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

[ptb42]

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.

That presumes that "convenience" is the reason one wants to use Pay.

The only reason "convenience" enters into my rationale is I won't have to carry certain credit cards that I use infrequently. But, that's a non-issue at this time, because the places that accept contactless payments aren't the places I would be using these cards infrequently. So, I have to get the physical card out of our safe when I make the transaction.

For the rest of the time, I'll be using the same card, which I carry anyway. But, the reason I want to use Pay is security. And yes, I'll go out of my way and even pay a bit more for that.

I am STILL avoiding Target and Home Depot after their breaches. If I can use a method of payment that immunizes me from that type of fraud, I'll use it. Yes, I know that I can have the charges reversed, but there is a lot of hassle associated with changing credit card numbers, as we auto-pay everything that we can with a credit card.

 

[samcraig]

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).

I am not against NFC payments. I think CVS and others who turn their NFC payments off are being silly. I understand their motivation and don't agree with it. I'm (personally) not making a big deal out of it because I just don't see it as that big of a deal... yet.

 

[greytmom]

I know I'm risking incurring the wrath of all of those who think that customers shouldn't express their opinions with their shopping dollars, but here's the response I got back from CVS today.

And no, I was not rude in my email to them. And no, I didn't go into the store and act like an ass. I will actually miss the pharmacist and other employees in the pharmacy. They are good people.

But I did get a kick out of this response.

"I have received your email regarding our inability to accept ApplePay or other mobile payments that use NFC technology. Your feedback is appreciated and will be taken into consideration while we are in the process of evaluating mobile payment options for our customers. Please accept my sincerest apology for any inconvenience.

Have a nice day.

Rebecca
CVS Customer Relations"

 

[IJ Reilly]

Need I go on?.

No, because all of these articles confirm exactly what I am saying. Nobody denies that consumers are being dragged into the middle of this fight. You seem to be reading this news as an editorial judgement.

 

[oddnendz]

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.

you'll like this one:

http://breakingnews.suntimes.com/bu...rned-off-apple-pay-and-thats-a-terrible-idea/

I like the next to the last paragraph..... to covers this and the other threads on this subject so well.....

 

[caesarp]

I know I'm risking incurring the wrath of all of those who think that customers shouldn't express their opinions with their shopping dollars, but here's the response I got back from CVS today.

And no, I was not rude in my email to them. And no, I didn't go into the store and act like an ass. I will actually miss the pharmacist and other employees in the pharmacy. They are good people.

But I did get a kick out of this response.

"I have received your email regarding our inability to accept ApplePay or other mobile payments that use NFC technology. Your feedback is appreciated and will be taken into consideration while we are in the process of evaluating mobile payment options for our customers. Please accept my sincerest apology for any inconvenience.

Have a nice day.

Rebecca
CVS Customer Relations"

Ask Rebecca what they mean by "inability" since it worked last week there. I hate that no one presses them on these BS statements.

What exactly are they evaluating and what is the time-line?

 

[greytmom]

Ask Rebecca what they mean by "inability" since it worked last week there. I hate that no one presses them on these BS statements.

What exactly are they evaluating and what is the time-line?

I think the timeline is dictated by when the contract with MCX runs out.

 

[caesarp]

you'll like this one:

http://breakingnews.suntimes.com/bu...rned-off-apple-pay-and-thats-a-terrible-idea/

I like the next to the last paragraph..... to covers this and the other threads on this subject so well.....

You're right. I do love it and I sent the link to the MCX contact email addresses

----------

I think the timeline is dictated by when the contract with MCX runs out.

Maybe, but lets hear them be honest and instead of talking around the subject.

 

[greytmom]

Yes, I know that I can have the charges reversed, but there is a lot of hassle associated with changing credit card numbers, as we auto-pay everything that we can with a credit card.

I'm not refuting what you said - I agree with you. But just wanted to add that identity theft isn't always just a royal pain - it can have serious consequences. My story, copied from another thread where someone asked me why identity theft was such a hot button for me:

People who know me are sick of this story, but here goes. I mentioned the one time that took me for a ton of money (which I did eventually get back). Never found out exactly how it happened, but it is assumed it was a skimmer on a card machine.

The second one was a lot more complicated. Somehow, someone got enough of my information to impersonate me. They changed my address for my driver's license and had it registered in another city, and started diverting some of my mail to this new address. Then they used my identity to open up a phony business, promising to help people clean up their credit scores. People being stupid, they fell for it by the thousands. Because mail fraud was involved, the US Postal Inspectors got involved, as well as the Secret Service.

Meanwhile, I'm cruising around none the wiser, since there were no fraudulent charges on my cards - the person who devised this was smart enough to not try and use my credit cards. That's one reason it took so long for her to be caught. So, one day I'm driving to work, doing the speed limit, and I get pulled over. Turns out my plate was expired, which I didn't even realize because I never got the notice in the mail (because my address had been changed without my knowledge) and it just slipped my mind. When the officer looked up my driver's license, he saw a completely different address and photo on his computer than what was on my license, and had to make a decision to either arrest me for driving on a bad license and with expired plates, or to believe my story that I had never lived in this other city, was NOT a black woman (which he could see) and this was my legitimate license. He was cool about it and just warned me not to drive anywhere until I got it cleared up. So, I had to leave my car in a parking lot, get someone to come get me, do all kinds of police reports and affidavits as to who I was (proved with my passport, thank goodness) and get my license reinstated.

