Thanks for the pdf. It shows exactly what I was saying. Merchants don't get any benefit from Apple pay. The transaction fee is the same. Apple just gets a part of that fee. I am saying that a mobile transaction fee is higher that of credit card swipe fee. Some people on here are claiming that merchants pay less. Geez.
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 Says Merchants Doing What's Best for Customers, Being Attacked for 'Challenging the Status Quo'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
See my note above, it costs me a lot more to use cash. But i get your point in the wreck-less abandon with some people, i'm just very very good and careful with money and moving magical numbers around on computer screens. Its all cash and high scores to me and I value it more than I should so never spend silly.
The "issuer" (credit card companies) pay Apple, according to the PDF and other online sources. Not the merchant. The cost to the merchant is exactly the same as a swipe. Benefits for the merchant, again according to the PDF, include speed of transaction and less vulnerability to fraud.
I don't know a single service that its easier to use cash - if the server was £5 and I had exactly £5 notes then it would apply as I could hand it striaght over... but id still have to carry these notes somewhere and the above scenario is very very unlikely.
I like my super slim, Supr wallet which enables me to carry 4 cards and nothing else in my pocket. Id hate change clogging up and banging on my phone.
Right. The merchants don't get my data (including my SS# like CurrentC requires from new signups), and they don't get to kill CC swipe fees.
I'm okay with them not benefitting in these ways. CC swipe fees are a part of doing business.
Again, can't help but comment on the hilarity of this situation. A company, backed by the (second) largest, greediest corporation in the world and then some, who created a clunky payment system that NO consumer asked for, is playing victim. Ha.
Does this remind anyone else vaguely of Microsoft and the Xbox One fiasco last year? They created a bunch of policies that seemed very anti-consumer, received a TON of heat for it, and ultimately did a 180 and gave the people what they wanted. That's almost what this is like, except that CurrentC isn't a well-established product with lots of fans like Xbox is. It's a brand new system with nothing to back it up to prove that it's trustworthy or worthwhile.
When you get this much backlash, to the point where you have to resort to using the "You guys stop attacking us! We just trying to improve your lives with new technology!" card, that's a pretty big hint that something's wrong. Newsflash, MCX: Consumers voiced their opinion very strongly about your product, and it's clear that a vast majority don't like it. You can't change their mind. You can't play victim. You can't convince them otherwise. You can't win. Either change your strategy or abandon this stupid project.
Or better yet, do what others have said and let it run it's course. We'll see how long it lasts.
Does this remind anyone else vaguely of Microsoft and the Xbox One fiasco last year? They created a bunch of policies that seemed very anti-consumer, received a TON of heat for it, and ultimately did a 180 and gave the people what they wanted. That's almost what this is like, except that CurrentC isn't a well-established product with lots of fans like Xbox is. It's a brand new system with nothing to back it up to prove that it's trustworthy or worthwhile.
When you get this much backlash, to the point where you have to resort to using the "You guys stop attacking us! We just trying to improve your lives with new technology!" card, that's a pretty big hint that something's wrong. Newsflash, MCX: Consumers voiced their opinion very strongly about your product, and it's clear that a vast majority don't like it. You can't change their mind. You can't play victim. You can't convince them otherwise. You can't win. Either change your strategy or abandon this stupid project.
Or better yet, do what others have said and let it run it's course. We'll see how long it lasts.
Come on, it's not so hard to understand. They turned them off cuz they got a call from uncle Wally's lawyers. You part of de family, so no competing pay systems. Or do you want to leave the family? Cuz if you don't turn em off, you must be leaving, and leaving you initiation fee as well. And you know that stuff you get at great discount, well uncle Wally won't like you leaving and he is good friends with the suppliers........just business....just business
If MCX members really hate card companies, I'd like to see them disable credit card terminals even before they disable Apple Pay/Google Wallet.
Double standard much??
Double standard much??
MCX Says Merchants Doing What's Best for Customers, Being Attacked for 'Chall...
Haha terrific! I just shake my head as others in these threads defend the poor hapless retailers, most of which are industry giants that got that way by rubbing others out. I got no love for banks, but nor do I sleazy middlemen retail distributors like Walmart.
Haha terrific! I just shake my head as others in these threads defend the poor hapless retailers, most of which are industry giants that got that way by rubbing others out. I got no love for banks, but nor do I sleazy middlemen retail distributors like Walmart.
I get that because its safer, Apple gets a cut. But why does a mobile payment qualify as "card present" also? That means banks are losing twice. Apple is getting a cut from merchants in that when they use Apple pay, they lose more money just using a credit card which has a "card present" fee.
None for thank you - Discounts really Lame
IF I can pay with the apple phone . i will shop where they take apple pay . its that easy ,
IF I can pay with the apple phone . i will shop where they take apple pay . its that easy ,
It is to helps the(ir) customer
You are missing the point. It benefits their customer (consumer) which is Walmart, Home Depot, Worst Buy and Target....More hassle, more privacy concerns, no benefit to the consumer. Why the hell they think this is going to catch on on any level is simply bewildering.
Why are you spewing the say lie over and over and over and over and over? Are a Walmart greeter or a MCX employee.
I wasn't meaning to call you out. Was just saying that even the government (who has SSN, etc) doesn't ask for or get that stuff. So, I wouldn't give it to a group of people who thus far, haven't shown they could be trusted with even my spam e-mail address.
Even when at a retail store, I give them fake zip codes and phone numbers when they ask at check out. 
I think they certainly could, but it's best they operate above reproach. No need for more anti-competition lawsuits!
This would be awesome, and yet another huge slap in the face to MCX. Do you have a source?
Card not present is worse. More risky. So fee would be even higher. Apple isn't getting anything from merchants. You keep beating a wrong dead horse. Apple pay is identical from the merchant perspective as if it was a card swipe. As it should be. In fact, its actually safer than a card swipe. That's why it gets the lower rate. Merchants don't lose money with Apple pay.
Yes it's the same card present fee as they pay when the consumer pays by directly swiping their card through the card reader.
Card not present fees are charged when you order over the internet (eg. from Amazon) or by phone (eg. when you call up your Dr.'s office and pay your bill over the phone. I think you are confusing "phone payments" with ApplePay.
ApplePay gets card present fees for payments made in person with your phone and NFC. It is still getting card not present fees for payments through apps like the Target app.....but I bet that this may eventually change if Apple can demonstrate lower fraud. Bottom line, merchants currently pay the exact same fee they would pay for the similar transaction if ApplePay wasn't being used.