Apple Had More Than 1 Million Card Activations During First 72 Hours of Apple Pay

[Chupa Chupa]

No one wouldve faulted them for not having it. The fact is Rite Aid/CVS had nfc for awhile and it worked but Rite Aid/CVS were doing the most and turned it off. Could you imagine if CC companies stopped processing payments at these places? Or Banks said they wouldn't accept CVS/Rite Aid transactions?

Rite Aid and CVS own their terminals. They paid to install NFC. It's their prerogative to turn it on or off for whatever business reason. If a store with automatic doors switches off the sensor to save money and the doors become manually operated do you get upset about that too and walk away? That's effectively what's going on here. Access to using CC is not disabled, only one way to use the CC.

And those that do certainly have a right to be upset at retailers that have the technical capability; demonstrated it worked, and then shut it off due to consortium requirements.

What "right" is that? The only one I can see is self-RIGHTous.

Talk about convoluted misunderstanding of what I said... my point was that people are boycotting the pharmacies in question because they made a stupid move by turning off a feature that had been available previously. My point about Publix was precisely what you said - they don't have NFC, so clearly my decision about where I shop isn't because these stores are members of MCX.

Speaking of zealots - those that come on line for the sole purpose of mocking and insulting others are zealots of the worst kind. I will never understand why my decisions (or anyone else's decisions) cause so much distress and hostility from a group of complete strangers. Nor will I ever understand why the moderators allow groups of internet bullies to continue their activities. I run a group page for animal rescue, and the minute someone acts like some of the people here, I ban their asses for good.

(Not pointing fingers specifically - there are plenty of examples in this very thread).

1) I completely understood your original post. You just don't like my response. Fair enough.

2) I don't think you understand what the word "zealot" means. I'm fairly regular around here and post my opinions as I see them, but they are always guided by common sense. That upsets true zealots because they strongly believe one extreme or another; are quick to get upset about anything that differs from their personal dogma; and do not believe there is any middle ground.

3) Personally, I come to MR to get the latest scoop and share opinions. Some people only want to post personal outrage and not have a discussion. To those, yes, I mock. NFC is not anything to get upset about unless you have nothing else to get upset about. This is a format war. Rite-Aid and CVS are among a few that decided to play on the other team. Do you really expect them to keep their NFC jerseys on?

 

[AdonisSMU]

Annoying find: when you turn off passcode, your cards get deleted from Apple Pay and you'll have to re-enter / verify them when you turn passcode back on.

That's not an annoying find. That is a feature.

 

[ptb42]

Does it disturb anyone else that apple "knows" you added cards? I thought everything was going to stay on the device.

In order to add a card to your Passbook, your iPhone must contact a server to get a token. The server contacts the issuing bank and confirms the card is valid, and then sends the token to both the iPhone and the bank.

It's not entirely clear (to me) who is operating the tokenization server. The EMV specification says it is the "brand" (VISA, MC, Amex, etc.). But, Apple may be doing it for iPhones.

I also read that Apple is using the billing address on your iTunes account for verification purposes, presumably so you don't have to re-enter the address each time. So, maybe they are adding that information before the request goes to the token-generating server. That would give them information about how many cards are added, even if they aren't involved any further.

 

[AdonisSMU]

Rite Aid and CVS own their terminals. They paid to install NFC. It's their prerogative to turn it on or off for whatever business reason. If a store with automatic doors switches off the sensor to save money and the doors become manually operated do you get upset about that too and walk away? That's effectively what's going on here. Access to using CC is not disabled, only one way to use the CC.



What "right" is that? The only one I can see is self-RIGHTous.



1) I completely understood your original post. You just don't like my response. Fair enough.

2) I don't think you understand what the word "zealot" means. I'm fairly regular around here and post my opinions as I see them, but they are always guided by common sense. That upsets true zealots because they strongly believe one extreme or another; are quick to get upset about anything that differs from their personal dogma; and do not believe there is any middle ground.

3) Personally, I come to MR to get the latest scoop and share opinions. Some people only want to post personal outrage and not have a discussion. To those, yes, I mock. NFC is not anything to get upset about unless you have nothing else to get upset about. This is a format war. Rite-Aid and CVS are among a few that decided to play on the other team. Do you really expect them to keep their NFC jerseys on?

