AT&T Softcard Payments?

Discussion in 'Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices' started by pdqgp, Nov 4, 2014.

  1. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #1
    https://www.gosoftcard.com/about.html

    for all I know this app has been on my Note 3 since day 1. However, I noticed it today as it was one of many that have been being updated for Android 5.0

    Has anyone used it? Know much about it?
     
  2. tbayrgs macrumors 603

    tbayrgs

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #2
    This is the payment system formerly know as ISIS (wonder why that changed the name ;)), developed in partnership with other US carriers, and the reason why Google Wallet was blocked for so long on those carrier's devices. It's a competing payment solution to Google Wallet and PayPal, I guess.

    As it basically was the carrier's end around to Google Wallet, I won't use it on principle alone, regardless of how good it may be (based on my experience with other carrier bloat, i can't imagine it being that good).
     
  3. jamezr macrumors G4

    jamezr

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    US
    #3
    When I got my Droid Turbo last week. They were pushing Softcard payments so hard. the VZW rep said they get something if customers complete the setup and activation while in the store. I declined to go through it as I knew I would never use it.
    Still has the same icon and color it used to (ISIS) just a different name :)
     
  4. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #4
    Yep. I'll never use a system like Isis or CurrentC. I hope both fail miserably.
     
  5. pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #5
    serious question...why all the hate? personally, I am interested in learning about how all the different mobile payment systems are structured and will benefit me as a consumer.

    Ideally what I like about it and even Apple pay is that I can use my existing cards vs google where I have to fun a new card.

    Keep the conversation going as I'm looking to learn more.
     
  6. tbayrgs macrumors 603

    tbayrgs

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #6
    Well, unlike CurrentC and like Google Wallet and Apple Pay, Softcard at least uses NFC for payments so in principle, it should be more secure (vs. CurrentC). My beef was how the carriers were blocking other payment solutions--just anti-competitive in my book. So in the same way I now try to avoid shopping at any of the merchants part of MCX, I'll never use this payment option, regardless of how good it may be.

    I really wish Google and Apple would get together to use their collective might in the mobile payment arena and force some useful progressive.

    ----------

    You don't have to fund a new card using Google Wallet. The few times I was able to successfully use it to make payments via NFC, my existing BofA VISA funded the payment. And as I mentioned, 'all the hate' is because of the anti-competitive behavior in the past.
     
  7. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #7
    I want Isis to fail because it is backed by the carriers that blocked me from using Google Wallet for over a year when I had my S3. I had to root and emulate a Nexus device to bypass the carrier garbage. They want to block me from using a service? Fine. I refuse to use theirs and hope it fails.

    CurremtC is the same thing. The major retailers would rather stick you in the eye than try to entice you with honey. Fine. I'll stop shopping at any company that blocks NFC payments. No problem for me.
     
  8. gotluck macrumors 603

    gotluck

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Location:
    East Central Florida
    #8
    I want all carrier proprietary crap and bloat to die. Carriers are dumb pipes, that's all I want.
     
  9. pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #9
    just asking....but how is wrong to not support your competition. I mean, everyone is out for a piece of this business, so why blame the carrier if they are blocking their competition? That's business. Do we all boycott Apple because they don't allow their OS on other devices? Of course not.
     
  10. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #10
    Not the same thing. In this case, the carriers didn't even have a working prototype for Isis when Google Wallet was released. They simply blocked it because at some point in the future they would have a competing mobile payment system, but they had no clue when. Ironically, they copied Google Wallets code to make Isis and even copied the first generation app of Google Wallet, just changing the name and colors to Isis. It was pure b.s.

    Now, ATT is doing similar crap in the Qi vs PMA wireless charging standard. They are having manufacturers like Nokia rip out the Qi back plates and substitute them for PMA plates. No one uses PMA, no one sells PMA charging plates (except Duracell), so its a stupid move that hurts consumers that can readily get Qi chargers and get them cheaply.
     
  11. pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #11
    I get that, but the reality is they have the right to do that. I mean can we really expect them to offer a service they know will be competing with them? As a consumer, yes I want choices, but I also see their stance. Honestly, if the AT&T thing works as well as Apple and is readily accepted which according to the site most every store around me offers to accept it, then why wouldn't I use it?

    Apple bought Beats and now removes all the Bose products from their stores. Again, I can see both points.
     
  12. tbayrgs macrumors 603

    tbayrgs

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #12
    No, they shouldn't have the right to do that. How is this any different from Microsoft blocking inclusion of competing web browsers on earlier versions of Windows? Do you like Verizon or Comcast having the ability to arbitrarily throttle bandwidth for services like Netflix because they'd prefer you use their video services. The problem in all these cases is these companies control the delivery systems or the 'pipes'. And considering SoftBank is being offered by all the major US carriers, consumers have no choice but to comply. I'm curious how they were all cited for collusion. If the government all of a sudden decided to sell their own vehicles and then decided you now couldn't drive anything from GM, Ford, Toyota, or Honda on their roads, would you think that's competitive balance? (Yes, I understand this is a far fetched example but I think the analogy holds true).

    Yes, Apple decides what products are sold in their stores but companies like Bose have countless other avenues to sell their product. When the major US carriers block other payment solutions like Google Wallet, Google has no alternative option.
     
  13. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #13
    Bingo. But I'll simplify this even more.

    Anti-competive and monopoly are not the same thing. The carriers had a monopoly on mobile payments. Now there is a work around done by Google with emulated secure elements, so Soft card is no longer a monopoly, but I stand by the principal that it should have never been allowed to monopolize the system to begin with.
     
  14. pdqgp, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2014

    pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #14
    that one went to court. let these companies do the same thing.

