xmhillx

About

Username
xmhillx
Joined
Visits
30
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
113
Badges
0
Posts
112
  • Intel pushes USB-C as 3.5mm jack replacement, touts better sound, thinness & power management

    tokyojimu said:
    It _is_ more cumbersome. Whenever there's a long line at the checkout I just stick my card in the slot instead of fumbling to get the double-click right, select the right card, then hope I'm holding the phone at just the right spot while holding my finger, careful not to actually press the button, so as to avoid the ire of those waiting.
    It's not. You just don't know what you don't know.

    But really good point because I've seen older people and clueless people in line at grocery stores fumbling through it, using both hands, opening an app, swiping screens..... it's like, wow that's totally not how it's meant to be used. It defeats the purpose if it's not any easier than a credit card.

    My phone's in my left pocket. I take it out with my left hand, as I'm moving it close to the terminal my left thumb is already on the fingerprint scanner, phone detects the reader and pays all in 0.8 seconds, I put the phone back in my left pocket. One handed, take out, 0.8 seconds, put back. Easy squeezy.

    But no. Ppl want to take out with one hand, unlock the phone with 4 digit passcode, swipe to find the wallet app, open the wallet, choose a credit card because they don't know about default card settings, move the phone to the reader, use the opposite hand to put a finger on the fingerprint reader, have trouble accepting the fingerprint cuz they never put the fingerprint correctly and don't take the time to re-do the fingerprint settings, then finally pay to the audibly loud sighs of the annoyed people in line. I've seen it in person. Trust me, I know. It's like using a bicycle with your right leg on the left pedal and saying "hey bicycles aren't as efficient as ppl say"...... and it's like "uhhm no those ppl aren't using it as intended."
    williamlondon
  • Intel pushes USB-C as 3.5mm jack replacement, touts better sound, thinness & power management

    mac_128 said:
    mazda 3s said:
    If USB-C is the future, and Apple definitely thinks so given the adoption of the standard on the MacBook, why doesn't Apple just go all in and put USB-C on the iPhones going forward? You'd have a universal standard and you could use just about any USB-C cable between ALL of your Apple devices.

    Better yet, what's the advantage of Lighting over USB-C anyway? Aren't they pretty much at feature/speed parity?


    Because I have a 4 year investment in Lightning cables and accessories for my iPhones and iPads. Apple will add a Lightning port to all of its Macs to facilitate those who have a need to use wired audio, but Apple's not looking to establish a new wired standard. They are pushing forward to wireless everything. In 5 years when USB-C is finally reaching market saturation as older devices start to be replaced, Apple will be moving to wireless charging, wireless audio, and wireless data almost exclusively. Apple is saving me money by not switching over to a new "standard" that for the next couple of years is going to be even harder to find than a Lightning cable out in the real world, and isn't forcing me to buy all new USB-C accessories and cables, only to toss them out in another 5 years or less anyway.
    Exacccccctttttlllllllyyyyyy.

    That's my thinking too. Apple made the usb-c competitor in 2012, Lightning. It's a competitor at least for mobile, because usb-c has many features that much larger capacity devices need so usb-c isn't specifically for mobile devices. Now, soon everything's going wireless. Not "just any" wireless, good wireless. Wireless charging that's as good or better than current wired charging for the average consumer. I doubt Apple will include wireless charging while it's still inferior to wired charging; the gimmick outweighs the benefits (imagine Apple Pay was more cumbersome than a chip reader credit card..... it'd be counter productive). Wireless audio surpassing the 3.5mm quality and performance features. Cloud storage is wireless already.

    With Bluetooth 5.0 coming out late 2016 / early 2017, and wireless charging improving to match or go beyond wired charging, and cloud services being more widely used...... industry is headed towards wireless. I don't expect Apple to invest in usb-c on their iPhones, deal with all the drawbacks of transitioning, undo much of their efforts for a proprietary ecosystem, just to eventually move towards wireless anyway, and when there is no glaring need for it and the biggest benefit is aligning along with the rest of industry.

    Thing is, I don't think we're there yet this year. Perhaps in 2017 we'll start to be there, and 2018 much more established. If Apple does remove the 3.5mm jack, I think it may have been a year too early, and maybe not Apple's fault. They could've expected BT5.0 to be released by the time iPhone was being manufactured, but BT took longer than anticipated and won't be released until after iPhone's release. I dunno. Maybe it's an early transition and we'll have to see what Apple releases in September to make an honest/accurate judgment on the justification and supposed benefits. C'mon September 7th....
    patchythepirate
  • CVS continues Apple Pay snub, launches barcode-based 'CVS Pay'

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

    curt12 said:
    mike1 said:
    Their app can and should do all the stuff that it does except the payment. They can integrate their loyalty card, manage prescriptions etc. That's all great. But, when it comes time to actually give them money, this convoluted, tedious and time wasting bar code scanning is just ridiculous. Enable NFC, accept Apple Pay (and the others) and be done with it. I believe this is an attempt to minimize the fees they pay for accepting cards.
    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.
    jbdragoniwoodlandDeelron
  • CVS continues Apple Pay snub, launches barcode-based 'CVS Pay'

    Booooooooo.

    That pretty much sums it up.
    latifbp