Your opinions are guided by your own sense of "common sense". Everyone thinks their opinion is guided by "common sense".

Others think taking the advantage to take their security and convenience carefully when they can is common sense especially as it relates to their money.

So what if "zealots" now care about their money and want to shop at businesses who cater to them. It's just "common sense" that people are going to shop at places that cater to their needs and wants when there is the option to do so. I think someone with "common sense" would understand that when you have other options people will take them if they see it at more convenient(secure faster or otherwise) for them.

You going on about others who've made a different decision to cater to their own needs and wants does nothing but to inflame. No one is chastising you for your purchasing decisions. People are mad that you are criticizing them for doing what they think is best for them.

I do not think it's logical to say businesses can do what they want with their POS terminals then out of the other side of your mouth say people shouldn't do what they want to with their own money. Rite Aid and CVS can turn off their NFC terminals and people have just as much right to shop elsewhere as a result. That's "common sense".

 

[samcraig]

That's not an annoying find. That is a feature.

Indeed - and as another pointed out - a very smart one. I would also think that Apple may (if you can't do it already) will implement a way to wipe Apple Pay remotely

----------

Your opinions are guided by your own sense of "common sense". Everyone thinks their opinion is guided by "common sense".

Others think taking the advantage to take their security and convenience carefully when they can is common sense especially as it relates to their money.

So what if "zealots" now care about their money and want to shop at businesses who cater to them. It's just "common sense" that people are going to shop at places that cater to their needs and wants when there is the option to do so. I think someone with "common sense" would understand that when you have other options people will take them if they see it at more convenient(secure faster or otherwise) for them.

Honest question.

Do you agree with those (few) posters who think it's perfectly ok to "demonstrate" by going into these stores now - knowing that they don't take NFC payments - and causing a scene by loading up carts and then acting shocked and annoyed at the check out person for not accepting NFC payments?

Because I don't think people that are going to decide with their wallets and just go somewhere else as zealots. Those chest beating, ranting and raving about how they have been wronged as if it's the end of their world (yes I am speaking in somewhat hyperbole) are, indeed, zealots. These are not rational people. For them it's not REALLLLY about security, etc. It's about showboating.

 

[GTDaveMac]

And in the real world when someone needs something from the drugstore they will run to any drugstore nearest to them despite Apple pay or not. This whole thing about switching from one drugstore to a different one because they ditched ApplePay is becoming ridiculous.

Everywhere I have been in the US, a CVS is generally across the street or corner from Walgreens.

 

[samcraig]

Everywhere I have been in the US, a CVS is generally across the street or corner from Walgreens.

Well to that end - when that happens, I've often gone to whichever happened to be on the side of the road I was on as to avoid crossing traffic, or based on where I was going next. I can honestly say that given whether or not one store has NFC payments or not wouldn't make me go out of my way in that case since I can still use my CC at either location.

 

[greytmom]

1) I completely understood your original post. You just don't like my response. Fair enough.

2) I don't think you understand what the word "zealot" means. I'm fairly regular around here and post my opinions as I see them, but they are always guided by common sense. That upsets true zealots because they strongly believe one extreme or another; are quick to get upset about anything that differs from their personal dogma; and do not believe there is any middle ground.

3) Personally, I come to MR to get the latest scoop and share opinions. Some people only want to post personal outrage and not have a discussion. To those, yes, I mock. NFC is not anything to get upset about unless you have nothing else to get upset about. This is a format war. Rite-Aid and CVS are among a few that decided to play on the other team. Do you really expect them to keep their NFC jerseys on?

Oh, I know who you are. You've stuck out. And not liking people's answers is precisely the reason many choose to participate here - they like to argue. That's not me - I usually interact once, maybe twice, and then I decide that I'm not wasting anymore time on someone who just doesn't matter to me.

But, you certainly aren't the worst around here, I will give you that.

Your opinions about what is worthy of getting upset about are simply your opinions. And you know what they say about opinions.

