Slashdot Mirror
Who's Getting Pay-By-Phone Right? The Fast Food Industry
jfruh writes "Techno-enthusiasts have been predicting for years that cell phones will become one of the main means that we use to pay for items — but most Americans stubbornly cling to cash and credit cards, mostly because cash and credit cards are infinitely more convenient. In order to woo people into buying things electronically, merchants need to make phone purchases better than traditional payment systems, not just another option. The fast food industry is leading the way with a plethora of apps that make ordering remotely a snap."
You mean people who are too young or too poor to have a credit card use this to buy fatfood?
Who would have thought?
You can have my feature phone when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. I'm not paying the difference between a low-end feature phone and a "smart" phone so that I can do something that already works fine without a phone capable of running browser exploits.
If you not organized enough to have change/cash for a big mac or a pint in a bar you maybe should not be allowed out without adult supervision.
If as the summary says, cash and cards are infinitely more convenient, why then is clinging to them to be considered stubborn?
I'm not even slightly interested in any app wallets, like Google wallet.
I'm equally resistant to using NFC and putting it on my phone bill.
Nor am I vaguely interested in Home Depot's "convenient" app to help me locate items(and reduce their labor costs).
I'm definitely not interested in Five Guy's app for ordering or payment.
Frankly I find the; " most Americans stubbornly cling to cash and credit cards", to be pejorative as well as revealing an underlying agenda to force change where none is desired. People prefer the convenience and SAFETY of plastic. But they also like their privacy which is when they choose to use cash. POS marketers and corporations prefer their own convenience and their own labor and cost savings as well as customer lockin. Hence, they continually attempt to force feed the consumer on "better" payment systems.
Fuck off! The people have spoken.
This has precisely jack squat to do with "pay-by-phone". The article is about "order-by-phone". In the case of the author, he has a credit card on file with a fast food burger joint staffed with high school drop-outs (what could possibly go wrong) and the order is placed, charged, and processed thru the restaurant's internet-facing computer system. It's no different that buying something from Amazon except that you have to go get the product yourself instead of having it delivered by UPS
Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
I use to work in the store systems group of a major fast food chain. Having the customer order via app and pay via phone reduces the chances that cashier messes up the order, reduces the amount of money stolen because the cashiers handle less cash, and just reduces the need for cashiers.
If you can get 20% of your customer base ordering via an app, thats one less casher you have to train and pay to stand at the counter and take orders (made up the number but you get the point). The orders also come in in parallel, you have to pay more cashiers if you want people to take orders in parallel.
One big problem QSR franchises have is that the people applying for the jobs don't know english. Look over at a McDonalds register, its mostly pictures and numbers on the screen, with very few words. If you can get the customers to order themselves you don't have to pay as many english speakers to be cashiers and thus you can pay lower wages. You don't have to know english to work in the kitchen.
Oh great. The burger outlets have discoverd pay-by-phone. Next thing they will discover micropayments. And then we'll have pay-by-fry.
This isn't quite the "pay by mobile" that the RFID/NFC/whatever-this-week industry is trying to sell, but that's fine.
What it is, is a fancy use of a mobile app (basically, a website, perhaps with some information stored locally) in combination with a credit card. Which means that the paying is also by credit card. With all the pros, cons, and risks of credit cards attached.
If electronic payment, offline or online, is going to be big, there has to be an equivalent of cash. Something anonymous, easily transferrable, suitable for large and small transactions, and, of course, easily convertible both ways. That is, not just some sort of PAYG system you can top up any which way, but also one where you can convert the stored credit back to cash without extra cost, delay, or trouble.
"Locking up" the value is tempting for the system owner, but treacherous. But if no commercial party can be trusted to facilitate this, then perhaps the government should, just as they do with cash.
A few reasons I will not use pay-by-phone in its current state.
http://www.citeworld.com/security/22535/mobile-payments-apps-outrageous-permissions
* Google Wallet
* Camera -- Allows the app to take pictures and videos with this camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
* Read your contacts -- Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.
* Paypal
* Retrieve running apps -- Allows the app to retrieve information about currently and recently running tasks. This may allow the app to discover information about which applications are used on the device.
* Starbucks
* Phone calls -- Allows the app to call phone numbers without your intervention. This may result in unexpected charges or calls. Note that this doesn't allow the app to call emergency numbers.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
In Canada we have nfc built into our debit and credit cards making paying for items under $20 super easy.
