Beta
×

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Rite Aid and CVS Block Apple Pay and Google Wallet

samzenpus posted about three weeks ago | from the your-money-is-no-good-here dept.

Google 558

An anonymous reader writes CVS and Rite Aid have reportedly shut off the NFC-based contactless payment option at point of sale terminals in thousands of stores. The move will make it impossible to pay for products using Apple Pay or Google Wallet. Rite Aid posted at their stores: "Please note that we do not accept Apple Pay at this time. However we are currently working with a group of large retailers to develop a mobile wallet that allows for mobile payments attached to credit cards and bank accounts directly from a smart phone. We expect to have this feature available in the first half of 2015."

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

Good luck with that. (5, Insightful)

Noxal (816780) | about three weeks ago | (#48235009)

CurrentC seems way too involved for most people to ever give a shit about.

Re:Good luck with that. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235025)

Not only that, but it's a huge pile of data mining/theft. They requires direct access to take money from your current account (it bypasses the credit card companies, which is why they want to use it), and it requires access to your health data (for no known reason, but it requires it). Basically, it's a cluster fuck of ID theft.

Re:Good luck with that. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235113)

I'd rather use that than something controlled by a single company, like Google Wallet.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235329)

You would rather give a faceless group of companies direct access to your bank account than give Google Wallet your credit card?

Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235431)

NFC is far from controlled by a single company - hence why Apple was able to come into the market using the exact same hardware and protocols.

Re:Good luck with that. (3, Insightful)

schwit1 (797399) | about three weeks ago | (#48235133)

Current account? It's your checking account.

There are bad ideas out there but few come close to this one. Allowing retailers the ability to directly deduct money from your checking account is a hackers wet dream.

Re:Good luck with that. (5, Informative)

whoever57 (658626) | about three weeks ago | (#48235347)

Current account? It's your checking account.

UK terminology.

Re:Good luck with that. (4, Insightful)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about three weeks ago | (#48235369)

Because it's tapping your checking account directly, customers are not going to like this. And to use CurrentC, you have to open up an app on your smartphone and scan a QR code to make the transaction; with NFC, you just bring your phone up to a point near the register until the register recognizes a near-field chip, ready to ring up the sale as soon as you authenticate, which in Apple's case means placing your thumb on your phone's reader. NFC transactions are so fast that customers are going to want them used for everything. There are already vending machines that support it.

Re:Good luck with that. (3)

exabrial (818005) | about three weeks ago | (#48235357)

Think of the soccer mom scenario...

Lady enters checkout line with baby on hip and two kids in cart. She's tired of wrangling, wants to leave ASAP.
Apple/Google: Using one hand, pulls phone out of purse, taps, enter pin on phone.

CurrentC: Pull phone out of purse. Unlock phone. Launch CurrentC app. Due to poor cell signal in store, app takes a long time to connect. Enter app pin. Request new transaction. Wait for QR code to show. Explain to the cashier you need them to scan this code. Wait for the second code to appear on Casher's screen. Scan that. Wait some more. Kids screaming murder now. Poor lady begins to cry.

This'll end up in court... (1, Insightful)

TWX (665546) | about three weeks ago | (#48235013)

This isn't the sort of thing that "the market" can decide. I expect that it'll end up in court.

I wouldn't be surprised if patents come into it too, and since retailers aren't technology companies, they probably won't have the patents to even develop what they want without licensing, and tech companies with those patents are under no obligation to license them.

Uniform royalty for standard essential patents (1)

tepples (727027) | about three weeks ago | (#48235033)

tech companies with those patents are under no obligation to license them

I thought that in order for something to be incorporated into an industry standard, patent holders had to offer their essential patents for license under a uniform royalty regime (sometimes called "FRAND").

Patents and standards (1)

dwheeler (321049) | about three weeks ago | (#48235079)

There are absolutely no laws that keep standards (or anyone else) safe from patent claims.

