Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Who's Getting Pay-By-Phone Right? The Fast Food Industry

Soulskill posted 1 year,18 days | from the you-thought-it-was-going-to-be-more-interesting,-didn't-you dept.

Cellphones 153

jfruh writes "Techno-enthusiasts have been predicting for years that cell phones will become one of the main means that we use to pay for items — but most Americans stubbornly cling to cash and credit cards, mostly because cash and credit cards are infinitely more convenient. In order to woo people into buying things electronically, merchants need to make phone purchases better than traditional payment systems, not just another option. The fast food industry is leading the way with a plethora of apps that make ordering remotely a snap."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fastfood? (4, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | 1 year,18 days | (#45104841)

You mean people who are too young or too poor to have a credit card use this to buy fatfood?

Who would have thought?

Re:Fastfood? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104911)

I haven't eaten McDonald's in seven years, and have no plans to for the rest of my life. Do you know why? Because I shit myself on my birthday after buying McDonald's with the gift certificate given to me by my employer for my birthday.

Yeah, that's right. I shit myself...on my birthday.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Fastfood? (1)

leon.gandalf (752828) | 1 year,18 days | (#45104951)

I call that place McShits due to its effects on me. Have had to RUN for the restroom after eating that "food" but never shat my pants over it.

Re:Fastfood? (0)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105129)

The phrase "fast food" is a typo. It's really fats food. I mean, it's never fast and barely food, but it will make you fat.

As to paying with a phone, WHY?? It makes no sense to me.

Re: Fastfood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45106203)

That was just painfully unclever.

Re:Fastfood? (2)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106209)

I have this mount for my Rascal for my smart phone. If I time it just right, I can order the food just as the lift on my minivan is lowering my scooter down to the pavement, and they are calling my name just as I roll through the door.

Now please excuse me, as all this typing has left me out of breath.

Re:Fastfood? (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106587)

I guess I'm glad I'm not you.

Re:Fastfood? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106615)

You aren't enough of a man to be me. About 350lbs short, I suspect.

Re:Fastfood? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104981)

Maybe you shouldn't have poured all that ethanol into your mcflurry.

Micropayments (1)

Moblaster (521614) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105039)

Oh great. The burger outlets have discoverd pay-by-phone. Next thing they will discover micropayments. And then we'll have pay-by-fry.

Re:Micropayments (1)

peragrin (659227) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105519)

I can only see the pay by fry method for the good.

the number of fries sold will go down and fat people will be less inclined to eat there.

Re:Fastfood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104963)

You mean people who are too young or too poor to have a credit card use this to buy fatfood?

Who would have thought?

Anyone who supports freedom.

Re:Fastfood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105525)

I have credit cards and I am not fat but I use my Goolge wallet and nfc to pay for things at McDonalds and 7Eleven. I still think its faster and easier to swipe a CC instead of using the phone but why not..

Re:Fastfood? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105747)

They aren't even "getting it right". You can tell by the "plethera of apps" comment.

Six large pizzas with the works (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104885)

This'll be on my MasterCard, Soulskill calling from Dice.com.

Slashvertisement? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104905)

Seems like a Slashvertisement.

Re:Slashvertisement? (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105263)

For fast food? Maybe they're trying to make us realise that targeted ads are better than the alternative.

EQII (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104917)

Reminds me of the /pizza option

captcha: frenzy

You can have my feature phone when... (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104961)

You can have my feature phone when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. I'm not paying the difference between a low-end feature phone and a "smart" phone so that I can do something that already works fine without a phone capable of running browser exploits.

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

soundguy (415780) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105149)

Should we be getting off your lawn?

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105157)

You can have my feature phone when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. I'm not paying the difference between a low-end feature phone and a "smart" phone so that I can do something that already works fine without a phone capable of running browser exploits.

I have an expensive smartphone and I want to trade up to a feature phone. I want physical buttons to make and receive calls, dammit - I want the phone part of the phone to be good! But I really want GPS with some sort of maps in an emergency. Anyone know a good simple phone with GPS/maps built in?

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105561)

But I really want GPS with some sort of maps in an emergency

If it's an 'emergency' then any basic feature phone will provide emergency services with your GPS location when you call them.

Cue tinfoil hat brigade.

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

lgw (121541) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105871)

No, not a 911, an "I'm lost, and want to get unlost" emergency, which can happen all sorts of unpleasant ways - from telling a towtruck how to get to me to trying to walk out of an unfamiliar area. Any sort of mapping would work, but old-school feature phones won't have anything of course. Still, you don't need a real smart phone with an app store to have a built-in mapping app.

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105393)

I'm not paying the difference between a low-end feature phone and a "smart" phone

Pay-by-phone does not require a smart phone. I have used pay-by-phone in Japan and China with a $20 phone. Your phone just needs an NFC chip, which costs about 5 cents.

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106237)

Why can't I just get a 5 cent thingy to put on my keychain, then?

