this is a non issue.
What, pray tell, is not an issue?
It seems incontrovertible that Apple Pay is more secure and more private than CurrenC. Given a choice, I, and many others, will take the more secure and more private option.
this is a non issue.
Can we use Google Wallet over NFC in the iPhone? No, Apple is not likely to allow a competing NFC wallet.
Can we use PayPal in the Apple Pay wallet? No, Apple changed their mind, reportedly out of spite over PayPal doing a Samsung fingerprint sensor app.
By blocking other payment methods themselves, especially while taking a percentage of each Apple Pay transaction, Apple has removed any chance of having some kind of moral high ground about payment choices or "non core" business.
Apple is pushing Apple Pay for reasons similar to why the merchants are pushing their own payment system. They see us as a resource for their own financial gain.
--
Cold business logic aside, I agree that it's not nice to take away something some people already had. I think MCX will fail, and we'll end up back with NFC, just unfortunately delayed.
Apple Pay will do much better in countries where a lot more people are used to contactless payments already. So right now I'm more interested in finding out if Apple Pay works at things like Oyster card readers, where payment speed can really count (versus a pharmacy counter, where it's not that big a deal, especially compared to now).
You need to stop spamming the board with the same post over and over. It's not only annoying, but against policy.
ApplePay is not part of Apple's core business at this point in time. Apple uses soldered memory on most of it's products, no SD cards on iOS devices forcing you to buy additional storage from Apple, no USB on iPad so you can't use a USB drive, etc, you must use iTunes with iOS devices, ApplePay only works with Apple devices, Apple never supported BluRay, Thunderbolt is pretty much a propriety connection just like FireWire. These are a few off the top of my head.
I don't know if I'd call it stifling competition, maybe supporting one's best interests would be more accurate. Obviously CVS has a reason to abandon ApplePay for their own most likely selfish reasons, just like Apple locks most things down to make one a captive customer.
Where was this concern about MCX two weeks ago? It was only when they dared defy Apple that caused people to lose their minds.
There are many, many more NFC-equipped Android smartphones that are affected than iPhones, but I'm not seeing anywhere near the same vitriol from Android owners. More than a few here have or are advocating disrupting checkout lines in order to "make a statement". That's from iPhone users, I'm not seeing it from Android users.
As a pharmacist, I really wish doctors would not tell patients that their prescription will be ready when they get to the pharmacy. We are busy and are waiting on lots of people, we might not have even had a chance to look at that prescription before they have walked in.
How would you like it if I told them they could go to your office and walk right in and talk to you, no wait?
Here's one to get to 10K...It hasn't run its course until the thread reaches atleast 10,000 posts...
You're generally a reasonable guy, (and infuriatingly rational, even when I don't agree with you) but I think you missed the mark a little here.
Apple Pay is part of Apple's core business. They are completely honest about a couple of things:
First, that they want to make money doing this.
Second, that they approached this from a user experience, privacy, and security standpoint first.
Rite-Aid and CVS sell pharmaceuticals, hygenic products, etc. They do not portend to sell financial services. Their payment processes and hardware are supposedly overhead in their business, and most reasonable minds would agree that they try to hold themselves up as being about convenience and usability for their customers in this regard(Thus, ostensibly their willingness to put NFC in their stores).
Now they are joined into a consortium whose main objective, by all apparent accounts is to cut the credit card industry out of a sizable number, but not all (more on that below) transactions, and allow them to continue to expand data gathering operations on their customers.
And what is the benefit to the customer for this new technology? Let's see:
Less convenience than using their credit card.
Less privacy than using their credit card.
The inability to use the system with their credit card, as each transaction requires an ACH deduction from a funded account.
These businesses apparently had no problem with spending the money to put this technology in their stores when their only potential rival was Google Wallet, a solution that has been hamstrung by poor implementation, and rivals who control too much of the Google ecosystem (i.e., the phone carriers).
But, now that Apple Pay is here they suddenly don't want NFC payments processed in their stores.
