, now Android Pay actually stores some token codes for off-line uses as well. Softcare and Google Wallet implementation is not the same. Google Wallet actually uses their own credit card "virtual wallet card" issued by Bankcorp bank for transactions and charge back to your credit card stored on cloud.
LoopPay's "contactless" mechanic is simply playing back the card number to the magstripe reader head. This is even less secure than the card, because the merchant has no idea what you're doing and you could be using any card that has been stored on the device/cloud.
Like... to be entirely honest... any kind of payment method that requires the device to have an internet connection, is dead on arrival. That includes things like CurrentC.
Considering ALL fraud liability will now fall in the hands of the business who accepts the credit card, I think it's pretty safe to bet they'll all upgrade. After all, most merchant banks won't be charging much for upgrading the store's equipment, since they're still making a profit on the transaction, and more ways to accept payments means more profit for the merchant bank.
The foundation of tokenization payments is already an industry standard. Apple Pay is Apple's marketing name for it, such as Samsung Pay is for Samsung (and there's Android Pay, also).
Edit: Gatorguy beat me to it.
Then perhaps it is purely a marketing/perception problem. My understanding is that when you use Apple Pay, Apple servers are involved in the transaction and it is done in an Apple proprietary manner. If the reality is that, yes, you use Apple servers, but the whole transaction is done in a way that anyone else can (and should) do using industry standards, then why bother branding it "Apple" Pay? Is it merely the fingerprint use to gain access to the card info on the phone?
From an ignorant consumer point of view, it is confusing to have company brands used to describe an open standard. I'd much rather see Apple and Samsung say they support NFC and be done with it.
The foundation of tokenization payments is already an industry standard. Apple Pay is Apple's marketing name for it, such as Samsung Pay is for Samsung (and there's Android Pay, also).
Edit: Gatorguy beat me to it.
I'M SICK OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. APPLE PAY IS NOT SIMPLY TOKENIZATION. IF IT WERE, THEN GOOGLE WALLET WOULD BE SUCCEEDED INSTEAD OF BEING OBSOLESCED. THIS LOGICAL FALLACY THAT 'OH APPLE PAY USES TOKENIZATION, AND APPLE DIDN'T INVENT TOKENIZATION, AND OTHER PAYMENT SYSTEMS USE TOKENIZATION, THEREFORE APPLE PAY ISN'T ANYTHING NEW AND IS SIMPLY COPYING OTHERS' NEEDS TO STOP.
Then perhaps it is purely a marketing/perception problem.
It's not just marketing.
My understanding is that when you use Apple Pay, Apple servers are involved in the transaction and it is done in an Apple proprietary manner.
They aren't involved. Via NFC, it works the same way as you would swipe a card insofar as your digitized card data moves from your physical item in your hand to the POS terminal receiver over their network to their payment provider and then to your bank to be approved.
If the reality is that, yes, you use Apple servers, but the whole transaction is done in a way that anyone else can (and should) do using industry standards, then why bother branding it "Apple" Pay?
Apple Pay is a complex framework that uses things that all existed, at least in part, and could have been put together by anyone else had they taken the time to do it right. Not a great example, but look at FaceTime. That uses a whole slew of standard networking protocols but it's still Apple's propriety design to build out that feature which includes their front and back end. In the case of Apple Pay they have smartly chosen to exclude themselves and let each banks control if they want to offer Apple Pay support, which cards will support it, and how they will authenticate each card, if at all, being added to Passbook (soon to be Wallet).
If you look at your Passbook/Wallet cards stores you will see the last 4 digits of your physical card — to help you identify that card — as well as a Device Account Number which is simply a representational card number that is unique to that card and that device, which is issued by your financial institution. It's the same length as your physical card number and is essentially an alias to it, so if it does get compromised it will not compromise your physical crd number. This does not work the other way; if your physical card needs to be removed you will need to redo all the representational cards tied to it. Tokenization is simply an additional security feature that protects on a per transaction basis.
Google Wallet would store this data online which requires an internet connection on your device to use, and would have everything go through their Bankcorp partner would first allowed for only tying your bank's checking and saving account via the routing number (low to no fraud protection) and eventually allowed CC and debit cards to be tied to it, but it was still going through Google and Bankcorp on their servers.
Now, Apple's solution is clearly better for the user, better for the banks, nearly impossible for both proximal and remote thieves, more convenient, and extremely safe, and while Apple has been taken out of the loop for the transaction process, it's technically possible for Apple to be "watching" your Apple Pay usage when it sends Diagnostic Data back to their servers by looking at Passbook(Wallet). Are they doing that? I would bet they wouldn't even dream of seeing how much you spent and where, but they I could see them recording the number of cards add and number of transactions for Apple Pay that they anonymize and record to get a better understanding of the adoption rate.
