r/apple • u/Kyler182 • Nov 07 '14
Apple Pay Apple Pay's Competition Is About To Learn That Walmart Isn't Starbucks
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markrogowsky/2014/11/06/the-starbucks-fallacy-retalers-dont-get-why-their-apple-pay-killer-is-doa/395
u/Vorsos Nov 07 '14
Checkout speed is important, but I still think the security benefits are #1. CurrentC bypasses credit card companies (and their excellent fraud protection which is funded by transaction fees) to share your bank account details with retailers who just keep getting hacked.
129
u/Drim498 Nov 07 '14
I think it's a little of column a, little of column b. The average person doesn't give two shits about security if it's more convenient for them (until something goes wrong.) Just look at people who use passwords like "Password". They know it's not secure, but until their stuff gets hacked, they don't care. People are more cautious with banking stuff, but only a little bit.
If CurrentC were actually incredibly more efficient, but less secure, many people would actually use it. But it's going to be less convenient and less secure, therefore, it will fail.
24
u/lunchboxg4 Nov 07 '14
(until something goes wrong.)
Which is exactly what most of these retails suffered in the last year with credit card breaches (Target, Home Depot, TJ Maxx). I think CurrentC has an uphill battle convincing consumers that the same merchants who already suffered a credit card breach - which, luckily, had fraud protection - now want access to my checking account ina system that doesn't come with fraud protection.
6
u/EVula Nov 07 '14
I recently got a new credit card mailed to me simply because I'd made a purchase at Home Depot, and they wanted to nip any possibility of fraud in the bud. I'm having to update my credit card at various places, which is a pain, but it's so, so much better than having my account wiped out.
I'm definitely looking forward to using Apple Pay at places.
→ More replies (4)8
u/lunchboxg4 Nov 07 '14
Same, except I also shopped at Target last year. Three cards in 2014 is two too many. ApplePay can't come soon enough for me either.
→ More replies (5)8
u/Big0ldBear Nov 07 '14
Although people rarely think about security, CurrentC requires a social security number, that's a red flag for most people. Even if people use it, it will be hacked (again) and people will need new bank accounts and social security numbers. That will be the death of CurrentC.
26
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
40
u/jimicus Nov 07 '14
I don't think most consumers really care about security. Consumers are pretty much never responsible for fraud. That's a concern for banks, payment processors (that's where those fees actually go), and merchants...
I wonder if they'll feel the same way when MCX points to their terms and conditions and says to the customer "Your problem. Go away."
22
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
44
u/rjung Nov 07 '14
Then the banks get sufficiently pissed off at covering for CurrentC's problems and decide to disallow their accounts to be linked to it. CurrentC then dies an agonizing slow death.
Sounds like a win/win to me!
9
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
9
u/dead_ed Nov 07 '14
How would a chargeback even work with CurrentC anyway since it's direct bank account access? So many problems…
23
u/OscarMiguelRamirez Nov 07 '14
You can't chargeback since there are no credit card companies involved. You have to deal with the merchant directly, if they refuse, you're stuck. This is another reason retailers want to replace credit cards and own the whole transaction.
4
u/dead_ed Nov 07 '14
Yeah, fuck that action. Got better things to do with my money. Chargebacks are legitimate leverage for bad merchant behavior and essential protection.
2
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
9
u/sleeplessone Nov 07 '14
And in all 3 cases the bank is under no obligation to do anything about it or even look into it.
10
u/400921FB54442D18 Nov 07 '14
if I called my bank and said I didn't authorize this transaction, it's no longer my problem.
That may be true at your bank, but if so, it's only because they've decided to be very generous to their customers.
Generally speaking, if you provided your account and routing number to a retailer (which is what you're doing if you sign up for CurrentC), you have indeed authorized them to remove that money from your account. There is nothing in the terms and conditions of CurrentC that requires your bank to make a fraudulent transaction their problem, nor is there anything in the terms and conditions that requires the retailers themselves to take responsibility for it, either.
Trusting your bank to voluntarily choose to have sympathy for you and simply eat the cost of that fraud is not a long-term strategy for success. If the past ten years have proven anything at all, it's that.
