MCX Says Merchants Doing What's Best for Customers, Being Attacked for 'Challenging the Status Quo'

[ptb42]

How different is the linking of a checking account or credit card to companies like Amazon 1-Click which have done this for years?

The difference: as currently deployed, you can't link a bank credit card to MCX. There's a reason: MCX is designed to reduce transaction fees from 2-3% to about 4 cents. Everything else is nothing but window dressing to convince consumers it's a good deal.

The consumer also loses a significant amount of protection. A fraudulent ACH transaction can be reversed, but not until after a lot of paperwork. And until then, the consumer doesn't have the use of the funds. In contrast, a credit card charge doesn't have to be paid until the matter is resolved.

The consumer also loses a lot of leverage with the merchant. If someone disputes a credit card transaction (due to a defective product, poor service, etc.), the bank arbitrates the dispute, and will issue a chargeback to the merchant if appropriate. With an ACH transfer, you have to convince the merchant to refund your money. Unless you certify you didn't initiate the transaction, the merchant is not obligated to refund it.

 

[ZCT]

The claim that these merchants are doing what's in the 'best interest' of their customers is patently absurd.

How can it possibly be in the best interest of the customer to reduce the choices of payment deliberately?

Further, they are locking out Apple Pay in favor of an inferior system that has not yet been rolled out.

So no, they are hoping Apple Pay doesn't take off, so they can have a monopoly on the cell phone payment market.

But when was the last time a monopoly was ever good for the consumer?

 

[yaredna]

Shopping at BestBuy

I just heard that many have decided to browse for products at their local BestBuy, then, while still in the store, pull their iPhone6, and buy the said products online paying with #ApplePay, and thanking the BestBuy employees for their help

That hurts !

 

[tigres]

meijer to keep nfc on...

Meijer (part of the consortium) has announced they are keeping apple pay- hence nfc on at their stores.

story

non-link version:
WALKER, MI — With a wave of your iPhone 6 or the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch, you can buy groceries or fill up your gas tank at Meijer using Apple Pay.

This isn’t a case of the Midwest retailer signing on to accept Apple’s new online payment service, but rather that it syncs with mobile pay technology already available at its 213 stores.

“We have had the technology in our stores to accept mobile wallets for several years now,” said Frank Guglielmi, Meijer spokesman.

Meijer installed Near Field Communication technology, also known as “tap and pay,” five years ago for its branded MasterCard and Visa credit cards. Since then, it has been used by customers with other payment methods such as Google Wallet, which was introduced in 2012 for Android phones.

“If a customer has Apple Pay capability, our hardware works with it,” Guglielmi said.

Apple Pay has grown into the biggest mobile payment system since it was launched Oct. 20, reports the Associated Press. The free service lets people make purchases using a credit card or debit card, and a thumbprint.

iPhone 6 owners set up 1 million Apple Pay accounts in the first 72 hours it was offered, Apple CEO Tim Cook announced Monday.

Apple Pay, which works with the six largest credit card companies, can be used at more than 200,000 storefronts across the country. Retailers accepting Apple Pay include McDonald’s, Whole Foods and Walgreens.

Over the weekend, pharmacy chain Rite Aid and CVS disabled Apple Pay from their stores along with Google Wallet. Walmart, Best Buy and Target are also refusing to accept Apple Pay.

The store chains are part of Merchant Customer Exchange, or MCX, a retailer-led mobile wallet initiative launched last year to develop a competing system that will be available next year. Their system, called CurrentC, would cut out credit card companies and their processing fees while collecting data on shoppers’ buying habits.

CurrentC, which would draw money from a checking account similar to a debit card, has been criticized for being more difficult to use than Apple Pay, and not as secure.

Still, the consortium boasts more than 50 retailers that collectively operate nearly 90,000 storefronts and process more than $1 trillion in payments annually.

Meijer is both a member of MCX and listed on Apple’s site to use Apple Pay. At this point, Meijer does not plan on blocking Apple Pay.

“We don’t plan to remove or disable these systems,” Guglielmi told MLive on Tuesday.

The New York Times reported today that retailers who signed up for CurrentC are legally forbidden from accepting Apple Pay.

“If these retailers break their contracts, they will face steep fines for doing so,” reports the NYT's Mike Isaac.