I can no longer renew license or plate online, I have to go in person, with passport. Which reminds me... I need to do that in the next couple of weeks.

Thousands of people were caught in this scam, and they are still building a case against the person and her accomplices. And by the way, turned out she also used my identity to commit tax fraud too. Unfortunately for her, I owed money for the last two years, so she didn't get anything there from me, but she did steal lots more from the IRS in other names.

So, long story short, although it is probably too late for that, I fully and completely support Apple Pay.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Ask Rebecca what they mean by "inability" since it worked last week there. I hate that no one presses them on these BS statements.

What exactly are they evaluating and what is the time-line?

Rebecca can't help you. Good luck getting a straight answer from anyone inside the corporate fog machines. These companies will pursue their best interests. You can count on that. Whether those interests coincide with yours is no concern of theirs.

 

[caesarp]

No, because all of these articles confirm exactly what I am saying. Nobody denies that consumers are being dragged into the middle of this fight. You seem to be reading this news as an editorial judgement.

C'mon -- you really can't read between the lines? The mainstream can't be too obvious -- they are reporting news. But any neutral person can see that slamming companies for decisions that negatively impacts consumers is a negative report on THOSE companies. Duh. They certainly aren't praising Rite-Aid and CVS. If you "F" with customers, the media slams you. Every time.

----------

Rebecca can't help you. Good luck getting a straight answer from anyone inside the corporate fog machines. These companies will pursue their best interests. Whether those interests coincide with yours is no concern of theirs.

Exactly. They don't care about their customers. That's the point.

 

[AdonisSMU]

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.

It isnt that inconveneint to them and if it was they simply wouldnt do it.

 

[IJ Reilly]

C'mon -- you really can't read between the lines? The mainstream can't be too obvious -- they are reporting news. But any neutral person can see that slamming companies for decisions that negatively impacts consumers is a negative report on THOSE companies. Duh. They certainly aren't praising Rite-Aid and CVS. If you "F" with customers, the media slams you. Every time.

----------



Exactly. They don't care about their customers. That's the point.

I prefer to read the lines before attempting to read anything in between them.

The point is no big company really "cares" about their customers, beyond maximizing how much of their money they can be convinced to part with.

 

[Aloft085]

1. Do we know that over a maximum you still don't need to sign?
2. How long before you can REALLY leave your cards at home without concern over whether the place you are going has NFC capabilities or not.
3. In my experience - I have forgotten my phone infinitely more than I have forgotten my wallet. I've also never lost my wallet. I've temporarily lost my phone however (fortunate to have had someone find it and return it!)

1. I think that will be an evolving process, just as with credit cards currently. Over the long term, however, I don't really see a point in forcing customers to sign for purchases less than a few hundred dollars. It doesn't provide much additional security.

2. The point is not trying to leave ALL of your cards at home, but perhaps instead just carry around one or two. In a few years, your cellphone will be a reliable alternative payment device, with several cards stored on it. It will eliminate the need to carry around some of the cards that we currently have. I have 6 in my wallet right now, and I don't think I'm unique here.

3. That's great. Unfortunately, we can't teach your wallet to make phone calls. We can teach your phone to pay for transactions. Additional redundancy is always better.

 

[StyxMaker]

Looks like we have a new first-world problem on our hands folks

And, since we live in 1st world countries, we will continue to be concerned about 1st world problems.

 

[Aloft085]

I think the timeline is dictated by when the contract with MCX runs out.

Yeah, it sounds like they signed an ill-advised contract and now they're stuck. I wonder what the penalties are for withdrawal.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I prefer to read the lines before attempting to read anything in between them.

The point is no big company really "cares" about their customers, beyond maximizing how much of their money they can be convinced to part with.

That's very true and we all realize this. However, some companies have learned that financial security is good for business. So when the consumer interest and the business interest align... Even if a few customers end up going to Walgreens as a result when given the option, it could have implications on the bottom line. Nevermind the fact that Walgreens and Duane Reade has historically been cheaper and cleaner than CVS and Rite Aid.

 

[IJ Reilly]

That's very true and we all realize this. However, some companies have learned that financial security is good for business. So when the consumer interest and the business interest align... Even if a few customers end up going to Walgreens as a result when given the option, it could have implications on the bottom line. Nevermind the fact that Walgreens and Duane Reade has historically been cheaper and cleaner than CVS and Rite Aid.