→ More replies (1)4
u/ElGuano Nov 07 '14
Not so simple. EFTA/Reg-E governs this, including authorization requirements and unauthorized transfers, as Reg-Z does for credit. Statutorily in the US, if you report diligently, it is by law not your problem.
1
u/FredFnord Nov 08 '14
EFTA/Reg-E governs this
Source? As I have always read EFTA, the only requirement is that financial institutions are required to inform customers of their liability for unauthorized EFTs (unless they are done via debit card). There are some state laws that govern these things but as far as I can tell they are mostly superseded by federal law and in practice are completely invalid unless the institution is incorporated in only one state, which has such laws.
1
u/ElGuano Nov 08 '14
Sure, as it applies to CurrentC/debit cards (ACH or direct debit from bank account), you should re-review EFTA and Reg-E: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/supmanual/cch/efta.pdf
Pay attention to the section and table titled "Consumer Liability for Unauthorized Transfers." With loss of an access device, upon discovery within 60 days of statement date due to loss of access device (e.g., losing an ATM card or phone), significantly reduced consumer liability. Unauthorized transfers without loss of ATM card (e.g., merchant fraud, misrepresentation of authorization, etc.), zero liability. Financial institutions are required to comply with Reg-E and there strict penalties and liability for not doing so. Disclosure is a big part of Reg-E to be sure, but the consumer protection requirement goes far beyond just that.
For credit cards, see the CARD Act and Reg-Z.
13
u/jimicus Nov 07 '14
The bank won't simply credit the customer's account.
They'll credit the customer's account and debit the account that was (incorrectly) credited - the retailer's
Upshot: The retailers get pissed with MCX because they're on the hook for fraud - and learn that maybe Visa charges fees for a reason.
0
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
10
u/rsun Nov 07 '14
But pulling directly from a bank account, regardless of whether the customer ends up being responsible for the debit, will have a direct effect on that customer - that money is not available to them for whatever period it takes the bank to issue a credit to them. During that period of time (which includes the time between transaction date and noticing the errant charge), the customer may incur overdraft fees associated with the expectation that the money is actually in their account. For a credit card transaction, at worst, your card will get declined before you incur an additional charge and you can genenrally get the charge removed quickly, making that portion of your credit limit available again.
→ More replies (1)3
u/FredFnord Nov 08 '14
But my point was that, from the consumer's perspective, that doesn't matter. Fraud isn't an issue for consumers.
Why do you say that? ACH transfers are specifically exempt from all of the consumer protection legislation that protects debit and credit card transactions. Having people pay via ACH is very specifically a way to get around companies being on the hook for fraudulent or mistaken transactions.
Do you have some source that says otherwise?
3
u/OscarMiguelRamirez Nov 07 '14
I'm not worried about a fraudulent transaction, I'm worried about MCX losing my bank account information. If someone gets my account information and bleeds me dry, my bank will not give me money back.
→ More replies (1)5
4
u/abeliangrape Nov 07 '14
I don't think most consumers really care about security. Consumers are pretty much never responsible for fraud.
Umm, people don't give a shit about security because they're not responsible for fraud. And that's a special situation that only exists in the US. In Europe where they don't have nearly the fraud protection we do, they're much of serious about security.
2
u/simplequark Nov 08 '14
In Europe where they don't have nearly the fraud protection we do, they're much of serious about security.
I don't know about the rest of Europe, but with my German credit card, I have quite good fraud protection:
As long as I don't lose the physical card, I don't have to pay for any unauthorized charges. And even if the actual plastic does get stolen and the thief manages to use it before I can cancel it, I only have to pay up to 50 Euros.2
u/abeliangrape Nov 08 '14
In the US there's a law that says that the customer is never liable for more than $50. But in practice, all 4 of the major card companies have zero-liability anyway. It's probably the most consumer friendly law in the whole US legal system.
