I don’t see how. The systems we’re talking about are for use in in-person transactions. Presumably Android users are visiting the supermarket, convenience store, hardware stores, etc. about as often as Apple users. So the fact that Apple users spend more online doesn’t tell us anything about how much they spend in person or how often they spend in person. And my other point is that if you’re developing a system for in-person transactions, the greater number of Android users “might suggest to retailers that there might be a market worth catering to.”
That’s essentially a set of nonsequiturs assuming that everyone who has money to spend uses their iPhones to do it.
All it says to me is that iPhones have been more successful, through features and user base, in getting people to use their phone as a digital wallet.
Actually, I think those numbers really mean that iPhone users are statistically worse at making wise spending decisions.
I don’t think the vendors really care why you are spending more money in this case.
Doesn’t matter at all? Like, it’s not even a data point that should be considered? I think you’re wrong. I think it strongly debunks the claim (which I was responding to) that Android has more market share, and that that’s an important consideration in determining which phone-as-wallet system will do better. Because Android has more marketshare in phones with web browsers, too, but Apple users buy more things through them.
No, they’re not nonsequitors. And, no, I’m not saying that “everyone” who has money to spend does anything. I am making a claim that iPhone users on average have and spend more money than Android users, so, regardless of the other features or merits of the Google vs Apple phone-as-wallet, the Apple one has the major advantage of being on the phones of richer people who spend more money. And that will, I think, make it more successful. The first part of this, that iPhone users have and spend more money than Android users, is an easily verifiable fact.
Here’s another data point. Take a look at the maps of iPhone users vs Android users.
The second part, that this ability and propensity to spend will result in Apple’s payment thingy succeeding, is conjecture, but I think it’s well-supported.
I don’t think that many iPhone users do use their phones as a digital wallet. Because, as you pointed out, Apple has just announced their implementation. But other than that I think I totally agree with this sentiment. What is it that we disagree about?
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Or do you just think that spending money is always a poor decision?
I also think it’s irrelevant to the point of this thread. Let’s assume you’re correct, and iPhone users spend money frivolously, while Android users are more rational and considerate spenders. If you’re a retailer, which group of users is more valuable to you?
I’m not making a value judgment here. I’m not saying iPhone users are smarter, or more discerning, or better people. I’m saying they’re richer, and spend more money.
So what does this mean for Apple? If people with more money have iPhones than Android phones, then Apple Pay isn’t likely to attract Android users to iPhones. If Apple isn’t making money by attracting Android users to their hardware, then I’d guess that Apple must be making money on each Apple Pay transaction, which likely comes out of the retailers sale price, much like credit card fees are. So much like credit cards fees, I suspect Android pay systems will eventually compete on price, offering lower transaction fees than Apple Pay (much like how Mastercard costs the retailer less than Amex) and eventually retailers will prefer the lower transaction fees keeping Apple Pay from increasing their profit too much. So yes, it will be profitable for Apple, but it won’t be much of a transformational change some expect from Apple. It will be just another way to pay, with margins kept slim though competitive pressure.
Another point IIRC from the presentation is that you put your thumb over the fingerprint reader to verify identity for Apple purchases. Not sure what the Android has, or how secure it is from hacking - but definitely someone won’t easily “find” your iPhone and go on a shopping spree.
In their presentation they stressed the work they put into privacy because it’s a contrast with Google. But you don’t have to trust their words, you can tell the difference from the actions taken. Apple’s implementation is designed so that they don’t have access to the information. Considering how people scrutinize and tear apart Apple stuff, it’s very unlikely they are secretly tracking anything when they’ve so very publicly committed to that privacy angle. If they fuck up, that’s one thing, but if they deliberately violate trust, they’re done. Trust is part of their brand, and they know that.
This isn’t the first time Apple has designed something to protect privacy, even when they didn’t really have to. Most people probably never noticed, but law enforcement have complained that they can’t eavesdrop on criminals because of iMessage encryption. Part of the falling-out between Apple and Google on the maps issue was because Apple didn’t want to give access to customer location information, and Google was holding back some features in retaliation.
IMO, actions speak louder than words.