But Peter Carstensen, who teaches antitrust at the University of Wisconsin Law School, tells Reuters that approach could be a violation of antitrust laws if there is an organized effort by the retailers to drop Apple and Google’s payment services.

There’s a rush to gain a foothold in the mobile pay market, which will grow to a $90 billion by 2017, forecasts Forrester Research.

Shandra Martinez covers business for MLive/The Grand Rapids Press. Email her or follow her on Twitter @shandramartinez.

 

[farmkittie]

Anything that gets both iPhone and Android users to unite against it is Dead in the water.

They need to just pull the plug now and cut their losses.

The enemy(CurrentC) of my enemy (Google Wallet) is not my (Apple )friend in this case.

----------

In the end, Walfart will probably be the only merchant still using and pushing it. Maybe Best Buy too.

Fine, I never shop in them anyway.

 

[Dunkrag]

That's over 25% of the gross world product. Seems just a tad far fetched...

Quoted. Let's see what happens over the next 10 years...

 

[dysamoria]

I love it when the bullying 400lb gorillas of society talk about how they were "chosen by the people" or are being treated unfairly. They really must believe they are number one because of some conscious selection by people, rather than by way of their unfair, underhanded, hostile, and abusive tactics against competitors, sucking the life out of society. There's another group I'd like to cite here, but then my post would be deleted as being too political for mainstream conversation topics.

Sure, Apple could become a new abusive 400lb gorilla like Microsoft before it (and Microsoft still swings a hefty weight around in corporate and business sales). So far, they've given me better technology than the Wintel consortium had done, in shorter time periods, and the competition has been forced to improve, like when Wegman's moved into my county and all the other grocery stores had to improve just to survive.

There are few cases where capitalism is actually doing positive things in the world or in markets, and these two are great examples. I'm still pissed at Wegman's stance on GMO labeling, and I'm still pissed at Apple's self-destructing product and ultra arrogance, but they're pressuring others to change things, and legacy-riding system-upsetting change is good to avert stagnation and eternal dominance of systems by obsolete entities that care more for maintaining their dominance than serving the best options to customers. Customers stop mattering when they have market dominance. Then they scream foul when someone else seriously challenges them.

If only the computer industry (and tech industry in general) would seriously commit to serious buy backs of consumer product they're constantly obsoleting and sending to landfills by their need to keep repeatedly selling the same thing...

 

[xristy]

plus marchants have less liability

Well, let's look at a quote from that PDF

"These rates are not only lower than so-called "card not present" fees assigned to touch-less systems, but also traditional "card present" fees."

As I said, the fee for an Apple Pay transaction is even lower than the fee for a standard 'card present' transaction. So, since Apple's share comes from the bank, there actually is a benefit for the merchant from Apple Pay. The companies are 'cutting off their noses to spite their faces'.

Merchants will also have less liability as a consequence of the one-time use only codes that are exchanged with NFC (aPay and GW). They won't be held liable for an employee skimming customer's CCs or having a corporate db hacked.

 

[Oracle1729]

Because not everyone has joined the Tin Foil Hat club as of yet. You can't survive without giving away some information and no-one can buy a house or a car without forking over some information. Thats just the way it is.

It's not a matter of a tin foil hat club. And nobody is going to buy a house or car on apple pay (well maybe Timmy will).

For small transaction, cash is still king. Until there is a material benefit, there's no reason to buy into any of these schemes. And getting to worship at the alter of Apple during all your routine purchases is not a reason for most people.

----------

Because No one wants to carry there Wallet around or the real cash only to be mugged by some dude with a gun.

I actually work in criminal law. So right now, they take your phone and wallet with a gun and demand your pins, and keep you at gun point to make sure the info was accurate while an accomplice cleans out your bank account.

I just can't wait until the only way the can clean out your bank account is with your finger. These are people who will beat someone into a coma to score $50. I'm sure they'll find a way to take your finger print with them.

 

[ee4life]

Quoted. Let's see what happens over the next 10 years...

The global payment volume across all credit/debit networks (Visa, MC, Amex, etc) would have to have astronomical growth relative to trend over the next 10 years to even approach that figure. And even then, Apple Pay would have to get all of the action. In the meantime, the competition isn't just going to roll over and die. We can speculate to no end what might happen or how services might evolve, but the current model is just supplemental income. It's not a bad thing. Apple doesn't have to destroy everything else to win this game.