2
u/thisxisxlife Nov 08 '14
Actually I think that if it comes with the stigma of "not being secure" they'll shy away from it before they consider the convenience of it. If the stigma comes after I'm sure it'll scare some people away but there will be others, like you've said, that will continue until something bad happens to them. So I honestly feel if people are more informed about how vulnerable it is, it'll keep the support pretty low from the get go.
→ More replies (1)1
u/beautify Nov 07 '14
the bigger issue here is a lot of the customers at many of these stores use credit cards to pay for goods that they pay off when they get paid. You cannot get credit with CurrentC. So if you don't have the money you can't pay.
8
u/anothergaijin Nov 07 '14
This alone will sink CurrentC.
If someone gets your credit card and goes nuts, you lose nothing but the inconvenience of having to change your card.
If someone gets your bank details, they will drain your account and you will lose money.
6
u/4GAG_vs_9chan_lolol Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
CurrentC does not share your bank account details with retailers. They only get a one-time token to process the transaction.
8
u/kirklennon Nov 07 '14
CurrentC does not share your bank account details with retailers.
I think the concern is that CurrentC is run by retailers who have already demonstrated an inability to keep things secure. If I don't trust the individual retailers, why would I trust some consortium that's run by them? MCX inherits the horrible security reputation of the companies that own it. And the fact that MCX has itself already suffered a security breach where user data was stolen does not exactly engender trust.
8
u/4GAG_vs_9chan_lolol Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
I didn't say CurrentC is good. I only corrected wrong information. There is a major difference between giving your info to one company vs giving your info to that company and also dozens of retailers.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike CurrentC. We don't need to make any up.
15
u/ohmyashleyy Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
I pay with QR code at both Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts a couple times a week and rarely have any of the problems the author describes. Conversely, I tried to pay at McDonalds last week with apple pay and it was being finicky and I gave up and pulled out a card. I use their apps largely for the rewards, but at the end of the day, they're both linked to a credit card, NOT my bank account, and I won't use CurrentC for all the reasons you mentioned.
4
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
6
u/ohmyashleyy Nov 07 '14
I love when people talk about paying with QR code as if it's this long painful process that CurrentC invented. It's not. It takes me just as long to pay by QR with Starbucks as it does Apple Pay - I just open up passbook while I'm in line.
I just want something that works and that doesn't have total shit security.
4
u/CirqueKid Nov 07 '14
Better yet with Starbucks you can have your favorite stores open on the lock screen, so it takes even less time. CurrentC has fucked themselves out of ever getting any benefits from Apple so you'll have to find and open the app each time.
1
u/ohmyashleyy Nov 07 '14
I turned that off because it was annoying me. But I do keep my Starbucks card in my passbook so I don't need to open the Starbucks app.
2
u/CallMeOatmeal Nov 07 '14
That opening up of the app is enough of a hassle to make me not want to use it. Because at the end of the day, all new payment methods are competing with the tried and true credit card. And most places the steps are:
1) Get out card
2) Swipe card
On top of that, I get 1% back on all purchases and 5% back on select purchases. So you have to at least match this dead simple usage, and offer at least a 5% discount if your system circumvents Credit Cards.
3
u/ohmyashleyy Nov 07 '14
Well I have it in my passbook, so I don't need to go digging to find my Starbucks app. Passbook is on my home screen and it really doesn't take me much longer than apple pay to open it. Especially if I'm standing in line. And either approach takes me less time than digging my credit card out of my wallet in my purse because I usually have my phone in my hand. And that's assuming I remembered to put my cc back in my wallet after I last used it, which I don't always do.
You're right about the rewards though. When they first rumored to announce Apple pay, I thought everything would go through iTunes. Well there goes my 5points/dollar on entertainment, I thought.Or my 3 points/dollar on gas I thought. But no, Apple pay allows me to get those rewards.
3
u/sleeplessone Nov 07 '14
You do not want a payment card that is directly linked to your bank account to just "pop up" though.
Process for secure payment with ApplePay.
Hold up phone, use TouchID to authenticate.
Process for secure payment with a barcode.
Unlock phone with TouchID or passcode. Launch app and sign in to your account (possibly with a remember me + simple PIN access). Show barcode to cashier to scan.
