This solution is going backwards... As almost entire world (I mean the world outside of the USA) accepts the card payments using the NFC standard the MCX here in America wants to introduce another, yet propriatery solution of payment. This is ridiculous... I hope all interested parties will wake up and walk away...
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
NFC payments are just like swiping your credit card. They use the exact same terminal.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
See all of these CurrentC threads where Apple fans are threatening boycotts for any stores that won't take Apple Pay. The fans are right that making it harder for consumers to give stores money is a bad idea. Where (I think) the fans are wrong is seeing this as CurrentC vs. Apple Pay (and thus Apple). I think this is CurrentC vs. the long-established CC system in place (where the banks are enriched with every CC transaction made everywhere every day).
I see Apple Pay as a layer above such underpinnings. Thus I believe Apple Pay would work just the same atop a CurrentC system as it does atop the "as is", much like Safari, Quicktime, iTunes runs atop Windows too.
If that's true, THAT is the best way for this to go (IMO). Apple Pay can be used everywhere and the underpinning system is invisible to consumers. Those using CurrentC as their underpinning just may get to keep more of the profits on what they are selling than those using the existing system and losing a chunk of their profits to the big banks.
Last edited:
As I've said in previous stories on CurrentC, whoever designed clearly doesn't have the customer's privacy in mind. I don't want to have to use my checking account to pay for every thing (the same reason why I use credit cards more than my debit card). Credit cards are nice because you can only spend as much as your credit limit and no more. Plus if the card # gets stolen the hacker can only charge as much as the credit limit on the account. I know you all know this, but having a customer be forced to enter their bank account information and have it stored in the "cloud" is just a plain stupid idea. When the cloud gets hacked there goes the customer's entire life savings... CurrentC is a bad, bad, BAD idea!!!
I understand why they are fighting ApplePay by turning off NFC. I just don't think they understand their shiny new MCX/CurrentC app will require Apple and Google approval, the very companies they are trying to screw over by turning off NFC. This is going to get very interesting.
This argument has been levied again EBay for years. They take a substantial amount in fees on every sale. Guess what? People still sell there because selling anywhere else will net less profit. It's the same here. Not accepting the standard credit cards would undoubtedly result in less net profit.
I am confident that ApplePay is a path to the what you suggest. Apple has done it before. The iTunes Store started by playing along with the big corporations, limiting sound quality and using DRM. Now we have near-transparent sound quality and no DRM. The iPhone entered a market dominated by carrier modified phones with controlled updates, sold only by the carriers themselves. Now we have phones direct from the manufacturer with no third party software and direct updates.
EXACTLY, the only way I see consumers picking MCX over a credit card is if they follow the gas station model of charging slightly more for credit cards purchases (or giving a discount to MCX purchases). If not, I don't think consumers will trade "convenience" over credit card rewards.
or- interested parties come up with a better implementation.. i mean, basically, if MCX were to use the nfc/touchID hardware of an iphone6 along with apple's token system then MCX would be pretty awesome, right?
apple won't let them do that though (or- i highly doubt they will)
Nooooo! That would be just as anti-competitive. Better to let everyone just decide its crap than make it a martyr!
A squirmish is a skirmish that makes you sick to your stomache, which is an ache in your stomach. LOL
I suspect it's because CurrentC is not actually live yet - you can only use something exclusively when you can actually USE it. If MCX try to enforce the exclusivity clause pre-launch the only people that'd profit would be the lawyers
Oh yeah - I'm in the UK and pay with my contactless ANEX & VISA credit cards all the time
When I worked in Belgium in 2007 they were using a contactless payment system called Mister Cash/Bancontact - SEVEN YEARS PEOPLE
Great point. Compared to what Apple did with ebooks, MCX seems to be much worse from an anti-trust and anti-competitiveness standpoint. Apple never pushed to bar anybody from the ebook business.
But, unfortunately, much of this is not about the law, but about politics, large contributors, lobbyists, etc.
Sorry - are you trying to educate me on what NFC is? What is your point?
You mean like how Target's own store card offers 5% off all purchases (and free delivery via web orders). I think that's one of the core objectives/incentives that the retailers are going to leverage. You might not get CC points - but that's not going to bother those that use store cards like Macys, Bloomingdales, Target, etc that have their own rewards/loyalty programs.
Seriously. They need to just cut their loses or change the contract terms. Lets face it no one is going to be exclusive in the mobile payment world and they shouldn't expect to be.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Apple could flex their muscles here: if you want Apple Pay to work with MCX, you need to do this and this and this. I suspect the biggest goal of MCX is to reduce those transactional costs and lessor goals are data mining. If MCX could get Apple Pay running atop it's platform so that the goal of lower transactional costs is realized, I bet all of the MCX players would be all over it.
It's a lot of money. And as much as "we" want to ridicule the stupidity of these companies for trying to make it go, they are BIG, successful companies that employ very smart people. Why are they making such a "dumb" decision? I'm sure very smart people involved have very good reasons. And my first guess is seeing the opportunity to finally cut this long-term leech cost by some meaningful amount.