A rational person could only assume that their reasoning behind this is to deny their customers the choice of payment method, so that CurrentC could be forced down their throats.
Is any of this illegal? Probably not. Is it on the same "moral high ground" as Apple? Not even close.
The equivalent would be going into an Apple Store and being told that you can't buy a new Mac unless you use Apple Pay. Something that Apple would never do.
Further, with the advent of Apple Pay it would not surprise me if you can use Google Wallet to buy something at the Apple Store
Why? The guy had it wrong and I corrected him. who are you a mod?
Apple Pay became part of Apple's core business the minute it went public. Is it their most profitable business? No. But it is a service that they market to their consumers, so it is part of their core business.
Sorry, none of those examples is stifling competition. All of the product decisions you claim to be selfish can be reasonably argued to be beneficial to the customer, and the products in question are marketed with full disclosure. The notion that Apple's only reason for "locking things down" is to keep customers captive is an absurd and obsolete myth. I don't have one file, or piece of media that I couldn't easily take to another ecosystem. And while you state that Apple Pay only works with Apple devices, the fact is that Google Wallet will work anywhere that Apple Pay works.
And again, this is not a matter of CVS and Rite-Aid deciding not to allow Apple Pay. This is about them withdrawing support for something they previously offered their customers, presumably out of convenience, only to squelch competition. They are making a public proclamation that they do not want certain of their customers' lives to be as convenient, secure or private as they were 4 days ago. Frankly, it's a pretty damn aggressive and obnoxious statement to their customers. And this customer's reaction is just as obnoxious: I won't give you my business.
For me the final straw was them not taking some pre-paid credit cards due to "fraud" issues. Them to quickly axe Apple Pay is no surprise. Talked with the local CVS manager here about this. She said that several iPhone 6 users just left the store leaving their bags of goods at the counter after Apple Pay was stopped. A Walgren's was just two blocks away and many of them went there.
I respectfully disagree. Your response sounds like if Apple does it it's ok, yet you criticize anyone else for doing something similar. And that has been the whole point of why I have posted what I have in this thread. Apple does what they do to squelch competition and line their own pockets. I suspect CVS and Rite-Aid are doing it for the same reasons.
What, pray tell, is not an issue?
I'm not sure how to respond to that. Sigh...
Like anything else this can be argued several ways. I am neither for or against Apple Pay.
I have comprehensive understanding of the various elements in play, the pros and cons, as well as the difference between the truth vs what we, the public, are being told by either side. The amount of revenue involved is a huge incentive, Apple's been honest when acknowledging they're in it for the money.
In addition their expertise at crafting a story that will appeal and draw in the Apple faithful, causing them to believe that only Apple has their best interests in mind, is a huge advantage. Then factor in the reality that the faithful never question what Apple claims, puts them in a very good position. To confirm this fact one only has to notice the two thousand posts the Apple faithful have made in a very short time.
Yet it's only a method of payment, not curing cancer. Big picture thinking shrinks this down to a non issue unless one is as emotionally invested as this thread reveals.
In short, both CVS and Rite-Aid just created a gigantic PR disaster that could end up costing both companies a lot of good will and eventually business, especially in coastal parts of the USA with their much more tech-savvy customer base. I would not be surprised that both CVS and Rite-Aid are quietly exploring how to buy out their stake in MCX to end this very issue.
And what is the benefit to the customer for this new technology? Let's see:
Less convenience than using their credit card.
Less privacy than using their credit card.
The inability to use the system with their credit card, as each transaction requires an ACH deduction from a funded account.
These businesses apparently had no problem with spending the money to put this technology in their stores when their only potential rival was Google Wallet, a solution that has been hamstrung by poor implementation, and rivals who control too much of the Google ecosystem (i.e., the phone carriers).
But, now that Apple Pay is here they suddenly don't want NFC payments processed in their stores.
A rational person could only assume that their reasoning behind this is to deny their customers the choice of payment method, so that CurrentC could be forced down their throats.
Is any of this illegal? Probably not. Is it on the same "moral high ground" as Apple? Not even close.