Some standards organizations try to require members to license patents under "Reasonable and Non-discriminatory" terms, but the whole thing is nonsense. What is "reasonable"? The answer is, "as much as I can get from you!". And what is non-discrimantory? By definition most RAND terms discriminate against FLOSS, and they also always discriminate against organizations without the patents (since they have to pay for the patents, while others do not). In addition, for software patents and business patents, in general no one (not even the patent author) actually knows what the patent covers and what it does not, for a variety of unfortunate reasons.

I actually think that patents have their place in the physical world, but not at all in the software world.

Re:This'll end up in court... (4, Insightful)

silfen (3720385) | about three weeks ago | (#48235087)

This isn't the sort of thing that "the market" can decide. I expect that it'll end up in court.

Why can't the market decide this? Why should this end up in court? We currently have deeply entrenched market dominance by credit card companies. Alternative payment schemes are coming out and attacking that dominance, and that only works if a critical mass of retailers actually stand up to the currently dominant players. If courts intervene, it will lock in the dominance and monopoly profits the credit card companies are extracting. Why do you think that would be a good thing?

Re:This'll end up in court... (2)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about three weeks ago | (#48235429)

This isn't the sort of thing that "the market" can decide. I expect that it'll end up in court.

Sure it is. Rite Aid & CVS will shortly discover whether or not their customers who use Apple Pay & Google Wallet are more loyal to them than they are to Apple or Google, and make their adjustments accordingly.

There will be what we end up using (1)

saloomy (2817221) | about three weeks ago | (#48235015)

Once competition decides what service we decide to favor. A bunch of services will fail, 3 or 4 will remain and be universally accepted. Just look at the credit card networks for reference as to how this will play out.

Re:There will be what we end up using (0, Flamebait)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about three weeks ago | (#48235043)

Yup, multiple credit cards have been able to survive over the long term.

.
Why not multiple NFC payment methods?

I applaud CVS and RiteAid for working with other retailers to provide an alternative to what I view as Apple's heavy-handed lock-in payment system.

Re: There will be what we end up using (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235099)

And it doesn't occur to you, that they want to implement their own heavy-handed lock-in system?

Re: There will be what we end up using (1)

Xenx (2211586) | about three weeks ago | (#48235253)

To be fair.. two similarly bad choices are still better than one.

Re:There will be what we end up using (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about three weeks ago | (#48235319)

> Yup, multiple credit cards have been able to survive over the long term.

Yes. And multiple credit cards have also died out and been pushed out of the market.

Although the situation now seems pretty stagnant and has been for awhile. Your lack of awareness for the dead alternatives seems to confirm this.

Re:There will be what we end up using (2)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about three weeks ago | (#48235419)

NFC is not for Apple only. It's a multi-vendor standard.

Re: There will be what we end up using (1)

saloomy (2817221) | about three weeks ago | (#48235045)

What I meant was many stores will have their own payment systems, and others will support the broad systems from Apple/Google, and some will be late to the "payment revolution", and so on and so fourth. Once it makes economic sense to adopt system X, they will adopt it. We still have to see how Apple Pay stands up to real world threats, heavy load, availability concerns, network issues (if the store is not in great cell range), etc.... We still don't know what happens when you take the big system you just made and apply it to the big load waiting for its availability and adoption. Time will tell us what the stores end up using because it will be the best system from a realistic point of view.

Re: There will be what we end up using (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235107)

It's weird. Here in Australia, we have had payWave on all credit and debit cards since 2009. Like seriously, the only places that don't accept it don't accept cards at all, which is generally just small cash only stalls. I don't know why they are making such a fuss about people choosing to compile the wireless compatibility of ALL their cards into a single wallet? On the upside, they basically just said a big "fuck you" to a lot of potential customers, as apples nfc access is locked down until 2015 or jailbreakers.

Another ironic thing, is that both apps still mimic the id of the actual card. Good luck actually blocking it...

Re: There will be what we end up using (1)

SirAudioMan (2836381) | about three weeks ago | (#48235277)

Same here in Canada. We have had debit/credit for ever with chip and pin for years. Debit/interac RFID enabled cards are in the majority of cardholders now and about 1/3 to 1/2 of all vendors take all formsbof payment. The US is behind the times and still allow mag stripe credit payments as the primary payment.

