Maybe because it’s now part of Google Wallet?
Read the thread, that’s what it’s about. Mostly it seems to be convenience. So far, I have not been able to confirm that.
But is it more convenient than just tapping the credit card itself?
As discussed upthread at length, the merchant never gets your CC number. So them being hacked, or having a dishonest employee, can’t possibly come back to fraud your card.
Further, carrying a dozen cards is bulky, while 1, 3, or a dozen cards in your phone doesn’t change the size of your phone
In the modern world, carrying your phone is a necessity; carrying a wallet is optional. Anything that increases the optionality / obsolescence of wallets is good.
I don’t like having to juggle my wallet and my card and my purse all at the same time.
Do people still do that? I manage quite fine with one credit and one debit card. And my wallet contents are quite streamlined, something I’ve been working on perfecting for years.
I have several. I always carry at least 2 because I travel a lot. Having just 1 and having it quit working 3000 miles and 2 weeks from home is … awkward.
I too am a big streamliner. But by replacing stupid bulky physical artifacts by weightless electronic ones.
I’m out at dinner right now. My phone is my payment device, my ride summoner, and my car keys. Plus my worldwide communicator supporting our conversation. My pockets are otherwise empty. I just wish my phone was the size of a fingernail, not a thin king size cig packet.
Replace “modern banking” with “American banking” and you would be correct. The idea of paying a bill online at my bank and having them print and mail a paper cheque on my behalf is absolutely absurd.
Huh? Why would a bank mail you a paper check?
Yes, mine says the same thing. It also says “You can still tap to pay using the Google Wallet app”. Google Pay has essentially been replaced by Google Wallet. The details of the history are complicated (roughly it went Google Wallet → Android Pay → Google Pay → Google Wallet):
You would have to ask an American bank. This is unheard of in Canada.
https://www.usbank.com/customer-service/knowledge-base/KB0070064.html
Most bill payments are sent electronically. However, some may be sent as paper checks if the amount is above the electronic payment threshold, or the company doesn’t accept electronic payments.
You can determine which type of payment will be sent based on the available payment dates displayed in the scheduling calendar. If your first available payment date is:
- Two business days or sooner: The biller accepts electronic payments.
- Three business days or more: The biller doesn’t accept electronic payments. Therefore, it will be sent as a paper check.
The key phrase here is ‘on my behalf’. I use online bill pay at my bank for one supplier of the LLC that I manage. The supplier doesn’t take payments electronically, so the I submit the bill payment, and the bank mails him a check.
(Yes, I’ve asked him several times if I can pay electronically, but he has always declined.)
But why wouldn’t you just send the supplier a check yourself? It’s on par with giving my credit card to a waiter to wander into a back room somewhere with it.
To clarify …
A lot of American consumer online banking goes like this:
I use my bank’s website to instruct my bank to pay vendor X the amount $Y… Which my bank does by debiting my account into their own for $Y, then printing a paper check for $Y drawn on their funds, then snail-mailing that check to the address of my vendor. Who receives it eventually and deposits the paper manually into their bank. Meanwhile they get the interest float on $Y for however many days it takes the post office pony express to deliver the check, plus the recipient to negotiate it at their bank, plus that bank to present it for settlement back to my bank. Enough dollars time enough days equals big bucks.
That is what a LOT of “electronic banking” in the USA is like.
There are many vendors, usually large ones like utilities or credit card companies who can be paid directly, instantly, and purely electronically by major banks. But if either your bank or your vendor is less than a huge company, a paper check will be printed and mailed.
As to @FinsToTheLeft just above. …
I can tell my bank just once to pay my housekeeper $X every week and they will. I can tell them to pay my ever-varying utility bill in full every month and they will. Even a one-off payment is probably arranged more quickly online than me finding a paper check, a pen, an envelope, and a stamp to mail it myself.
For all those reasons, consumers writing paper checks is declining. Banks creating and therefore having to receive paper checks is declining a lot less.
What @LSLGuy said
Far easier for me to enter the amount and click the Pay button than to do all that stuff involved in writing and mailing a check.
No, it’s not even close to that. It’s on par with me telling my accountant to write a check for the monthly bill from the office supply company.
This was all based on @Chronos comment about a modern banking system and my point that American is not synonymous with modern when it comes to banking.
I can do all of that up here with an Interac direct payment and just send it so the recipients email or mobile number. If they are registered for auto-deposit it automatically goes into their account of choice, usually under 2 minutes from withdraw to deposit. If they choose not to register, they have to click the link and login to their banking portal and choose an account, so it is dependent on their schedule.
Ah, true, I’ve heard that the rest of the world has developed some actual online banking systems.
Even there, the method of payment in the US is usually “Here’s all of the information you’d need to drain my account completely dry. But you pinky-swear that you’re only going to take out the amount I agreed to, right? I’m sure I can trust you, then.”.
With an actual modern banking system, actually designed for security, it’s more like “I owe you $57.23, so here’s exactly the information you need to get $57.23 from me, one time, that won’t work for any other amount or for anyone else or ever again”.
That would be very similar, I believe, to the Zelle app in the USA, which is a bank-to-bank transfer. If I were to use Zelle to attempt to pay my supplier, he would be forced to register a bank account with Zelle to receive the funds. If he refused to do so (and thus far he has), the payment would be rejected and returned to me.
Granted. the US has only a vague low-res simulation of a modern system held together with smoke, mirrors, and weeks-old chewing gum that’s been through a dog at least once.
It seemed to me your question was “Why bother using the US’s half-assed system when you could bypass it by using really old-fashioned paper checks?” My point was that as half-assed as it most assuredly is, it’s more useful than paper checks and DIY snail mailing.
if I misunderstood your point I’m sorry.
That is an option. One favored by vendors. Exactly because it gives them all the power as you describe. You the customer are never under obligation to use that sorry system. You can use your own bank’s push-pay system instead. Where you bank pushes them the money, and the vendor knows nothing except that they have received a payment on your behalf. They have zero influence on when, whether, or how much your bank sends them. You have 100% control, they have zero percent control. That is the safe way to do things.
And there are intermediate methods, wherein you authorize your vendor to send your bank a request for $X of money. Which your bank authorizes, or not, based on your inputs. Vendor asks, you approve, bank sends only upon approval.
As @Railer13 just said, the Zelle system is more or less exactly what you’re wanting and the Canadians have with Interac. I can initiate a transfer to anyone based on their email or phone number. Or they can make a request to me for funds from me based only on my email or phone number. Which will fulfill if and only if I give explicit approval as to amount and recipient.
In either case neither side learns anything about the other’s banking arrangements. The money transfer just happens once both sides signal their agreement to the Zelle system.
I’m referring to the old paradigm of banking where there had to be trust in some chain of custody. The wireless point of sale terminal where the card never leaves my hand (or back to the OP my phone or watch) has been the only option up here for many more years than the US.
My point was that it is some kind of wishy-washy middle ground that feels straight out of the 1990s, the same way that Chip+Signature was implemented in the US. I just don’t see it as better enough than the old way to bother with and that’s why Canada never implemented such a system.
To add to Zelle, Interac is run by the Canadian banking system. It’s not a 3rd party and you don’t have to sign up for anything to use it as a sender or recipient. It’s just there.