Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Teams Up With 3 Wireless Carriers To Combat Apple Pay

Posted by samzenpus on from the working-together dept.

HughPickens.com writes AP reports that in an effort to undercut Apple's hit service Apple Pay, Google is teaming up with three wireless carriers by building its payment service into Android smartphones sold by AT&T Inc., Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile USA. Besides trying to make it more convenient to use Wallet, Google also is hoping to improve the nearly 4-year-old service. Toward that end, Google is buying some mobile payment technology and patents from Softcard, a 5-year-old venture owned by the wireless carriers. Financial terms weren't disclosed but Apple Pay's popularity probably helped forge the unlikely alliance between Google and the wireless carriers. Google traditionally has had a prickly relationship with the carriers, largely because it doesn't believe enough has been done to upgrade wireless networks and make them cheaper so more people can spend more time online.

The biggest challenge however is one that both Apple and Google face: Only a small fraction of the 10 million or so retail outlets in the U.S.–220,000 at last count–have checkout readers that can accept payments from either system. Both wallets use a radio technology called Near Field Communication to send payment, and it's expected to take years for most stores to be upgraded. What's at play? The big tech companies and carriers seem convinced that our phones will eventually replace our wallets. For carriers, that could make mobile wallet technology table stakes over the next few years as they compete for consumers.

130 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. It works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have a Nexus 5 and have used Wallet a couple of times. Amazingly easy to use.

    The issue with the readers will probably mostly go away as all US businesses need to get chip and PIN readers by end of this year, so they will undoubtedly buy readers that also have NFC. This would start the mass move to wireless payments.

    1. Re: It works for me by machineghost · · Score: 1

      Ok AC, let's hear the tinfoil hat conspiracy: how is a new technology that fights fraud going to "double bankruptcies and suicides"?

    2. Re: It works for me by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. What's the fraud vs total sales? And what are the losses faced by the actual consumers in each situation.

    3. Re:It works for me by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      NSA Hack-a-Way... You will lose everything. The security is weaker than a wet Kleenex. How is this any good for people without bank accounts?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re: It works for me by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      That's why if you go anywhere in Europe, all you see a depopulated wasteland. They have been using NFC/EMV terminals for years.

    5. Re: It works for me by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      “Fraud on lost and stolen cards is now at its lowest level for two decades and counterfeit card fraud losses have also fallen and are at their lowest level since 1999. Losses at U.K. retailers have fallen by 67 per cent since 2004; lost and stolen card fraud fell by 58 per cent between 2004 and 2009; and mail non-receipt fraud has fallen by 91 per cent since 2004.”

      http://www.smartcardalliance.o...

    6. Re: It works for me by orlanz · · Score: 1

      Nice source, but believe it or not, it doesn't actually address anything that I asked. Everything on that site tells all the benefits that stores and banks obtain in terms of reduced fraud, but tell nothing to compare it against the losses faced by consumers or percent against total sales. Granted, stores & banks saving money would eventually end up saving consumers a portion of it, but without including additional burden on consumers and hit to sales its an invalid leap of logic.

      Example, if fraud made up 3% of all transactions, I doubt going from 3% to 1% is worth it if total transactions drop by 10%. Or if consumers are left to foot the bill in even 0.1% more cases.

      Citation (thou not as good as yours): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
      "...incidence of credit card fraud is limited to about 0.1% of all card transactions..."

      To go further, credit cards themselves are a very big dead weight in terms of actual dollars. They add 3-4% in cost (fees, rewards, etc) to everything. Imagine the massive costs when multiplied across all transactions. BUT, businesses world over accept credit cards cause they make up for the 3-4% dead weight via an increase in volume that increases sales and profits. The current fraud in the US in comparison is basically a rounding error.

  2. Cash is so much better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I get so sick and tired of seeing people use some sort of a card or device to pay for small purchases. It's never as quick as cash is.

    When I buy my morning coffee, the payment takes less than 10 seconds, even with the cashier ringing it in and making change.

    When other people pay with credit card or debit card or their phones, it ends up taking at least 30 seconds, if not a lot longer. If somebody can't find their card right away, or if they forget their pin, or if the terminal can't read the card, or if the transaction fails, or if one of any number of other things goes wrong, the rest of us just have to fucking stand there and wait. If the person had just paid with cash, we'd have all been on our way already!

    Use credit cards for large purchases, or when buying online. But for crying out loud, just use cash for everyday purchases! Save yourself some time. Save the rest of us some time, too!

    1. Re:Cash is so much better. by mlts · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Usually purchase speed is in this order:

      1: Debit card. (user swipes card, enters PIN, done.)
      2: Credit card. (user swipes card, signs, done.)
      3: Cash.
      4: Checks.

      From what I've seen at stores, people fumbling for their phones at stores is actually slower than the coupon-clipper with the checkbook.

      If Google's mechanism goes via credit cards like Apple Pay, it would be useful, should I lose my wallet, as a backup mechanism. However, if it is ACH based like CurrenC... then I would avoid it at all costs, since all it takes is one bad transaction, and I'm cleaned out with no recourse.

    2. Re:Cash is so much better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your ordering is wrong.

      The correct ordering is:

      1) Cash: 15 seconds or less
      2) Credit/debit card: 45 seconds or more
      3) Smart phone: 1 minute or more
      4) Checks: 2 minutes or more

    3. Re:Cash is so much better. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My experience:

      1. ApplePay, when the store has implemented it right (about 2 seconds, hold up device, done)
      2. Debit Card (about 20 seconds to swipe and enter pin)
      3. Credit Card (about 30 seconds to swipe and sign)
      4. Cash (about a minute to make change)
      5. ApplePay, when the store has implemented it wrong, and required the user to fill in a form on the terminal.
      6. Checks.

    4. Re:Cash is so much better. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      The correct ordering is:

      1) Cash: 15 seconds or less
      2) Credit/debit card: 45 seconds or more

      Most of my transactions are at self-checkout kiosks for either groceries or gas. Swiping a card is much faster than fumbling with cash. If the transaction is under $50, the kiosk doesn't even ask for a signature, it is just swipe and go.

    5. Re:Cash is so much better. by orlanz · · Score: 1

      As the other poster said, I usually swipe well before the cashier finishes scanning or swipe at some point during a lull in my own scanning (ie: weighing of bananas). Usually don't even need to sign and in some locations, my receipt gets emailed to me. The only negative about credit cards is that I am tracked. The transparency afforded to me is also given to the store and card carrier. But I think the security and convenience is well worth it.

      Yes, cash would be faster if I knew exactly how much it would be and had that out while waiting in line (which is rare with self-check outs). But that's wait time I can spend thinking about other things... like what am I having for dinner.

    6. Re:Cash is so much better. by adolf · · Score: 1

      Speed depends on the gear that the merchant has, and the process that the consumer uses.

      At Kroger, my debit-based magstripe credit card transactions happen nearly instantly -- less than a second -- and I don't have to sign anything if it's under $50.

      It goes like this: Swipe card, begin to think about putting it back in my wallet, and the receipt printer goes *whoosh* with a flurry of thermal paper. Put card in wallet, and the clerk is handing my receipt to me by the time my wallet is away.