 

[flat five]

long post ahead.. mostly just quoted stuff though..

but the current model is just supplemental income.

i think this is the base/fork of our disagreement(s).

why are you saying that? have you read/seen/heard something that's making you lean that way or is it just what you think because it's what you think?

from my pov, everything i've read seems to say apple has their aspirations set much higher than supplemental income.. i mean, i feel you're arguing as if apple and the banks are being tight lipped about it then-- we're making equally valid guesses about it.. but they're talking to the media.

i linked to an article a few pages back but i'm not sure if you read it.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102000065

When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPod in 2001, he saw an opportunity to reshape an industry. The device sold hundreds of millions and its pairing with iTunes became so successful that it unbundled the album and killed the CD, destroying music industry revenue in the process.

Fast forward 13 years and Apple is again looking to revolutionize an industry with Jobs' successor Tim Cook revealing this week its entry into the finance sector with Apple Pay. Payments, he said in language reminiscent of Jobs' original comments, is a "huge business", with $12bn worth of daily transactions in the US alone, restricted to using an "antiquated" card swipe system. The banks, technology companies and retailers that have "dreamed of replacing" the wallet with the smartphone have "all failed", he declared.

itunes:music industry :: applePay:financial sector

while apple can't disrupt the financial sector to the same degree they did the music industry, banking has a much much bigger chunk of money to play with and apple execs are public stating they have their eyes on it.. they're not saying "we're looking to make a little supplemental income" -or- "if we make any money off this thing, that's going to be a bonus for us"

It was an iPod moment for cash and credit cards. Analysts believe that Apple's popularity and market share might allow it to do what so many others – among them Google – have struggled to achieve.
Apple controls the hardware and software in its iPhone, improving security from the silicon to its fingerprint reader. As the world's most valuable company, it has the clout to cajole banks and retailers to adopt its technology. What Apple must now do is persuade consumers that tapping their mobile to pay is easier than fishing in a handbag for a card.

heh, i'm pretty sure apple has accomplished/is accomplishing that task

As the iTunes example shows, Apple's profit is often another industry's loss. Wall Street already views Silicon Valley as a competitor for the best graduates but tech companies could also grab profits from the banks. "[They] all want to eat our lunch," Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, the largest US bank by assets, said this year.

chase exec states apple is looking to score big in the banking industry

But such is the sway of the tech company that JPMorgan, Visa and the other banks and payments networks sent senior executives to Mr Cook's presentation on Tuesday to pay homage. Bank chief executives fawned about the "exceptional customer experience" and the "exciting move".

multiple senior banking execs attend apple event.. and rave.
these dudes don't do jack unless boatloads of cash are involved

They are also paying hard cash for the privilege of being involved: 15 cents of a $100 purchase will go to the iPhone maker, according to two people familiar with the terms of the agreement, which are not public. That is an unprecedented deal, giving Apple a share of the payments' economics that rivals such as Google do not get for their services.

"That makes Apple Pay unique," says Dickson Chu, chief product officer at start-up Ingo Money, who worked at PayPal and, while at Citigroup, on the Google Wallet. "It's somewhat surprising that Apple was able to negotiate something Google couldn't."

unprecedented deal struck with banks.. google tried first and failed.

The list of early Apple Pay partners is impressive, including the 11 biggest US card issuers, representing 83 per cent of the market, and retailers such as McDonald's and Walgreen which together have 220,000 US stores ready to receive iPhone payments.

apple is partnered with the 11 largest US card issuers.. representing 83% of the [cc] market.. many huge retailers on board as well.

While it lacks retailers such as Walmart and Best Buy, which in 2012 teamed up to develop a mobile wallet of their own, Apple's ability to wrangle representatives from three big groups of the payments world – banks, credit card companies and merchants – is no mean feat.

apple doesn't have the entire fleet of bank/CC/merchants on board.. just most of them.

Part of the reason the 50-year-old credit card system remains "antiquated" is because it relies on a complex ecosystem of players that rarely agree on how best to change their industry. However the chief executive of one payment technology company, who asked not to be named, said he was surprised that the banks were so willing to concede to Apple after what happened to the record labels.