Good for them (0)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about three weeks ago | (#48235029)

NFC is disabled on all my devices that support it, and it'll stay that way.

Re:Good for them (0)

popoutman (189497) | about three weeks ago | (#48235111)

Agreed. I'll happily use NFC for non-critical/toy items, but there's no way in hell that I'm using anything RFID or NFC for payment options. Just not secure enough for me, no matter what the card companies and payment handlers say, as they aren't as interested in my security as I'd like.

Re:Good for them (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about three weeks ago | (#48235179)

Why is that? How do you imagine your money would be stolen?

Re:Good for them (1)

Albanach (527650) | about three weeks ago | (#48235381)

Or, more exactly, why do you think it's at more risk than a magnetic stripe.

If you're in the US, do you let the waiter take your credit card, or do you always pay with cash?

Re:Good for them (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about three weeks ago | (#48235183)

Face it, as far as these companies are concerned, you guys are even less relevant than transexual credit card wielding jihadists. They don't care about you. You're a rumor, recognizable only as deja vu and dismissed just as quickly. You don't exist; you were never even born. Anonymity is your name. Silence your native tongue. You're no longer part of the System ...

Re:Good for them (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about three weeks ago | (#48235293)

No they are not members of MIB..

Re:Good for them (1, Funny)

Ksevio (865461) | about three weeks ago | (#48235171)

So you're saying that the good old magstripe is somehow MORE secure than an NFC phone that requires secondary authentication? Or is it you just haven't figured out how to turn NFC on?

Re:Good for them (4, Informative)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about three weeks ago | (#48235263)

What magstripe? I live in Europe, where we dropped that nonsense in favour of chip+PIN years ago.

Re:Good for them (2)

Ksevio (865461) | about three weeks ago | (#48235311)

So you should feel right at home with NFC+PIN then

Re:Good for them (1)

kenshin33 (1694322) | about three weeks ago | (#48235337)

it's not "either or". All cards (at least where I live) have "the chip", they require a PIN. Not 100% safe but beats the magnetic strip (there was some fuss about this few years back, as some grade students --from Oxford if not mistaken-- found a way beat the system, the backers didn't like it.
If the terminal support the chip and the card has one, any attempt to use the mag strip is refused systematically (they all still have the mag strip). Some of them have nfc (or whatever it is called), mostly credit cards, if used this way no need for a PIN and it's exclusively for tiny transactions (less that $10 I think).

Re:Good for them (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about three weeks ago | (#48235367)

NFC is usually ON by default. You have to have something resembling a clue in order to turn it off.

If NFC is off on a phone it's not because "someone couldn't figure it out".

No thanks. (4, Insightful)

grub (11606) | about three weeks ago | (#48235041)

A token based system vs. direct access to my personal data and bank account? I'll take Apple Pay, thanks.

Re:No thanks. (1, Flamebait)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about three weeks ago | (#48235061)

And I'll take none of them. Why the fuck would anyone pay with a mobile phone when you can just pay with a card?

It's not as if a phone is smaller than a card, easier to handle or more secure, this whole "phone wallet" idea makes no sense.

Re:No thanks. (3, Informative)

Alan Shutko (5101) | about three weeks ago | (#48235097)

Apple Pay is more secure than a card [mashable.com] , since magstripe cards are woefully insecure (read any of the recent POS hacks). It won't release a payment ID until after it reads your fingerprint, and it sends a token with cryptogram instead of the PAN in the clear.

It is not smaller, but it may be easier to use as people switch from swipe to chip and sign in the US.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235163)

Not carrying my wallet is smaller than carrying my wallet. My phone is always with me, do to legacy so is my wallet.

Carrying a wallet AND a pocket computer seems silly.