I don't care what CVS does (or Rite Aid - they are a non-entity here). I simply choose not to spend my money there, based on them making a decision that is not in my best interest. But, as far as expectations, in my opinion it's bad business to not accept all methods of payment that a merchant is capable of accepting. If they signed some agreement that they wouldn't accept current forms of payment because they are going to be accepting a future form of payment that isn't available now, then whoever agreed to that is an idiot.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Me thinks you are the one over generalizing. Only the most zealous care that CVS or Rite Aid turned off their NFC... or even realized they had it in the first place. Actual # of people that signed up for Apple Pay is far less than the 1m # credit card activations. That's just math. But even if it were 1m. In a country of 240m adults, 1m is around .5%. Google Wallet's user base is pretty small too. Again, just math.

Bottom line here is that average tech-adverse person is not hot and bothered a store has or does not have NFC (or turned it off). Only certified geeks are right now. The average consumer isn't going out of the way or going to buy the same items at a higher $ to use it or prove a stupid point like "don't turn off my NFC!" like it was water. As the awareness of NFC grows and more phones have it things may change. To date thought NFC in the U.S. has been a dud.

Also your logic is a bit stilted. Publix didn't turn off their NFC because they never had it. If they had it they would have been pressed by MCX to turn it off, just as CVS and Rite Aid were. So a personal policy to boycott CVS or Rite Aid for a business decision that Publix also made (not use NFC) is incoherent just because Publix never had to make a decision to turn it off.

This is turning into a kind of geek jihad. We're expected to take sides, and if we don't take the right side, it's because we don't what we are talking about.

 

[GTDaveMac]

I really don't shop at CVS or Walgreens much, and when I do it had always been about 50/50 which one I chose. However, I do want Apple Pay to succeed as I have been wanting a digital wallet since the original iPhone. I pretty much knew it was only a matter of time and a logical progression. So, Walgreens and CVS are easy choices for me to decide where to spend my money. We will see about others. Oh, and Lowe's / Home Depot. (Home Depot currently supports Applepay and Lowe's is a part of MCX). I have always preferred Lowe's, but just went to Home Depot to use Apple Pay.

As someone else pointed out, Apple Pay will probably be successful. It is a "format war" and adoption rates can be swayed by consumer preference. It depends how long MCX tries to hang on to their scheme. We will see what happens, and also if any numbers are revealed about if/how this has affected profits.

 

[IJ Reilly]

So what if "zealots" now care about their money and want to shop at businesses who cater to them. It's just "common sense" that people are going to shop at places that cater to their needs and wants when there is the option to do so. I think someone with "common sense" would understand that when you have other options people will take them if they see it at more convenient(secure faster or otherwise) for them..

But what we're hearing goes well beyond that limited logic, if anyone is actually doing what they claim is the right response. A person who goes out of their way to avoid retailers who don't support Apple Pay is also saying that they're willing to impose an inconvenience on themselves in the name of supporting convenience. The message this sends is contradictory, at best.

 

[samcraig]

I really don't shop at CVS or Walgreens much, and when I do it had always been about 50/50 which one I chose. However, I do want Apple Pay to success as I have been wanting a digital wallet since the original iPhone. I pretty much knew it was only a matter of time and a logical progression. So, Walgreens and CVS are easy choices for me to decide where to spend my money. We will see about others. Oh, and Lowe's / Home Depot. (Home Depot currently supports Applepay and Lowe's is a part of MCX). I have always preferred Lowe's, but just went to Home Depot to use Apple Pay.

As someone else pointed out, Apple Pay will probably be successful. It is a "format war" and adoption rates cab be swayed by consumer preference. It depends how long MCX tries to hang on to their scheme. We will see what happens, and also if any numbers are revealed about if/how this has affected profits.

It might not be a war. It's possible that CurrentC - when rolled out - will be available AND NFC payments might be available. If that's the case - people will have multiple options. Time will tell.

 

[HenryDJP]

Everywhere I have been in the US, a CVS is generally across the street or corner from Walgreens.

That's true since I live near both however there are some things that Walgreens has the CVS doesn't and vice versa. My point is when the "Real World" needs something specific from their drug stores they are not thinking about ApplePay.

 

[caesarp]

This is turning into a kind of geek jihad. We're expected to take sides, and if we don't take the right side, it's because we don't what we are talking about.

I'm not sure anyone is for retailers taking away payment choices from their customers -- where the retailer already had it in place and then decided to deactivate it.

The criticism of CVS and Rite-Aid has been pretty consistent, not just from geek sites but the mainstream media too.

