CVS continues Apple Pay snub, launches barcode-based 'CVS Pay'

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 93
    Alin said:
    I've paid at cvs with Apple Pay for the last month and it worked every single time! Several stores
    Where?
  • Reply 82 of 93
    I've used Apple Pay several times at a couple of fast food places, and for the first time, at Walgreen's today. Even after all this time, it seems the clerk there had never seen anyone use any kind of contact payment.

    It took her a moment to realize not only was a card not used, but neither was a phone. She knew about 'phone payment' but not about using a watch. 

    With a 5s, I can only pay with my Watch, but it's pretty fast, faster than using a card, and maybe even a phone. But even if it wasn't, the security in affords is the reason for using it, and a big portion of why I bought the Watch.

    It's been awhile since I've been in my local CVS, but I don't think it has NFC readers. It still has the same gear that was there when it was Long's, and it didn't do NFC either. My trip to Walgreen's (a little farther than CVS, and lousy parking) means I won't be in CVS anytime soon, but I'd like to see if they did get NFC readers. Then I'd try to use Apple Pay to see if it was enabled as another poster suggested.

    My other mission is to go on a Real Killer Payment System tour, checking out all the spots Map.app says accepts Apple Pay.
    Deelron
  • Reply 83 of 93
    So when will the government make a law that all payment legal tender methods need to be accepted if the lament terminal allows it. Challenge: next time your at cvs and someone pulls out the phone with this app. I wonder if you can take a picture of the barcode and then use it? How secure is this really? Does the barcode change with every use?
  • Reply 84 of 93
    fallenjtfallenjt Posts: 4,040member
    I loved ApplePay when it first came out. As things would happen, I was late paying my American Express bill. The card use was suspended for a few days. AP said the card could no longer be used as it was no longer valid. I waited two weeks after my card was working again and my AP still reported the card invalid. Well, darn. I sure don't need to fiddle with my phone when my credit card is right here in my hand. 

    Apple is is making money with Apple Pay. It's not a free service. It should work properly and efficiently. I am sure others have had the same issue. Hey, I keep asking why the Contacts app doesn't have familiarity fill-in? So, bottom line, if AP works for you that's nice. For me it's clunky and not worth the bother. I still have to carry my credit cards. OK, I'm used to it.
    Boo!
  • Reply 85 of 93
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    The real question is, why would I want this? Why would anyone want this? Who the hell wants to download a dedicated payment app for a SINGLE store? This move makes no sense whatsoever. Unless of course, you believe this is a customer data collection and targeted marketing scheme....which I'm starting to...


    Not so much a scheme but that's basically the reason any company wants their own system instead of using someone else's.  
    Part of me understands CVS position on this.  However it is very short sighted.  Consumers want to use what works for them.  They want CHOICE.  CVS should allow Apple Pay and then come out with their own solution also.  If their solution is better for consumers they will use it.  Otherwise they will use the prove solution of Apple Pay.
    But it's the same as Apple doing things that benefit Apple and not the end user. Apple has proven that consumer choice is not necessary if you get them settled enough into your camp. Accepting other pay systems while getting their own off the ground would probably cut the use of their's to a fraction and possibly not enough activity and benefits to warrant the expense. As it is now most consumers aren't even particularly aware of such payment mechanisms or why they need to use it over, say, a regular vendor credit card. I think the stores see it as still a not yet won battle over the final landscape.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 86 of 93
    sricesrice Posts: 119member
    It's called universal health care paid through taxes. It's not perfect but it does mean people don't go bankrupt or worse die because they can't afford treatment though some here would scream socialism/communism buthe it does mean healthcare/insurance companies can't gouge people.
    Also the NHS buys in bulk and can negotiate a much lower cost for drugs.
    This right here. I'm as capatilist as the next, but some things should be averaged.  The rich aren't impacted. The poor either don't get the care or aren't impacted because they can't pay, and the middle gets squeezed. Totally don't mind paying my fair share... Averaging over millions means the unlucky ones aren't impact by an outlier situation. A life time of savings can be wiped out by one bad medical situation, even with good insurance.

