Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Earlier this week, everyone here thought CVS was partnered with Apple as well.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...-cvs-and-walgreens-to-mobile-payment-partners

Anything can happen.

If you actually read that article a CVS spokesperson is quoted saying "We don't know what Apple may be planning in terms of a payment system so it is not possible for us to say whether it is something our stores may be able to accept."

Walgreens stayed silent on the subject. It sounds to me like CVS was probably never planning to really support it anyway.
 
Serious

The total number of iPhone 6 owners, with Apple Pay, is an unseen blip in the total consuming public, these companies won't even notice.

Disgruntled, self-entitled iPhone 6 users only have a say on the MR forum. Think about it ... in a country of 350 million people how many of those own iPhone 6s?

Finally a voice of reason amongst a chorus of insanity. Seriously. You've had this ability for what - about a week or so? And now you don't. The world has not ended. I hardly believe that people choose to shop at CVS, Walgreens, RiteAid or where ever based on whether or not they can pay with their iPhone. Price, convenience and product selection trump the ability to pay with an iPhone. Shareholder revolts? Seriously?

It's not unheard of for merchants to not accept different forms of payments. For example, many believe that businesses must accept physical cash. Not true according to the US Treasury website:

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

As everyone knows, some merchants refuse credit cards altogether. Some merchants won't take checks (paper checks - how old fashioned I know). Sam's Club doesn't accept Visa because Visa will not give them a break on transaction fees. Lots of merchants don't take AMEX because of high fees as well. When's the last time you were in a store that took Diner's Club?

I realize fees aren't the reason CVS and RiteAid made their choices but the principle is the same - a business based decision. Giving up customer data is a very big deal.
 
1030 post and few people get what is really happening.

The enemy to MCX is not Apple Pay or Google Wallet.

The enemy is MasterCard, Visa, Discover, and AMEX.

Apple and Google are just caught in the middle.

These merchants what to destroy the bank credit cards so they will pay less transaction fees and so they can harvest consumer personal information.

The thing the average customer will give up their privacy and link their checking accounts for a few dollars in discounts.

It is all about money.

So we have Google, Apple, and the banks on one side.
VS.
The merchants on the other side.

Who will win?

Obviously the companies with more capital. Lulz.
 
If you actually read that article a CVS spokesperson is quoted saying "We don't know what Apple may be planning in terms of a payment system so it is not possible for us to say whether it is something our stores may be able to accept."

Walgreens stayed silent on the subject. It sounds to me like CVS was probably never planning to really support it anyway.

Regardless, the point I was trying to make is this whole attitude some people have regarding refusing to shop somewhere just because Apple Pay isn't supported is quickly going to come back to haunt them, as more and more businesses hold off on supporting Apple Pay.

If Walgreens joins CVS and Rite-Aid, for example, then these people will quickly be out of a place to buy medicine unless they loosen up and pay with cash and/or cards like the rest of society.
 
CurrentC is about getting in your checking/bank account, to combat this either the major credit card companies stop the access of their system at these merchants how many people can shop anywhere with out a store accepting MC or VISA, not many. Since those merchants are doing this to save themselves money we could always pay with the credit cards to ensure they are getting hit with the fees. Not sure about anyone else but I will not give my local big box store access to my banking account, its bad enough when I get fraud on my ATM card with just me having the number.
 
The other irony (for lack of better word) are those people (and not saying they are on this thread) that mocked or laughed at anyone who thought google pay was convenient or of real benefit because really -how many stores could you use it now will "only" use Apple pay and only patronize stores that offer it as a payment method.



And no - I am not arguing that Google did it first or better or is more or less secure. I just find it amusing that NFC payment wasn't a big deal to the Apple community for the most part... until it was.


But again Apple takes existing technology and somehow makes it something people want to use. And I don't think people want to use it just because it's Apple (although there are surely some people who fall into that camp), but because it is better/more convenient/more secure/ or just happens to be timed at the tipping point of the technology. Whichever one it is, Apple does have a good track record. They weren't first MP3, smartphone, tablet, payment method, etc., but they get product and timing right to achieve mass adoption.
 
