Either that or you don't know the difference between million (with an M) and billion (with a B). If the $500K number is correct, then it would be $26M or 0.02% of CVS' revenue.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MCX Confirms Retailer Exclusivity for CurrentC Mobile Payments, but No Fines for Leaving Consortium
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Either that or you don't know the difference between million (with an M) and billion (with a B). If the $500K number is correct, then it would be $26M or 0.02% of CVS' revenue.
The fact that they turned off NFC payments only after Apple Pay went live (and was successfully used in their stores) tells me that they are trying to screw over Apple Pay. I don't see it as animosity to Apple, but fear that the convenience of Apple Pay will cause customers to use Apple Pay and see CurrentC as an inferior product in comparison.
When I choose not to shop at CVS, it's not because of animosity toward CVS. It's because CVS is standing between me and my goal of reducing or eliminating the exposure of my financial account numbers to hackers and thieves.
I think the ads they were integrating into iAd regarding ApplePay would be using iBeacon tech to push notify you of a coupon in an area of the store you are in. I don't think it's based on your purchase history.
An example of what I am thinking is:
"Bob is walking down the bread aisle and stops by the sandwich bread. He grabs a loaf when his phone alerts him. He sees coupons for deli meat and cheese. Bob is buying stuff for lunches at work so he adds those coupons to Passbook. He grabs the meat and cheeses and heads to the register. Passbook generates a lock screen notification that the cashier can scan to collect the coupons and he pays with ApplePay through the terminal."
I could be totally wrong though
Oh, I meant the retailer knows your DAN (device account number) when using pay, since the DAN is sent through the register along with the per-transaction cryptogram. They can track the DAN purchase history, but without a loyalty card, they won't know to whom it belongs. For example, they could still figure out that whomever uses an iPhone really likes honeycrisp apples, and could print out coupons for more honeycrisp apples.
But this is exactly CurrentC vs ApplePay. Whether or not they meant it to be, CurrentC made it so. If not, they would have kept NFC working while trying to work with Apple to create a partnership. But, if I'm wrong and they are planning on working to get ApplePay to work with CurrentC in the future then they made an extremely poor management decision by shutting down NFC for the time being.
For the consumer this isn't about CC companies, this is about the technology that the consumer wants to use. The consumer is saying yes to NFC and no to QR codes. The people boycotting stores that have disabled NFC are doing exactly what they should be doing! And the hopeful outcome will be that CurrentC has to use NFC, and by using NFC without going through the CC companies they have to work with Apple to use ApplePay.
Companies, no matter how hard they try to make it seem, are not looking out for the consumer's best interest, they're woking for a better profit. If the consumer doesn't take action then companies will do what ever they want, whether it's best for the consumer or not. The only way a consumer can force a company to do what the consumer wants is by massively hitting them at the register. This is essentially the same as voting, either vote for a candidate that has your same interests in mind or don't complain when you don't like the way things are going.
Because the retailers who have signed with MCX don't want to pay any Creditcard fees, at all. Unless I'm mistaken, they would like to stop accepting credit cards entirely -- If CurrentC gets off the ground.why can't they work together?
Which is why CurrentC works by linking to your banks checking account. CurrentC is a fancy way to do essentially do an electronic bank transfer (EBT), more or less, an electronic or digital check. Since no credit is involved, the fee for the transaction are either zero, or extremely minimal, compared to 3-5% for credit cards.
ApplePay on the otherhand is exclusively a credit transaction, because it only works with Credit Cards. So ApplePay only serves to reinforce the need of a retailer to accept credit cards.
Not to put a damper on your decision, but I'd seriously think about that if I were you. Using a credit card is safer than using a debit card. Even though your debit card has a PIN hackers have still found ways around not needing your PIN in order to use the card #. Remember, if your CC is stolen at maximum you are only liable for your card's credit limit. If your debit card # is stolen the hacker than wipe out your entire bank account. It is easier to prove theft with a credit card than a debit card (and a lot less of a headache/hassle to deal with)
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Best I know, none of them has shut off ONLY Apple Pay. Instead, it appears they are putting the pinch on NFC transactions which includes Google Wallet as well.
To me, it looks like Apple Pay has awakened some of them to the idea that a genuine opportunity for the mainstream to change the way they pay at the counter. Thus, they finally have an opportunity to try to pinch what the big banks gets out of every CC transaction in their store.
So some of them appear to be trying to slow down the adoption of NFC transactions until a competing alternative platform can come to market in a full way. They may be hoping that they can get a CurrentC-type platform in place, maybe get Apple and Google, etc to make their systems also work with it, and thus have a chance to cut into the profits the big banks take out of their businesses.
When I put myself in their shoes, I can see why they are trying to seize this opportunity right now. I personally don't love the execution (and several aspects of CurrentC) but I fully get the desire to cut into how much the big banks get to eat out of their transactions.
Personally, I hope Apple is recognizing the opportunity to make Apple Pay work atop multiple (underpinning) platforms including this CurrentC. If so, that would seem to be a win for all involved (except the big banks).