    People who don't get this haven't thought about it hard enough. 
    edited August 2016 nolamacguymac fan
  • Reply 87 of 93
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    macxpress said:
    The real question is, why would I want this? Why would anyone want this? Who the hell wants to download a dedicated payment app for a SINGLE store? This move makes no sense whatsoever. Unless of course, you believe this is a customer data collection and targeted marketing scheme....which I'm starting to...


    You mean you don't want to fiddle with your phone trying to find the specific app for the specific store you're in, just to make a mobile payment? I mean who wouldn't want that?

    I have a feeling ApplePay will win out in the end, if mobile payments don't die off completely. 
    ...
    One thing I would like to see somehow is e-receipts. Why in this day and age do we STILL get paper receipts??? If I use ApplePay, it should just to go my phone (or email). 

    Also, it seems like every time there's a completely brand new technology, every company has to play this me too game and get involved with their own idea of the same technology and they all fail one by one until were down to one or two. 

    The thing is, you do get an e-reciept. ApplePay pops up with the amount you just paid. The thing that needs to improve is the merchant-side reciept, eg when I buy a meal at McDonalds or KFC, it says I ordered chicken and fries, not just "paid $12.86"

    Unfortunately we likely will never see this happen without an "app" for every store in existence since it would need to interface with a backend and tie a transaction code to lookup, and Apple has no business knowing what you bought. However there is a work-around, the Amex/Visa/Mastercard processing network could receive an image of the receipt and the credit-card/bank app could be used to download the receipts.
  • Reply 88 of 93
    croprcropr Posts: 1,053member
    xmhillx said:
    curt12 said:
    But you are already scanning the barcodes of the various items you check out. How is scanning one more barcode much of a hassle?
    You have a point if you're doing self-checkout, like at a Walmart or Home Depot or Lowe's. Otherwise, it's the cashier who's physically scanning the barcodes of your items. So the burden of scanning barcodes is on the cashier. The "burden" of paying is on you. I can argue that Apple Pay does cut down that "burden" with the following.

    I carry my iPhone in my left pocket. I put my items on the counter for the clerk. While they're scanning/bagging the items, I pull out my phone with my left hand, as I move the phone toward the NFC reader I position my left thumb onto the fingerprint reader, when the phone gets within range of the NFC reader the phone screen automatically lights up with the default card displayed as it's reading my fingerprint, and 0.8 seconds later the payment goes through. I put my phone back into my left pocket. Wait for the cashier to finish their job. That's a fancy, detailed way of saying "I put the phone near the reader with my thumb already on the home button."

    That's less of a burden (Sure, you can argue it's a small difference. You can also argue it's a big difference. I can argue $500 isn't much, and also argue it's a lot) than using a credit card. Retrieving my wallet, taking out the credit card, inserting it into the chip reader, waiting 10-15 seconds before it'll allow me to remove it, then returning my card to my wallet, and returning the wallet. It is technically more steps and more effort and more time.

    Swiping the card cuts down on the "waiting for approval" for chip readers. That's where the benefits of security come in. Magnetic swipe readers don't have good security protections, but NFC and chip-readers do.

    So if we're talking about convenience: Apple Pay > Magnetic swiping > Chip Card Readers

    If we're talking about security: Apple Pay > Chip Card Readers > Magnetic swiping

    What I've read is that Apple Pay prevents the merchants valuable tracking/marketing information because of Apple Pay's inherent "security" features; meaning Apple Pay doesn't transfer details of what you bought/how much/etc. that merchants frequently gather, bundle, and either use themselves or sell the bulk data to 3rd party marketing firms. So it's valuable to them. Hence all these efforts to stop Apple Pay, like CurrentC from MXC or whatever they were called. Also, some app solutions wanted direct connection to your checking account, rather than credit card, so in addition to keeping the marketing info they wouldn't have to pay credit card fees to the banks/credit companies.

    It's basically a transparent display of a company's priorities: consumer experience vs company interests.

