Several Retailers to Begin Testing Apple Pay Rival CurrentC

[Manderby]

What is it with those opinions not wanting to connect your bank account directly? Why would you not want that? It is much easier, more secure and costs less. This is the standard outside of the US. Why credit cards? Why? What strange thoughts are going on inside of you? Seriously. I would like to know. And please don't tell me it is about the bonus points. You know they inevitably cost more than you gain, do you?

 

[aristobrat]

Why credit cards? Why? What strange thoughts are going on inside of you? Seriously. I would like to know. And please don't tell me it is about the bonus points. You know they inevitably cost more than you gain, do you?

Believe it or not, there are folks in the US that pay off their credit card balance monthly and stand to benefit by the cash-back/points/miles associated with having used the card throughout the month.

Unlike other parts of the world, there is no discount associated with paying cash in the US. The credit card surcharge is already built into the price. There are occasionally exceptions to this rule, but they are so few and far between that it's almost not worth mentioning that they exist.

Also in the US, with hundreds of millions of cards having been hacked from major retailers, a lot of folks simply don't trust that card data is truly protected. Using a card that pulls directly from your bank account is a risk that could potentially leave you penniless if it were fraudulently used. In that aspect, it's not as safe as using a card that pulls from a virtual "credit limit". If that's used fraudulently, you're not out any cash from your bank account.

CurrentC is from a company that nobody's really ever heard of before. They're not a name that's synonymous with anything, much less "security". I can see why folks would be a little hesitant to just hand out their bank account information to this company.

 

[12soldier]

Nearly three years after the Merchant Customer Exchange (MCX) was founded in August 2012, several U.S. retailers and restaurants belonging to the consortium will begin publicly testing their Apple Pay rival CurrentC in Columbus, Ohio over the coming weeks, according to The Wall Street Journal.

CurrentC is a mobile payments solution that requires scanning a QR code with a smartphone for contactless payment from a checking account, gift card or private label debit or credit card. The service does not currently accept major bank-issued credit cards such as Visa or MasterCard as retailers look to avoid costly fees.

Public testing of CurrentC is set to begin just as MCX's three-year exclusivity window expires this week, allowing retailers to explore other mobile payment solutions. Yesterday, MCX member Rite Aid reversed course and will begin accepting Apple Pay and Google Wallet on August 15, in addition to Android Pay when available.

Best Buy, a founding member of MCX, also began accepting Apple Pay for in-app purchases in April and announced that full Apple Pay support is coming to Best Buy stores in the U.S. later in 2015. The electronics retailer will be monitoring CurrentC's limited trial run but has not confirmed that it will be implementing the platform in stores.

Other MCX members include 7-Eleven, Alon Brands, CVS, Darden Restaurants, HMSHost, Hy-Vee, Lowe's, Michaels, Publix, Sears, Shell, Sunoco, Target and Walmart, some of which have confirmed plans to launch CurrentC in the future. Other retailers remain in the process of exploring contactless payment solutions or installing the necessary infrastructure to support smartphone-based transactions.

Update 7:10 AM: MCX CEO Brian Mooney tells Re/code that CurrentC may not see a broad launch until 2016, depending on how the early testing in Ohio proceeds.

Article Link: Several Retailers to Begin Testing Apple Pay Rival CurrentC

I simply refuse to use it. To me it's like Clear Channel trying to control everything. The only way they could make it is if they build in some sort of reward or discount system right into the app so companies like Apple won't get special deals. Short of that, it will be about as useful as Bitcoin.

 

[randian]

Back in the day, every time you moved to another state, you had to get a new bank, and gosh, that was fun.

Even worse now with anti money laundering regs. I was in a catch-22 where all the landlords wanted in-state checks and the banks wouldn't open new accounts without an in-state address.

 

[tmiw]

What is it with those opinions not wanting to connect your bank account directly? Why would you not want that? It is much easier, more secure and costs less. This is the standard outside of the US. Why credit cards? Why? What strange thoughts are going on inside of you? Seriously. I would like to know. And please don't tell me it is about the bonus points. You know they inevitably cost more than you gain, do you?

Yeah, that's not how that works in the US. For one thing, our EFT system is capable of push and pull payments whereas it's push only elsewhere. That in of itself can cause serious problems if something goes wrong. Plus bank transfers have traditionally been difficult and/or costly in comparison (and are nowhere near instant), so cards make way more sense here.

That's not to say that other countries don't get things right though. It's way too easy to spend more than one would like, causing some people to get into debt. More debit card/cash use might be better from a societal standpoint but that's a whole different discussion for another thread.

