Square Launches NFC Reader to Bring Apple Pay to Smaller Businesses

[tmiw]

Perspective can change with the proper education, which we have failed to do so in the United States.

It's not that hard... The news sites should be making detailed articles and news stories about chip technology... There should be more advertisements on the internet about it, and more merchants should be accepting that form of payment. Visa, AMEX, and MasterCard should be implementing more commercials about the how these cards are better than the old ones, and whatever else we can do to improve the awareness and education of these cards.

The few businesses that do take chipped transactions need to get off their hineys and take both debit and credit versions. I shouldn't see some woman swipe her chipped debit card while the credit chipped card is prompted to insert into the reader.

Also, a little slip with the new chip card when you get it, explaining how to use it is not sufficient enough. There should be information about the chip cards directly on a bank's debit and credit card page, and also on the homepage and not just stuffed in some small corner on the bottom of that page either.

All good things if there was any sort of single vision for the US market. As it is Visa and MasterCard apparently just said "bank's choice" and left it at that.

 

[scoobydoo99]

Wrong.

The original person I replied to the first time said nothing about banks or consumers.

I then proceeded to tell him why he looks like a fool.

Sure, these cards are absolutely there to protect banks... And the merchant, and the consumer. These cards protect everyone that's involved in the process.

Someone that just blurts out, "these chip cards are stupid," without any basis, will always have a negative reply towards them.

Maybe you didn't read the specific post I replied to, but here is the person whom you said knew nothing:

Yeah, it's because banks are tired of carrying the cost of credit card breaches. If retailers didn't take chipped cards they'd be the ones eating any card breach related costs.

No consumer benefit to credit card users, possible benefit for debit card users.

You'll note that he specifically DOES mention "banks" and "consumers". So you are wrong there.

Regarding the benefit to consumers, I'll have to disagree with you. Nothing changes for the consumer. Still no liability for fraud. I don't care how many times my card (stripe, chip, whatever) get stolen! Call the bank, get the charges removed, get a new card overnighted to me. easy peasy.

 

[cwt1nospam]

Or, the US could eventually adopt what the rest of the world does, and have servers bring a handheld terminal to your table rather than take your card away.

I've noticed a several restaurants here in Florida doing just that. If it can happen in this backwater state....

 

[macnewbie91]

Debit in the US is complicated because of the Durbin Amendment. The way EMV is designed is not directly compatible with these regulations so the industry had to develop a workaround in order to comply. The technical standards for this were not fully finalised until late last year, and specifications for EMV contactless debit were only finalised a few months ago. It then takes time for applications to be developed, tested, certified, and deployed. So at the moment a lot of terminals in the US cannot properly process an EMV debit. This will change over time.

I completely forgot about the Durbin Amendment, so good point.

In my opinion, the Durbin Amendment has only hurt consumers, not helped them.

Thanks to this amendment, free checking at banks has disappeared, and the fees were raised.

 

[macnewbie91]

Maybe you didn't read the specific post I replied to, but here is the person whom you said knew nothing:



You'll note that he specifically DOES mention "banks" and "consumers". So you are wrong there.

Regarding the benefit to consumers, I'll have to disagree with you. Nothing changes for the consumer. Still no liability for fraud. I don't care how many times my card (stripe, chip, whatever) get stolen! Call the bank, get the charges removed, get a new card overnighted to me. easy peasy.

Actually, this is the one I originally replied to:

I agree, the whole chip thing is a debacle. Takes WAY too long to do a simple transaction.

A debacle: "A sudden failure"

The EMV technology isn't a failure in the slightest... Mag-stripe technology is a debacle.

 

[tmiw]

I completely forgot about the Durbin Amendment, so good point.

In my opinion, the Durbin Amendment has only hurt consumers, not helped them.

Thanks to this amendment, free checking at banks has disappeared, and the fees were raised.

I'm pretty sure most checking accounts have had fees even before Durbin (which are easily waived if you direct deposit into it, have more than the minimum amount, etc.) Plus, there's Schwab and Capital One 360 if you want a free account without minimums.

 

[macnewbie91]

I'm pretty sure most checking accounts have had fees even before Durbin (which are easily waived if you direct deposit into it, have more than the minimum amount, etc.) Plus, there's Schwab and Capital One 360 if you want a free account without minimums.