Re:No thanks. (4, Informative)

Alain Williams (2972) | about three weeks ago | (#48235187)

since magstripe cards are woefully insecure

In Europe we moved to EMV [wikipedia.org] some 6-9 years ago. It is not without its problems, but cloning cards & other fraud is much harder. A resulting problem is that the banks try to claim that it is 100% secure and so claim that any fraud must be with the knowledge of the card holder- or due to their carelessness.

Re:No thanks. (5, Funny)

hey! (33014) | about three weeks ago | (#48235209)

Yes but we're Americans. If we pay attention to what works for you then the socialists have won.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235351)

well, once chip-and-pin is on every govt card and the senior citizens need their access, a lot of places will support it well. Then the other card companies have little reason to hold back.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2835832/obama-orders-chipandpin-in-government-credit-cards.html

Re:No thanks. (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | about three weeks ago | (#48235189)

Yes. Compared to magstripes. But is anyone still using them?

Re:No thanks. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235279)

That is a load of fucking bullshit.

Fuckin' hipster apple fanbois need to gtfo out of Slashdot.

Re:No thanks. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235115)

Think for two seconds. It's called Fraud.

Target data breach. Home Depot data breach. TJ Maxx data breach. And the list goes on forever. I have to replace my credit cards every 12-18 months because of fraud.

The value of Apple Pay, and other tokenization technologies, is that they prevent merchants from ever receiving a credit card number and severely limit the ability for malicious employees or hackers from obtaining raw CC data.

Re: No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235173)

Bingo. Not to mention that the token system has shown that it purely sends the transaction Id, not even your name, address or card number which are standardly submitted via tapping credit cards to terminals.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235175)

Guess what a credit card number is? It's a token!

You remind me of the OpenSSH weirdos who say it's bad to use a memorized password, but somehow it's better to use keys. They're oblivious to the fact that the private key is basically just a password. But unlike a memorized password, it's stored in a file. That's basically the same as a password written on a sticky note stuck behind the computer's monitor. It's actually worse than that, because it's far easier for it to be stolen, even by somebody without physical access to the system, than a sticky note stuck behind a monitor can be.

It doesn't fucking matter if the token involved is a credit card number, or if it's a short-term token generated by a iPhone. The moment a token is involved, the security of the system becomes suspect, and exploits become possible.

Spare us your "Oh, having a token is the problem? Well, you can solve it by using a token!" bullshit, please.

Re: No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235235)

It's a generated token each time, bruh. Think of it as a one time use credit card number. It's absolutely more secure than a long-lived mag stripe number.

Re: No thanks. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235265)

Token quite specifically implies that you use something temporarily. Tokens (e.g, used in railway safety) are often moved from person to person. A credit card number is an ID but it is not a token for most normal, sane and useful definitions of token.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235291)

You don't know the difference between a single use cryptographic token and an SSH private key? Token != Key.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235137)

There are some people that want to carry around as few items as possible in their pockets, that is why they want their phones to do everything. If you can use your phone as a credit card, a house key, and a car key then all you need is an ID and a phone.

Re:No thanks. (3)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about three weeks ago | (#48235303)

/me recalls hearing about something called "single point of failure"...

Re: No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235327)

lazy fuck

Re:No thanks. (1)

tquasar (1405457) | about three weeks ago | (#48235363)

Dinero, Cash, baby. I'll withdraw money from my bank ATM and use cash at the grocery and department store, to buy gasoline and sundries. I usually have $300 to $500 in my desk at home.

Re:No thanks. (1)

Albanach (527650) | about three weeks ago | (#48235397)

You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking why anyone who wants to carry a phone should be required to also carry a wallet. There's no reason the phone can't serve as driver's license and payment mechanism, so what's the purpose of the wallet?

Re:No thanks. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about three weeks ago | (#48235103)

Banking is based on TRUST, not POS security. The trust is that if something fraudulent happens, it can be fixed. Worrying about POS security like this is pointless.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235255)

Fixed, but at substantial inconvenience to all involved.

Re:No thanks. (1)

aurizon (122550) | about three weeks ago | (#48235213)

The credit card people - where are they in Apple Pay? Are they out and apple pay is between you and apple and apple provides the credit and take the fee? Or is there an extra fee overlaid on the credit card fees that the retailer pays?