 

[chrisbru]

What is it with those opinions not wanting to connect your bank account directly? Why would you not want that? It is much easier, more secure and costs less. This is the standard outside of the US. Why credit cards? Why? What strange thoughts are going on inside of you? Seriously. I would like to know. And please don't tell me it is about the bonus points. You know they inevitably cost more than you gain, do you?

My credit cards offer fraud protection. If someone gets ahold of my account information, that isn't money that's disappearing from my bank account... It's protected, and doesn't cost me a dime. Not to mention added purchase protection... Extended warranties, charge backs for faulty items that a merchant won't correct, etc.

 

[Manderby]

Thanks for the replies. Really. Now I start to understand.

Unlike other parts of the world, there is no discount associated with paying cash in the US.

Didn't know that. So It actually makes more sense to really use credit cards when in the US.

Also in the US, with hundreds of millions of cards having been hacked from major retailers, a lot of folks simply don't trust that card data is truly protected.

Looks like we others were spoilt with chip and pin. Fraud is not really an issue since about 20 years here.

CurrentC is from a company that nobody's really ever heard of before. They're not a name that's synonymous with anything, much less "security". I can see why folks would be a little hesitant to just hand out their bank account information to this company.

Understandable. Would not do that either.

Yeah, that's not how that works in the US. For one thing, our EFT system is capable of push and pull payments whereas it's push only elsewhere.

Interesting. We usually have at least two bank accounts, managing it as we like at no additional cost. Some have cards to get money at an atm or in stores, some have just an account number to which the salary is transfered directly for example. Transactions between such accounts are instant and at zero additional cost. Different systems as it seems.

My credit cards offer fraud protection.

Again, we others seem to be spoilt with chip and pin. But I do have fraud protection too, even with my debit cards.

 

[yg17]

What is it with those opinions not wanting to connect your bank account directly? Why would you not want that? It is much easier, more secure and costs less. This is the standard outside of the US. Why credit cards? Why? What strange thoughts are going on inside of you? Seriously. I would like to know. And please don't tell me it is about the bonus points. You know they inevitably cost more than you gain, do you?

I pay off my balance every month and have never paid a dime in interest, please explain how the bonus points cost me more than I gain.

 

[SixtyK]

I would prefer just getting some Chip and PIN readers/cards here in the US.

I see them all over, actually... I mean I realize Omaha is cutting edge and all.

 

[Manderby]

I pay off my balance every month and have never paid a dime in interest, please explain how the bonus points cost me more than I gain.

Boni and the adminsitration thereof cost money. Someone neets to balance that out. The credit card companies will not. The retailers will. Ultimately resulting in higher retail prices. For everyone. Very simple.

 

[tmiw]

Boni and the adminsitration thereof cost money. Someone neets to balance that out. The credit card companies will not. The retailers will. Ultimately resulting in higher retail prices. For everyone. Very simple.

If people are willing to pay those higher prices, retailers aren't going to just not take the opportunity to pocket the extra profit if people start paying cash for everything. Plus retailers arguably save money when they accept cards due to not having to deal with the costs that cash brings (storage, counting, getting it to the bank somehow, etc.)

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

What is it with those opinions not wanting to connect your bank account directly? Why would you not want that? It is much easier, more secure and costs less. This is the standard outside of the US. Why credit cards? Why? What strange thoughts are going on inside of you? Seriously. I would like to know. And please don't tell me it is about the bonus points. You know they inevitably cost more than you gain, do you?

It's risk management.

If my credit card is run up to $25,000, I can still make my house payment while the charges are removed.

If my bank account is drained of $25,000, my house payment is at risk until the money is returned.

As for the probability of that risk, I'll ask those of you that shop at Target or Home Depot.

 

[Manderby]

If people are willing to pay those higher prices, retailers aren't going to just not take the opportunity to pocket the extra profit if people start paying cash for everything. Plus retailers arguably save money when they accept cards due to not having to deal with the costs that cash brings (storage, counting, getting it to the bank somehow, etc.)

Do I understand your statement correctly: The retailer had to increase prices because of credit card fees or bonis and you are unwilling to pay the price in cash because you do not want the retailer to have that extra money but instead want to force him to pay the fee to the credit card company which initialy was responsible for the higher price in the beginning? You want to punish the retailer? Why?

And about the second sentence: I was never talking about cash. Debit cards have the same advantages as you just said and they (at least in my country) add less transaction fees than credit cards. I was talking about debit cards all along. Do I miss something in your causality chain?

It's risk management.

Yes, I get that. You can do it both ways. Either you do not buy more than you can chew and hence do not have the risk at all or you have a risk and try to manage it by diluting it over time, which is expensive. While you wait for your charges to be removed, you have to pay an additional amount of money. Depents on what you want. Freedom of debt or Freedom of constraints.