      It takes longer than that less-than-a-second to physically open and close the til to be able to handle cash, let alone actually transact with it.

      And if I've got my wits about me, it's even faster: Before the items are even done being rung up, I've generally already got my credit card swiped and selected and put away.

      Same with the phone and Google Wallet, at the few places that actually accept it near me: I've generally already done the tap-to-pay thing before the clerk is done ringing things up.

       

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    7. Re:Cash is so much better. by vux984 · · Score: 2

      I get so sick and tired of seeing people use some sort of a card or device to pay for small purchases. It's never as quick as cash is.

      Perhaps its because of where you live? Where I live, chip and pin is ubiquitous, and tap (e.g. "Visa PayWave") is starting to become very common.

      Tap is the fastest by far.
      Chip and Pin is next.
      Cash is next after that.

      When other people pay with credit card or debit card or their phones, it ends up taking at least 30 seconds,

      Apparently you've never seen Visa PayWave in action.

      If somebody can't find their card right away,

      Yes, that's a problem that only happens with cards. Nobody has ever not been able to find their cash right away. It has magic properties such that a $20 note is always in the pocket you expect it to be... while one's cards move around like ninjas.

      or if they forget their pin, or if the terminal can't read the card, or if the transaction fails, [...] If the person had just paid with cash, we'd have all been on our way already!.

      Or if they forget to bring enough cash, and find themselves a couple bucks short, or they'd go rummaging around for exact change so as not to break a 20, or they find exact change after the cashier has already started counting them change, or they use the cashier as a change machine and start asking her to trade fives for singles or break 20s into fives... and then the cashier has to be very careful, maybe even call a manager because she's worried she's being scammed and wants to have a second set of eyes to make sure everything adds up right. Or the cashdrawer can run out of something, and your waiting for a manager to go get some more from another cashier or the safe.

      I've spent LOTS of time waiting in line for people doing stupid things with cash. Moreso then cards... especially now with stuff like paywave.

      Phones don't seem to be faster though; getting the phone out, signing in, finding the app, etc... takes longer than it should. I think cards aren't going anywhere for a while yet.

    8. Re:Cash is so much better. by hawguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your ordering is wrong.

      The correct ordering is:

      1) Cash: 15 seconds or less
      2) Credit/debit card: 45 seconds or more
      3) Smart phone: 1 minute or more
      4) Checks: 2 minutes or more

      What kind of lame POS system does your coffee shop have? When I go to Starbucks or Peets, it takes me the same amount of time to hand over my card as it does to hand over cash, the difference being that it literally takes them only a second to swipe it, and by they time they hand it back to me, the transaction has already been approved, no signature required.

      I don't see how cash could possibly be faster unless I hand them exact change, but even then they still have to count the bills and put them in the drawer, so even if *my* transaction is faster, the next patron has to wait.

    9. Re:Cash is so much better. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Will they cater to us old fogey (32 yr olds) that don't want to be tied to carrying a phone everywhere ?

      Who are you talking about that you are concerned won't cater to you? I don't think there is any such Apple Pay/Google Wallet compatible terminal that doesn't accept card transactions.

    10. Re:Cash is so much better. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      1: Cash.
      2: A big gap.
      3: Debit card. (user swipes card, enters PIN, done.)
      4: Credit card. (user swipes card, signs, done.)
      5: Something that no longer exists in civilised nations.

      Fixed that for you.

      Cash is by far and away the fastest form of payment. Having to wait for the EFTPOS terminal to contact the bank takes far longer than getting change from the cashier.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    11. Re:Cash is so much better. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      When other people pay with credit card or debit card or their phones, it ends up taking at least 30 seconds.

      Maybe if you're used to antiquated payment card methods but with NFC it's not like that at all.

    12. Re:Cash is so much better. by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Cash is by far and away the fastest form of payment. Having to wait for the EFTPOS terminal to contact the bank takes far longer than getting change from the cashier.

      Do you live in the boonies or something? Every transaction approval I've had for the last 15 years has been nearly instantaneous.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    13. Re:Cash is so much better. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Every transaction approval I've had for the last 15 years has been nearly instantaneous.

      You must have a very strange definition of "instantaneous".

      Because I have travelled extensively, including the US and transactions have always taken longer than just using cash. Every single time.

      This is because the EFT terminal needs to contact the bank.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    14. Re:Cash is so much better. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I get so sick and tired of seeing people use some sort of a card or device to pay for small purchases. It's never as quick as cash is.

      Ridiculous. It's way quicker to pull the card out, swipe it, and put the card back in... than it is to pull cash out, figure out the right amount of bills, wait for change, get change (INCLUDING ANNOYING COINS), put bills back in wallet, put change in pocket..

      It's faster AND cheaper (due to cash back) to use my credit card. Yes, prices are theoretically higher overall, but at each individual purchase, it's the same price.. and as I said, more convenient to use a card.. Will be EVEN more convenient when my preferred card (which has the best cash back for restaurants) supports Apple Pay.

    15. Re:Cash is so much better. by sl149q · · Score: 1

      You obviously have not used NFC with Tap to pay...

      Outside of the US where NFC enabled terminals are available:

      1. Tap to pay with NFC - 5 seconds or less
      2. Debit or Credit card with chip - insert and pay - 15 seconds
      3. Credit card without chip - swipe and sign 20 seconds, depends on how long it takes to get the receipt and sign it
      4. Cash - depends on how long it takes you to count it out, the clerk to recount and then count your change
      5. Cheque - unknown, who takes cheques anymore?

      I get very annoyed when people ahead of me at the local grocery store use anything other than Tap to pay. Especially if they pay with actual cash.

      Yesterday I had a small purchase, some cans and fresh fruit. It was scanned, paid for in less time than it took to bag, and I caught up to the person who was ahead of me in the line on the escalator to the parking lot. The entire process was less than 20 seconds.

    16. Re:Cash is so much better. by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Yes, but...

      Once your bank switches you to Chip and Pin then swipe becomes unavailable. And your bank WILL be switching you because they don't want the liability to rest with them for unauthorized purchases.

      Once they have given you a Chip card then the merchant is liable if they let you swipe (i.e. if they don't upgrade to a chip capable reader.)

      So at that point it will be insert and either sign or enter pin.

    17. Re:Cash is so much better. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      This is because the EFT terminal needs to contact the bank.

      You mean the few hundred millisecond roundtrip via the network.

    18. Re:Cash is so much better. by mjwx · · Score: 1

      This is because the EFT terminal needs to contact the bank.

      You mean the few hundred millisecond roundtrip via the network.

      Again you have a strange definition of "millisecond".

      There is at least a 5 second processing time. Closer to 10 seconds in most cases.

      A few milliseconds doesn't even cover the time it takes the checkout operator to press the button that sends the transaction to the EFT processor for you to insert your card (my country uses chip and pin, my current card doesn't even have a magstripe).

      Lets not even consider those smaller stores who need to key in the price manually because the EFTPOS system isn't linked to the register (this makes it take even longer as you have to make sure they keyed in the right price).