Actually, one of the issues was that iPhones will send the text as internet data through the Apple system if both ends are on the Apple cloud. Yes, those messages are encrypted, and mixed in with all the internet traffic, but IIRC law enforcement can still read them (with a warrant). The warning with law enforcement was - don’t assume you’re reading all the texts if you are intercepting only actual phone system text messaging; you’re missing all the Apple-to-Apple communication.
I’m a customer of Wells Fargo, and received an e-mail from them last night. I’ve copied and pasted the content below.
*Wells Fargo and Apple Pay: Making on-the-go payment simple and convenient
Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXX,
Life is mobile. Increasingly, we’re connecting, sharing, and making our way through the day with the help of our mobile phones. That’s why we’re excited to be part of Apple PayTM.
Apple Pay allows you to store and use your Wells Fargo credit or debit card in a digital form in the new iPhone® 6 and iPhone 6 Plus — making on-the-go payment simple and convenient. With Apple Pay, this technology will be available at over 200,000 stores, restaurants, and more in the near future.
A simple, secure way to pay for Wells Fargo card holders
We’ve worked with Apple to ensure you can take advantage of this convenient new way to pay. Your Wells Fargo card and Apple Pay let you:
Add your card simply by using your iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 Plus camera
Make contactless payments in person at participating stores
Authorize payments with just the touch of your finger using Touch IDTM
Benefit from Zero Liability protection1 against liability for promptly reported unauthorized card transactions
Apple Pay will work with most of our consumer and small business cards, including Wells Fargo Visa®, and Wells Fargo MasterCard® Credit, Debit, and Prepaid cards, and with our new Wells Fargo Propel American Express® cards.
Apple Pay is another way we’re working to make access to your money safe and simple whenever and however you need it. We’ll keep you updated on this exciting new technology as news becomes available in the coming weeks.
Wells Fargo and Apple Pay. Together, we’re making payment simple.
Read the Wells Fargo and Apple Pay Press Release *
I’m pretty sure I received no such communication when Google launched the Wallet application. So, the reason I think this will succeed where previous efforts have failed, is that the business community takes it seriously when Apple says they will do something.
Probabl you didn’t get such communication when Google Wallet launched because Wells Fargo didn’t partner with Google Wallet. Citibank did, however, so its customers may have received such a communication. And note the use of the phrase “participating stores.” I think it’s more important that the retailers support the system than that your bank thinks it’s a cool idea.
BTW, is using a credit card the old-fashioned way so complicated that we need some new system to do so? Nowadays, many merchants don’t even require a signature for small amounts (under $25 some places, under $50 at my supermarket).
It’s just another thing in my pocket, I don’t even carry a wallet anymore since most everything is on my phone that used to be in my wallet. Just some cash and a card is all I normally carry. Once all merchants start taking NFC payments I’ll be able to ditch them. It’s called progress. And it’s not like they are going to immediately stop taking cards so you will still have the option to use them all you want.
I’m all for shaking my cane at kids in my yard but this idea is one that I like. YMMV.
It’s nothing to do with a complicated transaction process. It’s a convenience and security thing for me.
I have 2 personal credit cards, one debit card, and one corporate issued card I hate carrying a wallet. So much so, that I don’t carry one. I have a case for my phone that has a slot for a max of two cards, one of which is taken up by my driver’s license. So I have to decide which “other” card gets that remaining slot. The other cards go into my backpack. With Applepay, I will likely still need to carry at least one card, for retailers who have not signed onto the program, but I can have the other cards stored electronically in my phone. Better, more convenient for me.
Security wise, it seems to me that the large security breaches we have been hearing about involve retailers and their handling and storage/retention of my credit card data. Specifically, the CC number and the 3/4 digit security code. In my understanding of how A-Pay will work, the retailer will never see and/or have any way to retain, that information. Better security for me, right?
And, yeah, what Si Amigo said.
I think that both Apple Pay and Google Wallet are a long play.
They’re not about whatever piddly transaction fee they’re making right now working with the banks and the credit card companies and all that legacy crap. They’re about owning the whole payment infrastructure in 10 or 15 years. Once people pay with their phones, the company that makes the phones can extract a much larger fee.
I also don’t think that Apple Pay will attract hardly any users from Android. I think that the large screens will attract some users of high-end Android phones (the ones who picked an Android phone because it had a larger screen, but maybe would have preferred iOS otherwise?)