Led by its iTunes and App Store chief Eddy Cue, Apple has been negotiating with banks and credit card companies for more than a year. In development, the project was kept under wraps, with the iPhone maker striking fear into its new partners if they stepped out of line.

implying apple's pitch was that they will act as the one stop middleman shop.. eliminating or weakening the 'complex ecosystem of (lesser) players'..

chief exec of competing(?) company expresses surprise that apple's offer was so readily agreed to.. implying apple had one hell of an effective pitch

"There's nothing really technologically new in what they're doing," says Hans Morris, former president of Visa and now managing partner at venture capital firm Nyca Partners. But he says that the way Apple has assembled a group of companies more used to competing than collaborating is "analogous to iTunes."

"Everyone knew that technology could deliver a better consumer experience, but you had record companies, artists and competing delivery systems in disagreement," Mr Morris says. "Once Apple pulled it together in a compelling package with key participants on board, everyone else came around."

former visa VP does this --> itunes:music industry :: applePay:financial sector

apple pulls key players together in a way which appears only apple can do.

Banks are willing to lose a slice of revenues in the hope that Apple Pay will become ubiquitous. That would drive up transaction volumes – and therefore overall revenue – and could reduce losses to fraud through its tighter security.

define ubiquitous -- existing or being everywhere at the same time : constantly encountered : widespread

Even though the in-store payments were the centre of Apple's presentation, banks are more excited by streamlining online shopping. Giving customers an Apple Pay button to press online, rather than typing in card information – particularly on a small screen – will be a real catalyst to more spending, banks believe.
"This is about ecommerce," says Jud Linville, head of cards at Citigroup. "If there is an app where somebody is shopping, being able to close out that shopping experience by tapping Apple Pay delivers convenience and security."
That would make PayPal a more obvious target for disruption by Apple. By bundling its rival with every new iPhone and Watch, Apple is already stealing some potential growth from PayPal's own attempt to create a wallet app.

banks looking more forward to applePay's ecommerce presence. possible nail in coffin for paypal.

Despite the lessons from iTunes, for now the banking and payments industry is confident that Apple is a benign partner. "What Apple really announced was the end of the plastic credit card, but not the end of paying by credit," says Jason Oxman, chief executive of industry group Electronic Transactions Association.


The onerous regulation involved with becoming a bank creates one big moat that Apple is unlikely to try to cross. Data protection, security and anti-money laundering processes are a long way from slick smartphones and cloud storage services. "There's not a lot of people that say, 'I'm really interested to hold a lot of capital and risk-weighted assets'," says a senior executive at a US bank.

apple is unlikely to make the shift towards becoming a banking institution.. while a small handful of top execs lines may begin to blur as to what sector they're in, apple will remain apple..

---------------------------

so anyway, what i take from that and other articles/quotes/etc... is that apple is clearly aiming for huge profits and control..

so again, why are you saying "but the current model is just supplemental income."
?

 

[flat five]

It's not a matter of a tin foil hat club. And nobody is going to buy a house or car on apple pay (well maybe Timmy will).

For small transaction, cash is still king. Until there is a material benefit, there's no reason to buy into any of these schemes. And getting to worship at the alter of Apple during all your routine purchases is not a reason for most people.

wait, so, since cash is king for small transactions and nobody is going to make $25000 purchases with applePay (which i don't believe)..

this means there's no place for applePay?? what about something like, say, a computer.. or anything in the price range of ~$50-$20000 which you've just eliminated from your logic??

online shopping, even for small transactions--- would you rather enter your 16digit#, exp date, cv code, (and whatever else may be required to enter)
-or- put your thumb on touchID?

as in, your logic is flawed (disregarding purchases in the price range where most consumer money is spent).. and-- there really are benefits as far as simplicity is concerned..

if you don't see the convenience of paying with your phone vs. paying with cash at a cashier's terminal then fine.. but try not to forget that the register at a big box store isn't the only place where consumers spend money.

 

[tech3475]

I don't use phone cases at all.

Your other points are valid though, its just i've haven't got taxis or the buss for about 15 years so.

As for shops, I probably only find one a year that don't accept card, most of the time they lose my business if I really really need to pay i'll begrudgingly go and get some cash out of a local machine, as I say, general only happens once a year and I hate it because then I ended up change in my pocket.

The sooner we move to a cashless society the better though - unless you're a drug dealer or something in which case it'd be a nightmare haha.

