Well, as a happy Google Wallet user, I'm more than happy to take my business to Walgreens, instead.
Apple's marketing engine is one of the best in the world. It seems borderline suicidal to go up against them by intentionally hamstringing a new iPhone feature in order to promote an inferior alternative when people have an easy alternative. Google Wallet I could understand - it's been woefully underpromoted, and carrier shenanigans have really stood in the way of adoption, but Apple drives adoption like nobody else - I was excited for Apple Pay specifically because I expected it to drive the adoption of NFC at more retailers (which means more Google Wallet support for me!)
Like you, I'm super glad that Apple Pay is using the same underlying standard as Google Wallet (now all I need is a good Android phone with something Touch ID-esque).
The greenlighting probably came from the entire Business Intelligence department of these retailers who are going to lose the names of the people they're recording. If everyone went to NFC tomorrow loads of people will have to find new ways to do their jobs (ironically Apple is also pushing iBeacon for tracking consumers, so the solution is already there really).
> going to lose the names of the people they're recording.
I just don't buy this. Loyalty cards are a thing specifically because they give those retailers customer information and associated purchase histories completely independent of payment method. Crank a few prices up and "reduce" them with a swipe of the loyalty card and you've got all the data you need.
I understand they would like to capture some of the value, but seriously? They are building a technology that, when built, will be worse than already implemented technology backed by the two largest tech companies google and apple. They have to think, does getting the customer information (which they could just freely share with each other without this system) provide enough value to actually spend money to compete with large tech companies? They obviously won't succeed.
Goodbye CVS, goodbye RiteAid. Hello, Walgreens.
I'll vote with my money (or rather, iPhone 6).
And I bet that they'll reverse that moronic decision eventually once ApplePay gets sufficient traction and cuts into their bottom line, and/or their own home-baked store-specific solution doesn't take off.
Apparently CVS and Rite-Aid are participating in this competitor retailer-run card program called CurrentC, run by something called Merchant Customer Exchange
http://www.mcx.com/ <-- their website is ultra-broken, but seems like they're getting a lot of partners.
No, America. Please don't ruin this for us. Australia has been ahead of you guys on NFC takeup for a while now, and it's wonderful. Every Visa/Mastercard has NFC support, and it's now super unusual to find a retailer that doesn't accept it. If you guys come up with a competing standard that's worse, and it gets enough acceptance that it has effects over here, I'm going to be pissed.
AM I the only one who think this is a good thing? Why am I paying 2-3% Credit Card tax for every purchase when I can pay from my Bank account directly?
Apple and Google took the easy way out to base on existing Credit Card infrastructure where ultimately consumers are paying for it. Retail is a low margin business and 3% definitely is a big deal.
Do you really want these guys to have direct access to your bank account given their track record for data breaches? On top of this you get no credit card protection, no rewards points on your card, and no double warranty which most cards give these days.
You're thinking too small. It's possible to have a payment infrastructure that doesn't give Visa and Mastercard money, and it's possible for it to work really well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFTPOS
note that in practice EFTPOS is getting beaten down by still not doing contactless, while Visa Debit/Mastercard Debit contactless cards are ubiquitous in Australia, and banks pushing Visa/Mastercard Debit for the higher interchange fees.
In the U.S., the credit card fee is built into the retail pricing structure regardless of using credit or debit card, or cash/check.
I use a credit card exclusively to get personal Net 30 terms for every purchase I make. If a purchase is "same as cash" and I get to delay actual payment for 30+ days, I'm going to take advantage of that.
If pricing structures change, then I will reconsider. For instance, most gasoline in the U.S. once had two prices. One for cash and one for credit cards (this was before debit cards).
Recently, their is evidence of the return of such:
> Why am I paying 2-3% Credit Card tax for every purchase when I can pay from my Bank account directly?
Plus another 0.15 to 0.20% for these NFC payment processors. The banks and card processors won't be paying that to Apple / Google, it falls to the merchant to dig it up.
Does that include PayPass/PayWave contactless cards as well? Most credit and debit cards in Australia use that tech - disabling it wouldn't fly over here...
Also, it's laughable to think that a system that requires scanning QR codes would gain traction over an NFC based solution. Just seems janky and annoying.
CVS, Wal-Mart, et al are pretty smart. I think this is less about margin than this is about a nascent existential threat. It's about who owns consumer data. That data gives anyone the leverage to displace your business.
You might say - well, what's the difference between credit card providers and Apple Pay? It's this: credit cards don't have a screen; the output is a piece of paper every 30-days.
It's not zero-sum; the data is duplicated, and then can be used to build services that undermine the retailer. Slightly less nefarious, building services which the retailer can pay for - starting an arms race that apple profits from.
with Apple Pay, the retailer only receives a token with not much identifiable information (maybe not even the name?) to charge someone, like how Stripe works.
With standard swipe credit cards, retailers get the names and can track a lot of usage metrics.
Why does vicious competition exist in the mobile payment space? All these solutions only introduce a convenient middleman between the credit card and the physical store.
Is there some sort of profit motive involved here, like fees off every transaction?
If not, I have no idea why mobile carriers and retail stores are jumping in to try to monopolize everything if it's just a convenience.
very curious as to what happened to these stories here on HN. twitter lit up (devs ands business people), gruber wrote a story, etc - HN could not get it on front page.