It's the classic, "if you don't agree with my Apple slam, you are automatically an Apple shill (or sheeple, take your pick)". Our opinion is only valid if it matches the person slamming Apple.
"CurrentC will offer customers the freedom to pay with a variety of financial accounts, including personal checking accounts, merchant gift cards and select merchant-branded credit and debit accounts. Additional payment options will be available in the coming months."
It may not offer support for bank issued credit cards to begin, but if they get enough of a foothold based on alternative payments, they'll negotiate a more favorable rate with Visa, MC, AMEX using their market power in the future.
In short, both CVS and Rite-Aid just created a gigantic PR disaster that could end up costing both companies a lot of good will and eventually business, especially in coastal parts of the USA with their much more tech-savvy customer base. I would not be surprised that both CVS and Rite-Aid are quietly exploring how to buy out their stake in MCX to end this very issue.
I still believe this is about Apple for many posting in this thread. I'm sure I'll also use ApplePay too. But I probably won't hang myself if someplace I shop doesn't support it and I won't change my shopping habits over it.
I'm sure you meant that comment sarcastically, however many health professionals myself included would find it worrying you'd bring it up. Suicide is really not a holding matter.
Ok now that is out of the way have you seriously read up on this CurrenC garbage they want you to use its quite scary. It's a pure and blatant attempt at data mining on a level unlike anything I've ever seen.
I agree, perfect sequence of events. I am going to copy this to my notes and re- share it when your prediction comes true.
I'm no fanboy, but I am a user - iPhone, iPad, rMBP and ready to get a new desktop, as well. When Apple does something right, I'm happy to give credit. And when they f-up, I've no issue with criticising them.
What I don't understand are the people who are upset to the point of boycotting stores or losing sleep at night because they can't use Apple Pay at a store - whether it was never offered at the store (and they feel it should be) or it was offered (but the store is backtracking).
Apple Pay is a cool concept. And I applaud the stores who are on board with it. But I don't shun the stores who don't want to get involved with it. Just as I don't cry at the register if I have my Amex Card in hand, and the store tells me they don't take it.
I'm in need of carrying a wallet for cash/change, DL/ID and I bring an ATM card and credit card with me. My choice, correct. But if I need to buy something, I go where I need to go and I pay with whatever means I have on me and the store accepts. I don't boycott a store because they won't take a personal check. And in the same ballpark, why should I boycott a store or get upset because they don't accept Apple Pay or decided to stop accepting it? Just pay in a different manner.
LOL, it would be funny if it did come true in exactly the way that I put it, but I doubt it. However, these things do typically follow a sequence like I described. Refusing to take customer's moneyespecially given how many average consumers don't trust retail outlets with their security any moreseems like an exercise in futility.
Since writing that post I've learned more about how CurrentC works, and so I might amend my original timeline to be shorter. Customers can at times be clueless, but they aren't this dumb. They've been taught to guard their data. They're not going to give out their social security, driver's license, and checking account number to be stored in the cloud. Are they freaking kidding us? This shorter timeline might actually help these companies, because as opposed to the slow burn of defeat (aka Blackberry circling the drain for years), they might realize their mistake with enough time to recover. Apple needs to hit hard and early with their ads to make sure that the few people who might try to use these other systems realize how inherently insecure they are compared to Apple Pay.
I understand where these companies are coming from, not wanting to pay the big bank fees. But did they stop to realize what will happen if this, SOMEHOW, is actually successful? Well let's think about it for a minute. Let's assume CurrentC (even the name is dumb) actually takes off and credit card companies/banks are no longer receiving their cut. What do you think is going to happen next? The banks are going to start charging for access to customer checking accounts via payment terminals. They will add on fees, and the new fees might even be more aggressive than before given that they have been losing a lot of money (again, in our hypothetical situation). Banks are always changing their terms. There is no way that CurrentC can win. The banks will be against it, the consumers will be against it, and even the technology companies are against it. I've never seen Apple and Android users agree more than in this whole debacle. If this can even unite us, then damn, this thing is doomed. Who would ever recommend this thing?