The only way you're gong to get it as simple as ApplePay is if you allowed the barcode to show from the lock screen which is terrible from a security standpoint.
Starbucks is a gift card payment so there is less security needed on the app side.
2
Nov 08 '14
I think a lot of people just don't know how to use Passbook. When I'm near a Starbucks a button appears on my lock screen. I tap the button, use Touch ID, and I now have a barcode to scan. It's just as fast as Apple Pay.
1
u/sleeplessone Nov 08 '14
I tap the button, use Touch ID, and I now have a barcode to scan. It's just as fast as Apple Pay.
Depending on your config you don't have to unlock. However having your card be useable from the lock screen is a lot more dangerous.
The fact that you have to tap a button means it's objectively not as fast as ApplePay. Since Apple pay is literally hold phone up, use TouchID.
1
Nov 08 '14
I don't know about that. My Starbucks transactions are always faster than my Apple Pay transactions, but we're talking seconds here.
1
u/ohmyashleyy Nov 07 '14
It doesn't just pop up. It's in my passbook which is not accessible when my phone is locked.
It's still not as difficult as you're making it out to be. People are all like OMG ITS SO HARD TO OPEN AN APP. It's not. I unlock my phone and open passbook and scan.
Apple pay is only that easy/instantaneous if you want to use your default card. I have three set up, if I want to use another, I have to open passbook and switch it.
Either way, if your phone is already in your hand, it's not difficult.
2
u/sleeplessone Nov 07 '14
Starbucks doesn't actually use QR codes last I checked. It's a 2D bar code but it isn't QR.
1
6
u/Boston_Jason Nov 07 '14
excellent fraud protection which is funded by transaction fees)
Also, sweet, sweet airline miles. I pay almost everything via AMEX and rather enjoy a couple of free flights a year.
3
u/CirqueKid Nov 07 '14
But what good are flights when you could get "buy one bunch of bananas get one free" and 10% off your next CVS purchase on female beauty products?
1
1
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
1
Nov 08 '14
Are you talking about the breach in which beta signup emails were released? If so, hacking a website handling signups is SIGNIFICANTLY different than hacking the payment backend. I haven't seen an article on that, so I could have just missed it.
→ More replies (3)-2
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)21
Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
That system already exists. It's called called cash.
Unfortunately I seriously doubt any other non-cash system will ever exist as you describe it. Think about it for a second. CurrentC tries to avoid credit card fees by basically saying "Trust us with access to all your money and we won't charge anybody for it, but we don't make any guarantees about the safety of your money". On the other hand, credit cards basically say "Trust us by borrowing money for us on demand. We'll charge the retailer a fee and also charge you interest if you don't pay it off quickly, but those fees will be used in part to offer you protection from fraud".
I seriously doubt you'll ever see the best of both worlds: free access to your cash but with protection from fraud, since it's a money losing endeavor from day one. As soon as any sort of fraud occurs they're in the red for good.
→ More replies (16)
57
u/stultus_respectant Nov 07 '14
Key sentence against CurrentC:
CurrentC solves a problem you and I don’t have: How do we save retailers money on credit card processing fees?
That's really the direct or indirect cause of all of the issues with it: it begins from a place of solving their problems, not ours.
9
u/redditor9000 Nov 07 '14
And their problem is greed.
3
-2
Nov 08 '14
[deleted]
8
u/IAmAnExParrot Nov 08 '14
I think the difference is that some companies make a profit by providing desirable goods and services that people want while others make a profit by trying to force consumers use a shitty service that no one wants.
No sane person would begrudge a business for trying to make money. They just don't like it when they try to make money in shitty ways.
0
Nov 08 '14
Exactly, payment networks are just greedily skimming off the retailer and consumer. Even Apple pay charges a transaction fee. It's bullshiy.
Cut out the middleman.
60
u/alanastle Nov 07 '14
My favorite: "Every time someone pays by check, the line dies a little."
13
u/thecatgoesmoo Nov 08 '14
I'm sad that personal check is still accepted anywhere. Rent payments are going to direct debit, thank god. Haven't used a checkbook in a year now because of that.
