Samsung Takes On Apple Pay By Acquiring Mobile Wallet Startup LoopPay

An anonymous reader writes Samsung is buying major Apple Pay and Google Wallet competitor LoopPay. "Our goal has always been to build the smartest, most secure, user-friendly mobile wallet experience, and we are delighted to welcome LoopPay to take us closer to this goal," JK Shin, Samsung co-CEO and head of the company's mobile business, said in a press release. "What's a real differentiator is this uses technology that's in stores today," David Eun, executive vice president of Samsung's global innovation center, said in an interview. "We don't have to wait for a point in the future where there are a lot more [NFC-enabled] terminals."

Comments

Strongly Worded...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that "Takes On" is probably far too strong a term for what Samsung is doing. "Desperately tries to remain relevant by hitching itself to an already obsolete payment method" is probably closer to the truth.

Re:Strongly Worded...

[Rosyna]

Correct, LoopPay only works with existing magnetic swipe readers. LoopPay works by basically cloning the credit card. The LoopPay devices sends out a magnetic field that is picked up by the magstripe reader in the POS terminal.

LoopPay does not use NFC or RFID. Which also means it's great for those that want to commit credit card fraud since there is no verification or executable code to copy. Just load up the LoopPay device with multiple CC numbers, and see which ones work.

LoopPay also does not work unless there is a magstripe reader in the POS device. In October 2015, retailers in the US will start being liable for fraud committed via the magstripe reader, meaning retailers likely won't be willing to accept magstripe cards, such as those the LoopPay copies.

Re:Strongly Worded...

[iluvcapra]

LoopPay works by basically cloning the credit card.

Is that even permitted under PCI DSS? I know other projects, like Coin, get hung up on this, for good reason.

Re:Strongly Worded...

[bluemonq]

If you want "too strong a term", how about the submitter calling LoopPay a "major" competitor. That one is truly hilarious.

Re:Strongly Worded...

[tlhIngan]

LoopPay works by basically cloning the credit card.

Is that even permitted under PCI DSS? I know other projects, like Coin, get hung up on this, for good reason.

Has nothing to do with PCI-DSS, really. Your old style credit card has a magnetic strip on it that can be trivially cloned with only a few dollars worth of hardware. All LoopPay does is emulate that strip. In fact, the encoding is well known that you don't have to clone the strip - if you have the data that's on the strip, you can make up your own version.

In fact, it'll be important come October because chip cards have a bit on the strip that indicate it's a chip card - so if you swipe it on a chip-capable (and chip-enabled) reader, the bit tells the reader to reject the swipe and display "Please insert card" because swiping is no longer allowed. If LoopPay isn't emulating that bit, the user can be In for a nasty surprise when they find out they were the least secure part and are therefore liable - if you have a chip card and not only didn't use it, but forced the swipe instead

Re:Strongly Worded...

[rjstanford]

Their PCI wording on the website is intentionally deceptive, I feel. When asked about PCI they talk specifically only about the fact that their datacenter is compliant in the storage of card numbers.

Its strictly against PCI requirements to store trackdata in any way, with the single exception of reading it in-memory and relaying it upstream to another PCI compliant service provider. Since this is exactly what their product does, I fail to see how they can claim its compliant (and, as I mentioned, they very carefully don't ever actually say that it is).

Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[SuperKendall]

The article points out how LoopPay can more easily work with existing terminals, and ApplePay needs retailers to get new terminals.

But aren't most retailers going to be upgrading in the near term anyway? The U.S. is moving to credit cards with chips now which mean most serious retailers will be upgrading. The little retailers are probably mostly going to upgrade also, once Square supports ApplePay because you don't want to pass up those customers.

It's a nice try but I don't think it will get much traction no matter how easy it is for retailers to support, since they have to convince the customer first...

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not most retailers. It's all retailers. The EMV (EuroCard, MasterCard, VISA; an industry consortium) decided back in August 2011 that there's a deadline of October 2015. In payment circles this is termed the "liability shift". Fraud liability shifts from the bank/processor to the merchant if the merchant is still using the old swipe and sign method. As an aside getting new terminals means supporting newer chip&pin cards at the same time.