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106229)

Feature phone? Feature phone? The only "feature" I need is "phone calls". I'm still using my Star Tac, and I likes it!

Re:You can have my feature phone when... (2)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106305)

Smartphones aren't necessarily more expensive than feature phones now; you just have to be willing to shop around and buy one that's either low-end or refurbished/used -- the refurb LG Marquee I bought as my first smartphone in January only cost about $15 more than the Samsung Rant I picked up at Target's Black Friday sale a few years ago.

The one place that you might end up paying more is if you're locked into a provider that charges through the nose for the mere use of a smartphone. I've stuck with no-contract providers for the past decade, so I just switched to Ting [ting.com] (bought my phone from them, in fact) since they don't charge for smartphone use & have low rates overall.

small purchases are better with cash (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | 1 year,18 days | (#45104965)

If you not organized enough to have change/cash for a big mac or a pint in a bar you maybe should not be allowed out without adult supervision.

Removing "friction" is the point. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105043)

If you not organized enough to have change/cash for a big mac or a pint in a bar you maybe should not be allowed out without adult supervision.

Enabling exactly this sort of person to spend money is the attraction of mobile payment systems (for retailers).

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105177)

Well, the bank closes at 1:00 Saturday afternoon, often by Monday Morning I'm out of cash and might get a breakfast burrito with my card. Phone? Crazy. Yeah, one of two things:

1. Take out my card, swipe it, put it back in my wallet.
2. Take out my phone, press the "on" button, swipe to unlock, hit "home", find the app, do whatever the hell the app needs me to do and... fuck it, use the fucking credit card. Using a phone to pay for a burger is retarded. It's less convenient, what's the fucking point??

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105353)

Ever heard of PassBook on the iPhone? At least for the Starbucks app, it's:
1. Turn on phone
2. Swipe the notification that told you you walked into a starbucks.
3. Scan digital gift card that pops up.

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

adolf (21054) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105645)

Without reading TFA (obviously) I can see one advantage:

Ordering. If I can order fast food from my phone, I'm a step ahead (physically) and the chances of actually getting what I want increase dramatically.

And once I've got my order in using my pocket computer, I might as well pay for it that way too.

I can then skip the ordering line and go straight to the pick-up counter.

Or: If I've got several random people at the house and each of the picky bastards wants something special from $fast_food_place, I can presumably order it all up at my leisure and tell the $fast_food_place to have my order ready for me in 10 minutes (or however long it takes to drive there).

This may or may not be better than my current method, which is "You don't like pickles on your cheeseburger? I guess you'll have to pick them off yourself."

But, again: I think it's the ordering that is the important step, not the payment methodology.

(I already do something similar to this in Small-Town Ohio with Redbox: There are often throngs of people on a Friday or Saturday night gathered around the kiosk, browsing away in a manner not dissimilar to an indecisive fast food line. I just order what I want with my phone while they're doing this, and when the machine frees up I approach it, push a button, swipe my credit card, and my movies come out.

And I've been doing it with both pizza delivery and takeout since...well, forever. I cannot remember the last time I ordered a pizza using a telephone.)

Re:small purchases are better with cash (2)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106241)

"Take out my phone, press the "on" button, swipe to unlock, hit "home", find the app, do whatever the hell the app needs me to do and... fuck it, use the fucking credit card. Using a phone to pay for a burger is retarded. It's less convenient, what's the fucking point??"

What you cite isn't a problem intrinsic to payment by phone technology. It's an interface issue. It's like using the Windows 8 UX to conclude that desktop computers suck on principle (well, maybe all of them suck a "little").

Moreover, when you look at it, credit cards as well as debit cards are a form of pay-by-phone technology. Unless you're stuck in the middle of nowhereland where purchases are logged manually, your credit card is connected to a terminal that phones home or somewhere else to verify that the card is genuine and not picked from somebody's pocket. Of course just as with your precious plastic, charges may apply when you pay-by-mobile-phone.

Payment by cellphone is already a much more convenient experience in most 3rd World countries, especially in Africa. Why? Because there you're either too poor to afford a credit card or the application requires jumping through too many hoops. Cheap and readily available credit isn't a universal phenomenon.

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

mcgrew (92797) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106573)

Someone please mod this guy up. It's a much broader view.

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45106243)

Well, the bank closes at 1:00 Saturday afternoon, often by Monday Morning I'm out of cash and might get a breakfast burrito with my card.

Yo! Hail, I am from the present. Nice to meet time traveler from the past posting on /.!

You must come from the time when people still need to go to a bank branch to get physical cash. You might be interested to know that, in present (i.e. your future), there are machines call Automatic Teller Machines that you can get cash from, even after the bank branch closes (gasp!). And in some sane countries, there are even no fees for using an ATM! Imagine that! You can get cash, with no extra fees or charges, during Sunday!

A radical concept, I know, but you now know you have something to look forward to in your future.