      Needless to say, by the time you've finished fumbling about with your card and waiting for the bank to respond, I've paid in cash and out the door.

      Beyond this, I dont really want to give out my card details to every shop so they can store them on poorly secured servers that get compromised every few months (well this isn't a problem in Australia as its illegal to do this, but a serious issue if you live in the US).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    19. Re:Cash is so much better. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I use Softcard at least once a day. Six seconds to complete the transaction. It takes the cashier longer to open the drawer, put the dollar and three dimes in the drawer and close it. And that requires I leave the penny change. More time if I bring her a dollar, a quarter, a nickel, and wait for the penny.

      And the POS is truly a real POS. It takes an extra 2 seconds to complete the transaction that it need not. A regular card takes no longer, save that the swipe takes fractionally longer than my tap.

      You've not often been behind someone scrambling to find the right card, much less the last penny for exact change.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    20. Re:Cash is so much better. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Even well skilled cashiers take time to gather change out of the drawer. I suspect if you studied this as closely as retailers do, you'd be disappointed. Cash is not automatically faster.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    21. Re:Cash is so much better. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Let them print your check for you and it won't be 2 minutes.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    22. Re:Cash is so much better. by pdhenry · · Score: 1
      I can only conclude that you've never paid via NFC. There's no waiting. Phone over the sensor, BLING, done.

      And my card details are never provided to the merchant with Google Wallet.

    23. Re:Cash is so much better. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Major retailers track auth processing on the order of milliseconds. Online retailers track them down to tens of microseconds. Most acquirers commit to no more than a 2 second response. Varying from this regularly by 100 milliseconds is a three-alarm emergency. These retailers call them on the carpet when they see this. It's considered 'friction', and they want 'frictionless' transactions. Once you click 'buy', they want this to happen fast fast fast.

      In the old days, sonny, a 10 second auth was the goal when your terminal DIALED UP THE AUTH SYSTEM THROUGH A MODEM. USR made a killing selling Total Control model pools with a special warble that would train the terminal modem in 3 seconds. Every other modem struggled to train up a 110 baud connection in 3-6 seconds. With a TC hub, you could hope for a 6 second auth.

      If you're waiting more than 6 seconds to see 'APPROVED' on the terminal screen, something is not working as it should. Most likely the retailer.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    24. Re:Cash is so much better. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "There is at least a 5 second processing time. Closer to 10 seconds in most cases"

      The acquirer takes 2 seconds tops. 60-200 millisecond round trip.

      The rest are POS issues, and even small stores have systems that don't take 7 seconds to give the operator the thumbs up...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    25. Re:Cash is so much better. by phayes · · Score: 1

      Google wallet uses à virtual card so that every transaction gets sent to google for treatment & then rerouted onto the real cards they people add to GW. Thus Google are getting a copy of every transaction everyone makes using GW. This ingredibly intrusive individually identified transaction history is what Google is using to make money off of GW.

      Apple Pay sets up a token for each card enrolled into it and is architectured so that Apple cannot get a copy of the transactions. Apple gets a cut off of the card issuers transaction fees for having secured transactions and thus diminishing fraud but Apple cannot sell your individualized credit history the way Google does.

      That right there is why GW is DOA for everyone with a minimum of common sense. Yeah, sure I'll give Google my search history & sometimes my location, but NOT my credit history too, waaay too many eggs going into that basket.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    26. Re:Cash is so much better. by goonerw · · Score: 1

      It must be quaint that the US is going Chip and Sign, when the rest of the enlightened world has had Chip and Pin for over a decade and some merchants in some countries, such as Australia, don't allow signatures anymore.

      --
      LOAD ".SIG"
      PRESS PLAY ON TAPE
    27. Re:Cash is so much better. by jcr · · Score: 1

      This is not the case for ApplePay. You get a notification on your phone asking "do you want to pay (amount) to (vendor)", and you put your thumb on the fingerprint reader if you do. Less time than handing the cashier a bill and waiting for him to count out your change.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    28. Re:Cash is so much better. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Depends how much the transaction is for - here in the UK we have a £30 limit under which we can simply use NFC touch and go, no pin needed.

    29. Re:Cash is so much better. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Google wallet uses à virtual card so that every transaction gets sent to google for treatment & then rerouted onto the real cards they people add to GW. Thus Google are getting a copy of every transaction everyone makes using GW. This ingredibly intrusive individually identified transaction history is what Google is using to make money off of GW.

      Not to mention the double interchange fees.

      Google Wallet creates a debit card, provided by the Bank of America. This debit card is what is presented to the world when you pay over NFC.

      That debit card doesn't have anything behind it though - what happens is you do a transaction, but it stops because there's no money in the account, so BoA then passes Google all the details so Google can fund your account and finish the transaction. The retailer pays their debit fee, BoA collects the debit fee, and Google pays the interchange fee (the cost to charge your debit/credit card).

      So naturally, Google will want to make up those 30 cents or so which they do by mining your information for advertisers. Because someone has to pay for the fact that Google Wallet incurs double the fees that a normal credit or debit transaction provides.

      Apple Pay, OTOH, is just a virtualized credit card. As far as the merchant is concerned, you paid with a fancy credit card, and only one interchange fee is paid (merchant pays it per merchant agreement) as it's billed straight to your card. It's why the Apple Pay model is not likely to be adopted by Google - because it means Google will not be able to collect that valuable transaction information.

      (And remember, it only takes 4 transactions to positively identify you - so if Google gets anonymous expanded transaction history, they can link the transactions to your Google Wallet ones to positively identify you)

    30. Re:Cash is so much better. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      No way is debit card taking 45 seconds or more. In a Canadian grocery store the average is around 15 seconds.

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    31. Re:Cash is so much better. by number17 · · Score: 1

      Here's a video I could find that wasn't produced by Visa.

      The speed in the video matches my experience.

    32. Re:Cash is so much better. by RandomUsername99 · · Score: 1

      NFC is actually a touch faster because it doesn't even require handing anything to anybody. Hold your NFC device to the sensor and it'll be done as fast as it takes you to extend your arm to give them the card. I first experienced this level of convenience with Mobile Speedpass 15 years ago, and was hooked... pay for gas in 1 second, every time. Put the thing near the thing, it lights up, and you're done. Simple as lifting your arm.

      Cash evangelists are the same people that refused to get a cell phone until they absolutely needed to, and now refuse to get a smart phone. They proudly use the oldest version of their computer OS available that's still patched, and freak out when devs sunset it. Embracing skepticism and moral panic about technology gives them a feeling of control, superiority, and sense of purpose. They'll throw assumptions and anecdotes at you about how evil technology is, but in 5 years when it's considered outdated, they'll be touting the amazing benefits of it when the rest of the population has moved on.

    33. Re:Cash is so much better. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      There is a speed issue.
      You tap your phone and it launches wallet.
      you put in a code
      you tap again.

      I find it fastest if I launch and put in the code before I get the reader. The one issue I worry about is could I be charged for someone elses purchase.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    34. Re:Cash is so much better. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Again you have a strange definition of "millisecond".

      No, the approval time is a few hundred milliseconds. Where are you getting this 5 or 10 seconds from? It sends the details to the bank and the bank sends the response, that doesn't take 5 or 10 seconds.