You may well realize that, but I'm not sure everyone does. Apple, the banks, and the retailers who are partnering on Apple Pay are selling security. It's a product. The cost of the product may not be entirely apparent (aside from the need to own the newest iPhone from Apple), but it's there just the same in the form of transaction fees. The CurrentC retailers are selling "works with almost any phone" and their loyalty programs. That's their product, or will be when it goes into general release next year. I am sure they will also have a response for the security question. I would not try to predict which one will be more successful at this point but I think simply assuming that security is the more appealing product is probably assuming too much.

 

[GregOhMy]

AmEx problem

I'm surprised that there has been little discussion about a bug between AmEx and Apple.
I have a green AmEx card that is supposed to be approved but is hung up in the "authorization" stage between Apple and AmEx.
Both sides say that this should be working for me, but phone jails have had me on hold for over 3 hours total now in the last week with both companies.

I signed up with my other two cards with no difficulty, but this AmEx situation isn't finding a resolution for some reason.

Anyone else having trouble like this?

 

[Rogifan]

Can someone explain to me how retailers not supporting NFC contactless payments is OK but if Apple or Google refused to allow the CurrentC app in their App Store that could spark antitrust issues? These merchants could easily build a web app or since they don't seem to like people paying by phone come up with a different solution.

 

[jrswizzle]

You may well realize that, but I'm not sure everyone does. Apple, the banks, and the retailers who are partnering on Apple Pay are selling security. It's a product. The cost of the product may not be entirely apparent (aside from the need to own the newest iPhone from Apple), but it's there just the same in the form of transaction fees. The CurrentC retailers are selling "works with almost any phone" and their loyalty programs. That's their product, or will be when it goes into general release next year. I am sure they will also have a response for the security question. I would not try to predict which one will be more successful at this point but I think simply assuming that security is the more appealing product is probably assuming too much.

But we're talking NFC payments here, not just Apple Pay. Those terminals (that accept Apple Pay) also accepted Google Wallet. It's the same technology in the terminals (how each company - Apple and Google - go about it on their side is different).

Last I checked, Android and iOS account for roughly 97% of smartphones out there. I'd say that covers just about everyone as well.

 

[AdonisSMU]

You may well realize that, but I'm not sure everyone does. Apple, the banks, and the retailers who are partnering on Apple Pay are selling security. It's a product. The cost of the product may not be entirely apparent (aside from the need to own the newest iPhone from Apple), but it's there just the same in the form of transaction fees. The CurrentC retailers are selling "works with almost any phone" and their loyalty programs. That's their product, or will be when it goes into general release next year. I am sure they will also have a response for the security question. I would not try to predict which one will be more successful at this point but I think simply assuming that security is the more appealing product is probably assuming too much.

I don't know but QR Codes have been tried before and failed spectacularly in China. There is precedent. If CurrentC comes out and is different then fine. However, in it's current implementation the security experts and objective news media who've looked into it all came away with the same conclusion. ApplePay is more secure than the current implementation of CurrentC. You can ignore the experts or not. That's your choice. However, consumers who know they are less educated on the topic of mobile payment security are not ignoring the experts. if it turns out that CurrentC becomes more secure then maybe they will go to it. If it's too hard to use given the benefits it won't get any traction. As it stands right now it's a beta product that doesn't exist and leaves open glaring questions about security and privacy.

 

[gadgetguy03]

Yeah, it sounds like they signed an ill-advised contract and now they're stuck. I wonder what the penalties are for withdrawal.

I wonder what any penalties were incurred by leaving them turned on. It was obvious that until Apple Pay came along no one cared about the NFC readers but all of a sudden they needed to shut it down?

Sounds as fishy to me as GT Advanced Technologies (RIP)

----------

But we're talking NFC payments here, not just Apple Pay. Those terminals (that accept Apple Pay) also accepted Google Wallet. It's the same technology in the terminals (how each company - Apple and Google - go about it on their side is different).

Last I checked, Android and iOS account for roughly 97% of smartphones out there. I'd say that covers just about everyone as well.

And a lot of friends I know check the reviews on an app before they download it. Considering how users aren't too keen on the app based on customer ratings, it will be interesting to see how many people outside of the MCX actually sign up and use it.

 

[samcraig]

Can someone explain to me how retailers not supporting NFC contactless payments is OK but if Apple or Google refused to allow the CurrentC app in their App Store that could spark antitrust issues? These merchants could easily build a web app or since they don't seem to like people paying by phone come up with a different solution.

Did someone mention anti-trust in relation to Apple or Google?

I know I've said that MXC isn't likely guilty of collusion.

And why do you say these merchants don't seem to like people paying by phone. I think we both know that it's not the phone, it's the use of credit cards which they are trying to minimize before their own app is launched.

How would CurrentC work if not on a phone? I know you were being sarcastic. I'm just being rhetorical like you

 

[gadgetguy03]

Can someone explain to me how retailers not supporting NFC contactless payments is OK but if Apple or Google refused to allow the CurrentC app in their App Store that could spark antitrust issues? These merchants could easily build a web app or since they don't seem to like people paying by phone come up with a different solution.

My POV is this: Leave the app in the stores and let the customers decide. If Tim is right then the customers will decide which one they like more.