Yours,
People from your future.

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106247)

While you are waiting in line, the guy that came in behind you is ordering and paying on his phone and his stuff is ready before yours.

At least, I think that is the point.

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106581)

Using a phone to pay for a burger is retarded. It's less convenient, what's the fucking point??

This! a thousand times this. This whole smartphone addiction craze is getting a little silly. Swiping my credit card is so easy, it's hard to imagine that any app could be quicker and simpler.

This reminds me of several years ago, when a co-worker was really excited about ATM machines. At lunch time, we'd stop at the machine on the way to lunch, stand in line, and he'd enter his info. He'd take up 15 minutes - once a half hour - of our lunch time just getting money to pay for his lunch. He actually believed it was convenient, We ended up telling him he needed to get the money before hand, or we'd save him a place if he didn't mind us ordering for ourselves before he got there.

This cell phone ordering has fail written all over it.

Re:small purchases are better with cash (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105571)

I almost never have cash, I mean not even a single USD in my wallet.. I travel all over the US via planes, trains, and sometime automobiles away from home for days at a time. I average about 60-90 days away from home a year. The only people that ever complain or question using a CC is the taxi drivers and only because they have to give up a higher % of the bill when I use it. Two restaurants I went to in NYC only took cash but both had ATM right outside the door. Even the food car on Amtrak takes CC and on planes they only take CC for food and drinks (at least United only takes CC)

Not having cash has nothing to do with organization. It has to do with you always doing what you are familiar with because it makes sense to you. Maybe you feel comfortable having cash that in your wallet. I have no problem in the worst case that I do need, finding an ATM nearby but like I said, that is very infrequent. The amount of times I have to go to the ATM to get cash is a lot less then you do I bet or do you get paid in cash or go to the bank and withdrawal on a regular basis?

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106265)

I went to in NYC only took cash but both had ATM right outside the door

THOSE people have it figured out... why pay 2% to the credit card companies when your customers will pay in cash and throw in an extra $2.50 for the privilege?

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106443)

Except they put themselves and their customers at risk, because every punk on the block knows everyone going in there has a habit of carrying lots of cash.

I suppose its no bigger risk than flashing some fancy phone over the terminal when you pay, but at least that is done inside, and when you step out on the street nobody knows how you paid.

 

Re:small purchases are better with cash (1)

MightyYar (622222) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106619)

I guess that's true, but I don't go out of my way to hit cash-only restaurants in dodgy neighborhoods.

It's safer to use a debit card (1)

TheSeatOfMyPants (2645007) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106601)

Using a debit card avoids flashing cash when we pay for things, which reduces the chances of being robbed. If I'm robbed anyway, I can unhesitatingly hand over my wallet to the asshole (knowing I won't be out any actual funds) and call my credit union as soon as I get home to have them cancel the card.

It's also a hell of a lot more convenient. I vastly prefer to know where all of my money was spent, but I often don't remember by the end of the month or have the time/energy to track it all by hand. Using my debit card means that I can quickly check the account when convenient and have my home-finances program produce useful reports.

Stubborn? (1)

Anthem1937 (813790) | 1 year,18 days | (#45104969)

If as the summary says, cash and cards are infinitely more convenient, why then is clinging to them to be considered stubborn?

Re:Stubborn? (4, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105209)

If as the summary says, cash and cards are infinitely more convenient, why then is clinging to them to be considered stubborn?

Because the author is a moron. Cash and cards are NOT more convenient, they are less convenient. When I go out, I always take my phone so people can contact me. So if I can use my phone to buy stuff, then I don't need to carry cash or cards. Where I live (California) I don't even need a wallet to drive, because it is legal to show a cop a photo of my drivers license on my phone. As soon as I can start my car and open my front door with the NFC chip in my phone, then I will only need ONE THING in my pocket when I leave my house. What could possibly be more convenient?

The lack of phone-money in America has nothing whatsoever to do with customers being "stubborn". It is because of the fragmentation of the American cellular system, and the lack of cooperation among the vendors. Once they finally agree on a standard, phone-money will be adopted by consumers in America just as quickly as anywhere else.

Re:Stubborn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105407)

I no longer bring cash with me - it is too bulky to be convenient. But a card sure is flatter than my smartphone. It is not much "extra" to drag around. And being a debit card, it doesn't rack up bills to be paid later either. Where I live, the card works everywhere, which is why I no longer need cash. So seriously, what does pay-by-phone have to offer me? I honestly cannot see any use for that.

If someone steal my phone, I don't want them to clean out my bank account as well.

Re:Stubborn? (2)

plover (150551) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105421)

Sorry, but many times paying by phone is seriously inconvenient when compared to a simple credit card. You have to unlock the phone, find the right payment app and open it, find the payment option and pick it, enter another PIN, show some barcode to the cashier, and then it still takes as long as a credit card to approve. Compared to pulling the card from my wallet and swiping it, it's about five times slower.