      A few milliseconds doesn't even cover the time it takes the checkout operator to press the button that sends the transaction to the EFT processor for you to insert your card (my country uses chip and pin, my current card doesn't even have a magstripe).

      Read what was actually written rather than interpreting it as something else "Every transaction approval I've had for the last 15 years has been nearly instantaneous."

      Lets not even consider those smaller stores who need to key in the price manually because the EFTPOS system isn't linked to the register

      Yes, let's not since that wasn't what was being discussed.

    35. Re:Cash is so much better. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Use credit cards for large purchases, or when buying online. But for crying out loud, just use cash for everyday purchases! Save yourself some time. Save the rest of us some time, too!

      well, not my experience. i can swipe a card and with amounts less than $20 or so (up to the retailer) no signature required. if i run it as debit, 3 seconds for me to enter my pin and i'm done.

      vs. watching some moron fumble around in his man purse for change.

    36. Re:Cash is so much better. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      So at that point it will be insert and either sign or enter pin.

      a signature is not necessarily required. it will depend on the amount, and the merchant, as it is today.

    37. Re:Cash is so much better. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      This ingredibly intrusive individually identified transaction history is what Google is using to make money off of GW.

      oh, you mean they aren't just spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build out this technology out of the goodness of their hearts? shocking, just shocking.

    38. Re:Cash is so much better. by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      (And remember, it only takes 4 transactions to positively identify you - so if Google gets anonymous expanded transaction history, they can link the transactions to your Google Wallet ones to positively identify you)

      and then what happens? seriously.

    39. Re:Cash is so much better. by phayes · · Score: 1

      At some point that information will be either hacked or sold. I'm not an anti Google zealot but the level of info GW gives Google is just too detailed for me to be comfortable with them having it.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    40. Re:Cash is so much better. by phayes · · Score: 1

      That Google wants to monetize their endeavors is no surprise. The shocking thing is that some people are foolish enough to think that it is a good idea to let their credit history be monetized by an entity that is selling that info onwards. Google could have chosen to not put themselves in the position they are in with Google Wallet & I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't see what, other than profit is stopping them from going the same route Apple Pay did where they are not in the loop.

      Why do you think that Google having your entire credit history and selling it off is a good idea?

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  3. here's an idea by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    american banks are finally waking the fuck up from all of the easy expensive hacks and finally giving americans european style smart chip cards:

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/1014121...

    the chips in smart cards are the same thing as phone SIM cards:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    so why can't banks team up with verizon/ att/ sprint/ etc (and do an end run around google/ apple/ samsung/ etc. plus mastercard/ visa/ etc.) and just give us phone = bankcard thataways?

    what am i missing?

    do i get my $30 million bonus now?

    the only reason we don't have phone = bankcard technology is this power game pissing contest between all of the players here, correct?

    someone please explain to me what i am missing

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:here's an idea by grimmjeeper · · Score: 1

      It's all about the money.

      You're missing the fees that are collected by the organizations that facilitate the transaction. CC companies don't want to split the take they're already getting with someone else and retail organizations don't want to increase the percentage they have to pay for adding the cell phone company to the line of people with their hand out. So teaming up between phone companies and CC companies isn't going to happen. So Apple and now Google show up with a scheme to bypass the CC companies and divert the entire percentage to their accounts. Google can't do it without the cell phone companies and stores don't want to have one different system for each brand of cell phone provider. Together, Google and the phone companies working together can act as one entity, simplifying the POS transaction and taking a cut out of the CC company pie.

    2. Re:here's an idea by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 2

      Apple doesn't bypass the credit card companies - you're thinking of CurrentC (the joint system being developed by Walmart, CVS, etc.). That system exists solely to save merchants money. ApplePay uses the same credit card system (and your existing cards) to make payments.

    3. Re:here's an idea by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      thank you. well explained

      the banks can't cut out the ccs, the ccs will punish them

      so the best power play is OS/ phone manufacturer and the phone companies cutting out the banks AND the ccs

      i get it

      but you know the ccs are working furiously with dirty tricks right now like purchased legislation to protect their revenue streams, i mean EHEM, "protect the consumer"

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    4. Re:here's an idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      the only reason we don't have phone = bankcard technology is this power game pissing contest between all of the players here, correct?

      someone please explain to me what i am missing

      What you are missing is that there are many big powerful organizations that DO NOT WANT phone=bankcard. They want your phone to bypass the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, that adds ~3% to to everything you buy. The problem is that they haven't come up with a good alternative.

    5. Re:here's an idea by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      you're correct, they want an alternative stream

      but it's not altruistic, they just want to set up their own competing ~1% ~2% steal

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    6. Re:here's an idea by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the heroin crack meth of money in politics is not defeated by voting for the fourth party candidate wackjob

      the laws need to be changed like this:

      http://www.wolf-pac.com/

      using money to defeat money. corruption jujitsu

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    7. Re:here's an idea by zieroh · · Score: 1

      So Apple and now Google show up with a scheme to bypass the CC companies and divert the entire percentage to their accounts.

      Your starting premise is flat-out wrong. Everything that follows from it is therefore gibberish.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    8. Re:here's an idea by zieroh · · Score: 1

      They want your phone to bypass the Visa/Mastercard duopoly, that adds ~3% to to everything you buy. The problem is that they haven't come up with a good alternative.

      Who is "they"?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    9. Re:here's an idea by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      censorship?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    10. Re:here's an idea by sl149q · · Score: 1

      To be pedantic Apple Pay uses your credit card account to make your payment. It does not need to have your actual card once you have registered your account. I.e. you don't have to have your card to make a payment.

    11. Re:here's an idea by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Who is "they"?

      The backers of CurrentC: Walmart, Target, Best Buy, CVS, Shell Oil, Lowes, Sears, 7-eleven and many, many, others.

  4. Re:Android phone wallet ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    No fucking way ... no fucking way ..

    an idiot on the internet... no fucking way...

  5. The biggest challenge? by srichard25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The biggest challenge however is one that both Apple and Google face: Only a small fraction of the 10 million or so retail outlets in the U.S.–220,000 at last count–have checkout readers that can accept payments from either system."

    That's not the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is that it is no more convenient or reliable to pay a bill with my smartphone than it is with a credit card. My credit card doesn't run out of power. And I don't have to worry about it not getting a good connection inside a store. And I don't have to worry about pulling out a $500 phone and juggling it around every time I want to pay for something.

    By Oct 2015 most banks will be issuing smart credit cards that make it much harder to commit fraud. Some of them will come with NFC and support "tap to pay' just like a smartphone. But they will be much cheaper and much more reliable.

    Paying by smartphone is a solution in search of a problem.

    1. Re:The biggest challenge? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      Not sure about the Google and Android solutions, but you don't need a network or cell connection to use ApplePay - everything is handled by the chip in the phone. It offers other advantages as well, most specifically the use of a unique token that's NOT your credit card number, meaning it isn't vulnerable to the large store data breaches like we've seen in the last few years.