Drug dealers will probably switch to Bitcoin or the barter trade.

For the rest of us, i think nfc will have to really take off or some other alternative for the other situations I discussed ( to cover those where dc/Cs aren't currently viable) to make a cashless society viable....but even then there's still the issue of if something goes wrong with the system (as rare as it may be, although I saw one shop recently have to use cash only payments because of a failure, in a cashless society they would have had to potentially close).

 

[tmiw]

The best part about this? If NFC fails in the US, card issuers are just going to include tokenization in the chip cards they're issuing to cardholders, ensuring that MCX merchants won't be able to track anyone on the basis of credit/debit card info any more. MCX merchants are screwed no matter what they do.

 

[Naimfan]

It is hard to believe how tone deaf MCX is.

 

[wirefire99]

Crazy retailers

Reality check. For apply pay, Google wallet, MCX, and retailers.

NFC is standardized and in use just about everywhere in the (industrialized) would except the usa. Why? Because our banking and security laws are slower than Europe and our systems are far more extensive so there is a lot more costs involved. Recent security breaches have shown that the in place system on the retailer side is insufficient.

Apple pay / Google wallet use nfc, which is beginning to be implemented by credit card companies across the usa. If a terminal can accept nfc it can accept apple pay. There is nothing else for the store or consumer to do, it just works like a credit card.

My understanding is apple's agreement for apple pay was created in a way that did not increase costs to consumers or retailers. The apple cut is comming out of the transaction fees which are currently in place. I cannot speak for Google wallet in this matter.

How the security works in Apple pay is actually pretty cool. In detail it is outside most people's pay grades, but in essence think of it like your wallet or purse but that it cannot be opened without your fingerprint. It actually is far superior to NFC credit cards in one simple way. The RFID tag on a NFC credit card cannot be "turned off", in apply pay the tag is only active during the transaction with the terminal.

MCX. In general is a good for retailers, bad for consumers idea. Retailers get massive amounts of information about its consumers. They get direct access to your bank account. They bypass merchant fees from credit card clearing houses. And they dump fraud responsibility on the consumer. If a mistake is made it leaves you to hash it out between a retailer and a bank that isn't going to offer you the same protections as a visa, mc or Amex. Retailers have been the weak link in just about every major credit card information theft and now they want SSN, drivers license and access to my bank account... Really does anyone outside of the MCX meetings think this is a good idea?

And now they finally admitted that they are banning MCX members from taking apple pay (this finally explains the cvs, rite aid situation)... It is pretty much akin to someone saying I will take Visa but not MasterCard, if any the stores take a MasterCard, even though my equipment will allow it. I will never let you take Visa again. Sounds pretty anti-consumer to me. The retailer will never make the best decision for the customer, it will make the best decision for profits, capitalism 101. Right now, and possibly forever Apple pay is the best option for profits, as it is in place and functional. MCX has the potential to improve profits, but if it is more convienient to swipe my credit card... There is no point to the consumer. They may wait out the MCX investment and see if they can get it moving. But without something like government support for food stamps , wic, cash assistance, or some other major wildcard being integrated into MCX. I don't see how or why it would ever get far off the ground.

Apple pay / Google wallet will have the combined forces of Apple, Google, Visa, and MasterCard behind it if MCX is looking to bypass merchant fees. Good luck against that kind of firepower.

MCX it is the merchants in the "status quo" that are the problem, not the consumers. To be honest from my perspective MCX looks a lot like a crude Bitcoin wallet, but it needs a lot of consumer information on top of the wallet. Taking away bitcoin's main feature.

 

[ee4life]

so again, why are you saying "but the current model is just supplemental income."
?

Because the numbers don't bear this replacing Apple's current sources of profit. Billions of dollars a year is nothing to sneeze at, but if you look at data instead of articles filled with superlatives, you can see it will take something much more than what Apple Pay is now to catch up to Apple's core businesses.

- Even if every Apple phone supported the service, the market share is not high enough to support the figures you've bandied about.

- The gross total of world payment transactions processed by Visa, MC, and Amex (credit and debit) was around $6 trillion in 2011. You claimed Apple Pay could be responsible for $26+ trillion annually. Do you have evidence suggesting such a rapid growth in transaction volume? Do you have hard evidence of Apple's plans beyond the current model that will augment their profit well beyond what it stands to be right now?