The place where pay-by-phone gets it right is Stabucks. People are just standing around, tweeting and facebooking about how great the mocha lattes are, and they already have the phones in front of their noses.

Compare that to some lady at Walmart with 2.4 kids running around trying to eat the candy on the shelves, crying because mom took it away, while she tries to unload her cart filled with leaking milk cartons and find a batch of coupons that haven't expired. The last thing I need is to stand behind her as she tries to figure out her phone app.

What most people don't get is that there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution to mobile payment, even though the businesses desperately want one to exist.

Re:Stubborn? (2)

flimflammer (956759) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106037)

Sorry, but many times paying by phone is seriously inconvenient when compared to a simple credit card. You have to unlock the phone, find the right payment app and open it, find the payment option and pick it, enter another PIN, show some barcode to the cashier, and then it still takes as long as a credit card to approve. Compared to pulling the card from my wallet and swiping it, it's about five times slower.

That's now how the ideal system is supposed to work, nor how it really does work anywhere. Most places handle pay by phone via a phone equipped with an NFC chip you just swipe over a payment spot and it charges you, no unlocking the phone, no pin, navigating to your payment app of choice, none of that crap. It effectively turns your phone into a card. If you want to consider convenience, it's more so because you don't have to pull out your wallet, then the card, then swipe it. You just pull out the phone and swipe it.

This app shit that's getting tossed around is not the system that we want. I pray for the day we get a proper pay by phone system like they have in Japan or similar.

Re:Stubborn? (1)

flimflammer (956759) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106047)

Geh, I hate typos. The first sentence is supposed to say "That's not how the ideal system is supposed to work"

Re:Stubborn? (1)

MonkeyPaw (8286) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105957)

Because the author is a moron. Cash and cards are NOT more convenient, they are less convenient. When I go out, I always take my phone so people can contact me. So if I can use my phone to buy stuff, then I don't need to carry cash or cards. Where I live (California) I don't even need a wallet to drive, because it is legal to show a cop a photo of my drivers license on my phone. As soon as I can start my car and open my front door with the NFC chip in my phone, then I will only need ONE THING in my pocket when I leave my house. What could possibly be more convenient?

The lack of phone-money in America has nothing whatsoever to do with customers being "stubborn". It is because of the fragmentation of the American cellular system, and the lack of cooperation among the vendors. Once they finally agree on a standard, phone-money will be adopted by consumers in America just as quickly as anywhere else.

And when you lose your phone, you're hooped.

Re:Stubborn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45106061)

Where I live (California) I don't even need a wallet to drive, because it is legal to show a cop a photo of my drivers license on my phone.

Citation needed.

Re:Stubborn? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106271)

Where I live (California) I don't even need a wallet to drive, because it is legal to show a cop a photo of my drivers license on my phone.

Citation needed.

I heard it on the radio. I cannot find any citation with Google, so most likely it is not true. Perhaps the radio announcer meant it as a joke. I have found that people often say something in jest or as a prank, and it all seems completely plausible to me. I often don't realize it was a joke until I notice everyone else laughing. So I admit I was wrong about this. But I hope you realize that when someone makes a snarky remark about cell phone ID cards, or flying cars, human progress is not advanced by the people that laugh, but by the guy in the back, looking up at the sky, and saying "Well, why not?"

Re:Stubborn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45106143)

Nice phone ya' got there buddy. Hand it over and nobody gets hurt.

Re:Stubborn? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106293)

Nice phone ya' got there buddy. Hand it over and nobody gets hurt.

They can already do that with your wallet, and the credit cards inside it. With a phone, theft is LESS of a problem. If they don't wipe your phone, then it can be tracked. If they do wipe your phone, they it is no longer linked to your credit card account.

Re:Stubborn? (2)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106527)

The lack of phone-money in America has nothing whatsoever to do with customers being "stubborn". It is because of the fragmentation of the American cellular system, and the lack of cooperation among the vendors. Once they finally agree on a standard, phone-money will be adopted by consumers in America just as quickly as anywhere else.

Its fragmented in every country, except where it is state run.

The thing is, the carriers have VETOED NFC payments. Why they get a say, I have no idea, If we had any integrity in Washington, the carriers would be out of the decision loop by a simple written order by the FTC or the DOJ. The one carrier that allows it is Sprint (IINM). Every other carrier refused to even allow Google Wallet to be installed.

The carriers should NOT have a say. Its just data. Encrypted data. Its TCP/IP. Just like web pages, it doesn't require standardization of the cellular system to transmit encrypted data. Carriers have business dictating a standard.

If the carriers want to be regulated like banks, we should honor their wishes. Until then, they should get the hell out of the way.

Re:Stubborn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45106563)

The lack of phone-money in America has nothing whatsoever to do with customers being "stubborn". It is because of the fragmentation of the American cellular system, and the lack of cooperation among the vendors. Once they finally agree on a standard, phone-money will be adopted by consumers in America just as quickly as anywhere else.