 

[tmiw]

Do I understand your statement correctly: The retailer had to increase prices because of credit card fees or bonis and you are unwilling to pay the price in cash because you do not want the retailer to have that extra money but instead want to force him to pay the fee to the credit card company which initialy was responsible for the higher price in the beginning? You want to punish the retailer? Why?

And about the second sentence: I was never talking about cash. Debit cards have the same advantages as you just said and they (at least in my country) add less transaction fees than credit cards. I was talking about debit cards all along. Do I miss something in your causality chain?

Accepting cards and paying the fees associated with that is simply "the cost of doing business". If I choose to pay with a card instead of with cash it's hardly punishing them since the business itself chose to accept cards. The interesting thing is the number of businesses who are seemingly resentful of accepting cards at all yet won't make the logical choice to revert to being cash only. It's almost like they get some sort of benefit out of the deal that's worth more than the fees they're paying and simply don't want to pay the parties that make that happen.

Back to the original point though. Let's say a store was cash only until yesterday and they raised prices by $0.25 across the board to cover their card processing costs, so instead of their items costing an average of $5, they now cost $5.25. Their existing customers didn't balk and start shopping at competitors, so their pre-card acceptance and post-card acceptance profit is the same. This of course is not counting any new business they're getting because they now accept cards.

A few months from now, the business decides they don't want to take cards any more. They go back to being cash only, or perhaps they decide to only accept debit cards and not debit+credit cards and save 50% (as an example) on their per-transaction costs. The business didn't lose any of their original customers when they raised prices by $0.25 so they keep prices where they were. Now they're making an additional $0.12-0.25 per item in profit with almost no downside.

In short, businesses aren't simply going to "be nice" and lower prices if their expenses drop. The whole point of having a business is to make money, so they're obviously going to jump on any opportunities to make additional profit.

 

[randian]

In short, businesses aren't simply going to "be nice" and lower prices if their expenses drop.

That's why dumbass things like laws that cap interchange fees hurt consumers rather than help them. Retailers made more money and consumers got slammed with new credit card fees they didn't have to pay before.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

Yes, I get that. You can do it both ways. Either you do not buy more than you can chew and hence do not have the risk at all or you have a risk and try to manage it by diluting it over time, which is expensive. While you wait for your charges to be removed, you have to pay an additional amount of money. Depents on what you want. Freedom of debt or Freedom of constraints.

I was referring to those that want the bank account numbers (CurrentC) rather than debit card (Apple/Google Pay) access. I agree with you on what you're talking about with debt and credit cards, and the debit card is the happy compromise between the two. I think my statement glossed over the debit/credit card protections.

(Dave Ramsey listener, where we're at $50,000/$64,000 paid off, and expect that last $14K by February, 2016)

 

[B4U]

According to Merriam-Webster, the word rival, by definition is: something or someone that is as good or almost as good as another person or thing.
The title of this article is totally misleading because CurrentC is NO WAY qualified to be rival to ApplePay...

 

[shoulin333]

Can't really blame retailers for trying to get around credit cards fees (guess who has to pay for all those rewards you're earning).

All the people who carry a balance and pay interest and late charges take care of that.

 

[CE3]

According to Merriam-Webster, the word rival, by definition is: something or someone that is as good or almost as good as another person or thing.
The title of this article is totally misleading because CurrentC is NO WAY qualified to be rival to ApplePay...

Yeah, their real competition is Samsung & Google, but considering some of the heavyweight retailers behind CurrentC, although their chances of success are looking fairly slim at the moment, I wouldn't completely count them out just yet. I know I have no intention of ever using it, and the decision to not support major credit cards is dumb and won't last if they expect to make it.

I take advantage of credit card promotions and rewards and pay balances before accruing interest, too.

(Dave Ramsey listener, where we're at $50,000/$64,000 paid off, and expect that last $14K by February, 2016)

Congrats! You'll have to call and do your debt free screen in February. I like his show (minus the religious stuff), I just don't follow his advice like I should. Common sense is so rare these days, and I think he and his programs help a lot of people.

 

[Manderby]

Accepting cards and paying the fees associated with that is simply "the cost of doing business". If I choose to pay with a card instead of with cash it's hardly punishing them since the business itself chose to accept cards. The interesting thing is the number of businesses who are seemingly resentful of accepting cards at all yet won't make the logical choice to revert to being cash only. It's almost like they get some sort of benefit out of the deal that's worth more than the fees they're paying and simply don't want to pay the parties that make that happen.