    It doesn't have to be "either or". You could argue allowing all NFC payment solutions could bring in extra customers, and the ease and novelty psychologically makes them purchase more than normal and more frequently than normal, leaving profits at least the same as before or even higher, while increasing customer satisfaction. It's arguable.
    Very good explanation but not fully correct. 

    Direct debiting an account does not require the access the account itself, only an authorization from the bank of the customer for the amount to pay.  The bank will never give a merchant any direct access to or any details about the account of the customer.

    It is for the customer in a lot of cases beneficial to leave his details to the merchant. It is much easier to take care of warranty, to give extra promotions to existing customers, ....  Any loyalty system works with this principal.

    Linking credit cards details with the customer details, is something that a customer does not want, but it increases the security from the merchant point of view.  An important measure to fight credit card fraud can only be done by a nation wide retailer, who can detect the use the same credit card details on 2 different places (1000 miles away) in  a very short time frame (an hour).  The detection of such fraud  by retailers, reduces the cost of the credit card companies and indirectly the fees for the end user.  For such a scheme to work the retailer does not need the name of the credit card owner, only the card number.  The credit card company does not have any notion about the location, so this company cannot do such an analysis.    EMV chip card readers  and NFC based terminals don't allow the retailer to collect the card number and so this anti fraud measure is being phased out. 

    In term of security, EMV chip reader payments are more secure than NFC payments (Apple Pay, or any other method).  In terms of encryption and protecting payment data they are 100% identical, however there are some risks that only occur in a NFC environment (connecting to the wrong nearby terminal, smartphone hacked, fingerprint fraud,...).  Statistics show that these risks are higher than someone stealing a credit card and guessing the PIN code before the card is blocked. 

    gatorguy
  • Reply 89 of 93
    xmhillxxmhillx Posts: 112member
    cropr said:
    xmhillx said:
    You have a point if you're doing self-checkout, like at a Walmart or Home Depot or Lowe's. Otherwise, it's the cashier who's physically scanning the barcodes of your items. So the burden of scanning barcodes is on the cashier. The "burden" of paying is on you. I can argue that Apple Pay does cut down that "burden" with the following.

    I carry my iPhone in my left pocket. I put my items on the counter for the clerk. While they're scanning/bagging the items, I pull out my phone with my left hand, as I move the phone toward the NFC reader I position my left thumb onto the fingerprint reader, when the phone gets within range of the NFC reader the phone screen automatically lights up with the default card displayed as it's reading my fingerprint, and 0.8 seconds later the payment goes through. I put my phone back into my left pocket. Wait for the cashier to finish their job. That's a fancy, detailed way of saying "I put the phone near the reader with my thumb already on the home button."

    That's less of a burden (Sure, you can argue it's a small difference. You can also argue it's a big difference. I can argue $500 isn't much, and also argue it's a lot) than using a credit card. Retrieving my wallet, taking out the credit card, inserting it into the chip reader, waiting 10-15 seconds before it'll allow me to remove it, then returning my card to my wallet, and returning the wallet. It is technically more steps and more effort and more time.

    Swiping the card cuts down on the "waiting for approval" for chip readers. That's where the benefits of security come in. Magnetic swipe readers don't have good security protections, but NFC and chip-readers do.

    So if we're talking about convenience: Apple Pay > Magnetic swiping > Chip Card Readers

    If we're talking about security: Apple Pay > Chip Card Readers > Magnetic swiping

    What I've read is that Apple Pay prevents the merchants valuable tracking/marketing information because of Apple Pay's inherent "security" features; meaning Apple Pay doesn't transfer details of what you bought/how much/etc. that merchants frequently gather, bundle, and either use themselves or sell the bulk data to 3rd party marketing firms. So it's valuable to them. Hence all these efforts to stop Apple Pay, like CurrentC from MXC or whatever they were called. Also, some app solutions wanted direct connection to your checking account, rather than credit card, so in addition to keeping the marketing info they wouldn't have to pay credit card fees to the banks/credit companies.

    It's basically a transparent display of a company's priorities: consumer experience vs company interests.