 

[oddnendz]

But what we're hearing goes well beyond that limited logic, if anyone is actually doing what they claim is the right response. A person who goes out of their way to avoid retailers who don't support Apple Pay is also saying that they're willing to impose an inconvenience on themselves in the name of supporting convenience. The message this sends is contradictory, at best.

And I thought it was called taking a stand for your beliefs or principles...

 

[samcraig]

I'm not sure anyone is for retailers taking away payment choices from their customers -- where the retailer already had it in place and then decided to deactivate it.

The criticism of CVS and Rite-Aid has been pretty consistent, not just from geek sites but the mainstream media too.

I'm not for people taking away choices. However they haven't really taken the choice fully away. They still take credit cards. They've only limited the ways you can use your credit card. There's a difference there and why some people aren't as outraged as others

And I thought it was called taking a stand for your beliefs or principles...

They aren't mutually exclusive. You can do that and not be "extreme" in doing so.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure anyone is for retailers taking away payment choices from their customers -- where the retailer already had it in place and then decided to deactivate it.

The criticism of CVS and Rite-Aid has been pretty consistent, not just from geek sites but the mainstream media too.

All of the reports I've read in the mainstream media to date simply report how this battle is shaping up, and why. Such as:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-pay-20141028-story.html

You may read this as "criticism" if you like, but I'm not seeing it that way.

----------

And I thought it was called taking a stand for your beliefs or principles...

A principaled stand for what, the banks and credit card companies? I will find my beliefs elsewhere, thank you.

 

[oddnendz]

I'm not for people taking away choices. However they haven't really taken the choice fully away. They still take credit cards. They've only limited the ways you can use your credit card. There's a difference there and why some people aren't as outraged as others



They aren't mutually exclusive. You can do that and not be "extreme" in doing so.

Of course, with you being the judge of what is "extreme"......

----------

All of the reports I've read in the mainstream media to date simply report how this battle is shaping up, and why. Such as:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-pay-20141028-story.html

You may read this as "criticism" if you like, but I'm not seeing it that way.

----------



A principaled stand for what, the banks and credit card companies? I will find my beliefs elsewhere, thank you.

fine, no problem..... though I see it more as a stand for privacy, security and control of your personal information.

 

[caesarp]

I'm not for people taking away choices. However they haven't really taken the choice fully away. They still take credit cards. They've only limited the ways you can use your credit card. There's a difference there and why some people aren't as outraged as others



They aren't mutually exclusive. You can do that and not be "extreme" in doing so.

Let me reiterate -- the choice of mobile payment options. That they have taken away. Now there is no mobile payment option at CVS and Rite-Aid.

 

[BC2009]

1 million potential customers for RiteAid and CVS! Oh wait...

You can request a DOJ investigation of MCX for anti-competitive collusion of otherwise competing merchants by signing this petition at WhiteHouse.gov:

http://wh.gov/icBmj

 

[samcraig]

Of course, with you being the judge of what is "extreme"......

I think I'm a fairly level headed guy most of the time.

When I see posts of people stating that they have or plan to go into a store, load up a cart and then get pissed off at the cashier when they are told they can't use NFC payments when they ALREADY KNOW they won't be taken just to grandstand - yes - I call it like I see it. That's extreme. it's childish. It's immature. All of the above. You can feel free to think this is perfectly rational and acceptable behavior.

 

[oddnendz]

I think I'm a fairly level headed guy most of the time.

When I see posts of people stating that they have or plan to go into a store, load up a cart and then get pissed off at the cashier when they are told they can't use NFC payments when they ALREADY KNOW they won't be taken just to grandstand - yes - I call it like I see it. That's extreme. it's childish. It's immature. All of the above. You can feel free to think this is perfectly rational and acceptable behavior.

It is immature, but I am not their mother. If they want to embarass themselves...... I do support not shopping a store that is a part of MCX even if it is inconvient to them. Personally, I am just not going to sign up for CurrentC

 

[jrswizzle]

Well to that end - when that happens, I've often gone to whichever happened to be on the side of the road I was on as to avoid crossing traffic, or based on where I was going next. I can honestly say that given whether or not one store has NFC payments or not wouldn't make me go out of my way in that case since I can still use my CC at either location.