      Also, I dunno about you, but I always have my phone in my pocket, just has handy as my wallet, but with my wallet, I need to remove a card, swipe it, and usually either sign or enter a code. With ApplePay, I just have to hold the phone next to the terminal, and that's it. It's not a huge difference, but it's certainly not more difficult than using a card - typically it's one or more steps easier.

    2. Re:The biggest challenge? by gbcox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. I've been able to use a chip enabled card at Walmart / Sams and it's extremely simple and secure. Google Wallet or ApplePay aren't any more secure. Until they come up with a virtual ID you're gonna have to carry your wallet; and as you point out if your battery goes out or you have an electronics malfunction, you're kinda screwed if you're relying solely on your phone. I view it as a novelty and possibly a convenience if you happen to have your phone out at the time you're ready to pay. Otherwise, it's faster, simpler, more reliable and just as if not more secure to use a chip enabled card. As a wallet replacement? Not there yet...

    3. Re:The biggest challenge? by gbcox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I think alot of people like the novelty of it... and think it's cool. Plus if you're getting some type of reward for using it, that could be an incentive. CurrentC is suppose to be offering all kinds of bribery in return for use of it's method. Depending on what it is, I could be convinced to lug out my phone and use their app.

    4. Re:The biggest challenge? by swillden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not sure about the Google and Android solutions, but you don't need a network or cell connection to use ApplePay

      Nor with Google Wallet.

      Also, I dunno about you, but I always have my phone in my pocket, just has handy as my wallet, but with my wallet, I need to remove a card, swipe it, and usually either sign or enter a code.

      My phone is actually handier than my wallet, because I use my wallet less and keep it in a less accessible pocket. Actually, most of the time while I'm in a checkout line my phone isn't in my pocket, it's in my hand.

      (Disclaimer: I work for Google and bits of my code support Google Wallet. However, I was a fan of NFC payment before joining Google, and whether it's Google, Apple or someone else I'm really glad to see it finally taking off.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:The biggest challenge? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Every clearinghouse in the country also supports the idea of a Token that is not your card number. That doesn't mean the vendors will, either on the current system or on the proposed system.
      Phone companies are not regulated as Credit Card companies, and until they are, they should not be allowed to facilitate these transactions. They are enjoying the benefit of processing these transactions without any of the added extra cost of enforcing consumer protection. Instead, if you say you didn't buy something, then they say "tough. If you don't pay it, we are going to report you to the credit agencies,"

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:The biggest challenge? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      ApplePay is just the method of payment (akin to your physical credit card) - the system still uses the credit card network and uses a number that is passed from the device to the credit card company. The token is used in place of your credit card number during the transaction but Apple isn't "involved" in the payment itself.

    7. Re:The biggest challenge? by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      also the brass hats at Google thought of the whole what if your phone crashes thing.

      There is an actual physical Google Wallet CARD that draws from the same source so all else failing you just pull that out and proceed as would be normal.

      (rez time is like 2 weeks but...)

    8. Re:The biggest challenge? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Using the phone to replace the cards with bar codes on them is handy because it's removing a number of cards from your wallet. I've got four or five apps for loyalty programs on my phone that means I don't need to have the card in my wallet. I don't have them hooked up to pay automatically but I could with a couple of them.

    9. Re:The biggest challenge? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      I always have my phone, I don't always have my wallet. Thats problem they solved.

      Tap and Pay cards are no more secure than Swipe and Sign cards, they are nearly as easy to clone too.

      Tap and Pay phones (at least with ApplePay) require me to actually verify it with something somewhat secure like a finger print or pin number on MY device, not one that someone else maintains and may be hacked to steal my PIN.

      ApplePay also doesn't require any communications at the time of transaction with the bank after the initial security exchange.

      Theres no reason that the upgrade process which brings everything up to chip&pin can't easily bring it to NFC capable as well.

      ApplePay is more convenient if you don't always carry your cards on you, but do your phone and/or if you value secure transactions.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    10. Re:The biggest challenge? by sl149q · · Score: 1

      The implication is that the additional security offered by Apple Pay (over pinless Tap to pay) will allow it to be used with higher valued transactions.

      So you get the speed of NFC without the slower chip and pin delays.

    11. Re:The biggest challenge? by srichard25 · · Score: 1

      The smart cards coming by Oct 2015 will also contain a chip that will provide a unique token for each transaction.

    12. Re:The biggest challenge? by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. My phone is handier than my wallet, and I can pull up Softcard, PIN in, and tap faster than you say 'oh, please....'. And you're gonna be fishing for another penny to save time with exact change.

      Disclaimer - I work for a Softcard partner, and am sort of sad to see it go to Google. But hopefully it will become the main competitor to Apple Pay, which is for us an interesting problem. All is not bliss in Apple Pay land.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    13. Re:The biggest challenge? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's not the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is that it is no more convenient or reliable to pay a bill with my smartphone than it is with a credit card.

      That depends. You're right when talking about credit card, but when you have to carry 5+ different credit cards around then it all starts taking up pocket realestate. I would love to do away with my wallet entirely.

    14. Re:The biggest challenge? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Unless you have some form of memory loss, the pin delay is inconsequential. Especially if you have more than one card tied to Apple pay at which point they pretty much break even (unlocking, opening a program and selecting the card in Apple pay software, vs hitting 4 numbers in a pin pad).

    15. Re:The biggest challenge? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Phone payments offer more privacy and security than cards. The retailer gets a one-time code and that's it, not your card number and PIN which can then be abused.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re:The biggest challenge? by jittles · · Score: 1

      That's not the biggest challenge. The biggest challenge is that it is no more convenient or reliable to pay a bill with my smartphone than it is with a credit card. My credit card doesn't run out of power. And I don't have to worry about it not getting a good connection inside a store. And I don't have to worry about pulling out a $500 phone and juggling it around every time I want to pay for something.

      I actually did find Apple Pay useful once. I went for a quick run to the store with my girlfriend and didn't bring my wallet, but happened to have my phone. Had I brought my wallet, however, I would have just used my card. It was handy to have a backup plan.

    17. Re:The biggest challenge? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I think that they are missing the real market.
      I see it as a replacement for paypal/square.
      If I went to a small event and want a tee shirt I can see taping my phone to pay for the shirt. Or if I want to by a drill from a friend.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  6. Re:Android phone wallet ? by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    You mean android OS right ? .. I never put it on the internet .

  7. Not a place where competing is a winning strategy by enjar · · Score: 1

    What black magic happens when I use my credit card? Damned if I know. Magic happens, money comes out of my account and I get stuff. I don't care what incantation is encoded in the stripe, which manufacturer made the card reading machine or what communications technology is behind the scenes. It doesn't matter, because the business taking my money wants my money and I want the stuff.

    Similarly, when I plug something into the wall I don't care who made the plug and the wires that provide the power. I don't even care where the power comes from. I just expect it to power up what I plugged into it.

    If I can just wave my phone at something and money gets exchanged, then fine. But if I need to know too much about it, I'm just going to use my credit card or cash.

    Evidently in other parts of the world they are exchanging money in rural villages with text messages on low-end dumb phones. Why must the first world get vendor lock-in bullshit to exchange money using a phone?

