i don't know.. i'm definitely not an expert at this stuff.. was just repeating what the macrumors post said
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
i don't know.. i'm definitely not an expert at this stuff.. was just repeating what the macrumors post said
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Right there's the key line. For about 4-5 days now, every one of these threads has filled in with an abundance of attacks against the non-Apple alternative. No surprise- that's almost a universal rule for all things related to Apple. Post after post about foolishly turning away money is right but implying that these huge retailers are dumb is wrong. There have a reason for trying to go another way and there it is.
Apple's solution piles on to a long-term leech arrangement that enriches the big banks. Everything we buy with credit cards and now Apple Pay dings the seller a few percentage points in transaction costs. Apparently Apple takes a very little slice of that and the banks take the rest. It's no small change. A retailer with an 8% profit who is dinged 2% (of revenues) in total when they take a credit card (or now Apple Pay), is redirecting 25% of their profit to these banks. Imagine if AT&T, Verizon, etc took 25% of Apple's profits in order to cover their part of making the iPhone business go. Would Apple be dumb for trying to find another way to do business to reduce or eliminate that 25% cut? Of course not, and "we" would be finding great fault with AT&T, Verizon, etc for taking such a big bite out of Apple's profits rather than marginalizing it as "a cost of doing business" and so on.
Apparently this CurrentC is an attempt to somewhat replicate a mobile payment option while (maybe) cutting out the leeches. For consumers, we would still get to buy things at the exact same price (so there's no higher cost burden for us) but the merchant would get to keep more of their profit rather than lose it to gigantic banks who have little-to-nothing to do with the work of driving each sale.
As a point of comparison, visit an
TV thread. There is an abundance of gripes that TV apps require a cable subscription. In other words, this same crowd cries out for Apple to cut out the "greedy" cable company middlemen with that product. Yet here "we" appear to be fully supportive of the big bank middlemen that underpin Apple Pay... so much so that we are faulting retailers for trying to work out a system to cut them out. Why? Because Apple Pay is built to work with the existing leech system rather than endorsing a CurrentC concept like cutting out those middlemen. There is no more greedy entity than the big banks, but "we" find no fault with them here.Too bad Apple Pay didn't take on the mobile payments business in a similar way. In other words, instead of partnering with the leeches (and thus offering yet another way to further enrich the big banks), what if Apple had chosen to implement Apple Pay as CurrentC appears to be trying to do (cut out those middlemen bankers)? Then, we could have the great, ease-of-use benefits of Apple's option while helping ALL businesses be more profitable than they can be "as is". Instead of having to pitch retailers on partnering with Apple Pay, all retailers could keep more of their profits on every sale by encouraging Apple Pay.
Are there things wrong with CurrentC concept? Of course. But the one thing that appears to be better is this goal of cutting out that transactional cost. It wouldn't take a lot for Apple to make Apple Pay also work with CurrentC. Then those businesses wanting to continue to send a couple percent of their profits to the big banks could stick with "as is" solution and those wanting to keep that profit could use CurrentC. For us consumers, Apple Pay would work the exact same way as a kind of UI layer atop whichever method is being used by a given retailer. Quicktime or Safari runs atop both OS X and Windows OSs. Those are very different systems behind the scenes but the part "we" use is largely the same. Apple Pay could work like that too with both platforms.
In other words, Apple almost shouldn't care about the CurrentC initiative. Just make Apple Pay work with that platform too and everybody (except the big banks) would be happy. Many of "us" are treating CurrentC like it's some kind of attack against Apple. It's not. It's just a bunch of companies mostly trying to cut a hefty albatross cost. Apple could help them do that with Apple Pay and the end result for us consumers would be transparent (we wouldn't even know if it was the "as is" or CurrentC platform underpinning any given transaction).
Makes sense...
I get the model these companies are trying to put into practice. It makes sense. Fund from a bank account to avoid cc fees, use a QR code to make it easy to implement at a wide range of stores, cool little app on iPhones, Droids, etc. One small issue though... I'M NOT GIVING MY BANK ACCOUNT AND SOCIAL. In this day and age, where everyone and their mother is getting hacked, does this little group really think I'm going to hand over all that info, lose the security provided by the cc companies (extended warranty, ease of use, fraud protection) to use some dumb little app so I can save them a few dollars?
I get the model these companies are trying to put into practice. It makes sense. Fund from a bank account to avoid cc fees, use a QR code to make it easy to implement at a wide range of stores, cool little app on iPhones, Droids, etc. One small issue though... I'M NOT GIVING MY BANK ACCOUNT AND SOCIAL. In this day and age, where everyone and their mother is getting hacked, does this little group really think I'm going to hand over all that info, lose the security provided by the cc companies (extended warranty, ease of use, fraud protection) to use some dumb little app so I can save them a few dollars?
How do swipe fees affect them now anyway? I'm sure its part of their pricing model, just like any overhead they have, like for salaries, electricity, etc. So we cover it now anyway. Its really about getting your customer data. I think the swipe fees are a red herring. Its not like they are losing money now with the swipe fees. They are still profitable businesses.