- As it is right now, ubiquity should be thought of meaning that it is taken everywhere (merchants), not used by everyone (consumers). Until such time as Apple is offering Apple Pay on low-cost low-margin devices or competitors' devices, it's not going to completely devour the industry. Part of the reason iTunes worked out well for them was offering it to Windows users. Do you see evidence of them opening up Apple Pay to the competition? Do you have evidence of a cheap Apple Pay device that is going to drive a massive increase in the market share of Apple Pay ready devices? I don't consider contract iPhones cheap, because the user is still paying the cost of the phone (and then some) over the course of the contract.

- The standard that Apple Pay has adopted is open. The back-end is specific to Apple, but anyone can use NFC to offer payments. As NFC gains traction in the US, in part due to Apple Pay, competitors are going to jump on that momentum. If you think Google, SoftCard, Paypal, et al are going to just give up, think again. They are going to continue to improve their payment platforms. Competition is a good thing, but it will probably prevent Apple Pay from becoming the "one true payment method" (this is just a hunch, obviously).

Supplemental doesn't have to mean insignificant. Apple's core business is hardware. They make a lot of money on hardware. And in the current model, Apple Pay relies on the hardware. No hardware, no Apple Pay. Maybe if they start selling phones closer to cost and their market share balloons, I'll see things another way. But the current set of data points don't support that theory.

 

[flavell]

Intrusive

They want my SS#? And my license #? Guess I'll dump CVS.

 

[flat five]

Because the numbers don't bear this replacing Apple's current sources of profit. Billions of dollars a year is nothing to sneeze at, but if you look at data instead of articles filled with superlatives, you can see it will take something much more than what Apple Pay is now to catch up to Apple's core businesses.

- Even if every Apple phone supported the service, the market share is not high enough to support the figures you've bandied about.

every phone will support the service.. by this time next year, a big chunk will support it.. in 3-4 years, all will support it.. further, it's not just the phone.. currently, it's the phones and ipads and watch.. soon, it will be in everything they sell.. anything they make which can be used to browse the internet will also have the capability of making an applePay transaction.

- The gross total of world payment transactions processed by Visa, MC, and Amex (credit and debit) was around $6 trillion in 2011. You claimed Apple Pay could be responsible for $26+ trillion annually. Do you have evidence suggesting such a rapid growth in transaction volume? Do you have hard evidence of Apple's plans beyond the current model that will augment their profit well beyond what it stands to be right now?

for one, i never claimed 26t annually.. go back and read the conversation again if you must.
i said apple could come close to their iPhone profits with apple pay.. not match it or surpass it.. but more importantly, in the same post, i took a wild guess at how much profit they make annually on iPhones of $40b.. (here)

upon further inspection, i see apple netted $38.5b in the past year..
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/20/apple-earnings-fiscal-2014/
..the entire company, not just the iphone, made less than 40 billion..

your whole stance of "I listen to cold-hard-data while you listen to superlatives" is blown out of the water.. you're not listening to data.. you're listening to wild guesses about iPhone profits which i personally guessed at.

- As it is right now, ubiquity should be thought of meaning that it is taken everywhere, not used by everyone (consumers). Until such time as Apple is offering Apple Pay on low-cost low-margin devices or competitors' devices, it's not going to completely devour the industry. Part of the reason iTunes worked out well for them was offering it to Windows users. Do you see evidence of them opening up Apple Pay to the competition? Do you have evidence of a cheap Apple Pay device that is going to drive a massive increase in the market share of Apple Pay ready devices? I don't consider contract iPhones cheap, because the user is still paying the cost of the phone (and then some) over the course of the contract.

as it is right now? really? you can't look at history (iTunes) and plug in different players (banks instead of record labels) and interpolate where this is heading? i get it-- speculation can get people in trouble but on the other hand, not speculating means you're nothing other than someone who reports the news.. if you don't care to see where things are headed until they've actually headed there then let's have this conversation again in 10 years, ok?

i mean, do i have evidence of a cheap applepay device which will drive a massive increase?? of course i don't so why are you asking me that

Supplemental doesn't have to mean insignificant. Apple's core business is hardware. They make a lot of money on hardware. And in the current model, Apple Pay relies on the hardware. No hardware, no Apple Pay. Maybe if they start selling phones closer to cost and their market share balloons, I'll see things another way. But the current set of data points don't support that theory.