These added fees now reach over 4%, which is a lot.
No wonder Rit-aid and CVS are against it.

Re:No thanks. (5, Insightful)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#48235383)

Apple has negotiated a lower fee and banks are agreeable to absorb initial revenue loss in an effort to make NFC a standard.. The fees are needed mostly to pay off credit card fraud and Apple Pay reduces that liability (so the reasoning goes). Rumor has it that the Apple Pay user will be liable for fraud to a much larger degree because it's so hard for the process to be abused.

The competing CurrentC standard, supported by major retailers, kills credit card fees and puts the fraud burden 100% on the consumer. For that reason, retailers favor CurrentC over Apple Pay and Google Wallet, both of which use NFC.

While Google Wallet and Apple Pay are available now, CurrentC is going to be late to the party by about a year.

That delay is what's prompting Rite Aid and CVS (supporters of CurrentC) to pull NFC from their POS.

Re:No thanks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235271)

Remote mobile payments has been around for a lot longer than you're led to believe.
And guess who develops the software...the banks of course!
Geez, NFC is a hardware feature that's been around for over 5 years, just because Apple is promoting doesn't mean it's going to become the future. I mean, after all, less than 20% of all mobile phones are 'apple'...In other words, stop falling victim to marketing BS!

Idiots...

This is a Good Thing (tm) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235047)

We don't need Apple, Google, or anyone else who sells us the devices and software managing our money. Let a dedicated provider own managing the public standards, or at least the credit card providers. The VISA system isn't cheap but it works very well. That way open platforms can use it too with equal footing.

Re: This is a Good Thing (tm) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235129)

It's more so a limitation. When someone reads the tag on your credit card, it also gives them a lot of personal details. Name, address, bank you have the card with, etc etc. This system generates an id that they can read to process the transaction, but that's it. They don't have access to all your other personal data. Not a hard choice to make really, especially seeing as they don't even charge a percentage for this service.

This is a special kind of stupid. (2)

jpellino (202698) | about three weeks ago | (#48235051)

To push away the two leading mobile solutions especially when you're in the midst of losing smokers in CVS (a good move health-wise but consequential for sales nonetheless)? Heck they wouldn't even do Passport.

Re:This is a special kind of stupid. (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about three weeks ago | (#48235191)

CVS is giving up less than 2% of it's total sales by dropping tobacco while they are growing sales overall by 10+% a year.

It does not have a significant effect on their corporation.

Good luck with that. (4, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about three weeks ago | (#48235053)

How does this not violate these stores' agreements with Visa (etc), which have explicitly partnered with Apple and Google to provide Pay and Wallet as a valid method of using their (virtual) cards at the register?

And worse than simply not accepting it, they did so because they plan to come up with their own competing product??? WTF, Rite Aid, do you really think people will rush to use yet another crappy store-specific solution, rather than look confused at the cashier for a few seconds before walking away, leaving their stuff at the register?

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

tenverras (855530) | about three weeks ago | (#48235119)

The partnership to be supported by Google Wallet and Apple Pay has nothing to do with payments at the store. Stores sign contracts with processing companies; the store seldom owns the payment terminal. The store is free to negotiate or decide what type of machine they will use, which types of cards to accept, and if they will accept conveniences like MC Paypass, Interac Flash, or NFC methods. The retailer is well within their rights to say they won't accept NFC.

The only thing they are not allowed to do is to decline to accept legal tender. I.e. they legally aren't allowed to reject a $100 if it is a genuine bill, regardless of what store policy is.

Re:Good luck with that. (2)

Lehk228 (705449) | about three weeks ago | (#48235195)

there is no obligation to accept legal tender, except for a debt. a store can choose not to sell to you if you choose to pay with a $100 bill.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about three weeks ago | (#48235407)

there is no obligation to accept legal tender, except for a debt. a store can choose not to sell to you if you choose to pay with a $100 bill.