How, pray tell, would you describe the cellular phone systems of Japan and Europe? I'm doubtful any carrier in either of those regions has the percentage of AT&T or Verizon (some might challenge Sprint or T-Mobile). I'm pretty sure the US has a far less fragmented cell carrier market than anywhere else. Lack of cooperation though does make sense.

Re:Stubborn? (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106497)

If as the summary says, cash and cards are infinitely more convenient, why then is clinging to them to be considered stubborn?

The summary is wrong, and so are you.

The reason we have very few Phone payment options in the US is that the Carriers somehow obtained a veto of this service.
Some networks allow it and those users can "pay by bonk" at lots of places. Most networks won't allow payments via NFC, because they want a piece of the action for carrying that tiny bit of encrypted data, as opposed to huge gobs of encrypted web pages. It sounds like illegal restraint of trade if you ask me.

Some networks (AT&T) are going so far as to re-purpose their 700mhz C and D bands away from cell phones because the last FCC auction of those frequencies required them to allow any legal use of the bandwidth.

So instead of one App on your phone, you have to have one from each vendor you want to do business with, and they have to scan a bar code shown on your screen.

Americans would have long since happily adopted pay via NFC, just as they did in in Japan, and some parts of Europe.

Fuck off! The people have spoken. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45104985)

I'm not even slightly interested in any app wallets, like Google wallet.

I'm equally resistant to using NFC and putting it on my phone bill.

Nor am I vaguely interested in Home Depot's "convenient" app to help me locate items(and reduce their labor costs).

I'm definitely not interested in Five Guy's app for ordering or payment.

Frankly I find the; " most Americans stubbornly cling to cash and credit cards", to be pejorative as well as revealing an underlying agenda to force change where none is desired. People prefer the convenience and SAFETY of plastic. But they also like their privacy which is when they choose to use cash. POS marketers and corporations prefer their own convenience and their own labor and cost savings as well as customer lockin. Hence, they continually attempt to force feed the consumer on "better" payment systems.

Fuck off! The people have spoken.

Re:Fuck off! The people have spoken. (1)

tompaulco (629533) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105029)

Of course, one of the big reasons not to use your phone for ordering things is that your phone is not a credit card company and is therefore not under any obligation to fix the problem if some jerkwad company slams you with a fraudulent charge. Add to that the fact that your phone company usually gets to share in the stealing of your money with the offending company, and you have a recipe for disaster. This already happens with these stupid $10 a month text of the day sites. They give about 1/3 of that money to you phone company and then the phone company turns a deaf ear to your complaint.
Until the phone company is subject to the same regulations as the Credit Card companies, they can kiss my shiny metal ass.

Re:Fuck off! The people have spoken. (1)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105339)

And my cash is still anonymous until da man Lojacks it.

Re:Fuck off! The people have spoken. (1)

Guspaz (556486) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105075)

NFC payments doesn't go on your phone bill, at least not in Canada. They're integrated with Visa payWave and Mastercard PayPass, so when you wave your phone at the payment terminal, it just pretends to be your credit card's RFID chip, and the effect is exactly the same as if you'd waved your credit card.

Re:Fuck off! The people have spoken. (1)

flimflammer (956759) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106063)

Most if not all sane places do not put NFC charges on your phone bill. They're either attached to your credit or bank account. It's basically a card without the card.

Yawn (1)

Nam-Ereh-Won (2927897) | 1 year,18 days | (#45104987)

Call me when there's a universal ordering/wallet app instead of poor wrappers on their existing websites.

Re:Yawn (2)

DarkOx (621550) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105245)

Call me when there's a universal ordering/wallet app instead of poor wrappers on their existing websites.

Call you...? I see what you did there.

NOT pay-by-phone (4, Informative)

soundguy (415780) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105003)

This has precisely jack squat to do with "pay-by-phone". The article is about "order-by-phone". In the case of the author, he has a credit card on file with a fast food burger joint staffed with high school drop-outs (what could possibly go wrong) and the order is placed, charged, and processed thru the restaurant's internet-facing computer system. It's no different that buying something from Amazon except that you have to go get the product yourself instead of having it delivered by UPS

Re:NOT pay-by-phone (1)

mythosaz (572040) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105227)

"Card on file."

You mean, like every other person you gave your credit card or handed a check to?

Speed and reducing cost (3, Informative)

EMG at MU (1194965) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105019)

I use to work in the store systems group of a major fast food chain. Having the customer order via app and pay via phone reduces the chances that cashier messes up the order, reduces the amount of money stolen because the cashiers handle less cash, and just reduces the need for cashiers.

If you can get 20% of your customer base ordering via an app, thats one less casher you have to train and pay to stand at the counter and take orders (made up the number but you get the point). The orders also come in in parallel, you have to pay more cashiers if you want people to take orders in parallel.