And note that there are plenty of Android users who have money and buy high-end phones and might use a phone payment system. My point in showing that Apple users are on average richer and spend more does not mean that there aren’t a lot of Android users who spend money on and with their phones. It’s simply to counter the “Android has 80% of the smartphone market and Apple has 20%, so if the Android version didn’t succeed, the Apple version doesn’t have the numbers to do so” argument. Because total marketshare of smartphones simply isn’t an important metric in this case.
I like the convenience of paying with my phone, but I like the decreased fraud potential much better. Even though fraud doesn’t have a huge direct impact on me, we’re all paying for it with higher fees. I think this kind of authentication will seriously reduce the amount of fraud in the system, which will lead in time to lower credit card fees.
I think merchants will like this system as from what I see, it removes their liability for fraud. Like CHIP and PIN, the computerized handshake is sufficiently hack-proof (for now) that there is not really any circumstances where the merchant would be faulted for improper care; like they would for checking a signature, not noticing counterfeit cards, etc.
the only problem I see is for any “wave and go” system. Pay attention in case the merchant slips an extra few dollars onto your transaction. But with an electronic trail of transactions, that becomes easier to follow. But, I read that Apple had mentioned “what you bought is not available to the card supplier” as a privacy point - so is the information available to you for tracking expenses etc.?
(My wife mentioned years ago at a fast food restaurant, the cashier missed the decimal point. The fellow who was supposed to be authorizing $20 or so typed in his PIN to pay $2000 and it went through, he did not notice. When they discovered the error, there was panicking to get ahold of this guy and reverse the transaction)
Maybe. However, go read the reviews for the S3… the reviewers absolutely fell all over themselves praising it, but every one mentioned how HUUUUUGGGEEEEE it was.
When I pick up my wife’s S3 (which is cased identically to my Note II), it feels like a tiny fragile toy because I am so used to my beast. I think there is a huge amount of appeal in small, thin, light phones, regardless of other considerations. I don’t see the large iPhones capturing much of the existing market - most users I know are beloved of their little phones and make wrinkly-nose expressions at the bigger ones around the table - or capturing any of the S3/4/5 market.
I didn’t want to be accused of threadshitting, but that’s the question I asked. Credit cards don’t have batteries to die, and since I got a smartphone I often leave it in the car because I don’t want to drag a huge brick everywhere.
I think an entirely new system of payment is decades overdue, and of the possibilities, smartphones have stepped into the center ring as the best contenders. Yes, dead batteries will be a problem, as will absolute security (integral protection against phone theft, not depending on how careful or careless the owner might be)… but the ability to pay for anything from a burger to a car without a wallet (or walletful of weak-security payment tools) will be a boon. Even I think so, against the grain of some other thoughts.
I don’t have an iPhone, so it doesn’t really apply to me, but it’ll be interesting to see how it shakes out. I’m guessing that in a few years that some sort of paying through your cell phone at stores will be more common, but I don’t know if Apple Pay or some future app will be what gets us from here to there.
I don’t know how many places can take Google Wallet payments at the moment, but it sounds like not many will be able to take Apple Pay at least in the immediate future. This article in Slatediscusses some issues with Apple Pay overall, and it mentions that there’s not a lot of places that can do it now, and doesn’t make it sound like retailers would be wanting to jump on:
It is also links to this article in Timewhich discusses the issues with businesses not yet being set up for NFC and not having much incentive at the moment to change. But it does say that maybe businesses and customers would start using Apple Pay (or Google Wallet or other apps) if incentivized:
That would be nice. I don’t have Google Wallet or anything like it at the moment, but would definitely consider it if using it got me good discounts at stores.
Right, this does seem like very unfortunate timing for them. I would think there’d be plenty of people who would have happily started using Apple Pay a month ago but would be more wary now.
Yeah, credit cards aren’t exactly high security at the moment. But inertia is powerful. I think people who have been victims of credit card fraud and people who are just generally more conscious of security will be interested in starting to use Apple Pay, but a lot of people will stick with credit cards, since they do mostly work.
I was looking for more information about security, and found this article on Gizmodo that discusses the good, bad, and unknown. The two step process is good, and adds an extra level of security like the chip and pin in Europe. The bad is that hackers can and will hack, and Touch ID is hackable, and NFC transmissions can be hijacked. This isn’t unique to Apple Pay, it would apply to any NFC transmissions of course. The article says: