Apple Pay Officially Launches in Italy

[iTom17]

Wonder if ING would be willing to get on board? They'd also need to talk with Maestro (Should be simple given it's owned by MasterCard)

I think of all Dutch banks ING would actually be the first to get on board. They have paid interest in Apple Pay from day one. Other banks, including Rabobank and ABN Amro not so much.

Question is whether Maestro would get accepted, as these are neither credit cards nor debit cards. Not sure if Apple will do this. Obviously they should, as most Dutch people use a regular bank card.

 

[alecgold]

Apple receives 0.15% share of each transaction from the bank (not the merchant). Apple does not know where/ and what you are buying.

This is incorrect. The Apple Pay system generates a unique cc code for each transaction, so the banks can't see what is bought. That is also one reason a lot of banks don't want to do Apple Pay, information is valuable (aks google).

From Wikipedia:
Apple Pay uses[4] the EMV Payment Tokenisation Specification.[5]

The service keeps customer payment information private from the retailer
by replacing the customer's credit or debit card Primary Account Number (PAN) with a tokenized Device Account Number (DAN), and creates a "dynamic security code [...] generated for each transaction".[2] The 'dynamic security code' is the cryptogram in an EMV-mode transaction, and the Dynamic Card Verification Value (dCVV) in a magnetic stripe data emulation-mode transaction.

 

[recoil80]

This is incorrect. The Apple Pay system generates a unique cc code for each transaction, so the banks can't see what is bought. That is also one reason a lot of banks don't want to do Apple Pay, information is valuable (aks google).

So they get the same amount of money for each transaction, no matter what the bill is?

 

[ArneK]

This is incorrect. The Apple Pay system generates a unique cc code for each transaction, so the banks can't see what is bought. That is also one reason a lot of banks don't want to do Apple Pay, information is valuable (aks google).

From Wikipedia:
Apple Pay uses[4] the EMV Payment Tokenisation Specification.[5]

The service keeps customer payment information private from the retailer
by replacing the customer's credit or debit card Primary Account Number (PAN) with a tokenized Device Account Number (DAN), and creates a "dynamic security code [...] generated for each transaction".[2] The 'dynamic security code' is the cryptogram in an EMV-mode transaction, and the Dynamic Card Verification Value (dCVV) in a magnetic stripe data emulation-mode transaction.

What I never understood about this: when I check my American bank account online I don't see a difference for my Apple Pay transaction and my regular transactions. My bank seems to know all the details anyway...?

 

[Marv1989]

Thanks Apple and thanks German banks for still not having Apple Pay in Germany! You gerks!

At first we should try to enable card payments everywhere before we talk about apple pay...

 

[thelookingglass]

At first we should try to enable card payments everywhere before we talk about apple pay...

A little bizarre that a country as advanced as Germany would still rely so heavily on cash. Why is that?

 

[truthertech]

What I never understood about this: when I check my American bank account online I don't see a difference for my Apple Pay transaction and my regular transactions. My bank seems to know all the details anyway...?

The bank obviously needs to know which merchant to pay and how much. What's different with Apple Pay is that the merchant no longer has your information to erode your privacy and security, e.g., they don't have your credit card info to get hacked. Merchants like Walmart, Target, etc., want that data so they have resisted Apple Pay.
[doublepost=1495032822][/doublepost]

So they get the same amount of money for each transaction, no matter what the bill is?

No, no, no. Apple gets .015% or 15 cents for every $100 you charge. Again, the bank pays, not the merchant or consumer. Most banks and credit unions have been eager to sign up because it is a convenience to their customers and the small charge is likely offset by the almost zero fraud costs, that's why there are thousands of banks signed up in US and elsewhere. Resistance has come from places where a small number of banks have a near monopoly and see Apple Pay as a threat, e.g., Australia where the big three have fought it even as many smaller banks and credit unions have now signed up.

 

[sunny2k1]

This is incorrect. The Apple Pay system generates a unique cc code for each transaction, so the banks can't see what is bought. That is also one reason a lot of banks don't want to do Apple Pay, information is valuable (aks google).

From Wikipedia:
Apple Pay uses[4] the EMV Payment Tokenisation Specification.[5]

The service keeps customer payment information private from the retailer
by replacing the customer's credit or debit card Primary Account Number (PAN) with a tokenized Device Account Number (DAN), and creates a "dynamic security code [...] generated for each transaction".[2] The 'dynamic security code' is the cryptogram in an EMV-mode transaction, and the Dynamic Card Verification Value (dCVV) in a magnetic stripe data emulation-mode transaction.