Many large retailers are getting a jump on this process before the deadline. But don'tcha just know it Apple timed Apple Pay right in the middle of the process. They could have had NFC payments years ago (as Google and many others did) but everyone knows the problem with supporting NFC has been merchant adoption, not on the consumer end. So now Apple gets to claim success because they were in the loop on the industry movement. Bet ya money they're going to be touting the "increasing merchants" using or supporting Apple Pay (when in fact merchants/retailers are upgrading the terminals anyway because they have to) at this year's WWDC. And even more during the next WWDC (closer to the deadline).

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Dorianny]

The shift is supposed to be pretty much in effect beginning of 2016 but there really is little movement in either the part of the banks or the merchants. The banks don't want to spend money to quickly replace the cards with something nobody yet takes and merchants don't want to spend money to take cards that haven't been issued yet.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[tlhIngan]

The shift is supposed to be pretty much in effect beginning of 2016 but there really is little movement in either the part of the banks or the merchants. The banks don't want to spend money to quickly replace the cards with something nobody yet takes and merchants don't want to spend money to take cards that haven't been issued yet.

Actually, the shift is in October, when a bill comes into force that liability shifts to the least secure thing in the chain. If the bank supports it, and the customer has a chip card, but the merchant got a swipe reader, then the merchant is responsible for the fraud.

If the bank gives the cardholder a non-chip card, well, liability goes to the bank. (If you have non-chip cards, most banks will probably issue you new cards out of cycle, so if you still use your swipe card instead of your new chip card, you're going to be liable).

Ironically, Apple Pay might have kickstarted the process because upgrading to support NFC means you get a chip reader too. (Apple Pay is just an implementation of EMV, so Apple Pay support comes "for free" with a new reader)

Merchants will want to delay delay and delay, but they run the real risk of the readers being out of stock and being stuck with the liability while they wait for new readers because they didn't upgrade when there was plenty of time.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[ShanghaiBill]

The banks don't want to spend money to quickly replace the cards with something nobody yet takes

My bank (Bank of America) issued me a chip and PIN CC two years ago.

merchants don't want to spend money to take cards that haven't been issued yet.

They have been issued, and some merchants already take them. Most places I still swipe and sign, but the Wal-Mart self-checkout detects that it is a C&P card, and asks me to insert the card into the reader.

There is no chicken and egg problem here.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

The shift is supposed to be pretty much in effect beginning of 2016 but there really is little movement in either the part of the banks or the merchants. The banks don't want to spend money to quickly replace the cards with something nobody yet takes and merchants don't want to spend money to take cards that haven't been issued yet.

Actually, the shift is in October, when a bill comes into force that liability shifts to the least secure thing in the chain. If the bank supports it, and the customer has a chip card, but the merchant got a swipe reader, then the merchant is responsible for the fraud.

If the bank gives the cardholder a non-chip card, well, liability goes to the bank. (If you have non-chip cards, most banks will probably issue you new cards out of cycle, so if you still use your swipe card instead of your new chip card, you're going to be liable).

Ironically, Apple Pay might have kickstarted the process because upgrading to support NFC means you get a chip reader too. (Apple Pay is just an implementation of EMV, so Apple Pay support comes "for free" with a new reader)

Merchants will want to delay delay and delay, but they run the real risk of the readers being out of stock and being stuck with the liability while they wait for new readers because they didn't upgrade when there was plenty of time.

What if the bank gave the cardholder a chipped card, the merchant has a chip reader, but the cardholder went through the full body scanner at the airport and it somehow wiped the chip, so the merchant resorts to manually inputting the numbers off the card? Is the cardholder liable? Is the TSA liable? :-P

Re: Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[bill_mcgonigle]

But aren't most retailers going to be upgrading in the near term anyway?

Yes, and Samsung obviously knows that. They probably have patents that can be used either offensively or defensively vs. Apple. Given the transition, now is the time for both companies to get their best deal.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Dorianny]

The merchant is already liable for fraudulent transactions. When a customer initiates a charge-back because of claim of fraud the credit-card processor holds payment and asks the merchant for documentation to verify the transaction. If the card number was entered instead of swiped or the signature doesn't match the one the credit-card company has on file the merchant than the merchant doesn't get payment. Exactly what part of this process is supposed to change with these new liability rules? If anything it makes it harder for the customer to claim fraud.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[bluemonq]

The merchant is liable if the transaction is fraudulent. He or she chose to punch the numbers in manually instead of rejecting the faulty card.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[bluemonq]

Your card is not a chip and PIN but a chip and signature card. If it's a low-value transaction, then simply dipping may be enough (just like tap-to-pay cards), but if the value is high enough you will be required to sign for it rather than enter a PIN.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statements are incorrect.