    Regardless of whether I like it or not, they don't have to support Netflix at all, period aka one bit now do they?

    We as consumers don't have to comply. We still have choice to use or not use the.

    Back in 2010 it was mandated that everyone has to buy heath insurance or pay a fine/tax. So the gov't is the biggest offender of this. I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:

    When companies like Google decide to open a cellular service provider then I guess they will be able to do what they want. Otherwise, they are building a product that other companies like AT&T has the right to so no to.

    In the end, I didn't want to start a back and forth debate, but rather learn more about something I just discovered. Will be trying it out in the coming weeks and will post back.
     
  15. Vegastouch macrumors 603

    Vegastouch

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #15
    And on TMobiles end, you have to get a SIM card that allowed ISIS and you had to pay $10 for it. I told them i wasnt paying for a SIM card just so i can do that.
     
  16. pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #16
    I wouldn't call it a monopoly any more than cable companies have the right to broadcast or allow participation of channels to be part of their offering. We all opt-in and have alternative means to pay for things, thus using our phone isn't the only way. I don't think it's wrong that cell providers are eliminating offerings or stores are doing the same. They both have that right.
     
  17. tbayrgs macrumors 603

    tbayrgs

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #17
    Agree to disagree then. I'd have less of a problem if it was only AT&T, or only Verizon--if I didn't like it I could take my business elsewhere. My problem is with the fact that this is all major carriers colluding to create this payment solution and collectively agreeing to exclude the competition. We as consumers then have no choice as they control the overwelming majority of the mobile industry.

    ----------

    So you'd have no problem then if all the major carriers got together and decided, we're not going to allow any iOS or Android devices, hell any outside OEMs, because they're all now going to create their own OS. So now if you want a mobile smartphone, it's their smartphones with their OS or nothing. How would that be any different?
     
  18. pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #18
    We do have a choice in payment options thus it's not a monopoly on business.

    ----------

    well, none of us could get an iPhone for years unless we were on AT&T and that didn't seem to bother anyone. I couldn't use Amazon streaming service on my iPad for the longest time either....not through HDMI to my TV that is. There are a lot of examples like this in life.
     
  19. tbayrgs macrumors 603

    tbayrgs

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #19
    But none of those represent a monopoly so they're inaccurate examples. Apple nor Amazon control an entire industry. Those are just examples of individual products or services, not the only product or service available.

    Again, the issue here is the collusion of the all major players in an industry that effectively allows them to restrict or eliminate any competition. If we were talking about a payment solution offered by any of the individual carriers, I wouldn't have an issue.
     
  20. pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #20
    There's no collusion, none of them have to accept any of the other third party payment services. That's their right and choice. No different than none of them have to offer Netflix access if they choose not to and perhaps come up with their own better offering. I remember the days when AMEX wasn't a popular payment choice at many stores yet those sames stores offered their own credit cards.

    Stores have the same right to ban together and not offer Apple or Google's payment options. They still offer the consumer plenty of choices.

    ----------

    sure they are....again, AT&T had a monopoly on the iPhone and none of the other carriers were able to offer it to us. Apple had a monopoly with AT&T and "eliminated" competition. Just the same they could all turn around and say no to Sony phones, etc....thus effectively "eliminating that competition. They don't have to offer everything. They are allowed to offer their own in place of others. AT&T Cable...they don't have to allow other providers to use their lines and bandwidth to tap into their subscribers.
     
  21. tbayrgs macrumors 603

    tbayrgs

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #21
    But an iPhone isn't the sole smartphone available in the market. Yes, you could only purchase an iPhone to use one specific carrier but if you choose not to, there were other phone available on any number of carriers. Mobile phone service was available regardless of you choosing an iPhone or not.

    As of last June, AT&T, Verizon, and T Mobile controlled 82% of the US mobile market share. When they act as a single entity concerning any services, they are essentially a monopoly. There is no competitive balance because they can (and did) lock out anyone who choose to compete with their services, in this case Softcard. These types of business practices don't bother you--fine. I'm sure your tune would change if my previous scenario came to fruition but whatever. I find it disingenuois on the carrier's part and is why I choose to not use Softcard. Thankfully Google was able to circumvent this control and none of the carriers have the 'huevos' to say no to Apple so I have other choices.

    Enjoy Softcard.
     
  22. pdqgp, Nov 4, 2014
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2014

    pdqgp thread starter macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #22
    and there are other means to pay for goods and services. telecom companies aren't required to offer services for any company that makes them. It's their company and their service, I don't see anything wrong with them not allowing anything but their offering. They aren't in business to provide competitive products to their offerings as part of their portfolio. Apple and Google chose to provide a third party offering knowing they didn't control the means of distribution. Oh well for them. Go buy a telecom company.

    great...but that has nothing to do with mobile payments. again, that's not the core of their business. are they in turn required to provide all other cable services or security system monitoring? Nope. That's just as stupid.

    I didn't say it did or didn't bother me, I'm just stating that I don't believe they are required or should be required to provide services for other companies if they choose not too. Again, they are not in business to support other company offerings just because they exist. Same goes for retail locations and what payment methods they accept.
     
  23. Lloydbm41 macrumors 68040

    Lloydbm41

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Location:
    Central California
    #23
    Let's play devil's advocate and postulate a hypothetical:

    Let's say your government mandated only the sale of Microsoft and Windows for all citizens. They control all goods coming in and out of your borders. But you have the choice of driving or flying to another country to purchase a Mac in person. Unfortunately, you won't be able to download any Apple software because the government blocks all of it, so you have to leave your country or pirate all your software.

    But, all that would be fine according to you, because your government controls your borders? I mean, you have a choice, right?
     

Share This Page