What I meant, is that neither Apple nor the bank knows what was bought. At the end, the only thing is the amount of the transaction which is transmitted to the bank (like every transaction using a card terminal) and the merchant. Apple generates this unique cc code and sends it back to the NFC-card reader which processes the communication between the merchant and the issuing bank. The bank checks the received data and accepts and confirms the transaction.

 

[Wrong Turn]

I have 40sek in my wallet and have had 40sek in my wallet for the last 2 months.
I NEVER use cash, i never need to.
ANY regular store accepts cards here in Sweden.
If i go watch my kids play football and there is this small kiosk selling candybars, hot dogs and coffe, you use Swish (which is a common form where you pay by texting).
I read somewhere from a Samsung representative, that they chose to introduce it (Samsung Pay) in Sweden so early due that to their calculations 97% of all transactions are via card, only 3% is in cash.
But then again, Sweden is a very, very small country considering population (about 10 mil).

 

[Rigby]

This is incorrect. The Apple Pay system generates a unique cc code for each transaction

The virtual card number (DAN) does not change between transactions. Only the dynamic security code does. Some contactless payment cards do the same thing, BTW.

so the banks can't see what is bought. That is also one reason a lot of banks don't want to do Apple Pay, information is valuable (aks google).

The banks can see exactly the same information as if you were using your physical card. They are the ones processing the transaction, and they map the DAN to your actual account to do that. They cannot see directly what you buy, but that's the same when using a physical card.

 

[mrgraff]

I just got back from a trip to Australia. Thanks to overwhelming acceptance of Apple Pay and other contactless payments, I stopped using cash by day number two. It got to the point where I just presented my iPhone and TouchID like it was as common as opening a wallet. When it works, it's awesome.

 

[recoil80]

No, no, no. Apple gets .015% or 15 cents for every $100 you charge. Again, the bank pays, not the merchant or consumer. Most banks and credit unions have been eager to sign up because it is a convenience to their customers and the small charge is likely offset by the almost zero fraud costs, that's why there are thousands of banks signed up in US and elsewhere. Resistance has come from places where a small number of banks have a near monopoly and see Apple Pay as a threat, e.g., Australia where the big three have fought it even as many smaller banks and credit unions have now signed up.

I see, you meant they don't know what you bought. The bank is asked for $100 and Apple knows you spent $100, end of the story.
But isn't it the same with credit cards? AE, Mastercard, Visa, I suppose they charge the bank when you pay something with your credit card.
So banks are trying to avoid Apple pay just because the fee is higher or there is something else?

 

[L-Viz]

There is simply no excuse for stores and merchants in Germany not to accept credit cards. In fact more and more places do accept them. My supermarket does, my gas station does, my drugstore does, my hardware store does, so do many restaurants I visit. If any place refuses to take my card, I take my business elsewhere. I don't care about ridiculous complaints about merchant costs. I never ask for any "rebate" but I demand nothing more than the 3% transaction cost compared to 0,3% with giro go, but the merchant offers 3% rebate anyways if I join his ridiculous miles/bonus/rewards program.

The banks also hate credit cards because you somehow become invisible to them. With your giro card, they know what you are spending your money on compared to payments with 3rd party credit cards.

Above all, Apple Pay is the safest form of payment and that is reason enough that it should be available everywhere throughout the EU!

 

[Casiotone]

The bank obviously needs to know which merchant to pay and how much. What's different with Apple Pay is that the merchant no longer has your information to erode your privacy and security, e.g., they don't have your credit card info to get hacked. Merchants like Walmart, Target, etc., want that data so they have resisted Apple Pay.
[doublepost=1495032822][/doublepost]


No, no, no. Apple gets .015% or 15 cents for every $100 you charge. Again, the bank pays, not the merchant or consumer. Most banks and credit unions have been eager to sign up because it is a convenience to their customers and the small charge is likely offset by the almost zero fraud costs, that's why there are thousands of banks signed up in US and elsewhere. Resistance has come from places where a small number of banks have a near monopoly and see Apple Pay as a threat, e.g., Australia where the big three have fought it even as many smaller banks and credit unions have now signed up.

Apple's cut is even smaller than this, it's .0015%.
(0.15/100 = 0.0015%, not 0.015%)

 

[truthertech]

Apple's cut is even smaller than this, it's .0015%.
(0.15/100 = 0.0015%, not 0.015%)

Thanks for the math correction. It's works out to 15 cents for every $100 correct?

 

[peterdevries]

A little bizarre that a country as advanced as Germany would still rely so heavily on cash. Why is that?

A fear of people / banks / corporations tracking what you buy. It all has to do with the basic German fear of surveillance that is born from the Stasi / SED surveillance in the past century.