Merchant charge backs are not as common as many people believe. If the merchant has followed their obligations under the merchant agreement and there is no fraud on their side, they are not liable for the transaction. This does not preclude a person from getting a refund on the transaction. Instead, the financial institution absorbs the costs and provides the refund. This is major reason why processing fees are high.

The merchant is under no obligation to check the signature, nor are they required to make sure the card itself has a signature. Finally, they do not have to check a person's identification if the card has wording in the signature area to check identification. The signature on the receipt is simply an acknowledgement.

During manual entry, the security code must be entered as a form of verification. Also, many merchant agreements now require the billing zip code. The processing fee is higher for manual entry.

Finally, a card-not-present situation is still another from of manual entry and carries the same requirements, but it has even higher processing fees.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[jittles]

The article points out how LoopPay can more easily work with existing terminals, and ApplePay needs retailers to get new terminals.

But aren't most retailers going to be upgrading in the near term anyway? The U.S. is moving to credit cards with chips now which mean most serious retailers will be upgrading. The little retailers are probably mostly going to upgrade also, once Square supports ApplePay because you don't want to pass up those customers.

It's a nice try but I don't think it will get much traction no matter how easy it is for retailers to support, since they have to convince the customer first...

Retailers and banks are upgrading their terminals and cards respectively because of a new law that either took effect in January of 2015 or will in Jan of 2016 (I forget which). The law puts the responsibility of a fraudulent transaction on the head of the party with the least amount of security. If the card offers chip security and the retailer uses mag stripe, then the retailer is responsible for fraud. If the retailer has a chip terminal and the card only has a mag stripe, then the bank is responsible. Any mom and pop business that gets burned by this once will upgrade ASAP, I'm sure.

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

>The article points out how LoopPay can more easily work with existing terminals

I work for a company that makes those terminals. LoopPay doesn't support EMV and thus is obsolete and won't be supported VERY soon (and don't let the bullshit looppay has on their site fool you).

Re:Aren't retailers going to be upgrading anyway

[Graydyn Young]

But aren't most retailers going to be upgrading in the near term anyway?

Here in Canada we upgraded to chip cards a while back, before contactless was available. Now it's getting to the point here where a retailer supporting contactless is the new norm. I'd estimate that it took about a year, maybe a bit less, to go from seeing contactless occasionally, to seeing it in a majority of stores. And stores here have a lot less pressure to upgrade, since they've already had chip readers for years.

Loo Pay?

[brantondaveperson]

Great name, Samsung. Nice work.

Re:Loo Pay?

[pushing-robot]

For when you need to spend a penny.

Re:Loo Pay?

[sonamchauhan]

Great name? Rant on Dave!

Re:Loo Pay?

[sonamchauhan]

;-)

...letmegetthisstraight

[pushing-robot]

So it amplifies and broadcasts the signal held on the magnetic stripe of an old-style credit card. The completely unencrypted, insecure data that has your card number AND the 3-4 digit verification number.

Why? Because modern card readers will never catch on, of course! Especially when retailers will be tripping over themselves to switch to the new smart readers in a year, since the credit card processors will hold them responsible for any fraud resulting from still using the old gear.

This is a train wreck. Good on LoopPay for convincing some sucker to buy them before their product falls on its face.

Re: ...letmegetthisstraight

[Anonymous Coward]

The number on the front of the card is unencrypted too, and cameras, pencil/paper are cheaper than card readers. Also the CVV code is not on the magstrip FWIW. The banks are responsible for fraud, not you. They know it's low tech.

If it bothers you, use PIN debit, and cut up your signature debit cards. Nobody's holding a gun to your head.

Re: ...letmegetthisstraight

[pushing-robot]

Sorry, I was confusing CVC1 and CVC2... though some cards include CVC2 as well, and you don't need to provide the CVC2 or any other data when you use the magstripe, so it doesn't really matter.

Yes, magstripe cards are insecure by design, but we hardly need to make fraud easier. It's a lot safer and simpler for a criminal to stick an antenna in their pocket than to try to grab legible images of the fronts and backs of cards.