  8. Only used it when they paid me by Jumunquo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last year, Softcard bribed me - cash, Amazon gift cards, etc. to use their service.
    This year, they stopped, and I went back to swiping my credit card.

    The problem is that Softcard payment requires more steps than you think:
    1) Unlock phone
    2) Open app
    3) Type in 4-digit pin (why can't I use my fingerprint?)
    4) Tap
    Also, the tap is not as easy as you think. The first time you do it like the video, it probably won't work. On my S5, the sweet spot is actually in the middle of the phone horizontally across middle of NFC reader, and once I figured that out, I usually succeeded on the first try. However, some card readers just suck and will frequently require multiple tries. Rite Aid card readers, before they stopped accepting it, were the most likely to have this problem (and it was always the same ones at particular registers that gave me trouble).

    The way it SHOULD work is that I put my phone over the NFC reader, it asks me for fingerprint, and done. Reality bites.

    1. Re:Only used it when they paid me by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      You are right, the phone should just wake up and launch the default payment app automatically when it is near the payment pad

      I don't see why they haven't implemented this. I know it's definitely possible and not terribly hard, since there are already apps on the play store that can wake and unlock the phone on contact with an RFID card.

    2. Re:Only used it when they paid me by Fnord666 · · Score: 2

      The problem is that Softcard payment requires more steps than you think:

      Don't forget the effort to unroot your phone in order to install the app. I unrooted mine just long enough to spend their bribe money.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    3. Re:Only used it when they paid me by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      On my S5, the sweet spot is actually in the middle of the phone horizontally across middle of NFC reader

      And it is probably in a position that will move when your phone changes orientation, which it will inevitably do multiple times while you are trying to make a purchase.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    4. Re:Only used it when they paid me by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      That's what my Galaxy S5 does. I do have to unlock the phone, but you hold it over the reader and the app comes up. The only thing that slows me down is when the payment terminal asks irrelevant and/or annoying questions. When I was at the vet the other day it wanted to know "Credit or Debit"? WTF? And at the grocery store it wanted to know if I wanted cash back. If they stop asking questions like these, the transactions would be quicker.

      My preferences (excluding online purchases) are:

      1) EMV credit card.
      2) NFC via Wallet.
      3) Cash.
      4) Write a check (rarely)

      I refuse to use my debit at any machine other than an ATM, and even then I am picky about which ATM machines I will use. If the crooks get your debit card number, they can create all sorts of headaches for you.

        I used to use the normal credit card swipe for some things like gas stations, but I had my card # stolen at either a parking garage or a gas station, so from now on it is cash all the way for those things. Yeah, it is a pain, but I am still pretty steamed about the horrible cyber security at some of these places. If the attendant steals from the till or the store gets robbed - well, that's not my problem. If they want fewer cash transactions, then they can add support for #1 or #2.

      People say you have no liability if your card gets stolen, and while that is sort of true, it can take several weeks before you get a replacement card unless you insist that they overnight the thing to you (like if you are on the road somewhere). My card was stolen on the 6th of the month, and the replacement *finally* arrived today. I had called to complain last week about why it was taking so long - apparently some nonspecific upgrades to their system caused the request to be stuck in a queue for 10 days. And it was a pain in the interim. Check into a hotel - do they take AMEX, or not? Pay for car repairs - they don't take AMEX, so I had to write a check to the guy. I could try and get yet another card, which I wouldn't need/use once the replacement arrives, and realistically the other card wouldn't have arrived before the replacement.

    5. Re:Only used it when they paid me by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      If I intend to use my Softcard, I've opened it, entered my PIN, and put it back in my pocket on the way into the store, or while I'm in line.

      This is not so hard.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    6. Re:Only used it when they paid me by Miguelito · · Score: 1

      The way it SHOULD work is that I put my phone over the NFC reader, it asks me for fingerprint, and done. Reality bites.

      Hey, what do you know? That's exactly how Apple Pay works.

      --
      - My favorite error message: xscreensaver, running on an old Sparc 5 w/ 8bit color: bsod: Couldn't allocate color Blue
    7. Re:Only used it when they paid me by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The way it SHOULD work is that I put my phone over the NFC reader, it asks me for fingerprint, and done. Reality bites.

      Not for users of Apple Pay. In fact, that's EXACTLY how Apple Pay works. No, in fact, it's even EASIER, because you don't have to WAIT to get "prompted" for your fingerprint.

      You'll also notice that Apple didn't try to make it look faster than it really is. They didn't edit-out the brief delay while the NFC initialized the transaction. Even with that, and the "cashier" stating the total, the entire video is only 7 seconds long. The Apple Pay part was on the order of 3 seconds.

    8. Re:Only used it when they paid me by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      When I was at the vet the other day it wanted to know "Credit or Debit"? WTF?

      there's actually no way to tell if the card is credit or debit through any information in the swipe data.

    9. Re:Only used it when they paid me by toonces33 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this was with Google Wallet. Is that credit or debit? The underlying card that is funding wallet? But if you answer "Debit", it will ask for a PIN number, and that makes even less sense.

      To me the question seems to be a bit of a non-sequitor.

    10. Re:Only used it when they paid me by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but this was with Google Wallet.

      the terminal doesn't know if it's debit or credit, regardless of whether you are using google wallet, apple pay or smart card.

  9. No CC bonus points by cciechad · · Score: 1

    Google Wallet has always not been useable for me because you don't get CC bonus points when you use it. Are they planning on resolving this? Also it was a huge PIA to keep it working on a rooted phone through upgrades.

    --
    https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
    1. Re:No CC bonus points by cciechad · · Score: 1

      Unless they've changed and not updated their documentation it still looks like its the case. https://support.google.com/wal...

      --
      https://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom
    2. Re:No CC bonus points by pdhenry · · Score: 1

      It says may not. As in you might or might not. Probably some card issuers will do it properly and some won't - assuming that GW is transmitting the appropriate Merchant Category Code for transactions passing through to your card issuer. They already pass through a tweaked version of the merchant name so a purchase at McDonalds shows upon my statement as GOOGNFC*MCDONALDS so I expect the MCC is also passed thru. With the right MCC you'll get bonus points for restaurants or grocery stores or whatever your card provides.

  10. Re:Your choice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well why did he have $20000 cash? Drug dealer?

    Well why did the other guy have $20000 motorcycle? Drug dealer?
    The idea that cash is criminal is fucking absurd.

  11. The biggest challenge is marketing by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

    Google have been absolutely useless when it comes to marketing Wallet.

    It works great. It's been out there for years now.

    But have you ever seen an ad on TV for it? Have you seen ads online for it? Have you ever read an article about NFC payments that didn't talk almost exclusively about Apple Pay?

    Google seem to think that as long as they put the tech into phones people will just somehow discover it, go through the pain of setting it up without really understanding how it works or the benefits of it, and trust loading it up with cash even though they've never really heard of it.

    Seriously Google, your marketing people are failing you really badly here.