In addition, there is a general faith in hard cash and stashed gold in Germany. Many people have hidden gold reserves and many older people walk around with thousands in 100 euro notes in their wallets.

Oh, and this: the Germans might be advanced in terms of technology, but not in IT. I have worked in banks in Germany and if you would have seen what I have then you would never ever get a German Bank account. They still run AS400 systems that are serviced by 60 year old independent consultants that do not document their work.

 

[alecgold]

Oh, and this: the Germans might be advanced in terms of technology, but not in IT. I have worked in banks in Germany and if you would have seen what I have then you would never ever get a German Bank account. They still run AS400 systems that are serviced by 60 year old independent consultants that do not document their work.

You wouldn't want those systems to stop and rewriting all those lines is almost impossible. Many life insurances and pension funds still have cobold and other ancient systems. They can't stop running them or all those people that worked in the 70's won't have their money. They even need to update them to comply with current or new laws.

 

[_blackbird_]

A little bizarre that a country as advanced as Germany would still rely so heavily on cash. Why is that?

'cause it's not advanced. France is far more advanced, for instance.

 

[alecgold]

'cause it's not advanced. France is far more advanced, for instance.

Or because they have experienced hyper-inflation, devaluation and related troubles a few times? And because they value reliability and security more? But as with all generalizations, they are crude and individual behavior might vary widely.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

You wouldn't want those systems to stop and rewriting all those lines is almost impossible. Many life insurances and pension funds still have cobold and other ancient systems. They can't stop running them or all those people that worked in the 70's won't have their money. They even need to update them to comply with current or new laws.

Means that when the time to upgrade and make transition to newer and better systems they were lazy enough to not care. Your explanation of impeding doom is not good enough.

 

[kdarling]

Apple's cut is even smaller than this, it's .0015%. (0.15/100 = 0.0015%, not 0.015%)

It's 0.15%.

This is incorrect. The Apple Pay system generates a unique cc code for each transaction, so the banks can't see what is bought. That is also one reason a lot of banks don't want to do Apple Pay, information is valuable (aks google).

That is incorrect. Apple Pay uses the same account token for every transaction. That number is not secret, because it cannot be used to make a magnetic card or do an online transaction.

What does change are the per transaction authentication codes... exactly the same as with any of the millions of EMV contactless cards in use, since they are what Apple/Android/Samsung Pay emulates.

As for information, nothing has changed as far as the banks go. They know location and category. If you make a purchase at a liquor store, it's pretty obvious what you likely got. Ditto for a particular type of doctor. And so forth.

This continued flow of info to the banks is a primary reason why banks are willing to pay Apple their ransom fee to get at their own customers. Among other things, they use this info to watch for possible credit risk, both now and in the future.

(It's why banks hated the original Google Wallet payment system, which hid all purchases behind a single "Google storefront". If you suddenly started buying booze during work hours and paying a divorce lawyer, the worst that happened with Google was that you saw more ads for those things. With banks, you are flagged as a credit risk.)

No, no, no. Apple gets .015% or 15 cents for every $100 you charge. Again, the bank pays, not the merchant or consumer. Most banks and credit unions have been eager to sign up because it is a convenience to their customers and the small charge is likely offset by the almost zero fraud costs, that's why there are thousands of banks signed up in US and elsewhere.

In many parts of the world, banks cannot afford the high fee Apple wants. Credit unions especially have NOT been eager to sign up, as they often charge smaller fees to their customers and Apple's fee on top is another burden. But younger customers do not care and want it.

As for fraud, in many parts of the world where EMV (chip & PIN) has been in use for years, contactless fraud rates are up to twenty times LOWER than the fee that Apple demands. So it actually costs MORE to pay Apple than to pay for the tiny amount of contactless fraud!

Banks resist Apple Pay for multiple reasons. Cost is a big one, of course:

1) The transaction fee that Apple demands for doing nothing.
2) The tokenization fees (provisioning and translating) charged by the networks.
3) Extra accounting and auditing to make Apple happy.
4) Banks are forbidden by the Apple Pay contract to pass on the extra costs to the ones who cause it: the Apple Pay customer. Not good business, that.

Banks don't like the Apple branding taking precedence over their own card branding.

Banks are also not happy about Apple's proprietary information demands. The contract requires the banks to provide "an extensive set of statistics for Apple regarding their Apple Pay activity, including nearly three-dozen categories of quantifiable information. Categories include number and dollar volume of credit and debit activity, average ticket, breakdown of transactions between in-store and in-app usage, and top 100 merchants by charge volume."