Interesting since it's on the Best Buy website right now. Maybe you asked the wrong person:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/help-to...ee/pcmcat297300050000.c?id=pcmcat297300050000
We won't be beat on price.
We'll match the product prices of key online and local competitors.
The Details:
At the time of sale, we price match all local retail competitors (including their online prices) and we price match products shipped from and sold by these major online retailers: Amazon.com, Bhphotovideo.com, Crutchfield.com, Dell.com, HP.com, Newegg.com, and TigerDirect.com.
We match BestBuy.com prices on in-store purchases and in-store prices on BestBuy.com purchases.
If we lower our price during the return and exchange period, we will match our lower price, upon request.
Our Price Match Guarantee covers one price match per identical item, per customer, at the current pre-tax price available to all customers.
Our Price Match Guarantee does not cover:
The online prices of retailers not listed.
Contract mobile phones sold by any online retailer.
Products shipped from or sold by third-party sellers (Marketplace sellers) on websites.
Competitors' service prices, Best Buy For Business transactions and BestBuy.com Clearance & More and Marketplace items.
Any financing offers, bundle offers, free items, pricing errors, mail-in offers, coupon offers, items that are advertised as limited quantity, out of stock items, clearance items, open-box items, refurbished items, pre-owned items, deal of the day, daily deals, special hour sale event items, credit card offers, gift card offers, rent/lease to own items, and items for sale Thanksgiving Day through the Monday after Thanksgiving, whether offered by Best Buy or a competitor.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I request a price match from a Best Buy retail store?
When making a purchase, or during the return and exchange period, please talk to a Customer Specialist or go to the Customer Service desk for help with your price match request. Please tell us about the lower price that is still in effect that you want the Best Buy retail store to price match. Best Buy will then review and verify the price match request.
If they don't block the app then Apple and Google win because they can claim the moral high ground, even if they don't really care it's really good PR essentially for free.
The reason we are all treating CurrentC as an attack is that CurrentC is the ONLY reason these retailers have shut off their NFC terminals, and they didn't decide to do that until Apple Pay arrived and was successful. Did they care when I tapped my NFC credit card to pay? Nope. How about Google Wallet? Nope. They only shut their terminals down when Apple Pay came along.
We all know that this isn't an attack on JUST Apple, it's an attack on all NFC payments. Ultimately, it's an attack on the consumer, which is the opposite of what you want to do as a retailer. They are giving the consumer fewer ways to give them money (I will stop carrying my credit cards with me to Whole Foods and other official partners of Apple Pay -- I've tried it several times with no issues). They are also telling the consumer that they'd rather use a system that benefits the retailers and mines more data from the consumer than ever before (SSN, Driver License number, checking account number, health data, etc.). It's not Apple vs. CurrentC until you realize that 1) these specific retailers used to accept all NFC transactions, including Apple Pay, and 2) there seems to be NO other reason for them turning off NFC except for CurrentC.
But the biggest issue with the argument you made is that, why, as a consumer, do I care if the retailer has to give 2% of my transaction to Visa? I don't. Credit cards have been around for a long time, and retailers have several ways of getting around these fees. I shop at one retailer that gives discounts for using cash or debit cards (technically, they are charging a premium for using credit). Other retailers have created their own store cards and store credit cards (I used to work at a retailer that tried this method and they pushed it heavily). Those are all perfectly good ways to get around credit card fees, and none of them require turning off NFC terminals and leaving the consumer with fewer payment options and less security and anonymity.
As such, we will continue to push these retailers to reopen their NFC payment terminals, and we will continue to use our money as our voices by shopping at retailers that embrace the ease and security of Apple Pay and avoiding those that don't.
The bottom line is that Apple Pay is a customer-focused solution. It gives us all of the things we wanted: ease of use, top-notch security, and no extra user fees. CurrentC is a retailer-focused solution: It gives them user information and saves them from paying for credit card transactions, but it hurts the user by extracting and keeping their personal information and by being laughably insecure. It is consumer-neutral in that it imposes no user fees, but is a hassle to use, even apart from its other issues.
Speaking for myself, I will work to avoid retailers that impose this payment method, and I sure as hell won't use it.
Speaking for myself, I will work to avoid retailers that impose this payment method, and I sure as hell won't use it.
But if there are so few phones with NFC, why put in a clause that penalizes members from accepting it? I mean if nearly everyone has a credit card, and you're still going to accept those, and a small fraction of those people want to pay with NFC, what's the difference? If MCX has the better solution, they will win. They know they don't, so they rig the game. I don't dispute that it's in a merchant's best interests to reduce fees from a profit standpoint, but the practices here are not exactly in the customer's best interest, and that's who is going to drive said profits. Now the narrative of "big bad CurrentC" is creeping into the mainstream. Apple and Google are playing an underdog role. You can't make this stuff up! CurrentC's goose is cooked.
But we all already use credit cards. So they have our data whether we use Apple Pay or just an old-fashioned swipe. So why would we want to add the merchant level into the data collection too? Leave it as is.