    1. Re:The biggest challenge is marketing by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      It works great.

      For some phones. I have a rather old phone, but it wasn't the earliest phone to have NFC (that came a year earlier). Google Wallet doesn't work on it.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  12. Re:Not a place where competing is a winning strate by speedlaw · · Score: 1

    Everyone there is gunning to be the next Visa...taking a permanent 2% tax on every transaction. Sharp elbows and such are to be expected. I still don't see a need to make my charge card two orders of magnitude more complicated-the battery in my credit card never runs out. Maybe thats a bad thing... No one ever makes it cheaper. They want you to bank on line, but no one ever offers to rebate you the billing by dead tree expenses.... Do you accept....CASH ?

  13. Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by onkelonkel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was visiting the USA (California is nice this time of year) last week and I had to sign little pieces of paper with my name to buy things with my credit card. Apparently none of the stores and restaurants have chip and pin terminals. You can't prevent even the most basic fraud if any guy with a card reader can make a copy of your magstripe and clone your card. What's worse, in the restaurant they actually walked off with my card, instead of bringing a wireless terminal to my table for me to enter my PIN. You good people are about 5 years behind the times. WTF happened?

    --
    None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    1. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by zieroh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was visiting the USA (California is nice this time of year) last week and I had to sign little pieces of paper with my name to buy things with my credit card. Apparently none of the stores and restaurants have chip and pin terminals. You can't prevent even the most basic fraud if any guy with a card reader can make a copy of your magstripe and clone your card. What's worse, in the restaurant they actually walked off with my card, instead of bringing a wireless terminal to my table for me to enter my PIN.

      Yup.

      You good people are about 5 years behind the times. WTF happened?

      Welcome to America, where we like to pretend that we're exceptional while being largely behind the rest of the civilized world in almost every area. I think it's because of money in politics myself, but others will perhaps have other theories.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    2. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by Shados · · Score: 2

      And yet your card still worked, so it had a magstrip. And when I go back home to visit family (I'm canadian living in the US), my american cards work fine up there too. So someone could still clone your card, and use the copy. The only thing making it a little trickier is the fact you don't have to hand over the card, but there are ways around that (like a hacked up terminal). There are also vulnerabilities in the chip cards.

      What is really protecting you is that the bank will cover your ass if something happen to it. This is also why no one gives a damn south of the border: pretty much no one ever really gets hurt when their card gets cloned. Call the bank and it will be done and over with 2 days later.

      But with the chip cards, banks tend to be reluctant to help when your card gets owned. They still generally take care of it, but you have to argue a bit more.

      So really, in the end it doesn't change a whole lot. Its easier to exploit magstrips, for now. And then you have all the chip cards that have NFC, and that's a whole other can of worm.

      The one thing I'll give you is how its fucking annoying to have someone run away with your card at the restaurant, though some restaurants do have it (ie: Legal Seafood)

    3. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You good people are about 5 years behind the times. WTF happened?

      Same thing that happens to all early adopters. Earlier technology becomes entrenched, and it's more difficult for newer, better technology to displace it because the old stuff "mostly works good enough." It's why the ratio of wireless to wired phones is higher in Africa than in Europe.

    4. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And yet your card still worked, so it had a magstrip. And when I go back home to visit family (I'm canadian living in the US), my american cards work fine up there too. So someone could still clone your card, and use the copy.

      Many retailers in the UK won't accept signatures any more, because it increases their liability for fraud. My banks tend to refuse signed for transactions anyway unless they are for fairly small amounts. In Japan where chip & pin isn't always the default option yet (it's probably 80% now), I sometimes have to ask to use my PIN instead of signing or it won't go through.

      Phone payments are even better. One time code, can't be cloned or re-used. Arbitrary length password or PIN.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by antdude · · Score: 1

      Because USA sucks. USA isn't #1 or the best anymore. :(

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    6. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Simple we got swipe terminals years before Europe. Chip and Pin is here now in the US. In fact I used it yesterday at a Jon Smiths Sub shop. Most people would not even notice it but I did.
      Also credit card fraud was not a big issue in the US until a few years ago. The US will be Chip and Pin by October.
      Now bringing the terminal to the table may take a while. Nicer restaurants will probably not want to do that since for some odd reason the taking of the check and bringing it back is a sign of a "quality" restaurant.
      Chilie's here in the states has a card reader/tablet at every table and I have seen people complain about it! Frankly I hate waiting for the wait staff to bring the bill, then wait for come back and take my card, then wait for the card to come back!.
      It would seem that I am in the minority.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Oh Sure this will work in the US....eventually by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yep we do not have chip and pin but we do have a space probe nearing Pluto.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  14. Re:Not a place where competing is a winning strate by zieroh · · Score: 1

    I still don't see a need to make my charge card two orders of magnitude more complicated

    You will the next time your credit card is compromised.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  15. Re:As a retailer... by zieroh · · Score: 1

    2. They don't solve any problems.

    Please explain how "rampant fraud" is not a problem.

    --
    People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
  16. Combat Apple Pay? by TheGeneration · · Score: 1

    Combat Apple Pay? To what end? Either you have an Android phone or an Apple phone. They aren't competition for each other, in fact, they can help each other out by increasing the userbase to a point where NFC payments are demanded by consumers at all locations.

    P.S. those who talk about speed being an issue, if you've ever used Apple Pay it is by far the fastest payment method (about 3-5 seconds tops.)

    --


    The Generation
    I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
    1. Re:Combat Apple Pay? by Shados · · Score: 1

      Its a pretty big deal actually. If every time you go to the store, they accept Apple Pay but not Google Wallet, and you're into that kind of thing, eventually you're going to get annoyed and buy a damn iphone.

  17. Advantages of phone by DrYak · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have no idea why I'd want to use my phone instead of a card.

    There is also some potential increase of security:

    Unlike (nearly) every card(*), the phone is a device that has its own display and input interface.
    Meaning that you don't need to trust the payment terminal(**).
    - No risk of skimmer trying to read you PIN: you're typing it into your own phone, not on the terminal which could have been hacked/modded.
    - You can trust the amount displayed (again, you are reading your own phone's screen, so even if the terminal is hacked to display a lower sum and actually bill a higher sum, you'll notive the discrepancies).

    Also, the phone has connectivity, which allows out-of-band confirmation for the transaction (***).

    Thus, the device is protected against fraud that could menace a classical card.
    - hacked terminals showing bogus transaction amounts, or trying to record your PIN.
    - hackers trying to relay a transaction (small amount are "tap/swap only": no signature neither PIN asked. It's possible to use a powerful antena pointed at a wireless credit card to remotely use it and relay communication to a terminal).

    Saddly, the phones have their own problems:
    - they eat batteries like candy (even wireless credit card transaction are remotely powered by the terminal. Whereas a dead phone is dead and can't be used for paying).
    - again, they are conencted. Which means that they could be compromised themselves. (Specially since people tend to install tons of crap).

    -----

    (*): I've seen banks issuing cards used for e-banking that have a build-in screen and keypad. Similar devices are in theory possible on a credit card.

    (**): lots of e-banking card reader do exactly that: you can check on the screen what you are asked to sign.