One big problem QSR franchises have is that the people applying for the jobs don't know english. Look over at a McDonalds register, its mostly pictures and numbers on the screen, with very few words. If you can get the customers to order themselves you don't have to pay as many english speakers to be cashiers and thus you can pay lower wages. You don't have to know english to work in the kitchen.

Re:Speed and reducing cost (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105467)

Great, so this will increase unemployment. That's going to be good for society.

been to starbucks lately? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105023)

Traditional qr reader bs on phones is terrible. I don't know how many times I've been stuck behind some idiot in line who insists on presenting their grease covered cell phone as a payment option.

In Canada we have nfc built into our debit and credit cards making paying for items under $20 super easy.

I don't understand why anyone would willingly give their money to another corp to hold onto in the form of payment cards or iPhone apps.

Re:been to starbucks lately? (2)

Guspaz (556486) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105109)

In Canada we have nfc built into our debit and credit cards making paying for items under $20 super easy.

If only it actually worked. The vast majority of stores either don't support contactless payments, only support one of the two (like payWave but not PayPass or vice-versa), or just don't have it set up correctly. "Oh, sorry, it's not working" is a regular refrain. Even when it does work, cashiers often don't understand it correctly. There's this one cashier I encounter regularly who, I had my credit card to her expecting her to stick it into the reader for a chip & pin transaction, and instead she waves it over the terminal. Which, of course, doesn't give me the opportunity to verify the amount I'm being charged until after the fact.

I've found it to work reliably and consistently at McDonalds and Jean Coutu, and the self-pay terminals at Canadian Tire, but I can't think of any other store I frequent that supports it reliably. At many stores I see terminals that say "contactless" on them, or the prompt that comes up is "swipe/insert/tap", but attempts to use the contactless feature does nothing.

Quit Trying To Make Pay By Phone Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105055)

Quit trying to make pay by mobile phone happen.

It's just not going to happen.

Bit of a problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105069)

This isn't quite the "pay by mobile" that the RFID/NFC/whatever-this-week industry is trying to sell, but that's fine.

What it is, is a fancy use of a mobile app (basically, a website, perhaps with some information stored locally) in combination with a credit card. Which means that the paying is also by credit card. With all the pros, cons, and risks of credit cards attached.

If electronic payment, offline or online, is going to be big, there has to be an equivalent of cash. Something anonymous, easily transferrable, suitable for large and small transactions, and, of course, easily convertible both ways. That is, not just some sort of PAYG system you can top up any which way, but also one where you can convert the stored credit back to cash without extra cost, delay, or trouble.

"Locking up" the value is tempting for the system owner, but treacherous. But if no commercial party can be trusted to facilitate this, then perhaps the government should, just as they do with cash.

Pay by phone apps require outrageous permissions (5, Informative)

knorthern knight (513660) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105081)

A few reasons I will not use pay-by-phone in its current state.

http://www.citeworld.com/security/22535/mobile-payments-apps-outrageous-permissions [citeworld.com]

* Google Wallet
* Camera -- Allows the app to take pictures and videos with this camera. This permission allows the app to use the camera at any time without your confirmation.
* Read your contacts -- Allows the app to read data about your contacts stored on your phone, including the frequency with which you've called, emailed, or communicated in other ways with specific individuals. This permission allows apps to save your contact data, and malicious apps may share contact data without your knowledge.

* Paypal
* Retrieve running apps -- Allows the app to retrieve information about currently and recently running tasks. This may allow the app to discover information about which applications are used on the device.

* Starbucks
* Phone calls -- Allows the app to call phone numbers without your intervention. This may result in unexpected charges or calls. Note that this doesn't allow the app to call emergency numbers.

Re:Pay by phone apps require outrageous permission (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105185)

as soon as that clown pays the cell phone bill, I'll use pay by phone.

it requires a fuc*ing subscription, how does that make it better than a credit card ?

stupid, stupid.

Re:Pay by phone apps require outrageous permission (4, Interesting)

tompaulco (629533) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105311)

I have actually not updated any apps on my phone in about 3 months because every single one of them wants access to the camera, contacts, emails, location and a bunch of other crap that I am just not going to allow.

Re:Pay by phone apps require outrageous permission (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105441)

Replace android with cyanogenmod. You can then install these apps, and selectively retract such permissions. So you can deny the app access to camera & contacts. Maybe it'll work anyway, but it won't be able to spy on you.

Another great use is to retract internet permissions for games like angry birds. That way, no more ads . . .

Re:Pay by phone apps require outrageous permission (1)

adolf (21054) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105707)

Replace android with cyanogenmod. You can then install these apps, and selectively retract such permissions. So you can deny the app access to camera & contacts. Maybe it'll work anyway, but it won't be able to spy on you.

I used to do this with Cyanogenmod on my OG Droid. It worked well.