This entire, ugly battle wouldn't even exist without the exclusivity requirements. CVS and RiteAid could accept Apple Pay, then they could roll out their system next year with great fanfare. They could explain to us why their system is so much better and why you should use it. Then people might try it and a few might use it regularly, if it is in fact better.
Now, due to two companies blocking Apple Pay, their entire system is DOA. They have no control over the conversation.
As I said earlier, I think this battle will be short-lived. The retailers are well aware of the backlash now. Even if the sales numbers don't decrease substantially, the bad PR will prove tough for many to take. The only numbers that matter are the sales decrease by blocking Apple Pay vs. the potential sales increase by only allowing CurrentC. Since CurrentC is essentially dead because of PR, it will be an easy choice for most companies to make.
And thank you to the math people for defending my off the cuff $500,000 a week comment.
Now, due to two companies blocking Apple Pay, their entire system is DOA. They have no control over the conversation.
As I said earlier, I think this battle will be short-lived. The retailers are well aware of the backlash now. Even if the sales numbers don't decrease substantially, the bad PR will prove tough for many to take. The only numbers that matter are the sales decrease by blocking Apple Pay vs. the potential sales increase by only allowing CurrentC. Since CurrentC is essentially dead because of PR, it will be an easy choice for most companies to make.
And thank you to the math people for defending my off the cuff $500,000 a week comment.
Agreed that
Pay could front-end a QR code-based payment method - but I'm VERY sure you'd be able to tell a difference. Not only is the payment interface different, but the way the transaction flows is also different.Here's the thing for me - I get to choose whether I pay my credit card bill all at once or on installment. Yes, if I abuse this I rack up debt and get myself in trouble. But if I'm not abusive about it I can control my own float and cash flow. Sure, if I choose to go installment I pay a fee for the loan from the CC company, but that is still my choice. CurrentC wants to ding my checking account like a debit card - so when I run out of cash 2/3 of the way through the month, say, I have stop spending with it because I don't have the funds for the transaction. More lost potential sales through this system for the merchants...
I respect the MCX members wanting to reduce their transactional costs, but I (and I know I don't speak for anyone else here) don't use debit now except a few times a year and I will not move wholesale to a system based on it. Add that to the fact they require information they have no business asking for (like my SSN) and they have lost me permanently as a potential user of this "service." And though some people like the advertising that comes with this, I find it only an annoyance (as a rule I NEVER follow those ads).
You are welcome to support it, adopt it or even recommend it - but know that the "we" you keep referring to has several reasons for being against CurrentC and not just the one you keep citing (that we're all such Apple devotees that we're blind to all other thinking, in my words). IMHO the CurrentC system is inferior to alternatives and I, for one, will not support it. I won't necessarily boycott anybody over their choice to support it, even exclusively, but I just won't do anything to further it. And my guess is that MOST of the people responding on this thread (or reading it without posting) are less interested in your perceived "Apple vs. CurrentC" aspect of this than in some other aspect, or combination of aspects, as is the case with me.
$500,00 per week,
$1 million over 2 weeks
$26 million over 52 weeks.
I'm guessing your number is a bit high.
(Edit: I see I was beaten by a long way to the post.)
Their cloud more secure than a device? WTF
WTF, how many major cloud hacking leaks have their been in the last couple of years......How can they say their cloud is more secure than a single mobile device being hacked (not that there is a single published case of anyone hacking apple's secure ID storage area).
1 hacked device = 1 set of useless randomised credentials. 1 hacked cloud server = infinite bank account direct debit credentials...argh!
Madness, social security number, address, medical history, shopping & location history, bank account number. This is the worse system ever, makes Google and the Gov look like the nice guys.
WTF, how many major cloud hacking leaks have their been in the last couple of years......How can they say their cloud is more secure than a single mobile device being hacked (not that there is a single published case of anyone hacking apple's secure ID storage area).
1 hacked device = 1 set of useless randomised credentials. 1 hacked cloud server = infinite bank account direct debit credentials...argh!
Madness, social security number, address, medical history, shopping & location history, bank account number. This is the worse system ever, makes Google and the Gov look like the nice guys.
Last edited:
Maybe someone at Meijer had more brains, and negotiated a better contract than the other retailers did?
Maybe the exclusivity clause isn't yet in effect, since MCX hasn't delivered a working service yet?
Maybe Meijer is telling MCX that if they choose to enforce the exclusivity clause, Meijer will leave the group in the most public, embarrassing way possible?
Many possible reasons. Deals like this are likely far more complex than the drive-by media suggests.
Chances are they also employ some absolute idiots, too (evidence is pointing that way).
The law of averages cuts both ways.
No way Joe Public would "decide its crap" until after the first security breach. By then it would be too late and MCX could potentially have a stranglehold on the payment market.
I completely agree that an open market is better and competition should decide the winner. However, if these retailers are going to play hardball and try to eliminate their competition, I'm all for Apple and Google denying their MCX app and playing hardball right back.
Sure...I'm not against different solution as long as we, customers, have a choice. With NFC I have a choice, use google pay, use ApplePay, use NFC enabled card. I decide what do I use not someone forces me to do it by switching OFF the NFC functionality from their card readers.
No actually your Math is off...
.5m x 52 = 26m, not 26b... You were off by a 1000x....