Is it merely the fingerprint use to gain access to the card info on the phone?
As described above, no. In fact, Touch ID doesn't even have to be used for Apple Pay to work. Touch ID is certainly a convenience feature that helps make Apple Pay a better service but it doesn't need to be used. It's a misconception that a biometrics is inherently more secure than a passcode that only resides in memory. This is not the case as shown by iDevices requiring a passcode before you can you Touch ID after a restart and after 48 hours has passed.
From an ignorant consumer point of view, it is confusing to have company brands used to describe an open standard. I'd much rather see Apple and Samsung say they support NFC and be done with it.
As described with FaceTime, utilizing open standards in your product doesn't mean that all your product is just branding an open standard.
The foundation of tokenization payments is already an industry standard. Apple Pay is Apple's marketing name for it, such as Samsung Pay is for Samsung (and there's Android Pay, also).
Edit: Gatorguy beat me to it.
I'M SICK OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. APPLE PAY IS NOT SIMPLY TOKENIZATION. IF IT WERE, THEN GOOGLE WALLET WOULD BE SUCCEEDED INSTEAD OF BEING OBSOLESCED. THIS LOGICAL FALLACY THAT 'OH APPLE PAY USES TOKENIZATION, AND APPLE DIDN'T INVENT TOKENIZATION, AND OTHER PAYMENT SYSTEMS USE TOKENIZATION, THEREFORE APPLE PAY ISN'T ANYTHING NEW AND IS SIMPLY COPYING OTHERS' CRAP. STOP IT!
I'm glad it reads that way, but it's really just putting the caps lock and typing as I normally would then editing to include a couple more expletives than usual.
"Work smarter, to harder." — Scrooge McDuck* * Of course, if i was really smart I wouldn't fucking be here.
Please. Apple Pay is built on the latest EMVco tokenization system that was NOT developed by Apple, but was developed by the major credit card companies and financial institutions. It IS a standard. Apple just happened to be the first company to use this new STANDARD. The only thing Apple added was using Touch ID instead of a PIN, but this doesn't change how this INDUSTRY STANDARD works (including all the backend processing that goes on).
Concise, straightforward and accurate. Great post!
And yes SammyPay looks like it might get confusing. Since simplicity and convenience instead of security will probably be a bigger draw for most they aren't doing themselves a favor by tossing in more functions that may need user input.
There will be no advantage to LoopPay. By the time it really gets going on Samsung phones, all of the merchants will have upgraded their terminals (as mandated by the CC companies) anyway, and these will all accept ApplePay, AndroidPay, or Samsung Pay (via NFC) as well. Plus it is cumbersome to use and brought with all of the same security issues that traditional CCs come with.
That's not true. Walmart has already upgraded their CC terminals for chip support but their new terminals still don't support NFC. A boneheaded move on their part that I'm sure has something to do with CurrentC. I can't wait for people to start using Samsung Pay in Walmart. I hope CurrentC is D.O.A.
That's not true. Walmart has already upgraded their CC terminals for chip support but their new terminals still don't support NFC. A boneheaded move on their part that I'm sure has something to do with CurrentC. I can't wait for people to start using Samsung Pay in Walmart. I hope CurrentC is D.O.A.
1) Welcome to the forum.
2) For the sake of clarity, do the new terminals have NFC HW, that simply isn't enabled or do their terminals not have the HW in them?
Comments
http://www.paragonedge.com/news/industry-insights/comparing-chip-card-and-magnetic-stripe-card-transaction-flows.html
http://www.gae.ucm.es/~padilla/extrawork/tracks.html
As far as naming their payment service they could have named it something original if they didn't want to continue their blatant and boring Apple aping. They could have called it TouchWiz Payments for instance.
You do realize that Google Wallet was first right? For like 5 years.... So actually, Apple copied Google. Educate yourself my friend.
It sends the token via a secured magnetic transmission that mirrors a card swipe which allows it to work on all existing credit card terminals.
Samsung's strategy is not so much coming up with their own stuff as throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks.
Samsung doesn't care if it works, they like piggybacking on someone else's marketing, guess it saves them money, that's the reason they called it Samsung Pay, because if people see it, they'll think they'll be getting the same when they buy their phones... Only to find out later it is absolute crapola.
"MST Is MORE Secure Than Traditional Magnetic Strip Tech
Though the MST tech in Samsung Pay communicates with the same magnetic strip PoS readers many retailers have been using for years, the Samsung Pay app introduces a new step in the process, called "tokenization," which improves and enhances the overall security of your payment information.