So there's a lot against signing up with Apple Pay. Especially in countries with legally low transaction fees, a long history of chip cards, and no desire to share critical banking information with an American megacorp.

 

[recoil80]

4) Banks are forbidden by the Apple Pay contract to pass on the extra costs to the ones who cause it: the Apple Pay customer. Not good business, that.

So they can't charge a fee for every transaction, or they cannot charge the customer at all (like a monthly or yearly fee) for the use of Apple pay?

 

[kdarling]

So they can't charge a fee for every transaction, or they cannot charge the customer at all (like a monthly or yearly fee) for the use of Apple pay?

The contract was leaked a few years back. As this article puts it:

"Issuers are also barred from recovering any Apple Pay costs from cardholders in the program and must absorb their own development costs stemming from their participation."

One cannot imagine Apple signing a similar contract from anyone else. It makes no business sense. That's why it was one of the things that the Australian banks originally requested when asking to be able to negotiate as a group: that they be able to naturally pass on the extra charges to anyone using Apple Pay.

 

[truthertech]

In many parts of the world, banks cannot afford the high fee Apple wants. Credit unions especially have NOT been eager to sign up, as they often charge smaller fees to their customers and Apple's fee on top is another burden. But younger customers do not care and want it.

As for fraud, in many parts of the world where EMV (chip & PIN) has been in use for years, contactless fraud rates are ten to twenty times LOWER than the fee that Apple demands. So it actually costs MORE to pay Apple than to pay for the tiny amount of contactless fraud.

Banks resist Apple Pay for multiple reasons. Cost is a big one, of course:

1) The transaction fee that Apple demands for doing nothing.
2) The tokenization fees (provisioning and translating) charged by the networks.
3) Extra accounting and auditing to make Apple happy.
4) Banks are forbidden by the Apple Pay contract to pass on the extra costs to the ones who cause it: the Apple Pay customer. Not good business, that.

Banks don't like the Apple branding taking precedence over their own card branding.

Banks are also not happy about Apple's proprietary information demands. The contract requires the banks to provide "an extensive set of statistics for Apple regarding their Apple Pay activity, including nearly three-dozen categories of quantifiable information. Categories include number and dollar volume of credit and debit activity, average ticket, breakdown of transactions between in-store and in-app usage, and top 100 merchants by charge volume."

So there's a lot against signing up with Apple Pay. Especially in countries with legally low transaction fees, a long history of chip cards, and no desire to share critical banking information with an American megacorp.[/QUOTE]


You need to get an update. Banks and credit unions love Apple Pay. For a tiny amount, 15 cents in a hundred dollar purchase, a bank gets to offer a great science with greatly reduced fraud. This is why thousands of them have signed up, especially credit unions which are signing up in droves. The only banks that have been reluctant are the huge banks that are trying to hold on to monopoly situations.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

In many parts of the world, banks cannot afford the high fee Apple wants. Credit unions especially have NOT been eager to sign up, as they often charge smaller fees to their customers and Apple's fee on top is another burden. But younger customers do not care and want it.

As for fraud, in many parts of the world where EMV (chip & PIN) has been in use for years, contactless fraud rates are ten to twenty times LOWER than the fee that Apple demands. So it actually costs MORE to pay Apple than to pay for the tiny amount of contactless fraud.

Banks resist Apple Pay for multiple reasons. Cost is a big one, of course:

1) The transaction fee that Apple demands for doing nothing.
2) The tokenization fees (provisioning and translating) charged by the networks.
3) Extra accounting and auditing to make Apple happy.
4) Banks are forbidden by the Apple Pay contract to pass on the extra costs to the ones who cause it: the Apple Pay customer. Not good business, that.

Banks don't like the Apple branding taking precedence over their own card branding.

Banks are also not happy about Apple's proprietary information demands. The contract requires the banks to provide "an extensive set of statistics for Apple regarding their Apple Pay activity, including nearly three-dozen categories of quantifiable information. Categories include number and dollar volume of credit and debit activity, average ticket, breakdown of transactions between in-store and in-app usage, and top 100 merchants by charge volume."

So there's a lot against signing up with Apple Pay. Especially in countries with legally low transaction fees, a long history of chip cards, and no desire to share critical banking information with an American megacorp.

You need to get an update. Banks and credit unions love Apple Pay. For a tiny amount, 15 cents in a hundred dollar purchase, a bank gets to offer a great science with greatly reduced fraud. This is why thousands of them have signed up, especially credit unions which are signing up in droves. The only banks that have been reluctant are the huge banks that are trying to hold on to monopoly situations.[/QUOTE]
For not doing anything? First get your facts straight, then you can distort them.