I've had two different credit cards "stolen" (not physically, but the info was stolen) this past year and as great as Wells Fargo and Chase were about it, its still a pain in the butt.

For me, Apple Pay is about ditching my physical wallet and security. I like not having to hand my card to someone. I like not having to swipe the decades old magnetic strip tech in a terminal that could very well house malicious technology trying to steal my information (I've read these skimmers are becoming so sophisticated they are virtually undetectable).

For me - security outweighs crossing the other side of the street. I get that isn't the case for everyone. But this is a step forward. Google Wallet has been around for quite a while yet hasn't been able to gain traction. I'm looking forward to Apple Pay giving NFC payments that traction (because we know Apple throwing its weight behind something will give it popularity) - Google Wallet benefits too as they use the same underlying tech (an NFC terminal, if on, would take both Apple Pay and Google Wallet payments).

And who knows - maybe the billions saved in fraud protection mean cheaper fees for everyone (I know....I won't hold my breath).

 

[caesarp]

All of the reports I've read in the mainstream media to date simply report how this battle is shaping up, and why. Such as:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple-pay-20141028-story.html

You may read this as "criticism" if you like, but I'm not seeing it that way.
.

While not always directly critical, the tenor of many of the mainstream stories is clearly that Rite-Aid and CVS likely made a bone-headed move or that it negatively impacts customers. The proof? Here ya go:

From BusinessWeek:

"Rite Aid and CVS screwed up the optics on this one. It’s hard to argue that you’re doing right by your customers when you stop accepting a form of payment that you’ve already demonstrated presents no technical hurdles. They also don’t have an alternative to offer. CurrentC isn’t expected to be ready until 2015, and the specifics of the system aren’t public."
​

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-10-27/why-rite-aid-and-cvs-stopped-taking-apple-pay

From CNN:

CVS and Rite Aid have stopped accepting Apple Pay, dragging customers into a confusing and annoying fight over payment politics.
​

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/27/technology/security/apple-pay-cvs-rite-aid/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

From USA Today:

CVS and the other CurrentC companies will almost certainly use the system exclusively for a relatively short time. If, as most observers expect, customer demand for NFC-based systems like Apple Pay grows rapidly, these retailers are not going to adopt a "my way or the highway" attitude with their customers. They have learned that when it comes to technology, it's a consumer-driven world and they just live in it. And one other thing retailers have — or should have learned — is not to underestimate the power of Apple in the consumer world.​

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ollows-rite-aid-shuts-off-apple-pay/17959213/

From NY Times:

Rite Aid and CVS are part of that consortium, not part of the group of retailers that had teamed up with Apple on its payment system. Nonetheless, over the week, Apple Pay technology was working in Rite Aid and CVS stores.

“Clearly Rite Aid and CVS are making a business decision over a customer satisfaction decision,” said Patrick Moorhead, president of Moor Insights & Strategy.

He added that the move could upset consumers who believe Apple’s new product is easier and safer than paying with a traditional credit card.​

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/t...e-apple-pay-as-a-rival-makes-plans-.html?_r=0

From the Washington Post:

Andy Schmidt, a research director at CEB TowerGroup who studies mobile payments, said retailers could face a backlash if they give preference to CurrentC over Apple Pay.

"When you take choice away from the consumer, you chill adoption overall," Schmidt said.
​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-the-digital-wallet-have-a-rocky-road-ahead/

----
Need I go on?

It doesn't take too much to see that the media outlets realize that the customers are getting screwed over by CVS and Rite-Aid now, regardless of whether ultimately CurrentC or Apple Pay will prove enormously popular.

 

[IJ Reilly]

fine, no problem..... though I see it more as a stand for privacy, security and control of your personal information.

I do see that point, but this debate is hauling around an awful lot of other baggage that hardly anyone wants to acknowledge. Apple is offering us (or their best customers, anyway) a more secure form of mobile payments, but the entire system is lashed to the banks and credit card companies. They already syphon off trillions of dollars in consumer spending in transaction fees, that ultimately we as consumers pay. It's a business that they are trying to protect for obvious reasons. They now have Apple as their ally. On the other side is this group of retailers who'd love to keep the money they now pay to banks for themselves.

These are the battle lines, and why they are drawn where they are drawn. No matter who wins, we as consumers we are really not much more than collateral damage.