If only it actually worked. The vast majority of stores either don't support contactless payments, only support one of the two (like payWave but not PayPass or vice-versa), or just don't have it set up correctly. "Oh, sorry, it's not working" is a regular refrain. Even when it does work, cashiers often don't understand it correctly. There's this one cashier I encounter regularly who, I had my credit card to her expecting her to stick it into the reader for a chip & pin transaction, and instead she waves it over the terminal. Which, of course, doesn't give me the opportunity to verify the amount I'm being charged until after the fact.
I've found it to work reliably and consistently at McDonalds and Jean Coutu, and the self-pay terminals at Canadian Tire, but I can't think of any other store I frequent that supports it reliably. At many stores I see terminals that say "contactless" on them, or the prompt that comes up is "swipe/insert/tap", but attempts to use the contactless feature does nothing.
I just saw someone yesterday pay at Starbucks in Tifton, GA with their iPhone.
What I'm concerned about is consumer protections. I want a limit on how much I'm liable if my phone gets stolen and someone cracks it and starts charging stuff.
And also recourse. I scan pay with my phone and the merchant's system dings me for more than I approved.
Until I see that it's at least as safe as a credit card, I'll wait for the early adopters to get the kinks out.
As a non-coffee drinker I've been told by multiple people that Starbucks of all places is very proactive about this stuff. I think they had an app for the original iPhone almost right when the Appstore opened that laid some of the framework like being able to save billing info in the app along with giftcards. Clearly certain companies payed enough attention early on to realize that NFC or something like it was coming soon and it was a good idea to get people used to the concept of using their phone in the transaction process. Chipotle also did something similar early on, but for whatever reason they scaled it back a bit and seemed to shift more to scannable coupons which still accomplishes the goal of getting people thinking of their phone as a means of improving the ordering process. The main cost for these retailers isn't the food/coffee they serve it's the time and space you take up as you order it and then have to wait for all the inefficiencies with cash, cards, or checks. Getting you in and out as quickly as possible is their goal. The side benefit for them is that for once their methods for saving them money also have the effect of making the experience quicker and more pleasant for you. An uncommon win-win in the world of low margin penny pinching retailers.
Using a phone to pay for small items at shops and cafes is very unlikely because that would require people to stop yakking into them long enough to conduct the transaction.
Call me when there's a universal ordering/wallet app instead of poor wrappers on their existing websites.
Call you...? I see what you did there.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
For fast food? Maybe they're trying to make us realise that targeted ads are better than the alternative.
Is 1563649 a prime number?
We need to make obtaining this type of poison *more* difficult, not easier.
I have actually not updated any apps on my phone in about 3 months because every single one of them wants access to the camera, contacts, emails, location and a bunch of other crap that I am just not going to allow.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Don't read this it's an advertisement. Short story buy brand X fast food using phone app to jump queue. You can save favourites.
Doesn't require any new technology or systems
As an aside, the current payment systems are insecure and cost too much. Show me something that is as cheap, convenient and anonymous as cash. Sure it doesn't make company X rich but that's not my job. Find me the visa replacement with lower margins and better security.
I used to do this with Cyanogenmod on my OG Droid. It worked well.
On my Droid 4 with much later builds of Cyanogenmod, I can no longer find this functionality.
Where is it?
A better way to get rid of ads is Adfree Android (it used to be on the Market/Play Store, but Google decided it was bad for business).
(Cue apk and an obligatory hosts file rant, since this is both a hosts file hack AND an apk...)
Kid-proof tablet..
Replace android with cyanogenmod. You can then install these apps, and selectively retract such permissions. So you can deny the app access to camera & contacts. Maybe it'll work anyway, but it won't be able to spy on you.
Another great use is to retract internet permissions for games like angry birds. That way, no more ads . . .
They new versions of Cyanogen actually go a step farther. Instead of just blocking the permission, and possibly crashing the app, it actually serves "blank" data, depending on what was requested. If the app tries to read your contacts it just gets a blank contact list. If it tries to use the camera it just gets a black png file. The application has no idea that it is being fed blank data, so it just keeps on working as it normally would, just without the spying.
Want people to use it. Get rid of all surcharges related to it. I don't have to pay extra when I use cash.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Cash is king in my shop.
I make and sell small items. These sell for about $50. Parts and supplies cost $30. Labor and counter help adds in about $4. Rent and non-sales taxes adds another $10. So, on a typical non-holiday day, our net markup is about 10 to 15%. That's not much. Every electronic billing system eats upwards of 2.7% of each sale. The more high-tech sysetems chew up more. We have pay for the hardware, installation, maintenance, and monthly support ("Trustkeeper" nonsense to scan our system, and we have to keep at least one employee who's technically competent with the electonics & software).