In simple terms, the Samsung Pay app embeds your payment information in a secure token that's sent to the PoS readers instead of your actual payment card data, so retailers (and fraudsters who hack them) never have direct access to that information. Your payment information is never stored on your device, either."
The problem is that most fandroids even though praise Samsung, would never trust android enough to put their financial information in their phone. I heard that from multiple fandroids who never wanted to use iPhone. Let's say StageFreight...oh yeah...I would never trust android in a million years.
What most of them secretly long for is to get Apple's latest best ideas, design, and features from someone else for less, so they don't have to buy from Apple.
Samsung doesn't care if it works, they like piggybacking on someone else's marketing, guess it saves them money, that's the reason they called it Samsung Pay, because if people see it, they'll think they'll be getting the same when they buy their phones... Only to find out later it is absolute crapola.
I was joking before that they would call it "S-Pay" (or spay, LOL). But no, they weren't joking.
i can't run this on an iPhone so it's hardly a competitor. Companion is more like it. Apple Pay for folks using Apple phones and Samsung Pay for folks running Samsung. It's only an issue if Apple patented their system and it's not FRAND and Samsung did the exact same system infringing on Apple IP. Otherwise we should be praising them for wanting to see their users benefit from such transactions
The Apple Pay system is not entirely unique. Essentially the only part that makes it "Apple Pay" and not something else is how the Secure Element works.
The current alternative "Softcard (formerly known as ISIS)" has been bought by Google, relies on Host Card Emulation. LoopPay is closer to in "theory" to what looks like Apple Pay (contactlesss) payments (and was ... and still is marketed as Apple-only) and isn't secure at all because it stores the card information on the device.
So Apple Pay works like this:
- unlock the secure element with your fingerprint, pay at the contactless NFC terminal, No internet access required on your device.
Where as Softcard and earlier Google Wallet implementations require internet access on the device because the "secure element" is stored in the cloud. Good idea in theory. In practice it's phenomenally stupid to save your credit card numbers "in the cloud" or any service that has free reign to charge the card.
LoopPay's "contactless" mechanic is simply playing back the card number to the magstripe reader head. This is even less secure than the card, because the merchant has no idea what you're doing and you could be using any card that has been stored on the device/cloud.
Like... to be entirely honest... any kind of payment method that requires the device to have an internet connection, is dead on arrival. That includes things like CurrentC.
So this system will be totally useless outside the states. If your using a EU bank card in Europe you can no longer swipe it. The till machine has to read the chip.
And since Samsung pay doesn't do this then it is dead in Europe.
Tried my UK apple pay for the first time on the watch was surprised on how fast it is. Can't wait to try it on the tube next time I'm in London!
Not entirely true. Samsung Pay combines both Loop Pay and Android Pay in one I believe. Loop Pay is pretty much useless for sure since it uses magnetic field just like traditional card swipe...well with added encryption called MST. Android Pay, however, will work just like Apple Pay since their frameworks are almost the same except some differences in implementation: Apple Pay uses in-device Secure Element for tokenization while Android Pay does that on the cloud...even though they also store some token codes locally in case no network's available. Android Pay doesn't require fingerprint to authentication while Apple Pay does.
The Apple Pay system is not entirely unique. Essentially the only part that makes it "Apple Pay" and not something else is how the Secure Element works.
The current alternative "Softcard (formerly known as ISIS)" has been bought by Google, relies on Host Card Emulation. LoopPay is closer to in "theory" to what looks like Apple Pay (contactlesss) payments (and was ... and still is marketed as Apple-only) and isn't secure at all because it stores the card information on the device.
So Apple Pay works like this:
- unlock the secure element with your fingerprint, pay at the contactless NFC terminal, No internet access required on your device.
Where as Softcard and earlier Google Wallet implementations require internet access on the device because the "secure element" is stored in the cloud. Good idea in theory. In practice it's phenomenally stupid to save your credit card numbers "in the cloud" or any service that has free reign to charge the card. Actually, Softcard, now Android Pay actually stores some token codes for off-line uses as well. Softcare and Google Wallet implementation is not the same. Google Wallet actually uses their own credit card "virtual wallet card" issued by Bankcorp bank for transactions and charge back to your credit card stored on cloud.
LoopPay's "contactless" mechanic is simply playing back the card number to the magstripe reader head. This is even less secure than the card, because the merchant has no idea what you're doing and you could be using any card that has been stored on the device/cloud.
Like... to be entirely honest... any kind of payment method that requires the device to have an internet connection, is dead on arrival. That includes things like CurrentC.
Some corrections.