My understanding was that a service provider (or retail establishment?) can only refuse legal tender if it's been stated ahead of time. I.e., you can't fill someone's car with gas, and then out of the blue refuse to take their $20 bill.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

vux984 (928602) | about three weeks ago | (#48235197)

The only thing they are not allowed to do is to decline to accept legal tender. I.e. they legally aren't allowed to reject a $100 if it is a genuine bill, regardless of what store policy is.

This is false.

This article is only tangentially related to your claim, but it explicity addresses your particular variation.

http://www.snopes.com/business... [snopes.com]

"private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept. If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so"

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | about three weeks ago | (#48235389)

"private businesses are still free to specify which forms of legal tender they will accept. If a shop doesn't want to take any currency larger than $20 bills, or they don't want to take pennies at all, or they want to be paid in nothing but dimes, they're entitled to do so"

The exception to this is if you are in debt to the private business. In that case, they must take cash, as it is "legal tender for all debts, public and private". Note that coins are not cash, so they can pick and choose about coins they will accept.

For any regular store, you haven't incurred a debt by the time you are ready to pay. Restaurants, on the other hand, generally have to take cash, as all but fast food serve you before you pay, thus it is a debt.

Re:Good luck with that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235281)

>The only thing they are not allowed to do is to decline to accept legal tender.

It's amazing in this day and age that that myth hasn't died out yet. The US Treasury Department itself says that's false. [treasury.gov]

Re:Good luck with that. (3)

SeaFox (739806) | about three weeks ago | (#48235325)

How does this not violate these stores' agreements with Visa (etc), which have explicitly partnered with Apple and Google to provide Pay and Wallet as a valid method of using their (virtual) cards at the register?

Because their agreement is to accept credit cards issued by Visa/Mastercard? What makes Apple Pay more secure and private is you're literally not giving the store your card (information) in any form. It's more like Paypal -- you give Apple Pay permission to disperse the fund from your Visa/MC to the retailer, And Apple Pay is using a one-time payment code so you can't just make a nice little list of purchases by a customer from the number being given over and over.

I don't know why CVS or Rite Aid would be so bent out of shape about this. Don't all drugstores nowadays have Loyalty Cards programs in place? Even if you don't have a credit card account number to use the customer is willingly giving them personally identifiable info to link their purchased items to.

Suicide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235057)

eom

keep in mind... (1)

silfen (3720385) | about three weeks ago | (#48235063)

The reason they are doing this is that they don't want to keep paying inflated fees to credit card companies because they are tired of getting screwed. They may also not be serious about it; it may simply be a pressure tactic to get credit card companies to lower fees "or else".

Getting payment options other than the big credit card companies and their inflated fees necessarily involves inconvenience. Obviously, consumers are too lazy to do it by themselves, but retailers may have enough power to make this happen.

HooRay! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235065)

You GO CVS You rock.. except toward the end of the month when your icecream goes off sale.

Rite Aid: You are too expensive in my town across the board.

Google: Go start your own stores.. so I can drive past them with my finger out.

Apple: you are way too expensive.

Re:HooRay! (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | about three weeks ago | (#48235181)

Eliza: You seem angry. Would you like to talk about your mother?

Re:HooRay! (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#48235411)

Mod +1.

I love Eliza.

I ran it on a TRS-80 and it recorded interactions with it.

My sister got hold of it and took it very seriously. The transcript was hilarious as she tried to get Eliza to make a goddam commitment instead of asking leading questions.

Re:HooRay! (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about three weeks ago | (#48235219)

A CVS fanboi?

If this isn't a poster child for the 'long tail of the Internet' I don't know what is.

Who cares... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235067)

Only the ultra-naive or ultra-stupid think that any form of NFC-based payment is a good idea. This will protect a few morons from themselves.

DOA due to Liability shift to consumer... (5, Insightful)

kbonin (58917) | about three weeks ago | (#48235069)

It appears that CurrentC moves liability exposure almost entirely onto the consumer, whereas Visa limits consumer exposure to $50 that most banks waive in actual fraud. Add full access to your bank account to make the worst-case liability exposure whatever you have in your account, and privacy terms that allow them to use health related data that could have been protected under HIPPA. Tell me again why I would want to use this?