No one is missing this. But on the other hand, no one wants this. Except for merchants.
everyone tracks business by the day and the hour now. give it a month or a quarter and a lack of growth will start to force retailers to go to apple pay if they think they are losing business. once rite aid leaves the consortium, cvs will follow. same with the big box stores. i bet wal mart will be the last one there
Well, it was intentional, but incorrect. Several of the live blogs from the event wrote he said "squirmish" and that's actually the way I heard it as well on the video (probably influenced by the live blog text I saw). But I just gave it another listen, and it's definitely "skirmish". The error has been fixed.
I think most people get it...that's part of the problem many have with it. My local Safeway provides me that service with their loyalty card...and I never have to give them my bank account, SSN, DL#, or do some back and forth with QR codes like some Neanderthal.
I'm not as worried about tracking as I am being insecure and requiring excessive information beyond what is needed stored on what I consider an insecure system and insufficient legal protection in case of fraudulent transactions or disputed transactions.
Using CurrentC we would loose a lot of security vs other payment solutions on the market and actually available eg Isis, Google Wallet, Visa PayPass, and Apple Pay not to mention ACH transactions offer little to no legal provisions in case of fraudulent use.
Using CurrentC we would loose a lot of security vs other payment solutions on the market and actually available eg Isis, Google Wallet, Visa PayPass, and Apple Pay not to mention ACH transactions offer little to no legal provisions in case of fraudulent use.
This thing is a Walmart operation from top to bottom -- data mining and the chance to stick it to Visa/MC/etc. while retaining the small percentage swipe fees that are important to their high-volume, low margin business model. Don't discount their hatred for the credit card companies (they currently have a $5 BILLION lawsuit pending against Visa). The other stores probably signed on because they figured if Walmart threw their weight behind MCX, then it must be a good thing. Once it's clear that Apple Pay will kill CurrentC in the market, they'll fold like a cheap paper bag, leaving Walmart as the only holdout.
Thanks! Of significant importance I think:
"27. Joint ventures that are collaborations between competitors may warrant antitrust scrutiny. The
Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors issued by the U.S. antitrust agencies in April 2000 describe the principles for evaluating agreements among competitors and the analytical framework for doing so.23 Two broad categories of anticompetitive harm theories are (1) “exclusion” and (2) “overly inclusive joint venture.” For exclusion, harm may arise if a joint venture denies some key element to rival systems and thereby reduces competition.24 Whether this is a viable theory would depend on factors such as the freedom that the joint venture’s members have to participate in multiple mobile payment systems (“multi-home”), the extent to which the members, individually or collectively, have market power with respect to the denied element, and the availability of adequate substitutes for that element. For the “overly inclusive joint venture” theory, harm may arise if a joint venture’s membership is so expansive, or its rules sufficiently restrictive, as to prevent the emergence or viability of a rival mobile payment system that might otherwise threaten the joint venture’s market power. Factors relevant to this analysis include the joint venture’s exclusivity, membership scope, whether current members would help form competing systems but for the overly inclusive nature of the joint venture, and if so, the impact of such participation on the timeliness, likelihood, and sufficiency of such entry."
Correct about WMT or any big store. Best Buy (or worst buy) is not even relevant.
years ago i did a paper for school on this and Wal Mart doesn't do this because they learned that knowing the baskets is more important than the individual customers. if you know the groups of items people buy at the same time or during which part of the year you can price them to make a profit. have a sale on one item and make a profit on the rest you know people will buy.
If all that processing volume flops to the consumer banks against their accounts, one would think the banks will eventually add transaction fees to cover those types of transactions. Somebody is processing convenience volume... it wont be free for long. Someone or some entity has to absorb the cost of business. It takes infrastructure with recurrent costs and costs associated with volume to process this stuff.
Data Mining and Customer Rewards
People have asked, "Can't they work together" - There should be no reason they couldn't.
It's been stated that MCX's CurrentC allows Data Mining through their payment system.
I can only assume it's true and I don't want my data in their system in the Cloud if I can help it.
However, these companies all, or mostly all, have some sort of Rewards Card for tracking your purchases and giving you in-store discounts that sometimes mislead non-rewards shoppers. By having this mechanism in place it's quite simple for each company to track what you purchase already and they could certainly have some system for sharing same, if they didn't already state that their rewards programs wouldn't share your personal information.
If you don't do their rewards, you don't get your data mined...with Apple Pay.
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
People have asked, "Can't they work together" - There should be no reason they couldn't.
It's been stated that MCX's CurrentC allows Data Mining through their payment system.
I can only assume it's true and I don't want my data in their system in the Cloud if I can help it.
However, these companies all, or mostly all, have some sort of Rewards Card for tracking your purchases and giving you in-store discounts that sometimes mislead non-rewards shoppers. By having this mechanism in place it's quite simple for each company to track what you purchase already and they could certainly have some system for sharing same, if they didn't already state that their rewards programs wouldn't share your personal information.
If you don't do their rewards, you don't get your data mined...with Apple Pay.
It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Minnesotan here too and Target's involvement in this saddens me too. I am seriously considering cancelling my RedCard as I see it as a Beta-Test for what CurrentC seems to be preparing to release. I'm glad they have a toe in the ApplePay water and I would like to let them know that as I consumer I prefer that to the CurrentC route they are taking in the store. I just want to make sure that my reason for cancelling my RedCard will be noted and not just counted as part of their normal background churn.