    (***): That's a security feature that's also offered by combining classical credit cards and separate connected device. I can be asked to confirm by SMS / by voice call when the bank detects unusual traffic on my credit card.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Advantages of phone by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Saddly, the phones have their own problems: - they eat batteries like candy (even wireless credit card transaction are remotely powered by the terminal. Whereas a dead phone is dead and can't be used for paying). - again, they are conencted. Which means that they could be compromised themselves. (Specially since people tend to install tons of crap).

      Not to mention they are supposed to be connected but if you don't have reception or there is an interruption to cell service you can't pay.

    2. Re:Advantages of phone by pdhenry · · Score: 1

      Not to mention they are supposed to be connected but if you don't have reception or there is an interruption to cell service you can't pay.

      With Google Wallet you need a connection to periodically (15 minutes, 24 hours, infinity) enter the PIN but other than that you don't need a connection to make a purchase. I have my PIN timeout set to 24 hours and I just make sure it's unlocked before I go somewhere where I might use it.

      With a connection I get an alert when the transaction goes through (as soon as I get a connection if I don't have one at the time) and a later email verification of the payment.

    3. Re:Advantages of phone by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention they are supposed to be connected but if you don't have reception or there is an interruption to cell service you can't pay.

      I don't think Apple Pay needs any WiFi or 3G service to work. Obviously the terminal might, but if that has no connection, then nothing will work.

    4. Re:Advantages of phone by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Obviously the terminal might, but if that has no connection, then nothing will work.

      that's not true. EMV terminals support can support offline approval (most will). up to the merchant if it's enabled.

  18. Barrier will reduce over next couple years by DarkFencer · · Score: 1

    The biggest challenge however is one that both Apple and Google face: Only a small fraction of the 10 million or so retail outlets in the U.S.â"220,000 at last countâ"have checkout readers that can accept payments from either system.

    That is definitely true, but most credit card readers in the US that do not support EMV (aka Chip & Pin or Chip & Signature) have to be replaced if the merchant doesn't want to bear the liability for fraudulent transactions.

    The liability for compromised cards is shifting in October of this year (aside from some unattended systems like gas pumps which happen later). If a merchant does not support EMV and an EMV card is compromised or used fraudulently, the merchant is liable.

    Many of the new EMV capable terminals are also capable of NFC/contactless transactions. It will get a lot more of the physical readers out there. Whether the payment processors/acquirers support it is a different question.

  19. Re:As a retailer... by sl149q · · Score: 1

    Please explain how they add expense over NFC support?

    If you are upgrading your reader to handle chip and pin, then you will also be able to get that with NFC. Possibly that will be slightly more cost than just chip and pin. But that is all you need to support Apple Pay or Google Wallet.

    Now IFF you had said Apple Pay, Google Pay OR NFC is expensive... but the incremental cost of the reader is not that much. And you will want to upgrade to chip and pin (if you are in the US) to avoid liability issues (Oct 2015?)

  20. Here's an idea Google by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    How about Google open their bloody service to countries which actually have NFC machines?

    I mean most of Europe and Australia have had the compatible infrastructure for years, and when jumping through loops (or should I say loopholes) you could actually get Google Wallet working with compatible Android handsets 3-4 years ago.

    Why is it that I am excited for Apple to finally release something here which should have been effortlessly working 4 years ago?

    Google's attempt at "combating" Apple Pay looks like a 3 year old boy punching Dwayne Johnson in the leg. They could be a market leader right now if they wanted to. They could have been one 4 years ago too.

  21. Over twice your age, and my phone goes everywhere by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    You young whippersnappers have so little appreciation for the value of technology. At the pharmacy, I can do a tap-the-terminal NFC payment faster than you can use cash, and with no annoying change to carry around. It navigates me to the early bird special at the diner. It remembers every doctor in town for me. I can make the print in the Kindle app as large as I need when I'm reading books. It can track annuities of any complexity the brokerage can throw at me. It schedules my HOA meetings and lets me get high-res video of the kids on my lawn.

  22. Re:Your choice by Scared+Rabbit · · Score: 2

    I worked for an auction company for a while. We auctioned a lot of farm equipment, tractors, and cars. More than once I saw people roll in and pay absurd amounts of money in cash for things. These people weren't drug dealers. Some people just don't do checks or credit cards.

  23. Re:Your choice by davester666 · · Score: 1

    The US gov't has managed to successfully put over the idea that having more than $10,000 cash is inherently illegal unless you can prove you have the money legally. And if you are stopped for DWB, you better not have more than $100 on you, if you do, it's confiscating because you are a drug dealer.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  24. Re:Why? by afidel · · Score: 1

    It can't be seized through civil forfeiture quite as easily.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  25. Wrong headline? by Imazalil · · Score: 1

    I'm confused. Isn't Google Pay/Wave a default part of android? Shouldn't the headline simply be '3 wireless carriers don't uninstall an app anymore'?

    Being in Canada, I can't say for sure, because Google doesn't want to use it's NFC payment system in a country that is pretty much 90% NFC-able.

  26. meanwhile here in London. .. by MarkH · · Score: 1

    I have a chip based debit card ( pretty much all cards in uk in past 2 years ).

    I can buy in pubs, coffee shops etc with just a swipe ( most chains ) otherwise pin number.

    On London underground you just use card over reader and it works out best ticket ( so if you spend more than 28 pounds in week it buys one weekly pass for last 7 days ).

    Not sure how apple or Google add value to this. Rather wave my card around at random strangers and devices than an expensive phone.

  27. Re:All about ads and analytics by macs4all · · Score: 1

    You use either of these services and they are going to beat you to death with ads and analytics from your spending habits.

    Google already knows enough about me. and Apple knows fuckall about security.

    As for Google, I wholeheartedly agree; but you haven't been listening if you think Apple has ANY knowledge about your specific Apple Pay transactions. They. Just. Don't.

  28. Re:No trust in technology anymore by macs4all · · Score: 1

    These types of services fail when people stop trusting the developer. Google has lost trust in general with privacy and people have generally developed a distrust with technology. Apple claims its Apple pay is successful but only because its end users have a rather blind trust towards anything Apple does. I have no doubt that eventually we will see these types of pay systems attacked and its really just a matter of which one will be first. When you think of how many smartphones are lost or stolen you have to wonder if its a good ideal to also add these kinds of pay services to them?

    Apple Pay is successful partly because of the sheer numbers of iPhones that are capable of using it, and also because, rather than "blind trust", those who aren't simply Apple Haters like you have looked into the specifics and determined for themselves that Apple is not in the business of insinuating itself into your every transaction, like Google does with GW.

    And, if you had paid attention, you would already know that you can DISABLE and even WIPE your Apple Pay info from your stolen or misplaced phone remotely; not to mention that your fingerprint is REQUIRED for Apple Pay, which more or less makes Apple Pay useless for anyone but those with fingerprints already registered to that phone.

  29. Re:Android phone wallet ? by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

    Still no fucking way man ..

  30. Re:As a retailer... by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Doesn't effect retailers if they have modern software in place. End-to-end encryption starting with hardware is pretty tough to beat.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
  31. Re:As a retailer... by DogDude · · Score: 1

    Apple Pay and Google Pay will not be free forever, obviously. Since they're not credit card processors, they'll always be more expensive than using just straight credit card processors.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.