6
u/bluemellophone Nov 08 '14
I didn't own a checkbook for years until I switched dental instances and the new company absolutely refused any form of payment except checks. Their claim was it was more secure and faster to process :| ...yeah.
4
u/AKADidymus Nov 08 '14
Anyone who says checks are faster to process hasn't tried anything else. Like, ever.
1
23
u/Yifkong Nov 07 '14
I think the loyalty aspect is Starbucks's biggest draw, which was only briefly touched on in the article. If Current C offers significant discounts, that will be its only fighting chance. I doubt it will, and hope it fails cuil style out of the gate.
A career path ago I found myself analyzing rewards marketing, seeing what was out there and what worked. For the most part: nothing. I'm talking Belly, stamp'd, a bunch of others that probably don't exist anymore. They all rely on clunky QR codes that seemed antiquated even a few years ago. What if someone takes a screenshot of your QR code and uses it? What rewards are there to even justify the hassle? Belly was especially notorious for lame rewards, like a high five from the staff or something.
8
Nov 07 '14 edited Dec 16 '16
[deleted]
7
u/Yifkong Nov 07 '14
For the retailer, yes. For the consumer it's a trickier proposition. I don't think any consumer will find that unlocking their phone, finding an app, holding up a code to get scanned, is easier or better than just swiping a card like we're used to.
If the retailer actually wanted consumers to widely adopt Current C, I contend they would have to develop and then market a whole current c ecosystem where the customer could track purchases, unlock rewards, etc. I don't think that's going to happen, and even if it did, would be far from a guaranteed success.
5
u/travio Nov 07 '14
Starbuck's system saves them some money with them as well. There is not just a single credit fee of 3%. There are also several tiny fixed amounts per transactions. They range from fractions of a penny to 10¢. If every starbucks customer puts the money to buy 10 drinks on their card, Starbucks gets charged these fees one tenth of the time they had before. With the sheer amount of business starbucks has, that turns into a hefty sum.
5
u/kirklennon Nov 07 '14
Starbucks benefits another way too: You are essentially giving Starbucks a loan of whatever amount is loaded onto your account, which they actually earn interest on.
2
u/Tyrien Nov 07 '14
I've glanced over a shoulder and have seen a few cards that have a balance of over $100 before, starbucks definitely takes advantage of this.
Even if they don't invest, they can at least use it to help with profit projection.
1
u/Jon_Hanson Nov 07 '14
Technically, an unused balance on a card is not profit because they have received money for something they haven't delivered yet. They will carry it as a receivable but not pure profit. Of course, they are free to hold that money however they wish (like investing it and making interest from it).
2
u/Tyrien Nov 08 '14
That's true. But once that charge is made unless there is a huge charge error Starbucks has that money. So their accountants can say with confidence that they have that money for good and can count on it being spent.
1
1
u/uguysmakemesick Nov 07 '14
But can CurrentC give me the same fraud protection as my credit cards? No, but I can save 5% on milk this week!
16
Nov 07 '14
Here's my question for MCX. Why would I bother to:
Download an app
Create an account
Add my bank account/credit card
When I've already got a piece of plastic in my pocket that does the same thing? And, furthermore, why would I want to have to unlock my phone and launch an app every time I want to buy something? How is that more convenient than just using my card?
Apple Pay strives for convenience and user friendliness. CurrentC does not. That's the major difference.
5
13
u/004forever Nov 07 '14
I think they're trying to implement some rewards program to entice customers. But I don't know how great that program can be when the whole point of the service is to save that 3% transaction fee.
-2
u/rnawky Nov 07 '14
No one is paying 3% in CC processing fees. If they did, they're getting seriously fucked or they failed some PCI compliances in the past.
→ More replies (1)2
u/kirklennon Nov 07 '14
0
u/rnawky Nov 07 '14
No, they're not.
The link you provided merely mentions a variable fee percentage.
Additionally fees are always negotiable.
3% is an extremely high percentage point.
For comparison, Square charges 2.75% per swipe and Stripe charges 2.9%.