Bottom line: Disabling Apple Pay doesn't benefit the customer in any way, and is solely for the benefit of the retailer.
 
Apple Pay isn't exactly revolutionary either. NFC for smartphone payments has been around for years.

I agree with you! Neither was the smartphone. But alas! iPhone rose out of the ashes that used to be smartphones. And now everyone copies them. Apple set the standard for touch screens and smartphones. Apple will do the same for mobile payments. And everyone and their mother will try to copy them.
 
Fir those people thinking to protest them by going to competitor, please go. It is highly unlikely to cause any debt on their revenue by doing so. Just thinking about it, of all their customer base, how many people have iPhone 6? How many people know Apple Pay and how many of these people would protest? They aren't going to reverse their decision by thousands threads of protest on MacRumors.
 
I agree with you! Neither was the smartphone. But alas! iPhone rose out of the ashes that used to be smartphones. And now everyone copies them. Apple set the standard for touch screens and smartphones. Apple will do the same for mobile payments. And everyone and their mother will try to copy them.

Apple wasn't the first to do mobile payments though... So technically, Apple is the one copying. Let's keep things in perspective here.
 
Finally a voice of reason amongst a chorus of insanity. Seriously. You've had this ability for what - about a week or so? And now you don't. The world has not ended. I hardly believe that people choose to shop at CVS, Walgreens, RiteAid or where ever based on whether or not they can pay with their iPhone. Price, convenience and product selection trump the ability to pay with an iPhone. Shareholder revolts? Seriously?

It's not unheard of for merchants to not accept different forms of payments. For example, many believe that businesses must accept physical cash. Not true according to the US Treasury website:

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

As everyone knows, some merchants refuse credit cards altogether. Some merchants won't take checks (paper checks - how old fashioned I know). Sam's Club doesn't accept Visa because Visa will not give them a break on transaction fees. Lots of merchants don't take AMEX because of high fees as well. When's the last time you were in a store that took Diner's Club?

I realize fees aren't the reason CVS and RiteAid made their choices but the principle is the same - a business based decision. Giving up customer data is a very big deal.

They shut off the ability for anyone to make mobile payments with any platform. So let's re-evaluate this, out of all the people in the US how many people own smart phones, ok now how many of those smart phone owners have either an IOS or Android device. It is about security not convenience.
 
But again Apple takes existing technology and somehow makes it something people want to use. And I don't think people want to use it just because it's Apple (although there are surely some people who fall into that camp), but because it is better/more convenient/more secure/ or just happens to be timed at the tipping point of the technology. Whichever one it is, Apple does have a good track record. They weren't first MP3, smartphone, tablet, payment method, etc., but they get product and timing right to achieve mass adoption.

No argument. It's just funny that people see no purpose in something until they platform they use has it. Before then - it's a silly/useless feature.

This is why I like and use various technologies. I can take advantage of the best across platforms.
 
Finally a voice of reason amongst a chorus of insanity. Seriously. You've had this ability for what - about a week or so? And now you don't. The world has not ended. I hardly believe that people choose to shop at CVS, Walgreens, RiteAid or where ever based on whether or not they can pay with their iPhone. Price, convenience and product selection trump the ability to pay with an iPhone. Shareholder revolts? Seriously?

It's not unheard of for merchants to not accept different forms of payments. For example, many believe that businesses must accept physical cash. Not true according to the US Treasury website:

"There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise. For example, a bus line may prohibit payment of fares in pennies or dollar bills. In addition, movie theaters, convenience stores and gas stations may refuse to accept large denomination currency (usually notes above $20) as a matter of policy."

As everyone knows, some merchants refuse credit cards altogether. Some merchants won't take checks (paper checks - how old fashioned I know). Sam's Club doesn't accept Visa because Visa will not give them a break on transaction fees. Lots of merchants don't take AMEX because of high fees as well. When's the last time you were in a store that took Diner's Club?