On my Droid 4 with much later builds of Cyanogenmod, I can no longer find this functionality.

Where is it?

Another great use is to retract internet permissions for games like angry birds. That way, no more ads . . .

A better way to get rid of ads is Adfree Android [bigtincan.com] (it used to be on the Market/Play Store, but Google decided it was bad for business).

(Cue apk and an obligatory hosts file rant, since this is both a hosts file hack AND an apk...)

Re:Pay by phone apps require outrageous permission (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106605)

(Cue apk and an obligatory hosts file rant, since this is both a hosts file hack AND an APK ...)

Haha, got a kick about the double-entendre that you can use capital APK's fix and apk files to install the app.

Re:Pay by phone apps require outrageous permission (2)

BradleyUffner (103496) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105737)

Replace android with cyanogenmod. You can then install these apps, and selectively retract such permissions. So you can deny the app access to camera & contacts. Maybe it'll work anyway, but it won't be able to spy on you.

Another great use is to retract internet permissions for games like angry birds. That way, no more ads . . .

They new versions of Cyanogen actually go a step farther. Instead of just blocking the permission, and possibly crashing the app, it actually serves "blank" data, depending on what was requested. If the app tries to read your contacts it just gets a blank contact list. If it tries to use the camera it just gets a black png file. The application has no idea that it is being fed blank data, so it just keeps on working as it normally would, just without the spying.

Starbucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105121)

My wife has a 'gift' card that is tied to a rewards program, so she gets free drinks. It's most efficient for us to pool our purchases into a single account, but with only one card, that's not possible. Starbucks has an iPhone program (I refuse to use the word 'app') which we can use to pay from the same account. It's convenient, except that every time one of us signs in to the account, the other one has to sign back in the next time they want to use it. I guess it's a security feature to prevent people from using the phone to buy stuff when it's lost or stolen.

Re:Starbucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45106149)

There's nothing wrong with the word app. People have been saying apps to refer to applications long before Apple tried to claim it as its own.

They missed StarBucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105133)

I just saw someone yesterday pay at Starbucks in Tifton, GA with their iPhone.

What I'm concerned about is consumer protections. I want a limit on how much I'm liable if my phone gets stolen and someone cracks it and starts charging stuff.

And also recourse. I scan pay with my phone and the merchant's system dings me for more than I approved.

Until I see that it's at least as safe as a credit card, I'll wait for the early adopters to get the kinks out.

Re:They missed StarBucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105379)

The starbucks app is a virtual giftcard. They can only use as much as you have loaded on. I use it and have no more than $25 on it at any time. So no different than losing a gift card (much safer than losing a wallet with a credit card in it, though, most credit cards offer protection against that kind of thing).

Starbucks figured it out early (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105141)

As a non-coffee drinker I've been told by multiple people that Starbucks of all places is very proactive about this stuff. I think they had an app for the original iPhone almost right when the Appstore opened that laid some of the framework like being able to save billing info in the app along with giftcards. Clearly certain companies payed enough attention early on to realize that NFC or something like it was coming soon and it was a good idea to get people used to the concept of using their phone in the transaction process. Chipotle also did something similar early on, but for whatever reason they scaled it back a bit and seemed to shift more to scannable coupons which still accomplishes the goal of getting people thinking of their phone as a means of improving the ordering process. The main cost for these retailers isn't the food/coffee they serve it's the time and space you take up as you order it and then have to wait for all the inefficiencies with cash, cards, or checks. Getting you in and out as quickly as possible is their goal. The side benefit for them is that for once their methods for saving them money also have the effect of making the experience quicker and more pleasant for you. An uncommon win-win in the world of low margin penny pinching retailers.

Re:Starbucks figured it out early (1)

DogDude (805747) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105201)

The main cost for these retailers isn't the food/coffee they serve it's the time and space you take up as you order it and then have to wait for all the inefficiencies with cash, cards, or checks. Getting you in and out as quickly as possible is their goal. The side benefit for them is that for once their methods for saving them money also have the effect of making the experience quicker and more pleasant for you. An uncommon win-win in the world of low margin penny pinching retailers.

Oh ye of little information. No, cash, cards and (checks...? really?) are not "inefficient". What is inefficient are all of these silly fad payment systems that tack on a percentage of all transactions for their own profit. That's unacceptable in industries with already such tiny margins. There are probably a thousand new companies (like "Square") that do payments because it's a gold mine for them. Retailers and restaurateurs are not eager to give away a percentage of all sales to a payment system that provides little, if any value.

Re:Starbucks figured it out early (2, Insightful)

plover (150551) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105483)

Actually, cash is quite expensive for a store to handle. They have to pay someone to count out change, and to count it again at the end of the day. They have to pay an armored car service to haul it to a bank (or a small business owner has to drive it to a bank themselves, and they hope they don't get mugged on the way. It's easy to steal, so they have to invest in locked cash drawers and safes.