Considering ALL fraud liability will now fall in the hands of the business who accepts the credit card, I think it's pretty safe to bet they'll all upgrade. After all, most merchant banks won't be charging much for upgrading the store's equipment, since they're still making a profit on the transaction, and more ways to accept payments means more profit for the merchant bank.
The foundation of tokenization payments is already an industry standard. Apple Pay is Apple's marketing name for it, such as Samsung Pay is for Samsung (and there's Android Pay, also).
Edit: Gatorguy beat me to it.
Then perhaps it is purely a marketing/perception problem. My understanding is that when you use Apple Pay, Apple servers are involved in the transaction and it is done in an Apple proprietary manner. If the reality is that, yes, you use Apple servers, but the whole transaction is done in a way that anyone else can (and should) do using industry standards, then why bother branding it "Apple" Pay? Is it merely the fingerprint use to gain access to the card info on the phone?
From an ignorant consumer point of view, it is confusing to have company brands used to describe an open standard. I'd much rather see Apple and Samsung say they support NFC and be done with it.
I'M SICK OF THIS FUCKING BULLSHIT. APPLE PAY IS NOT SIMPLY TOKENIZATION. IF IT WERE, THEN GOOGLE WALLET WOULD BE SUCCEEDED INSTEAD OF BEING OBSOLESCED. THIS LOGICAL FALLACY THAT 'OH APPLE PAY USES TOKENIZATION, AND APPLE DIDN'T INVENT TOKENIZATION, AND OTHER PAYMENT SYSTEMS USE TOKENIZATION, THEREFORE APPLE PAY ISN'T ANYTHING NEW AND IS SIMPLY COPYING OTHERS' NEEDS TO STOP.
It's not just marketing.
They aren't involved. Via NFC, it works the same way as you would swipe a card insofar as your digitized card data moves from your physical item in your hand to the POS terminal receiver over their network to their payment provider and then to your bank to be approved.
Apple Pay is a complex framework that uses things that all existed, at least in part, and could have been put together by anyone else had they taken the time to do it right. Not a great example, but look at FaceTime. That uses a whole slew of standard networking protocols but it's still Apple's propriety design to build out that feature which includes their front and back end. In the case of Apple Pay they have smartly chosen to exclude themselves and let each banks control if they want to offer Apple Pay support, which cards will support it, and how they will authenticate each card, if at all, being added to Passbook (soon to be Wallet).
If you look at your Passbook/Wallet cards stores you will see the last 4 digits of your physical card — to help you identify that card — as well as a Device Account Number which is simply a representational card number that is unique to that card and that device, which is issued by your financial institution. It's the same length as your physical card number and is essentially an alias to it, so if it does get compromised it will not compromise your physical crd number. This does not work the other way; if your physical card needs to be removed you will need to redo all the representational cards tied to it. Tokenization is simply an additional security feature that protects on a per transaction basis.
Google Wallet would store this data online which requires an internet connection on your device to use, and would have everything go through their Bankcorp partner would first allowed for only tying your bank's checking and saving account via the routing number (low to no fraud protection) and eventually allowed CC and debit cards to be tied to it, but it was still going through Google and Bankcorp on their servers.
Now, Apple's solution is clearly better for the user, better for the banks, nearly impossible for both proximal and remote thieves, more convenient, and extremely safe, and while Apple has been taken out of the loop for the transaction process, it's technically possible for Apple to be "watching" your Apple Pay usage when it sends Diagnostic Data back to their servers by looking at Passbook(Wallet). Are they doing that? I would bet they wouldn't even dream of seeing how much you spent and where, but they I could see them recording the number of cards add and number of transactions for Apple Pay that they anonymize and record to get a better understanding of the adoption rate.
As described above, no. In fact, Touch ID doesn't even have to be used for Apple Pay to work. Touch ID is certainly a convenience feature that helps make Apple Pay a better service but it doesn't need to be used. It's a misconception that a biometrics is inherently more secure than a passcode that only resides in memory. This is not the case as shown by iDevices requiring a passcode before you can you Touch ID after a restart and after 48 hours has passed.
As described with FaceTime, utilizing open standards in your product doesn't mean that all your product is just branding an open standard.
Chill bro, you're going to blow a gasket.
I'm glad it reads that way, but it's really just putting the caps lock and typing as I normally would then editing to include a couple more expletives than usual.
"Work smarter, to harder." — Scrooge McDuck*
* Of course, if i was really smart I wouldn't fucking be here.
And yes SammyPay looks like it might get confusing. Since simplicity and convenience instead of security will probably be a bigger draw for most they aren't doing themselves a favor by tossing in more functions that may need user input.
1) Welcome to the forum.
2) For the sake of clarity, do the new terminals have NFC HW, that simply isn't enabled or do their terminals not have the HW in them?