Most have fees, but there was some checking accounts that were completely free. Now you can't find a completely free checking account at a bank unless you go to a credit union, which isn't a bank, but provides banking services. I've looked at all the big banks here in the US... Citi, Wells Fargo, Chase, Bank of America, etc... None of them offer free checking, they just waive the fee if you meet a certain requirement or two. The only reasons why Capital One 360 can offer free checking is because they don't have to maintain any branches, so their overhead cost is lower.

There used to be more checking accounts with debit card rewards too, those are gone thanks to the Durbin Amendment.

Lower interchange fees doesn't always equal better-- that's what I'm trying to say. With higher interchange fees comes more money for the banks, higher credit card rewards, more money for shareholders, and more money to lend out to customers.

 

[cwt1nospam]

I'm surprised to hear about fees on checking. My checking account has no fees or minimums. It pays only 0.2% interest unless you keep over $50K in it, and then it's only 0.75%, which is what the savings account pays, so I keep money there until it needs to go out, then transfer to checking. If you're paying fees, think about switching.

I doubt any of this has anything to do with Durbin. More likely it's just greed and would have happened with or without Durbin.

 

[bookwormsy]

That's absolutely incorrect. It's to get rid of fraud due to cloning the magnetic stripe. The US accounts for about 50% of the world's credit card transactions, but 80% of the fraud, mainly due to cards getting skimmed and cloned to magnetic stripe.

I got a chip card from Wells Fargo and they included a PIN - there was no opportunity to select my own. I don't remember what it is, but the paper is in my safe, and I'll dig it out and take note of it if I travel internationally. I do remember, however, that it is not 0000 or 1234.

I'm aware that's why the US is transitioning to EMV, but convenience is the reason why most issuers are supporting chip and sig, not chip and pin.

 

[cwt1nospam]

I'm aware that's why the US is transitioning to EMV, but convenience is the reason why most issuers are supporting chip and sig, not chip and pin.

Chip and anything is not convenient. It means carrying around more than one card in addition to your phone, and reading the chip is slow! Anything longer than a half second (Apple Pay typically takes less time) is slow, and I've yet to see a chip take less than ten seconds.

 

[tmiw]

Chip and anything is not convenient. It means carrying around more than one card in addition to your phone, and reading the chip is slow! Anything longer than a half second (Apple Pay typically takes less time) is slow, and I've yet to see a chip take less than ten seconds.

You're already doing that for the old cards though so I don't see how that's any different. Also, I presume you're paying cash at smaller businesses because of the slowness (most of which at least around here still use dialup for their card machines and thus would be slow even with Apple Pay or swipe)?

 

[cwt1nospam]

You're already doing that for the old cards though so I don't see how that's any different. Also, I presume you're paying cash at smaller businesses because of the slowness (most of which at least around here still use dialup for their card machines and thus would be slow even with Apple Pay or swipe)?

Wow. Sometimes it seems people are intent on missing the point! I'll type slower:

1. The claim was made that chip and signature was done over chip and pin for convenience to the customer.
2. I pointed out that the chip is slow to show that chip and anything is not convenient.
3. Yes, dialup is not convenient, but add the delay for chip & ____ and it gets even less convenient. More like a burden, actually.

 

[tmiw]

Wow. Sometimes it seems people are intent on missing the point! I'll type slower:

1. The claim was made that chip and signature was done over chip and pin for convenience to the customer.
2. I pointed out that the chip is slow to show that chip and anything is not convenient.
3. Yes, dialup is not convenient, but add the delay for chip & ____ and it gets even less convenient. More like a burden, actually.

You said this before:

It means carrying around more than one card in addition to your phone

Chip doesn't change that. Apple Pay might, if it ever gets accepted by anything close to 100% of merchants.

 

[cwt1nospam]

You said this before:

Yes, as a way of pointing out its lack of convenience, thus demonstrating that it is not convenient.
Maybe this will help you.

 

[tmiw]

Yes, as a way of pointing out its lack of convenience, thus demonstrating that it is not convenient.