Cash easily costs more to handle than credit cards. Even after figuring in card fraud and bad debt, credit cards save retailers money.

Re:Starbucks figured it out early (2)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105919)

Even after figuring in card fraud and bad debt, credit cards save retailers money.

You know how I know you've never run a small business?

Re:Starbucks figured it out early (2)

ArbitraryName (3391191) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105909)

Getting you in and out as quickly as possible is their goal.

Completely wrong [wallstcheatsheet.com] . Lingering is the goal. Customers who linger buy more.

The main cost for these retailers isn't the food/coffee they serve it's the time and space you take up as you order it and then have to wait for all the inefficiencies with cash, cards, or checks.

Nope, it's health insurance [go.com] . After that, it's definitely cost of goods sold [businessweek.com] . Operating expenses like "cash handling" aren't even a blip.

Snap (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105159)

...apps that make ordering remotely a [track] snap.

Fortunately (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105213)

Fortunately, cash still works just fine. I suppose it's only a matter of time, though...

Never Happen (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105241)

Using a phone to pay for small items at shops and cafes is very unlikely because that would require people to stop yakking into them long enough to conduct the transaction.

Got it backward (1)

Phelony (2628303) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105277)

We need to make obtaining this type of poison *more* difficult, not easier.

Help Me With My Rap Video (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105287)

Lemme axe you. I be I'm makin' my ballin gangsta rap video. I need to flash the Benjamins and make it rain, up in this bitch! You gots a app fah dat?

reads like an add with a fake storyline (1)

Stonefish (210962) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105321)

Don't read this it's an advertisement. Short story buy brand X fast food using phone app to jump queue. You can save favourites.
Doesn't require any new technology or systems
As an aside, the current payment systems are insecure and cost too much. Show me something that is as cheap, convenient and anonymous as cash. Sure it doesn't make company X rich but that's not my job. Find me the visa replacement with lower margins and better security.

Clever scheme to get the eyeballs of adblock geeks (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | 1 year,18 days | (#45106255)

I'll take your word for it. I've read my fair share of thinly disguised slashvertisements. Still articles like this are as a less annoying way for companies to push their products up your nose. Less annoying only because it doesn't suddenly pop up, blink and hog your entire screen.

"apps" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105673)

I thought this was for ALL phones, not just smartphones.
If I can't pay with my landline phone, it's doing it wrong.

Surcharges (3, Interesting)

arthurpaliden (939626) | 1 year,18 days | (#45105787)

Want people to use it. Get rid of all surcharges related to it. I don't have to pay extra when I use cash.

My small business cannot afford it (2)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105811)

Cash is king in my shop.

I make and sell small items. These sell for about $50. Parts and supplies cost $30. Labor and counter help adds in about $4. Rent and non-sales taxes adds another $10. So, on a typical non-holiday day, our net markup is about 10 to 15%. That's not much. Every electronic billing system eats upwards of 2.7% of each sale. The more high-tech sysetems chew up more. We have pay for the hardware, installation, maintenance, and monthly support ("Trustkeeper" nonsense to scan our system, and we have to keep at least one employee who's technically competent with the electonics & software).

All these high tech solutions are slower than simple cash. They're all more expensive than cash. They're all less trustworthy than cash. And they all require more expertise than cash.

Customer in store order (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105843)

There is a taco bell near me that used to have touch screens in line. The customer would punch in their own order and get an order number. They would call your number when order was ready and then you pay and go. I hated they took it away. But given that and the ability to swipe a card like at sonic, you would then only need cooks and cleaners.

Pizza hut lets you order online. Put that in an app or leave it browser based but make it mobile friendly, and people can order and pay anytime. In store, at home, on the way to the qsr (as long as someone else is driving. I say that not to get sued :) )

But there is no reason we can't have that now.

Don't pay by phone ANYWHERE (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105847)

I paid by phone once, for parking, when my wife and I were going to a show downtown.
Sure enough, by the time I got back I had been "ticketed" (not an official ticket, this was a private lot) for not paying.
I subsequently had to spend an hour on the phone with various morons to explain to them that I had indeed paid for parking. Getting a chimp to land a 777 would have been easier.
Swiping my credit card and going back to the car to put the proof of payment on the dash would have taken me 5 minutes but would have saved me all the aggravation.

Why are a bunch of apps on your phone attractive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,18 days | (#45105987)

It's probably too late for an AC to get any traction, but:

Can someone explain to me why it's so great to have a myriad of apps on your phone, one for each particular merchant, when it seems to me you already have all that capability with just one app: the web browser. It hasn't been that many years since all the major chains invested in online ordering; and now it just seems they're repeating the effort to make all of these individual apps that do the same thing as the web site. I can't really see the attraction of having a zillion pieces of software for ordering, or checking your bank statement, or whatever when you can do almost all of that via the web browser. Appreciate any insight, it could be something that obvious that just escapes me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?