Back to the original point though. Let's say a store was cash only until yesterday and they raised prices by $0.25 across the board to cover their card processing costs, so instead of their items costing an average of $5, they now cost $5.25. Their existing customers didn't balk and start shopping at competitors, so their pre-card acceptance and post-card acceptance profit is the same. This of course is not counting any new business they're getting because they now accept cards.

A few months from now, the business decides they don't want to take cards any more. They go back to being cash only, or perhaps they decide to only accept debit cards and not debit+credit cards and save 50% (as an example) on their per-transaction costs. The business didn't lose any of their original customers when they raised prices by $0.25 so they keep prices where they were. Now they're making an additional $0.12-0.25 per item in profit with almost no downside.

In short, businesses aren't simply going to "be nice" and lower prices if their expenses drop. The whole point of having a business is to make money, so they're obviously going to jump on any opportunities to make additional profit.

Yes, they will most probably not cut the price NOW, but will be able to SUSTAIN the current prices for longer until finally, the prices reflect again the value of the goods without the fees which is the same situation as before the fees were added originally. It all sums up to zero. You as a customer will not lose any money in the long run. Instead you will have RELATIVELY lower prices in the near future and hence - summing up over the years - pay relatively less. Deflation. Opposite of Inflation.

What you are saying: Let's pay the fees because they're there. If we wouldn't, someone might profit. Even if it is you yourself in the end.

I understand that credit cards were up until now the most accepted method in the US but now as regulations seem to have changed, why holding on to the dark middle ages of obligations? Life has gotten simpler since.

 

[Reason077]

Was in Target yesterday and had the same experience as the other poster, with the machine beeping at me about sliding the debit card and the cashier telling me it was because of my chipped card. But, it didn't ask for a pin and I didn't have to sign anything. I slid the card into the machine, the machine did its processing, then ejected the card.

Ahh, yes. In the US, some retailers don't require a signature for small transactions (under $50?). Similar to how you don't need to sign (or enter a PIN) when using contactless cards.

 

[Solomani]

Meh, so much negativity here. I actually hope CurrentC sees some success…. if only because Apple Pay needs competition. Without competition, Apple will sit on its butt and not have incentive to continuously improve the Apple Pay experience (as well as expand the breadth of available service).

 

[Reason077]

Meh, so much negativity here. I actually hope CurrentC sees some success…. if only because Apple Pay needs competition. Without competition, Apple will sit on its butt and not have incentive to continuously improve the Apple Pay experience (as well as expand the breadth of available service).

Well, Samsung Pay and Android Pay will be with us soon enough. Both work pretty similarly to Apple Pay's mode of operation, as far as I can tell.

 

[tmiw]

Yes, they will most probably not cut the price NOW, but will be able to SUSTAIN the current prices for longer until finally, the prices reflect again the value of the goods without the fees which is the same situation as before the fees were added originally. It all sums up to zero. You as a customer will not lose any money in the long run. Instead you will have RELATIVELY lower prices in the near future and hence - summing up over the years - pay relatively less. Deflation. Opposite of Inflation.

That reduces their profit margins by definition, though. Businesses aren't going to do that if at all possible. Also, assuming that prices for the customer do hold steady for a while, that's still not deflation.

This paper is pretty good reading. In short, consumers were the losers when the debit fee caps happened in the US.

What you are saying: Let's pay the fees because they're there. If we wouldn't, someone might profit. Even if it is you yourself in the end.

I understand that credit cards were up until now the most accepted method in the US but now as regulations seem to have changed, why holding on to the dark middle ages of obligations? Life has gotten simpler since.

Cards are still the preferred method for a lot of people. I mean, we didn't suddenly decide to abandon pull transactions from our EBT system and person to person transfers require a third party app (of which there are several, meaning it's already not ubiquitous).

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

On the "cards are the bane of transaction" meme...

As someone who grew up in the 1970's, here's how transactions went prior to wide acceptance of credit/debit cards in the 1980's:
At the store:
You came in with cash, and you paid. -or-
You came in with a checkbook, and the person checked your ID, put the phone number on the check, and then they got their money after about a week. If you returned the item, the store kept the money for up to a week until the check cleared, which was 7-10 days. Then, they'd mail you a check for the amount, or give it to you in cash.

Mail order:
You found the item in a catalog that was mailed to you.
You filled out the order form, and sent a check or money order to the establishment.
You waited until the check cleared, and then the mail order place would send the item to you. (7-10 days for the check to clear, then 4-7 days for the item to arrive)

Credit/debit cards changed all of that waiting (except, maybe, for Apple Watches, but that's another story):
They clear up all of the administrative/fraud prevention wait time, and there is a charge for that. Much like payroll taxes and other taxes, this fee is built into the cost of the product. Unless something comes along that is better, cards are here to stay.