If Apple Pay didn't exist, you'd have to carry those exact same cards regardless of whether they have a chip or not. Even with AP, you still have to carry at least one card since it's nowhere near 100% accepted by stores. Nor is it reliable enough yet even at the places that do accept AP where you can forego your cards, assuming your normal shopping is 100% at AP accepting retailers.

Yes, chip is slower (or at least feels so), but I think everyone in this thread knew that.

 

[bookwormsy]

Wow. Sometimes it seems people are intent on missing the point! I'll type slower:

1. The claim was made that chip and signature was done over chip and pin for convenience to the customer.
2. I pointed out that the chip is slow to show that chip and anything is not convenient.
3. Yes, dialup is not convenient, but add the delay for chip & ____ and it gets even less convenient. More like a burden, actually.

YES, using the card at all is less convenient than contactless payments.

YES, Apple Pay is more secure than magnetic strips.

HOWEVER, not everyone has a smartphone that supports contactless payments, not all merchants support it, and not all banks support it.

My point is that banks are issuing Chip and Sig over Chip and Pin because sig is more convenient than pin. That's it. I'm aware that both are more annoying than swipe, and less convenient than tap.

 

[tmiw]

My point is that banks are issuing Chip and Sig over Chip and Pin because sig is more convenient than pin. That's it. I'm aware that both are more annoying than swipe, and less convenient than tap.

Eh, it can be because a) signature can be waived for small amounts and b) no one checks it whenever it's required so a squiggle is good enough. Stores are starting to waive PIN for small amounts too so I'd say the convenience between the two is about the same.

 

[kdarling]

The head of Mastercard has said that he preferred chip & signature, because people would have a hard time remembering another PIN to use.

Before you jump on him, though, he probably has good cause to think that.

I read a detailed report about Canada's adoption of chip & PIN, and apparently people not remembering the PIN was indeed a problem at first, and slowed adoption.

Maybe he just wants to ease people into the insert-chip thing first, and then go from there. Or maybe he hopes that mobile devices with other means such as Touch Id will remove the need for an extra PIN altogether.

I don't know for sure what he hopes, but I do know that chip & signature is not a store decision. It's something pushed by the credit card schemes (MC, Visa) themselves.

 

[tmiw]

The head of Mastercard has said that he preferred chip & signature, because people would have a hard time remembering another PIN to use.

Before you jump on him, though, he probably has good cause to think that.

I read a detailed report about Canada's adoption of chip & PIN, and apparently people not remembering the PIN was indeed a problem at first, and slowed adoption.

Maybe he just wants to ease people into the insert-chip thing first, and then go from there. Or maybe he hopes that mobile devices with other means such as Touch Id will remove the need for an extra PIN altogether.

I don't know for sure what he hopes, but I do know that chip & signature is not a store decision. It's something pushed by the credit card schemes (MC, Visa) themselves.

All fine and dandy if issuers and merchant providers were actually training people properly. From what I've seen so far, that's not happening. Customers are basically being taught at the checkout, which isn't going well. Oh, and if you're from Canada or elsewhere and try to use your card at some places here, you may very well be told that you need to provide an alternate form of payment because the clerk's being asked for a PIN. (That's right, they didn't even bother to mandate that terminals in the US not support PIN at all for credit nor have they told merchants that maybe it's not a good idea to have the terminal positioned such that it can't be handed to the customer.)

IMO the signature thing is simply rationalizing Visa/MC's belief that chip is obsolete; if you think something's obsolete you're obviously not going to support it more than necessary. A lot of their decisions start to make sense if you think "on the cheap".

 

[kdarling]

IMO the signature thing is simply rationalizing Visa/MC's belief that chip is obsolete; if you think something's obsolete you're obviously not going to support it more than necessary. A lot of their decisions start to make sense if you think "on the cheap".

Could be.

Notice also that simply putting out chip cards.. even without PIN... reaps huge benefits for the banks, because then they can lay most of the fraud liability on all the stores that are unlikely to update their terminals. Liability which previously belonged to the banks.

 

[tmiw]

Could be.

Notice also that simply putting out chip cards.. even without PIN... reaps huge benefits for the banks, because then they can lay most of the fraud liability on all the stores that are unlikely to update their terminals. Liability which previously belonged to the banks.

A lot of these places wouldn't have even bothered implementing NFC (carrot) without the liability shift (stick). Some probably still won't, unfortunately.