Re:DOA due to Liability shift to consumer... (1)

davecb (6526) | about three weeks ago | (#48235201)

That's huge: in the UK the banks were temporarily able to do that by claiming chip-and-pin cards were secure (boy, was that not true). The courts threw it out, as you might imagine, but only after lots of people were defrauded.

In Canada, the banks are on the hook, and have refunded me both times their "unhackable" pin-and-chip card got hacked. We and the US are looking at card-and-signature systems, which have good customer protection as humans can verify claimed forgeries, just like cheques.

Re:DOA due to Liability shift to consumer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235237)

you obviously don't understand how HIPAA works (or how to spell it). stop with the FUD nonsense.

Re:DOA due to Liability shift to consumer... (1)

CaptainDork (3678879) | about three weeks ago | (#48235425)

Precisely this.

I don't blame the retailers (2)

tenverras (855530) | about three weeks ago | (#48235073)

There are a lot of hidden costs associated with using cards and other technologies with payment terminals. When you pay $6.00 for your purchase, the retailer doesn't get all that money.The processing company that processes all the transactions paid for with cards at a retailer gets a cut of every transaction. If it is a credit card, like Visa or MC, then the credit card company also takes a small percentage.

While Google Wallet and Apply Pay may be free to the end-user, I highly doubt that it is free for the retailer. Google and Apple are likely taking another slice of the pie. So... percentage for the processing company, percentage for the credit card company and a percentage for Google or Apple. It's not beyond belief that this could easily exceed 5% of the purchase price, which could be about 10% of the profit margin. That's a huge number, even if it only amounts to $0.30 on a $6.00 purchase.

It's an annoying hassle for CVS customers to have to wait and deal with another mobile payment system, but it easily means millions in savings each year, nationwide.

Re:I don't blame the retailers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235157)

the point is that the sale is simpler and more convenient to customers so the store makes more sales overall. They won't be losing money if they have a smaller net from more sales (unless they sell below cost).

It's true that cannibalizing existing customers would just make it more expensive for the vendors.

Re:I don't blame the retailers (4, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | about three weeks ago | (#48235211)

While Google Wallet and Apply Pay may be free to the end-user, I highly doubt that it is free for the retailer.

Apple doesn't get a penny from the end user or from the retailer, so I suppose Google doesn't either. With Apple Pay the retailer pays the lowest rate available (percentages depend on how secure the payment method is; the more secure, the cheaper for the merchant). Apple gets some money from the bank; the bank saves money by having less fraud.

Re:I don't blame the retailers (1)

Luthair (847766) | about three weeks ago | (#48235331)

I've actually heard both ways on this that Apple is taking a fee and that they are not. I can't imagine Apple (or another company) dealing with the implementation, infrastructure and liability for no financial gain.

The customer is wrong, wrong, wrong. (4, Insightful)

Primate Pete (2773471) | about three weeks ago | (#48235109)

Shitty customer service is not a strategy.

Re:The customer is wrong, wrong, wrong. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about three weeks ago | (#48235225)

You MUST be new here.

Liars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235123)

They're implying that their solution will work with iPhone instead of Apple Pay. Problem is that's a misleading or a lie. It may work but it'll be QR code based since Apple locks down NFC to only be used with Apple Pay.

CurrentC will NOT use NFC for iPhone.

Either way fuck CVS I switched to Walgreens.

I'm waiting to see who gets compromised first. (1)

jdkc4d (659944) | about three weeks ago | (#48235143)

Let's face it. With the exception of cash, there isn't an easy way to pay where you cannot become compromised. It seems like every week another retailer has their databases compromised. Do I really believe even for a moment that letting google, apple, or someone else manage my cards for me will stop that? Can you imagine a situation where one of these companies is compromised and not just one but maybe all of your accounts become compromised with it?

Re:I'm waiting to see who gets compromised first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235251)

Pickpockets and other theives have been compromising cash payments for as long as they've existed. Someone steals $20 from your pocket, that $20 is gone.