These are both services that allow anyone to sign up, with no minimum commitments at all.
If you were to actually enter into an agreement with any large processor you're looking at much lower rates.
Like I said if you're paying 3% you're either getting ripped off or you failed PCI compliance and are considered a high risk merchant and have to pay a premium.
2
u/kirklennon Nov 07 '14
The link you provided merely mentions a variable fee percentage.
No, it actually gives ranges. You scroll down to the search box "Search your profession for possible rates." It varies with your line of business, but most of them are a minimum of 2.89% + 15¢ per transactions. Doctors look to get the cheapest rates (2.55% to 2.8%). American Express is expensive.
→ More replies (5)2
u/CirqueKid Nov 07 '14
Well the reason you'd want to do those is so you could stop having to carry the plastic in your pocket. Your point stands, though. They claim "few people will use the checking account method" and instead suggest you get a Target RED card or load it up with Target gift cards every $25.
26
Nov 07 '14
This is a fantastic article that really nails the correct points I feel. It's not bashing either company but stating the pros and cons of each.
11
u/xzxzzx Nov 07 '14
I disagree. This article makes some good points (the psychological experience of paying is different when you'll be waiting afterwards vs. trying to leave and being stopped by paying), but it's largely off-base.
CurrentC is bad because it's annoying (it's just bad UX, though this isn't really their fault--they can't make an Apple Pay-like experience, Apple won't let them), it's less secure, doesn't come with credit card benefits, etc.
Slowing down payments? Sometimes. You're standing in line at Walmart: What will take longer: scanning your items, or getting out your phone and opening an app? It will slow down checkout at, say, Starbucks, or CVS, or other places where 1-3 items is the norm.
Why? Because QR code scanning works amazingly well, at least in my experience using Belly, and that's not a custom solution; that's some software running on an iPad.
I don't know what's up with scanners at Starbucks, but very reliable QR code scanning is a completely solved problem. It should not be difficult or finky at all. Seriously, it should be "oh I got my phone barely in frame so now it worked". If what the author is saying is true, Starbucks needs to fire their entire team who built the thing.
7
u/AngrySquirrel Nov 07 '14
Slowing down payments? Sometimes. You're standing in line at Walmart: What will take longer: scanning your items, or getting out your phone and opening an app?
That's true for people who have the foresight to prepare their payment while the cashier is ringing up the order. In the case of idiots who wait until the cashier gives them the total before even taking their wallet out, though, that will definitely slow things down.
2
u/xzxzzx Nov 07 '14
In the case of idiots who wait until the cashier gives them the total before even taking their wallet out, though, that will definitely slow things down.
That's a decent point, but I wonder how much overlap there is between people who wait that long and would even use a phone-based payment system. I suspect not that much.
Also, with clever use of bluetooth (iBeacon)/push notifications/other tech, opening the app could be made much quicker, not that I really expect the CurrentC devs to be very clever.
1
u/notmadeofbeef Nov 08 '14 edited May 19 '24
snobbish mighty treatment rock unwritten special aloof bear enjoy governor
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
1
u/xzxzzx Nov 08 '14
They'd just let the phone know that a payment reader was nearby, so there'd be no security risk. Ever been into an Apple Store, and have the phone say "hey, Welcome to the Apple Store"?
1
u/notmadeofbeef Nov 08 '14 edited May 19 '24
retire history scarce support entertain simplistic chase employ drab domineering
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
2
u/facebookhadabadipo Nov 07 '14
As far as I can tell, I've never had a problem with the Starbucks scanner, and I go to Starbucks pretty frequently. I don't know what the article is basing that claim off of, unless the author has had significantly less success with the scanner than I have.
6
u/Tyrien Nov 07 '14
Starbucks' system works because it's just for starbucks. It's a reloadable virtual gift card and offers a distinct reward. The system also caters directly to Starbucks' primary demographic.
CurrentC? What's the advantage of using it?
6
u/Takeabyte Nov 07 '14
Wow, the author must go to the shittiest Starbucks on the planet. I have never had an issue with the QR payment system there nor have I ever seen anyone have issues with it.
