Target Working on QR Code Mobile Wallet as Apple Pay Holdout Continues

Thie whole CurrentC initiative from the retailers is simply to avoid the fees and gather tracking data.
I shop at Target to avoid Walfart.
I want  Pay and AndroidPay; nothing else.
I don't want to use cumbersome QR code crap.
I might as well pull out my card and use the terminal if I'm going to use a multistep process.

 

Nope, that person you quoted wasn't talking about the contacts, he was talking about the chip, as ptb42 pointed out.

 

Of course, it's Target: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/

 

Thank you for taking the time to help me understand this better. I appreciate it. I figured this long delay was part of "Extra" security. Just seems like a giant step backwards when I can use my phone at Subway in about 2 seconds. Thanks again.

 

Oops, you showed me.

How easily I forgot this is a site that requires one to genuflect, and worship Apple.

Thank You for your service.

 

Never did I say that. Microsoft has no place in business serving and protecting sensitive data. Period, end of story. They have made garbage for most of their existence. Smart companies stay away from their junk. If I see .asp or .aspx in a webpage I shop elsewhere as that's a MS IIS server serving that. And it will get hacked.

It was not too long ago that most ATM's ran on OS/2. They were very secure. Windows came in and there have been quite a few ATM hacks. Why? Very easy to program for and get the data into/out of a Windows box.

These terminals and all processing should be running a Linux base, with tons of security heaped on. They should pass all data through a secure network who's only termination point allowed is the processor. Or they should be some custom code specific to that retailer and/or implementation. It would not be perfect but it would be heaps more secure than a terminal and POS machine running XP or 7 talking to some MS SQL nonsense in the backend.

 

Apple's share of the transaction fee comes from the bank, not the merchant.

But, the merchant does have to invest in a terminal or point-of-sale system that supports NFC. With NFC, Apple Pay, Google Pay, and contactless cards all look the same to the merchant.

However, a terminal supporting NFC costs more money. And, reportedly some transaction processors are imposing additional requirements and fees to support NFC. But, that's not Apple's fault.

 

Not surprised. A lot of retailers are realizing that NFC might not actually be the best solution for them.

The future is really going to be one where the checkout is basically gone for most purchases. That is, the store's mobile app tracks what you put in the cart as you shop, and when you're done you simply pay within the same app. Even Apple already has that for non-hardware purchases when you shop at a physical Apple Store. The downside is that without some sort of standard, one could need to install 20-30 apps to do their shopping.

At least Apple Pay's in-app purchase capability could be some sort of standard on the payment end of things.

 

If most retailers take contact-less cards (NFC based) in the UK, Australia, and Canada -- then the U.S should too.

 

TARGET: "Hey Apple, thanks for the Watch with a huge discount to help boost customer draw and holiday gift sales, but you know that Pay thing were talking about? Psych!"

I've said it once, and I'll say it again -- Target and Wal-Mart are the wrong image for the Watch, and the wrong way to sell it. The fact that neither takes Pay is an insult to Apple, and should have been reason to withhold the watch from them (unless Apple needs them to sell the Watch more than they need to sell it).

Its just my opinion, but this seems like a bad deal all the way around. I sure hope the additional unit sales volume given Apple's drop in profit margins makes up for getting the middle finger from their discount retail partners.

 

The thing is, the US likely won't get contactless on the actual cards on any sort of widespread basis any time soon. I don't want to say "never" because AmEx still provides those, but we have tried that before and it's seen as a complete failure. If nothing else, because people were (and still are) crazy paranoid about it.

And without it on physical cards, there's no real reason for some places to enable NFC support. Especially since they could potentially get rid of half of their employees and increase throughput and customer convenience by switching to a checkout-free shopping experience.

 

I refuse to use anything with a QR code.

 

I understand why they want to go this route, since its an ACH directly from your bank account they don't have to pay the processing fee probably about a 1-2% savings for target, not to mention no possibility of disputes. So I get the desire to use this QR code method. What I don't understand is why you would limit any customers method of payment. I accept every form of payment i can easily accept for my business, hell I even accept bitcoins on our website LOL

The easier it is for you to give me money for the items i am selling the better!

 

Between you and I, my HSBC card has contactless.

The CEO of my local credit union e-mailed me yesterday and said he wanted to put the contactless feature in their card, but MasterCard warned them about a major upgrade to the contactless features on their cards in the near future, so they didn't go through with it yet.

 

or BUSINESS. companies are going to do everything they can to make a little more money. if this helps Target in that regard, it shouldn't be surprising at all

 

Well, big retailers negotiate fantastic deals on credit card fees. The processing companies may not be willing to come down as much and may pass some of it back. The statement is true for small retailers that have little negotiation power.

 

My AmEx has contactless and EMV, but I had to explicitly ask for it. AmEx is barely doing any sort of marketing of that capability; I saw more advertising on their website for Apple Pay than I ever did for contactless. My Diners Club card has it too but I found out that it's using a much older standard that could have issues overseas (and they're not taking new applications).

As for the rest? Bank of America discontinued the pay tag that I had that glues to one's phone and Chase discontinued the payWave function when they started issuing EMV cards. The latter claimed "low use" for the move in the letter that they sent. That doesn't inspire confidence in any sort of future major (re)adoption of it.

 

Aren't a lot of people's chip-enabled cards also quietly NFC-enabled without them knowing about it? I'm curious because most of mine are (and they're mostly Visa/MC with one Amex). They just have the little wireless symbol on the back, and I don't think any company has pointed it out in documentation when my cards were upgraded.

 

Not that I've found, at least from the major banks anyway. In fact, they've had to explicitly say in their chip card documentation that the new cards don't have PayPass/payWave (likely because of the paranoia that I mentioned above).

 

The game plan, as best as has been rumored so far, is to shift from credit card as the primary payment method to use ACH bank transfers which have much lower fees. Merchants would trade some of their savings to create incentive programs that make the loss of credit appealing to consumers.

 

I agree with your initial take on it... it's slow and a pain in the rear. And it only addresses part of the issues with magnetic stripe security until they're all gone.

 

What's next? McDonald's Pay? Taco Bell Pay? The point of ANY ewallet app is to make it easier on the customer. I understand that Walmart/Target/etc want to track my purchases. Good for them. How about loyalty card? You can have my purchase information WITHOUT having access to my payment info. Win/Win.

This will ramp up, employees need to be trained, customers need to be trained, and in the end it won't make a difference. The store credit-card market is shrinking (still large, but less so than in years past) IMHO because consumers don't want their finances spread out over a wide number of providers and accounts. This is just more of the same.

 

I don't know if anything would be incentive enough to basically get fraud liability pushed back onto me.

 

Does anyone know if this works with mutual scanning? Customer scans code displayed by cashier and then cashier scans a code displayed by the customer?

Is there anything to prevent the transaction being bounced off of a third party (by the customer) so that they could use, for example, a stolen phone to make a large purchase before the victim even knows their phone has gone missing?

 

If it works like the Starbucks app that'd be OK. I'd prefer Apple Pay, but I suspect targeted customer data is part of their thing, and Apple Pay won't give that to them.

Even at the Apple store they have to enter my email address for my receipt, because there's no link between Apple Pay and my account there. When I pay with a normal CC the email is automatic.