Re:I'm waiting to see who gets compromised first. (4, Informative)

Karlt1 (231423) | about three weeks ago | (#48235257)

Do I really believe even for a moment that letting google, apple, or someone else manage my cards for me will stop that? Can you imagine a situation where one of these companies is compromised and not just one but maybe all of your accounts become compromised with it?

Apple never stores your credit card. You enter your credit card into the phone, it is sent to the credit card issuer and the credit card issuer sends one time use tokens directly to your phone. Those one time use tokens can only be used by authenticating with your fingerprint.

Re:I'm waiting to see who gets compromised first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235287)

How is cash something that cannot be compromised? Historically its been easier to compromise than anything we have today. It's rule is simply whomever is able to hold it, owns it. Gold is no exception. Both are a one party trust system.

Transaction based systems like cards, bank accounts, & loans are a multiparty trust system where multiple parties need to be in collusion to compromise it.

And yes, a lot of databases have been compromised, but the end consumers have lost very little. And in comparison to the total transactions that happen in commerce globally, the net compromises are minuscule.

Re:I'm waiting to see who gets compromised first. (3, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about three weeks ago | (#48235403)

One hack can compromise the credit cards for MILLIONS of people.

"Hacking your wallet" requires a particular person to target you specifically and physically.

In order to do as much damage as a single credit card breach can, everyone in New York City would have to be the victim of a pickpocket at the same time. The great thing about computing is automation. You can fuck up on a grand scale really quickly and really easily.

Re:I'm waiting to see who gets compromised first. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235301)

> ... letting google, apple, or someone else manage my cards for me ...

It appears your beliefs about the Apple Pay mechanism is based on guesswork. Your guesswork has misled you.

Consumers will be paying... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235261)

If this becomes popular, what makes you think that the banks won't start charging YOU the customer for the debit transaction or money transfer?

ma83 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235275)

already aware, *BSD and the Bazaar numbers continu3 Elected, we took

Gruber at DaringFireball nails it (3, Informative)

dackroyd (468778) | about three weeks ago | (#48235289)

Gruber at DaringFireball nails it: [daringfireball.net]

What Apple gets and what no one else in the industry does is that using your mobile device for payments will only work if it’s far easier and better than using a credit card. With CurrentC, you’ll have to unlock your phone, launch their app, point your camera at a QR code, and wait. With Apple Pay, you just take out your phone and put your thumb on the Touch ID sensor.

Tim Cook was exactly right on stage last month when he introduced Apple Pay: it’s the only mobile payment solution designed around improving the customer experience. CurrentC is designed around the collection of customer data and the ability to offer coupons and other junk. Here is what a printed receipt from CVS looks like (https://twitter.com/fromedome/status/526027483901333505). It looks like a joke, but that’s for real. And that’s the sort of experience they want to bring to mobile payments. ...

And the reason they don’t want to allow Apple Pay is because Apple Pay doesn’t give them any personal information about the customer. It’s not about security — Apple Pay is far more secure than any credit/debit card system in the U.S. It’s not about money — Apple’s tiny slice of the transaction comes from the banks, not the merchants. It’s about data.

Apple's great strategic advantages over Google, is that they put their customers (i.e. the people who buy Apple's goods and services) needs over their partners needs to be able to data mine those users.

Target, KMart, and WalMart (3, Informative)

exabrial (818005) | about three weeks ago | (#48235313)

First, CurrentC involves scanning TWO QR Codes. Wow. It's almost like we should use a radio to exchange the data. Durr. Second, Target, KMart, and Walmart are involved with this... KMart and Target are idiots; Walmart has an empire, what are they colluding with them? Apple customers are elitist that will go out of their way to use their fancy phones to do anything (ex: boarding passes). Whichever one of these retailers wakes up first and embraces secure technology wins a whole lot of new business.

Profit, profit, profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#48235359)

CurrentC dips directly into your checking account, just like a debit card. Good luck disputing charges. And have fun paying overages.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?