Re:...letmegetthisstraight

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you're in the US, right? The only market that exists! There is no other market that matters! We're moving to NFC/Chip & Pin so you're already obsolete in THE WHOLE WORLD (that matters, anyway).

Re:...letmegetthisstraight

[TheRaven64]

The US is about the only market where magstripe is still relevant. Everywhere else ditched them years ago.

Re:...letmegetthisstraight

[LMariachi]

Wait, does it not encrypt the magstripe data before transmission?

Re:...letmegetthisstraight

[gnasher719]

Wait, does it not encrypt the magstripe data before transmission?

The card reader wouldn't be able to read it if it was encrypted.

Re:...letmegetthisstraight

[blincoln]

Yes, that's exactly right. I heard about this while it was still a Kickstarter-style project, and as soon as I realized that the "Loop" in the name was a reference to an induction loop, I immediately thought "well, I'll just build a larger loop, and hide that under the table the payment terminal is on, and wirelessly capture the raw track data from the card".

My second thought was "there's no way to be sure that a given customer is using the official app, or even the official hardware, so if even one bank legitimizes this, criminals are going to have a field day, because using a card-spoofing magnetic field generator will be 'normal'".

The best part is because it uses a magnetic field (instead of radio waves), there's (AFAIK) no feasible way to build a shield to limit the scope of that field. My understanding is that one could e.g. covertly install an induction loop around an entire building, and stand a reasonable chance of being able to capture all of the transactions sent via this system within that building.

The company behind it is super-sketchy, IMO. They alpha-tested the device by walking into random stores with a hidden camera and socially-engineered the salespeople into letting them "pay with [their] phone", AKA "use this total hack of a device to make a payment that could be completely unauthorized".

It's also not *guaranteed* to work. *Most* mag-stripe readers will apparently function even if no card is physically swiped, but some of them do require that a wheel be spun by the card physically swiping through the reader.

I'm beyond shocked that Visa got involved in this in a positive way (as opposed to shutting them down). The whole credit card payment model is based around salespeople being reasonably sure that the customer is paying with something that was genuinely issued by a bank. A LoopPay-style device completely circumvents that. There is no cryptographic protection as a countermeasure, like with EMV or NFC - the salespeople just have to take on faith that it's a legitimate account being used.

We already have two superior systems (NFC and EMV) being deployed. I'm completely baffled that LoopPay isn't being laughed out of business.

Re: ...letmegetthisstraight

[Anonymous Coward]

Note, this is why ApplePay supports online payments too - so that they become more secure (in the future, when other methods are disallowed) than simply knowing a 16 digit and a 3 digit number.

Re:...letmegetthisstraight

[rjstanford]

Its really aggravating too that US banks will refuse to offer chip-and-pin even though they could. Chip-and-signature is better than magstripe but its still a royal PITA whenever you travel in Europe.

Google seriously missed the boat

[thegarbz]

I can't help but think that Google has seriously missed the boat when it came to mobile payment. Google Wallet was compatible with Android smartphones, ... and released in one of the few countries in the world where NFC terminals were uncommon.

Seriously I was doing payments using Google Wallet on a Galaxy S3 years ago at any random terminal. The problem was jumping through major hoops to get around the fact that the service wasn't available in countries which actually have NFC terminals. Not only were there hoops, but Google considered them loopholes and slowly shut them out.

So now while mobile payments is the latest hot thing I am unable to do now something that I was able to do about 3 years ago. What a missed opportunity to be a market leader rather than a poor follower.

Re:Google seriously missed the boat

[zieroh]

Not only were there hoops, but Google considered them loopholes and slowly shut them out.

When you think about it, all hoops are actually loopholes. [rimshot]

Re:Google seriously missed the boat

[rjstanford]

Google also insisted on getting in the middle of the transaction with their Wallet, and if my understanding is correct the results basically ended up providing an inferior experience to merchants since the cards ultimately got recognized as card-not-present. Apple on the other hand worked closely with everyone in the chain rather than trying to muscle their way in. If you're a merchant, the difference between paying card-present and card-not-present is often around 1% (because CNP has a lot more fraud associated with it). Apple's use of tokenization adds more security as well - its just a better thought out system.

Having said all that your point about the launch country was also completely valid. Again, Google tried (IMO) to be far too arrogant for their own good.