And merchants can try and reduce their costs all they want, but it would be smart to not do it at the expense of services that others want to use (like Google Wallet and Apple Pay).
I accept credit cards via Square and pass the transaction cost onto my clients as I assume most business do, small or large.
CurrentC wants 2 things-
1.escape swipe fees
2.track the customer
They plan to accomplish 1. by storing all your bank info in the cloud. Eliminate the middleman that is providing fraud protection for the customer. Do they step in and protect the customer? Unclear, but unlikely. Apple has not asked for my banking info. You can paint the big bad banks black and I will not argue. But set Wallmart next to them and I see little difference. Wallmart is not the little guy. Walmart is not acting in your best interests. Apple is selling something that I want- a more secure and more private way of doing what I do already.
Apple's solution is founded in promoting my privacy in a more robust way than previously available. This is at odds with 2.
Maybe we want weaker CC companies, but I see little in common between Apple and MCX for a unified approach.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Very simply: Visit any store and pick out a product. How about a nice new, loaded iPhone for $1000 (no contract).
Pay by credit card and that store is going to lose a percentage of that revenue to the bank underpinning that credit card. If that's an Apple store, Apple is losing a chunk of the profit (it could have for making and selling us that iPhone) to the bank behind the credit card "we" use.
Pay by cash or check and that store is going to get to keep that same percentage as some extra profit on that transaction.
Consumers sometimes don't like the idea of "extra profits" but this is really about letting the retailer keep some profit or give that profit to gigantic banks.
Now if someone- let's say Apple- chose to take on such a system so that that extra profit could stay with the retailer instead of flowing to the banks, do we take any issue with that? Rhetorical (whatever Apple endorses is the one and only way things should be).
So yes, the fact that you might have a bank account at- say- Chase Bank and you might be using Apple Pay to pay with a Chase Card vs. an idea of paying by some other means that doesn't involve that Chase Card (and thus no fees to Chase for that transaction) may have some perceived irony in it. However, if we buy that product with cash or check now, we pay the same price to the retailer and Chase doesn't get a couple of percent of those revenues. Is that bad?
If Apple Pay worked like that (too) would "we" take any issue with that? Again rhetorical (if Apple Pay did work like that, "we" could not possibly take any issue with that). If so, what's the upside? The retailer from whom we purchased something with Apple Pay doesn't lose a couple percent of that revenue to some big bank like Chase. Instead, they get to keep more/most of the profit on that product.
I think CurrentC is trying to go this way. It's got some other parts that seem less desirable and head-to-head against the simplicity of Apple Pay, it's a loser (though I personally don't see it as a competitor to Apple Pay). But if Apple Pay was evolved to also work on a CurrentC-type platform, then the ease-of-use argument evaporates and it could turn into a situation where we consumers could choose to give the transactional profit to the retailer or the bank (based on a concept of using something like a virtual check or debit vs. using a virtual CC). If we were otherwise indifferent and getting to buy our ________ with Apple pay, I suspect that the bulk of "we" would choose the retailer as I doubt we have any special affinity with the big banks.
Only right now- while the version of Apple Pay that exists ONLY works with the "as is" system of enriching the big banks- are we biased against alternative underlying systems. As soon as Apple would endorse CurrentC or any other such alternatives, all of these kinds of arguments would evaporate.
... because you already gave us that information. We don't need to ask again. Don't worry, though, it's totally safe on our servers... Totally.
Isn't there a huge contradiction in this statement you made?? MCX is shutting down Apple pay, on which they banking and hoping will make their software successful........
I'm sure it's already been said, but while I'm sure there are no "fines" for leaving, I'm betting that the companies would be out the half a million dollars they paid to be a part of the consortium in the first place.
Of course, 500k is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. Time for the MCX companies to admit their half a million dollar mistake and move on from CurrentC. It's going to be DOA.
Of course, 500k is a small price to pay in the grand scheme of things. Time for the MCX companies to admit their half a million dollar mistake and move on from CurrentC. It's going to be DOA.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Right. But if you had a way to take payment via some alternative that wouldn't involve having to pay as much via Square, would you at least offer that alternative? And would you cut your pricing so you couldn't make that extra profit or would you simply enjoy that extra profit?
Best I can tell, this is not about doing away with CC. Retailers would still price with an assumption of being paid with CC. However, when consumers would use an alternative (like they do when they pay with cash or check now) the retailer would get to keep the extra profit. I'm confident that's what you would do in your business if you had such an alternative to Square.
Last edited:
This. I'd love for people who say that actually cite the law. They probably can't as its just yet another thing they heard on some other forum and took it at face value.
This is what I was talking about a few days ago. I got it in terms of free market and merchants run their business how they seem fit. But what I don't get is why not mandate an "already establised" system to be incorporated that will protect customer, merchants and banks??!! How crazy is that?
It's too easy to allow the merchant to run a business how they want but hey merchant, you NEED NOT know such intimate details of the payment. So long as the bank and the person communicate for an approved transaction, that's as far as it should go.
Approve it already and lets move forward and stop this CC fraud non-sense.