I got the same reaction when I pulled out my phone at Walgreens. Was getting a birthday card and the lady said "Ohhh Apple Pay, lots of you guys trying that out. CVS doesn't have it!"
I embrace companies that want to make an emphasis on privacy, simplicity, etc. I will only shop at places accepting NFC payments if at all possible from now on. I want to see this flourish!
One way that they could potentially co-exist is to make their loyalty programs require payment via either Cash, or using the CurrentC system. They can then educate their customers, & offer them the choice (like they do with their silly in store credit cards ) to use their system for the rewards, or use Credit Card, Apple Pay, or Google Wallet if they decide to skip the rewards.
Since the customers that decide to use CurrentC, or Cash will not cost their store any merchant fees, it would be easy for them to pass the savings, or loyalty rewards on to their customers.
I actually called corporate and voiced my concerns, and questions as to why they would team up with Wal*Mart, their main competitor for such a product. I hope Target sees the benefit of opening up to EMV, Google Wallet, and Apple Pay. I see they have Chip and Signature card readers now installed, sadly when I tried to use my chip card, it wasn't accepted
.
Last edited:
what's funny is the wal mart tried to buy a bank like 10 years ago to do it's own CC transactions and the big banks paid the government to kill that idea with scary stories of wal mart controlling everything
Right there's the key line. For about 4-5 days now, every one of these threads has filled in with an abundance of attacks against the non-Apple alternative. No surprise- that's almost a universal rule for all things related to Apple. Post after post about foolishly turning away money is right but implying that these huge retailers are dumb is wrong. There have a reason for trying to go another way and there it is.
Apple's solution piles on to a long-term leech arrangement that enriches the big banks. Everything we buy with credit cards and now Apple Pay dings the seller a few percentage points in transaction costs. Apparently Apple takes a very little slice of that and the banks take the rest. It's no small change. A retailer with an 8% profit who is dinged 2% (of revenues) in total when they take a credit card (or now Apple Pay), is redirecting 25% of their profit to these banks. Imagine if AT&T, Verizon, etc took 25% of Apple's profits in order to cover their part of making the iPhone business go. Would Apple be dumb for trying to find another way to do business to reduce or eliminate that 25% cut? Of course not, and "we" would be finding great fault with AT&T, Verizon, etc for taking such a big bite out of Apple's profits rather than marginalizing it as "a cost of doing business" and so on.
Apparently this CurrentC is an attempt to somewhat replicate a mobile payment option while (maybe) cutting out the leeches. For consumers, we would still get to buy things at the exact same price (so there's no higher cost burden for us) but the merchant would get to keep more of their profit rather than lose it to gigantic banks who have little-to-nothing to do with the work of driving each sale.
As a point of comparison, visit an
Too bad Apple Pay didn't take on the mobile payments business in a similar way. In other words, instead of partnering with the leeches (and thus offering yet another way to further enrich the big banks), what if Apple had chosen to implement Apple Pay as CurrentC appears to be trying to do (cut out those middlemen bankers)? Then, we could have the great, ease-of-use benefits of Apple's option while helping ALL businesses be more profitable than they can be "as is". Instead of having to pitch retailers on partnering with Apple Pay, all retailers could keep more of their profits on every sale by encouraging Apple Pay.
Are there things wrong with CurrentC concept? Of course. But the one thing that appears to be better is this goal of cutting out that transactional cost. It wouldn't take a lot for Apple to make Apple Pay also work with CurrentC. Then, those business wanting to continue to send a couple percent of their profits to the big banks could stick with "as is" solution and those wanting to keep that profit could use CurrentC. For us consumers, Apple Pay would work the exact same way as a kind of UI layer atop whichever method is being used by a given retailer. Quicktime or Safari runs atop both OS X and Windows OSs. Those are very different systems behind the scenes but the part "we" use is largely the same. Apple Pay could work like that too with both platforms.
In other words, Apple almost shouldn't care about the CurrentC initiative. Just make Apple Pay work with that platform too and everybody (except the big banks) would be happy. Many of "us" are treating CurrentC like it's some kind of attack against Apple. It's not. It's just a bunch of companies mostly trying to cut a hefty albatross cost. Apple could help them do that with Apple Pay and the end result for us consumers would be transparent (we wouldn't even know if it was the "as is" or CurrentC platform underpinning any given transaction).
BS. interchange transaction fees are undoubtedly built into their prices now already. So how are they losing money? Why is it different than any other overhead, like electricity, salaries, rent/mortgage, etc. They know their volumes and can budget for the expected payment card fees. What a crock. CurrentC is really about your data. Interchange fee reduction would be a bonus -- but we all pay fees. Its the cost of doing business. And I doubt that much of any savings on interchange fees will be passed onto the consumer.
Its not like one store and one store only won't have interchange fees with CurrentC, so it can lower its prices compared to all other stores. If the consortium is successful it has a ton of merchants. So those merchants will continue to price accordingly and with an eye towards each other.