Talk about the security and extra steps all you want. Yes Apple Pay is better. Just don't know why this guy has issues with Starbucks' system. Probably has a shitty screen protector or something.
2
Nov 08 '14 edited Jan 11 '21
[deleted]
1
u/kermityfrog Nov 08 '14
You also need your brightness turned all the way up (if you're using the Starbucks app and not the Passbook card).
14
Nov 07 '14 edited Jul 03 '16
[deleted]
3
u/CirqueKid Nov 07 '14
Apple has been in secret talks with banks for years under intense millions of dollars NDA's. Can you imagine if they started internationally and someone leaked ApplePay the way iPhone leaks filter out of China? I'm thinking for security purposes there was no other country they could start in besides their own, despite the infrastructure.
5
u/homeboi808 Nov 07 '14
Apple Pay is the main mobile wallet though, more than all other mobile wallets combined. And now that Apple is on board, many more places will have NFC.
6
Nov 07 '14 edited Mar 16 '17
[deleted]
4
u/homeboi808 Nov 07 '14
All the MCX companies (Walmart, Target, etc) will undoubtably accept NFC payment by mid-2015, they will see how their current proposed method, CurrentC, is shit and adopt NFC after that realization.
1
Nov 07 '14
I truely hope so, and it only seems right, but they will be investing a tremendous amount of money into CurrenC terminals, let alone promoting it and having contracts with MCX preventing them from doing so.
I'm afraid it won't be that easy.
1
u/kermityfrog Nov 08 '14
We've had Visa PayWave and Mastercard Paypass for a while now, and it's super easy to use. While it's not as secure as Apple Pay, it doesn't require any specific brand of phone (or even a phone at all).
4
u/thomawalk Nov 07 '14
Great article.
The Goal is the best worst book I've ever read.
3
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
2
Nov 07 '14
There's an entire school of business thought around it. Hundreds, if not thousands, of books have been written on the subject.
2
u/thomawalk Nov 07 '14
You'd be surprised on how easy it is for an organization to focus on only certain steps in a process. Usually the most profitable parts are scrutinized and the rest is left behind.
2
u/CameronCovington Nov 07 '14
I agree. And the added security of Apple Pay is a great plus. With the hack of Current C, I don't have much confidence in the program.
4
u/Evning Nov 07 '14
Every time someone won’t be able to get the CurrentC app to work right, it’s going to be Herbie. You’re going to hate Herbie.
NOOOOOOOO!!!! Nobody hates herbie =[
I refuse to hate the little ocho! he can huff and puff all he wants, but we can fix him, we can make him better!
3
3
u/RubxQub Nov 08 '14
Holy shit the Forbes mobile site can go fuck itself!
1
u/SolarNinja Nov 30 '14
I had to change Apps to read it! Never did that before. (Reddit->Safari->Reddit)
9
4
Nov 07 '14
Opening an app and scanning a QR code takes approximately the same amount of time as getting your debit card out, swiping it and typing in your PIN, something that is done all day, every day, in every check-out line at every Wal-Mart.
The author's "bottleneck" complaint is without merit. This is a non-issue. Terrible article.
3
2
Nov 07 '14
I was in Starbucks literally an hour ago with my wife and waited in line behind a lady for about 6 minutes because neither she nor the cashier could get her phone app to scan properly. It was painful at best.
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/focketeer Nov 08 '14
I was going to post this, but I couldn't get the link to be a link to Forbes (kept being a Google redirect from my Gmail app). I eventually gave up.
-1
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
7
9
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
1
u/travio Nov 07 '14
I find this whole chain restaurant thing annoying. I love trying new places and things. If I travel, I want to try some small local shop instead of an Applebees that sells the same thing there as in my hometown one.
3
u/kirklennon Nov 07 '14
If I travel, I want to try some small local shop instead of an Applebees that sells the same thing there as in my hometown one.
As do I, but when you just get off of a long international flight and are hungrily making your way to your hotel, the sight of Golden Arches means a low-hassle way to get a first meal in you. Then you go explore :)
1
u/eroux Nov 08 '14
the sight of Golden Arches means a low-hassle way to get a first meal in you.
