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.
Target Working on QR Code Mobile Wallet as Apple Pay Holdout Continues
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a Pro-Apple thread. Any generic info as it relates to mobile payments but fails to praise Apple is dismissed.
Those who are truly curious, like fact based truths, has a plethora of powerful search engines to choose from.
That's how I found more details about mobile payments than expected.
Those who are truly curious, like fact based truths, has a plethora of powerful search engines to choose from.
That's how I found more details about mobile payments than expected.
How short the memory of the masses. Target had a HUGE security breach about a year ago. Lots of email apologies that the personal information of customers was stolen. I called them and told Target cancel my Red Card. The empty suit who was the 'service rep' at the end of the line said his job was 'Account Retention' not 'Account Cancelation'....they had no such person/rep/service. He kept pressuring me to 'move on', 'even we the Target employees were compromised' i asked about Apple Pay.....'it may be in our future'. I asked about a 'chip' credit card reader.....'it will be in our future..about a year from now'. I finally had to get very very Ugly. He finally cancelled my credit account and their lousy card. I still shop there for small items and use cash. Their lousy 5 percent discount for using their card is chickenfeed to me and not worth a lax security, totally profit motivated management corporate philosophy. Besides, Wal-Mart accepts chip technology credit cards and has lower prices nearly all the time. Target is 'Off-Target'
FAIL. Like I really want an App for every store I shop at,
as well as the fact that this scheme is neither private or secure..
as well as the fact that this scheme is neither private or secure..
Folks won't avoid this anymore than they avoid giving the grocery stores all of their personal information in order to swipe a membership barcode fob to get "club" discounts.
Wal-Mart and Target are going to incentivize their customers with special deals if they use their payment system. And unlike Pay, Wal-Mart and K-Mart employees will be trained in exactly how to use the payment system. They will be able to walk customers through it in the most expeditious way, to make it as painless as possible. They will encourage customers who aren't using their mobile pay app to use them, and they will be able to help them set up and start using the app on the spot.
Pay is mess. Most cashiers I've met don't even know they take Pay much less how to use it, and if if doesn't work when it should -- whether it's the customer or their POST. If the customer doesn't already know how to use it, a bad experience will sour a new customer to it.
Wal-Mart and Target are going to leverage a significant customer base into making this an exclusive payment system. One that will automatically pop open in the "wallet" app on a customer's phone, just like my Starbucks app does now when I walk into my favorite Starbucks. For customers who primarily shop at these stores, their first experience with these proprietary mobile apps will likely be easier than their first experience with Pay. And they will come to love it. Far easier than whipping out their wad of keys with half-a-dozen barcode fobs for various stores, sorting though them, and awkwardly handing the keys to the cashier to take several tries to scan the tattered barcode, so the customer can get their 30 cents off a can of split-pea soup.
I find "Jenny's" number in the local area code usually works.
The more I think about this, credit cards should view this as an end run around them.
Their correct response should be a 10% statement credit promotion for ALL nfc transactions funded by visa, mc, Amex, discover. Of course could not be collusion, but if one started it the rest could match
. If they run it in Feb and July, the people asking about it in Feb would motivate action by stores by July.
Credit card issuers have a vested interest to help security and try to head off the ACH direction stores are pushing.
I know the discover promotion has pretty much switched me off Amex. Likely cancel that card now and save my yearly fee.
Guess it comes down to what credit card issuers think about the topic.
Their correct response should be a 10% statement credit promotion for ALL nfc transactions funded by visa, mc, Amex, discover. Of course could not be collusion, but if one started it the rest could match
. If they run it in Feb and July, the people asking about it in Feb would motivate action by stores by July.Credit card issuers have a vested interest to help security and try to head off the ACH direction stores are pushing.
I know the discover promotion has pretty much switched me off Amex. Likely cancel that card now and save my yearly fee.
Guess it comes down to what credit card issuers think about the topic.
Wow. It's a little amusing/sad to read so much self-entitlement about using a technology that these same posters probably only became aware of last year. Isn't that a Louis CK comedy monologue?
Hey, we'd all like to be able to use NFC payments. Heck, many of us have been doing it for years before Apple finally got around to supporting it.
I do have related good news: our local CVS turned off making people stick chip cards into the slot, which did nothing but hold up lines. No idea how long this respite will keep up, though.
I have three Wells Fargo credit card accounts (one business, two personal).
Only one of them is contactless. If I remember correctly, I had to ask for it long ago. But while they continue to send me a card with the feature, I don't see any option to get it for my other cards.
One thing that is interesting: I can "design" the front of the cards without NFC, replacing the standard background with the image of my choice. But, the NFC card isn't eligible.
The more I think about this, credit cards should view this as an end run around them.
Their correct response should be a 10% statement credit promotion for ALL nfc transactions funded by visa, mc, Amex, discover. Of course could not be collusion, but if one started it the rest could match
Credit card issuers have a vested interest to help security and try to head off the ACH direction stores are pushing.
I know the discover promotion has pretty much switched me off Amex. Likely cancel that card now and save my yearly fee.
Guess it comes down to what credit card issuers think about the topic.
I'm not sure about this ... Credit Card companies have already pushed off fraud responsibility to any merchant who does not use the chipped card. I would think that in order for the credit card companies to accept liability for a fraudulent charge made under such a system as Wal-Mart and Targets, they would have to first approve the system and sign a formal document accepting the liability for fraud.