In a lot of ways its similar to the 3G issues. Many dinged the original iPhone for launching without 3G at a time when that was cutting edge and not very well supported. Once the iPhone 3G came out, all the issues had been resolved and it was a very smooth experience for users (and had been done in close partnership with AT&T). Some other phones had loudly claimed 3G before then and often had frustratingly poor network connectivity, sometimes amusingly slower than the iPhone's 2G had at the same time.

System integration: its important in all sorts of areas.

Re:Google seriously missed the boat

[thegarbz]

True but I don't buy into the 3G comments. 3G was not incredibly new or cutting edge. It was 8 years old by that point and in many countries it was working very well.

I think it was more of an effort to wait for the US mobile market to try and stabilize which was then (and frankly with your fragmentation is now still) a complete joke. In the rest of the world it was again a call of "about bloody time". Another case in point was the introduction of Facetime. I initially thought it was some kind of joke as at that point I, my family, and most of my friends have had 3G mobile phones with front facing cameras capable of video calls for about 8 years, with a few of the cutting edge people even longer than that.

I would actually put Apple's lagging in that regard down to the same problem Google has displayed, arrogance thinking that the USA is the only market that matters, and that technology outside the USA doesn't exist or isn't important.

So how many 3rd parties...

[Anonymous Coward]

So how many 3rd parties does it send your payment info to, in unencrypted XML like format to "port 443" without any encryption?
Does it work with their TV that spies on your conversations too? :-P

Re:So how many 3rd parties...

[Anonymous Coward]

Came here for this. Was not dissapoint.

There is large movement on part of the banks

[SuperKendall]

Every credit card I have has been converted to a chip card already, some because I got a new card recently, but some of them the credit card just saying "hey we're sending you a new card" and the new card has a chip...

I would say in very short order existing credit cards will be converted.

On the terminal side that is indeed slower but the merchants have powerful incentive to do so to meet the new regulations taking effect this October (as others pointed out). But for sure at least, the cards are moving/have moved.

Add into the mix that a number of retailers are eager to back ApplePay and you have a lot of merchants moving quickly now also. It's a matter of spending a little to potentially earn much more, and if nothing else reduce fraud by a significant amount.

Samsung seems intent on going the Sony...

[EzInKy]

...route, and I hope the suffer the same inglorious fall from grace.

Not gonna happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Terminals has supported NFC for at least the five last years, even if its not active. One of the reasons Apple choose NFC instead of Bluetooth. This will never take of for Samsung. One thing if Google did it but they are also to late.

To bad

[madak3]

Everyone wants to rule the NFC payment market singlehanded, so there will never be one actuall working standard.

So ApplePay needs new card readers?

[bickerdyke]

So ApplePay needs new card readers? the retailers have to upgrade and replace working old readers to use it?

Well, I guess CVC will be glad to hear those news....

Re:So ApplePay needs new card readers?

[gnasher719]

So ApplePay needs new card readers? the retailers have to upgrade and replace working old readers to use it?

As an example, Apple Pay would work just fine with the terminal in my company's canteen somewhere in the UK. Apple Pay needs the card terminals that everyone will have to buy anyway to replace their old ones.

Re:So ApplePay needs new card readers?

[Anonymous Coward]

The name of the company is CVS and believe me, this story is far from over. If you're someone hating on Apple and cackling with glee about certain companies not (supposedly) supporting certain technologies I can only say the end of this story isn't going to please you much.

Loo Pay?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it pay to use the loo? Or is it paid using loo?

It may actually be the only system that survives.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because major retailers like Walmart, Target, CVS, etc. are backing CurrentC and boycotting Apple Pay and Google Wallet (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/27/us-rite-aid-apple-pay-idUSKBN0IG1ZD20141027 ). Little retailers may have no incentive to adopt (pay for) Apple Pay and Google Wallet transponders. Loop Pay means that even if Walmart, etc. continue to boycott Apple Pay, they won't get rid of their existing infrastructure and so Loop Pay will continue to work--as it works in 90% of retailers today vs 2-3% with Apple and Google.
Seems like a winner only because it's the last man standing.

Only got google to blame and apple to applaud

[HnT]

With their iTunes music and video store, Apple has proven to the "man" they can handle transactions and work with the "man" in a mutually beneficial way that also offers a (back then) new service for the customers. On top of that, Apple is in the device selling business and not in the data business. I am certain these were very important factors when they got their deals for Apple Pay with banks and CC companies.