I realize fees aren't the reason CVS and RiteAid made their choices but the principle is the same - a business based decision. Giving up customer data is a very big deal.


This is about more than the iPhone, Google wallet is also affected, are you really willing to give rite aid direct access to your banking account?
 
I'm just curious to know is this even legal after having the service and then blocking it stop competition from Apple's pay system?

I know I'm probably wrong because you have another choice by not shopping at that store, but wouldn't it fall under some Anti competition and consumer law?
 
CVS Stores Reportedly Disabling NFC to Shut Down Apple Pay and Google Wallet

Obviously you missed the MacRumors article that said Rite-Aid wasn't accepting Apple Pay. Everyone said they'll take their business to CVS. Now CVS has joined Rite-Aid and people say they'll take their business to Walgreens.



Now if Walgreens joins Rite-Aid and CVS...


No I didn't miss it. But CVS was never an announced partner. People were saying that because their phones were working at CVS. As soon as I saw CVS on the list of MCX companies, I suspected this might happen. I'm curious to see what ultimately happens with Meijer who DOES appear on both lists of partners (MCX and ApplePay)

And why would Walgreens join CVS/RiteAid? They are an announced ApplePay partner!
 
I'm just curious to know is this even legal after having the service and then blocking it stop competition from Apple's pay system?

I know I'm probably wrong because you have another choice by not shopping at that store, but wouldn't it fall under some Anti competition and consumer law?

There are no laws regarding NFC payments or systems.
 
Obviously you missed the MacRumors article that said Rite-Aid wasn't accepting Apple Pay. Everyone said they'll take their business to CVS. Now CVS has joined Rite-Aid and people say they'll take their business to Walgreens.

Now if Walgreens joins Rite-Aid and CVS...

Read this. It would be completely idiotic for Walgreens to do an about-face on this.
 
MCX should go back to the drawing board and come up with a system that users might like more then Apple Pay. Blocking NFC payments is the most transparent way of saying "Users will not like our product at all compared to Apple Pay, so we'll just block NFC."
 
The other irony (for lack of better word) are those people (and not saying they are on this thread) that mocked or laughed at anyone who thought google pay was convenient or of real benefit because really -how many stores could you use it now will "only" use Apple pay and only patronize stores that offer it as a payment method.

And no - I am not arguing that Google did it first or better or is more or less secure. I just find it amusing that NFC payment wasn't a big deal to the Apple community for the most part... until it was.

You apparently missed all the people complaining that the newest iPhone didn't have NFC..... every year, there was a thread about it.

And I am not dissing Google... in fact I was jealous that Google had NFC.
 
No argument. It's just funny that people see no purpose in something until they platform they use has it. Before then - it's a silly/useless feature.

This is why I like and use various technologies. I can take advantage of the best across platforms.

Google Wallet didnt have tokenization. Google wallet predates the March 2014 EMVco tokenization standard.

It HAD no purpose except to complicate the transaction process with an extra middle-man.

ApplePay brings in entirely new levels of security.
 
This is about more than the iPhone, Google wallet is also affected, are you really willing to give rite aid direct access to your banking account?

You know you don't have to. You can choose to use your CC or cash. Why are people asking like they are being forced to do something they don't want to?
 
Apple wasn't the first to do mobile payments though... So technically, Apple is the one copying. Let's keep things in perspective here.

Mobile payments can't be attributed to one company. Maybe one company started it but a three year old kid could look at his phone and say "it'd be awesome to use this to pay for my ice cream cone". It's an idea. So yeah Apple is copying all the companies that are already there, as much as they copied Blackberrys smartphone before the iphone was released lol
 
Obviously you missed the MacRumors article that said Rite-Aid wasn't accepting Apple Pay. Everyone said they'll take their business to CVS. Now CVS has joined Rite-Aid and people say they'll take their business to Walgreens.

Now if Walgreens joins Rite-Aid and CVS...

Oh my god.... we're all gonna die! there'll be no drugstores left! we'll be forced to call 911 and go to the emergency room for anything!

:D
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.