All these high tech solutions are slower than simple cash. They're all more expensive than cash. They're all less trustworthy than cash. And they all require more expertise than cash.
I paid by phone once, for parking, when my wife and I were going to a show downtown.
Sure enough, by the time I got back I had been "ticketed" (not an official ticket, this was a private lot) for not paying.
I subsequently had to spend an hour on the phone with various morons to explain to them that I had indeed paid for parking. Getting a chimp to land a 777 would have been easier.
Swiping my credit card and going back to the car to put the proof of payment on the dash would have taken me 5 minutes but would have saved me all the aggravation.
I'll take your word for it. I've read my fair share of thinly disguised slashvertisements. Still articles like this are as a less annoying way for companies to push their products up your nose. Less annoying only because it doesn't suddenly pop up, blink and hog your entire screen.
Using a debit card avoids flashing cash when we pay for things, which reduces the chances of being robbed. If I'm robbed anyway, I can unhesitatingly hand over my wallet to the asshole (knowing I won't be out any actual funds) and call my credit union as soon as I get home to have them cancel the card.
It's also a hell of a lot more convenient. I vastly prefer to know where all of my money was spent, but I often don't remember by the end of the month or have the time/energy to track it all by hand. Using my debit card means that I can quickly check the account when convenient and have my home-finances program produce useful reports.
Now mostly at Usenet:comp.misc & SoylentNews.org (it's made of people!)
(Cue apk and an obligatory hosts file rant, since this is both a hosts file hack AND an APK ...)
Haha, got a kick about the double-entendre that you can use capital APK's fix and apk files to install the app.
Replace Android with an iPhone and you won't have to jailbreak your phone for basic privacy features.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I think that Google needs to review the whole Android permissions thing. It's really not enough for the app to just say "I need X and Y". For each of these permissions the user needs to be able to go in and put a check next to it: "ok, you can have X, but not Y".
I am aware that there are 3rd party apps that can provide this functionality on rooted devices, however it needs to be viable for standard users as well.
In any case some of the permissions are just ridiculously coarse grained. "Full network access"? Seriously? You need to be able to communicate with exactly one domain for most apps. With apps that actually need to communicate with more than one host you should be able to validate each host as and when the app tries to open the socket. You should be able to limit bandwidth on a per-app basis, etc, etc.
Posting to un-do slippery, faulty mod. I meant 'informative'.
You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
I do make a point of using cash as much as I can. Even for bigger local purchases I go to the ATM, withdraw my cash and go to the shop.
Every other means leaves a trail of data (even the supposedly anonymous electronic cash so much touted over here, in Europe).
Paying via phone app is the horror: shady agencies, phone companies and now the "app vendor" all are in the fray.
Thanks, but... no thanks.
Unless... we find a way to freely swap "buyer IDs" to mix some entropy in said fray. Then I'd sign up
Haha, got a kick about the double-entendre
How come people never got a kick about Twitter back when it meant both an anti-M$ sock puppeteer and a microblogging service?
Android 4.3 has a form to turn permissions on and off for individual apps; it's just hidden. Install App Ops Starter.
* Camera -- Allows the app to take pictures and videos with this camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
It's so you can use the app's barcode scanning capabilities to scan the barcodes of your rewards cards, or the number on your regular credit/debit card.
* Read your contacts -- Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.
It's so you can send money to your friends, presumably sorted by who you talk to most frequently.
Frankly, for anyone who has used these apps, it should be pretty obvious what these permissions are for. Heck, the second permission should be obvious from just reading the description of the app, and the first permission is heavily implied by the fact that you can, in fact, add such cards from within the app.
Not having used the other 2 apps you mentioned, I can't really say why they need the permissions they need (my guess is the Starbucks app lets you call HQ if you have an issue or something). But they're in control of your money, and all you're concerned about is whether they _might_ make some phone calls you don't want them to make? They _might_ see that you're also running some other apps at the same time? Give me a break. There's nothing particularly nefarious about these permissions, and that Citeworld article is overblowing things as well. "I also wonder if Wallet's slow adoption rate has something to do with these intrusive permissions."? How about, "It's blocked by several major carriers to promote their own payment scheme, which somehow is accepted in even fewer places than the already rarely-accepted Google Wallet"?
Call you...? I see what you did there.
Video call?
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
You could install any of a number of permissions apps, like permissions free, to control what apps are permitted to do what. I haven't updated ebay or paypal in a while either, but sooner or later the apps will probably cease to function.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"