heh, i think you're going to have to explain what you mean by supplemental then.. and really, as outlined above, i don't really trust your current set of data points.. at all. srry

 

[ee4life]

heh, i think you're going to have to explain what you mean by supplemental then.. and really, as outlined above, i don't really trust your current set of data points.. at all. srry

No, I didn't offer any data based on iPhone profits, you offered them. The figure you offered seemed reasonable to you, and you didn't bat an eye saying it was within reason for Apple to make $40 billion a year from Apple Pay based on your erroneous guess. The $40 billion number didn't seem reasonable to me as a projection for Apple Pay, regardless of actual iPhone profits. The data I just provided supports my argument. Your "argument" that because you had the wrong figures it makes my data meaningless is just laughable. You also provided nothing to refute what I said. I have no further time for your nonsense.

 

[flat five]

No, I didn't offer any data based on iPhone profits, you offered them. The figure you offered seemed reasonable to you, and you didn't bat an eye saying it was within reason for Apple to make $40 billion a year from Apple Pay based on your erroneous guess. The $40 billion number didn't seem reasonable to me as a projection for Apple Pay, regardless of actual iPhone profits. The data I just provided supports my argument. Your "argument" that because you had the wrong figures it makes my data meaningless is just laughable. You also provided nothing to refute what I said. I have no further time for your nonsense.

ha.. right.. nonsense.
what started this all was me saying apple stands to make a crapload of money with applepay then you jumping in to argue me about that..

look- the largest corporation in the u.s joins forces with the largest bank in the u.s (along with many others)..

and it's nonsense for me to see that tons of profits are going to result?

whatever

 

[ee4life]

ha.. right.. nonsense.
what started this all was me saying apple stands to make a crapload of money with applepay then you jumping in to argue me about that..

look- the largest corporation in the u.s joins forces with the largest bank in the u.s (along with many others)..

and it's nonsense for me to see that tons of profits are going to result?

whatever

Hey, I apologize for being harsh. I am truly sorry. I don't think you deserve that, regardless of our disagreement in this instance.

I can understand some speculation as to where this might be headed, but my vision for the future doesn't align with yours. I think Apple will make billions from Apple Pay, but apparently not to the same degree you do. It's still a crapton of money any way you slice it, but bottom line is that I don't see it supplanting their hardware business from a total profit perspective. If you have a different outlook, that's cool. We don't all have to see things the same way.

 

[flat five]

Hey, I apologize for being harsh. I am truly sorry. I don't think you deserve that, regardless of our disagreement in this instance.

I can understand some speculation as to where this might be headed, but my vision for the future doesn't align with yours. I think Apple will make billions from Apple Pay, but apparently not to the same degree you do. It's still a crapton of money any way you slice it, but bottom line is that I don't see it supplanting their hardware business from a total profit perspective. If you have a different outlook, that's cool. We don't all have to see things the same way.

ok. cool. #

 

[lederermc]

Will Apple implement tit-for-tat?

Now that MCX is actively trying to prevent Apple Pay uptake - which I would assume is within their prerogative, I guess Apple could prevent the MCX app in their App store. IF Google Wallet and Apple Pay are equivalent at the terminal then Google could remove the MCX app from its store. This would result in 3rd party distribution of the MCX app for Android - to hackers delight. It is disaster waiting to happen.

It's a bit hypocritical for Walmart to complain so much about credit card fees while still offering a Walmart master card. I suspect MCX will fail and Apple Pay and Google Wallet will build up a client base that MCX members can't ignore.

 

[dannys1]

Drug dealers will probably switch to Bitcoin or the barter trade.

For the rest of us, i think nfc will have to really take off or some other alternative for the other situations I discussed ( to cover those where dc/Cs aren't currently viable) to make a cashless society viable....but even then there's still the issue of if something goes wrong with the system (as rare as it may be, although I saw one shop recently have to use cash only payments because of a failure, in a cashless society they would have had to potentially close).

The case of the shops system going down, this could be easily solved by having an "offline" mode where the transactions are uploaded to the bank at the end of the day.

Any other issue would affect cash too - I had a restaurant and if there was no power you weren't taking any payments, cash or otherwise as the till didn't work! haha.