    It doesn't have to be "either or". You could argue allowing all NFC payment solutions could bring in extra customers, and the ease and novelty psychologically makes them purchase more than normal and more frequently than normal, leaving profits at least the same as before or even higher, while increasing customer satisfaction. It's arguable.
    Very good explanation but not fully correct. 

    Direct debiting an account does not require the access the account itself, only an authorization from the bank of the customer for the amount to pay.  The bank will never give a merchant any direct access to or any details about the account of the customer.

    It is for the customer in a lot of cases beneficial to leave his details to the merchant. It is much easier to take care of warranty, to give extra promotions to existing customers, ....  Any loyalty system works with this principal.

    Linking credit cards details with the customer details, is something that a customer does not want, but it increases the security from the merchant point of view.  An important measure to fight credit card fraud can only be done by a nation wide retailer, who can detect the use the same credit card details on 2 different places (1000 miles away) in  a very short time frame (an hour).  The detection of such fraud  by retailers, reduces the cost of the credit card companies and indirectly the fees for the end user.  For such a scheme to work the retailer does not need the name of the credit card owner, only the card number.  The credit card company does not have any notion about the location, so this company cannot do such an analysis.    EMV chip card readers  and NFC based terminals don't allow the retailer to collect the card number and so this anti fraud measure is being phased out. 

    In term of security, EMV chip reader payments are more secure than NFC payments (Apple Pay, or any other method).  In terms of encryption and protecting payment data they are 100% identical, however there are some risks that only occur in a NFC environment (connecting to the wrong nearby terminal, smartphone hacked, fingerprint fraud,...).  Statistics show that these risks are higher than someone stealing a credit card and guessing the PIN code before the card is blocked. 

    Oh ok kool insight!

    Right. In retrospect, direct access was the wrong or inaccurate phrase.

    I didn't know some of the other stuff. Good info though, thanks. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 90 of 93
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,022member
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:

    Because my family has to deal with CVS for an prescriptions, we have been sending our prescription to Canada since their negotiated cost they share with consumers is less then CVS and some time Rita Aid. 

    The US Government considers those to be illegal drugs. :/  If you recall Google was nailed by the Feds for allowing Canadian drugstores to advertise to US consumers. 

    actually, they are legit, I had to send them a prescription from a Dr, and being a US citizen I pay a little more than a Canadian citizen and they ship it directly to me via US postal. I found them on google search I guess google did not listen to the Feds. But I think the company who got in trouble with the FDA was companies selling drugs which were yet to be approved in the US. Again the website I was on said some generic versions of the drugs were not available for sale to US citizens so not all drugs were available to US citizens.
  • Reply 91 of 93
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,022member
    mike1 said:
    maestro64 said:

    Here is my experience with CVS, never really used them until recent when my company decide to use them as our provided or prescription drugs, we do not need to use them by they are the preferred provider.

    We have always used Rite Aid  since it was right now the street. As typical prescription plan you pay a minimal co-pay like $20 if need more than 90 days you order online/mail order and pay a lower co-pay than you would if you go to the store every 30 days. For years Rite Aid would charge less then the $20 co-pay if actually cost was less then $20, some time we would pay $18, I had asked them why and said if the actual prescription cost is lower than the co-pay they only charge the actual cost. However, CVS does not do this they will charge you the full co-pay no mater is the actual costs are less.

    The other stupid thing my company did was add the prescription cost into the medical deductible, so you have to cover the deductible before the co-pay kick in. Well we did a 3 month mail order with CVS after we have done a 3 month initial fill with Rita Aid down the street and we paid like $80 for 3 months. When we did the mail order the next 90 days CVS hit us with a bill of $250, when we asked why they say we did not hit our deductible, which was true, therefore we pay the full cost. When we asked why Rita Aid only charged $80, they could not tell us why, what we got was all kinds of excuses. In the end we went back to Rita Aid as we found out they actually pass along the savings they negotiate with drug companies verse CVS who keeps it all for themselves. Rita Aid told us the full non-negotiated cost of the prescription was well over $300 for 90 days.