No sane bankster or CC company would ever be caught publicly doing anything customer-data together with google, that would be PR suicide. Plus google did not have any positive track record of working with "the man" and very obviously they could not convince banks and CC companies to get Google Pay off the ground. They had a technology but not the environment to widely use it and instead pushed NFC as a gimmick, nobody cared about it.

Apple is so successful because they show time and again how well they understand that it's not technology alone that makes the success but you need an environment where the technology can actually be used, you need strong partners making that possible and you cannot make a payment system fly without getting a few major finance and banking players on your side.

Re:Only got google to blame and apple to applaud

[thegarbz]

They didn't need to. Google does not need your credit card, or business with banks. The Google system works like swiping paypal across the terminal, and nothing like what Apple set up, which did require major backing from banks and credit cards.

Re:Only got google to blame and apple to applaud

[thegarbz]

I hate double posting but I missed something.

You seem to be under the impression that Google's solution didn't work. It did. Worked flawlessly at every terminal. It worked with every payment method you could link to it (I used an Australia credit card but gave a fake American address, now they check to see if the address and credit card actually match with the issuer).

There was no technical issue holding them back. There was no players they were missing, there were no partners they needed to make this work. All they needed to stop doing is trying to sell boats to people in the Sahara when they should have been selling boats to the people in Venice.

That other "modern" payment competition

[HnT]

This looks almost as "promising" as that other "modern" payment competition to Apple Pay, you know the one with complicated QR codes, the one nobody can even remember the name of because it was so outdated, complicated and irrelevant even before it was actually launched.

I don't believe this.

[grub]

"Our goal has always been to build the smartest, most secure, user-friendly mobile wallet experience"

Always or only since Apple released ApplePay?

Re:It may actually be the only system that survive

[toonces33]

Little retailers still face the liability shift, so they will likely upgrade as well. The problem with CurrentC is that they will still be obligated to support EMV, so they can't completely block progress.

Our local veterinarian a brand new reader there. I have used both EMV and NFC payment methods there.

Apple got it right

[Eponymous Coward]

IMHO, Apple got ApplePay exactly right. Since it's built on existing systems and protocols, Samsung would do well to just copy it.

Re:Apple got it right

[zieroh]

Since it's built on existing systems and protocols, Samsung would do well to just copy it.

This acquisition is actually quite telling. The fact that they're not blindly copying Apple this time is a strong indication of exactly how incompetent Samsung is. To replicate ApplePay, Samsung would need not only the technology (not really that hard to replicate, and they already have most if not all of it) but also the savvy to navigate the world of finance and negotiate with multiple entities in that industry. LoopPay, being solely a technology-based solution, sidesteps all of that. Note in this case that's not an advantage, since magstripes are nearing extinction. Realistically, Samsung should have known better. Perhaps they're just desperate to say "Me too!".

Re:Apple got it right

[jabuzz]

Except that the market in contactless payment outside the USA has already been sown up. So while ApplePay might get traction in the USA, in the rest of the world it is very unlikely to get any significant traction.

Then again the USA has been a third world country when it comes to credit/debit card technology for some time.

Re:Apple got it right

[rjstanford]

They're also incurring a shit-ton of liability in storing magstripe copies - something that's a PCI violation however you interpret the standards. That means that in the case of fraud the cardholder (phoneholder?) will be considered liable instead of the bank or merchant, and as soon as that happens the inevitable class-action lawsuit against Samsung (far more lucrative than going after LoopPay would have been) will be a doozy.

Re:Apple got it right

[jo_ham]

Not necessarily sewn up - the fact that contactless terminals are everywhere in, for example, the UK means that when Apple Pay launches here (or any other similar NFC-based phone payment system) people will be able to start using it right away in most of their favourite shopping places.

I use contactless payment pretty much everywhere I shop where my transactions are routinely under £20 (the current contactless limit, rising to £30 soon) - pubs, grocery store, high street shops, gas stations, coffee shops, fast food etc.

All Apple or any other vendor (Google etc) has to do is turn it on for the UK and people will use it.

Trust Is Hard To Regain

[K3rn3lPan1c]

I don't know how the rest of you feel, but after the great brickfest of Fall-2013, I wouldn't trust Samsung with a potato gun let alone my funds.