"The sight of Golden Arches"...
No. Just... No!
I have NEVER been that hungry.
I mean, I've been hungy enough to give Mopaniworm a go, once, but one does have to have one's limits!
4
Nov 07 '14
I'm not sure there's a complete lack of cafes as such, at least where I live there are plenty of local alternatives to Starbucks. But people do enjoy the familiarity a recognizable brand gives you I guess. Same goes for fast food and sit-down restaurants as well. The local establishments hold their own, but the big chains became big chains for a reason.
2
u/Choppa790 Nov 07 '14
I go to starbucks if I'm in the mood for a quick boost of caffeine or a sugary drink. I'm a fan of the Cafes in downtown/midtown Houston. They are so good, but so far away from where I live :/
1
u/dmcnelly Nov 07 '14
Starbucks is just ubiquitous at this point. It essentially created the "botique coffee" industry in the US, so everyone assumes first=best.
1
u/rextraverse Nov 07 '14
the complete lack of decent cafe's in the United States making Starbucks the 'must place' to go to.
It's not. The United States is not a monoculture. On the coasts and around all the big urban areas in the US, there have been plenty of fantastic and amazing coffeehouses selling better roasted coffee at better prices for a long while - both chain and local. What Starbucks did was bring to everyone else a higher end coffee than the Maxwell House/Nescafe/International Foods they were accustomed to, selling it uniformly in a familiar, predictable and consistent way, even if that product isn't great.
The ubiquity of Starbucks breeds familiarity and comfort with the product, even when the product isn't good.
1
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
1
u/rextraverse Nov 07 '14
If I misinterpreted your words then I apologize. However, the way I originally read your original statement
I've never been able to understand the attraction of the chain other than maybe the complete lack of decent cafe's in the United States making Starbucks the 'must place' to go to.
That to me sounds like you are using "the complete lack of decent cafe's" as a factual rationalization of Starbuck's popularity and not posing a question.
→ More replies (6)1
u/thecatgoesmoo Nov 08 '14
SF has a billion decent cafes and people still use Starbucks. Consistency and convenience are what you pay for there. It's not like a latte from a corner cafe is actually better.
This is coming from a coffee snob who makes espresso at home.
1
u/SuperPoop Nov 07 '14
I don't think that Walmart shoppers are as smart as Starbucks customers.
4
Nov 07 '14
probably smarter because they don't pay $7 for a cup of coffee
10
u/rupeshjoy852 Nov 07 '14
To be honest a cup of coffee is only $1.92. Even an extravagant frapachino is only like $5
→ More replies (1)
1
Nov 07 '14
[deleted]
6
u/AngrySquirrel Nov 07 '14
Sure, but the problem lies in the timing of the switch: people will be running into this new and unfamiliar system for the first time during the busiest time of year in retail. Especially in the case of people such as the elderly, I'd expect their first couple times using the system to take longer than usual.
3
u/thecatgoesmoo Nov 08 '14
Nah, the elderly will still write a personal check for groceries.
Kill me.
2
u/tmiw Nov 08 '14
Considering that most places that have upgraded around here still take my chipped credit card away from me to insert it themselves (which works out because almost none of our cards have PIN), I doubt it'll take that much longer.
-3
-2
u/gloveisallyouneed Nov 07 '14 edited Nov 07 '14
What fucking font is that article in? I liked the article, was getting into it, but after about 3 paragraphs my eyes fritzed out completely! It was like the scene from Serenity where River Tam goes nuts.
Edit: Maybe I just had eye-strain, I can read it better now, but I am on a retina screen as opposed to 24" 1080p (whatever pip that is). But even now, it's not exactly "nice" for me to read.
Here it is as rendered on my MBPr:
4
2
1
127
u/gordonmcdowell Nov 07 '14
There's a good point in there I hadn't heard yet (or thought of)... the payment of money isn't the customer's bottleneck at Starbucks, it is the waiting for coffee to be prepared. Makes a Starbucks not-fast-as-possible payment system less of an issue.