    CVA is part of the reason health care cost are so high, the fact they doing their own payment systems is they trying to gain a few more percent of income and not sharing it with the consumers.

    Because my family has to deal with CVS for an prescriptions, we have been sending our prescription to Canada since their negotiated cost they share with consumers is less then CVS and some time Rita Aid. 

    This is why I thank the gods I live in a country with a system where by my prescriptions are free for me and  the cost of prescription drugs are regulated ~$11 per item regardless of the drug if you don't qualify for free prescriptions.
    It's free for you, but everybody else is paying for your drugs. Don't thank the gods, thank the millions of idiots willing to pay for your scrips.

    Yeah I love this, people who get free things, never ask themselves how come it is free, someone is paying, and it is usually everyone pays in so others can get it free. I personally had no issue pay into my medical insurance, and I have been lucky to work for some really good companies who paid the majority of the costs. Again most people have no idea the cost their companies pays for medical insurance. Since I managed a group of people and had a budget, I saw the costs being allocated to my department. Today Obama administration now requires companies to report to them your actual insurance costs you and the companies pays (it shows up on your W2). I personally hardly ever used medical insurance, until recently and even then our actual costs never came close to what is paid. To give you an idea my company and myself pays $30K per year for me and my family and this much has been paid for many years. If it is not covering my family its is covering people I do not even know.
  • Reply 92 of 93
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,328member
    maestro64 said:
    mike1 said:
    It's free for you, but everybody else is paying for your drugs. Don't thank the gods, thank the millions of idiots willing to pay for your scrips.

    Yeah I love this, people who get free things, never ask themselves how come it is free, someone is paying, and it is usually everyone pays in so others can get it free. I personally had no issue pay into my medical insurance, and I have been lucky to work for some really good companies who paid the majority of the costs. Again most people have no idea the cost their companies pays for medical insurance. Since I managed a group of people and had a budget, I saw the costs being allocated to my department. Today Obama administration now requires companies to report to them your actual insurance costs you and the companies pays (it shows up on your W2). I personally hardly ever used medical insurance, until recently and even then our actual costs never came close to what is paid. To give you an idea my company and myself pays $30K per year for me and my family and this much has been paid for many years. If it is not covering my family its is covering people I do not even know.
    I'm a tax payer and I know my taxes helps pay for my medication, I also know it helps pay for treatment for others. But as we don't have to pay excessive costs to supply the drugs (proper discounting due to bulk purchasing) or insurance companies it means the basic costs are lower.
    We as country decided that a model payed by taxes to the benefit of all was a better way than have people die because drugs and/or treatment was expensive. It's the horror of socialised universal health care.
    I've also got totally unlimited private health from my work (when I say unlimited it is unlimited) if I need something that's elective and can be done quicker privately.
    So I benefit from having the best of both worlds.
    The cost of my private care to me is classed as  $2000 for me and my dependants (children and or parents if they are classed as a dependant) but work pays that as a benefit so it doesn't impact my wage packet.


    edited August 2016
  • Reply 93 of 93
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,303member
    maestro64 said:
    gatorguy said:
    maestro64 said:

    Because my family has to deal with CVS for an prescriptions, we have been sending our prescription to Canada since their negotiated cost they share with consumers is less then CVS and some time Rita Aid. 

    The US Government considers those to be illegal drugs.  If you recall Google was nailed by the Feds for allowing Canadian drugstores to advertise to US consumers. 

    actually, they are legit, I had to send them a prescription from a Dr, and being a US citizen I pay a little more than a Canadian citizen and they ship it directly to me via US postal. I found them on google search I guess google did not listen to the Feds. But I think the company who got in trouble with the FDA was companies selling drugs which were yet to be approved in the US. Again the website I was on said some generic versions of the drugs were not available for sale to US citizens so not all drugs were available to US citizens.
    Quite OK to find "them" in a search.; The issue was accepting ads directed at US buyers. And no if importing your drugs from Canada, prescribed or not, you are technically buying illegal drugs AFAIK. 
    edited August 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.