My guess is Target and Wal-Mart will take the merchant fees Visa and the rest are charging them and keep the money, and taking on the risk burden themselves, likely reinvesting a small portion of those merchant fees into "breach" insurance. These are major companies ... they are certainly as capable of preventing fraud in their own systems as a bank is, and absorbing the cost if they can't. Just like the big banks.
My local CVS just started requiring insertion of the chip cards. The clerk said they are still getting used to them.
I feel like they're hoping that EMV on its own will be the motivation that's needed, which might have been the case if PIN was required and/or we had stopped suppressing the signature prompt for low-value transactions. Since low-value transactions don't need anything at all though, a fast enough chip terminal will not be much slower than using NFC and thus won't be tempting enough for most to bother.
That's why it's kinda silly to see all these articles claiming that "mobile payments" is going to take off any day now, assuming that it's synonymous with NFC. For all we know Americans in general might end up being way more accepting of using apps like Walmart and Target's than something like Apple Pay, especially since stores can offer more of an incentive to use them. (There's precedent for this too--see Starbucks' app, which is now being used in something close to a third of all transactions at their stores.)
In the long run, Apple may have been better off placing far more focus on in-app support of Apple Pay rather than getting physical stores on board.
Maybe it's something you can only call in for? AmEx was like that when I got my contactless card.
They're not different things.
NFC payments can (and do in most of the world) use EMV protocols.
I think the part you're missing, is that the NFC Secure Element in the iPhone (or any phone) is simply emulating a card chip. Both a phone and a card are running Java applets provisioned from each credit card scheme. Those applets do the actual encoded transactions.
I think his point was that if you don't sign a specific way, then you'll find it a lot harder to challenge a bogus purchase. For instance, like many people I use a squiggle, but I do it the same way each time
If the credit card issuers wanted to stop all fraud, they could do so by requiring much more draconian authentication methods, such as two picture ids. But that's not what they want. They want it to be easy for people to spend.
As long as their revenue is above fraud loss rates, what do they care? Remember, they make their money by taking on the risk and charging others. The main reason for US schemes to move to chip, is that it will shift the liability to many of the retailers who were formerly not liable.
This is probably true. Cut down on internet fraud which is likely higher than in person fraud.
I still wish they jumped right into chip and pin for NFC.
PIN isn't exactly a panacea either. Even in a mature chip and PIN market like Australia, "mobile payments" only comprise ~8% of transactions or so right now. Granted, the solutions over there are mostly poorly designed bank apps so that may have something to do with it.
Thank you for stating that. I'm getting bashed for saying the same thing here. Glad to see I'm not the only one that thinks this way. I envy you folks in LA (your Apple Pay adoption).
Seriously just in the last 10 days a plethora of local merchants have upgraded and added Apple Pay here in Los Angeles. As an example I'm now able to buy my dogs food from a premier Pet food retailer here that's got three locations -- using Apple Pay. The fact that systems like Square and other POS systems that are used at smaller sized retailers are unlocking Apple Pay - that definitely at least in this market is a big plus for the platform period.
FWIW, I don't disagree with either of you guys.
The comment that sparked my reply was "You would think after their major hack they would have been the first to implement Apple Pay."
I think that with Target (and Home Depot) having both implemented end-to-end encryption to protect all card data (after their hacks), Apple Pay isn't a huge value add (in terms of security) in their stores. So looking at Apple Pay from the perspective of just security/hacks, I can see why Target wasn't one of the first to implement Apple Pay.
Personally, I hope they add it soon, and add their RED cards to it too (like how JCPenney and Kohl's have added their cards to it)!
The way it works in most states is that the states don't require online merchants to collect the sales tax (unless that merchant has a physical presence in the state, like a store or distribution center). Instead, most states expect the person buying the online stuff to keep track of it and claim the amount (and pay the sales tax) when they file their yearly state taxes. So it's really not "tax free" in most states. It's just that most states don't go back and audit people who didn't claim their online sales (and pay the proper sales tax).
I'm assuming you're talking about the fact that part of the ApplePay tolken is not unique, so a retailer could use that, if they wanted, to track purchases by an individual.
Which is correct, as far as I understand. It's not truly anonymous, in that if I go to Walgreens twice and pay with ApplePay both times, they could track that the same person shopped there twice.
What they don't have is a name or other identifying information that your credit card provides, meaning it's very difficult to map those purchases to a profile they buy from an information clearinghouse. That is, they know that Unknown Consumer bought paper towels and then lipstick, but not who Unknown Consumer is or what they bought elsewhere, or what their demographic information is.
If you use a loyalty card once, then they can again map that unique part of the transaction code to your loyalty card info and track you much more effectively, of course, but not if you don't.
The one thing I don't know is whether the ApplePay/generic NFC processing requirements restrict whether retailers can share that unique code with other retailers. I would think the answer is a definitive no, any more than they're allowed to send your credit card number to another retailer--they can track you cross-retailer because the card provides a name they can use to keep track of you between retailers.
But maybe there's something I'm not seeing about this.
Chip cards are much more secure than swiping. In time all merchants will switch to chip authentication or tap and pay. Some countries reply on chips for 90% of the transactions. All places need to accept Apple Pay & Android Pay, that will be the only solution.
Target needs to open more lanes to address the problem in that case.