In theory; in practice, one reliably and repeatably works, and the other I'm not sure (and not willing to find out.) I've had some experience with stolen checks; while the money has been ultimately returned to me, it was a major hassle, and cost me several sleepless nights.
> How does Apple Pay factor in here?
Apple Pay gives the merchant a generated CC number (per-card, per-device) with a generated one-time security code (for every single purchase.) If the merchant is breached, all the hackers are getting is a generated CC number and a (expired after single use) security code, so they can't charge my Apple Pay card at all — and of course not my real card (which has never been exposed to the merchant to begin with.) The easiest and fastest chargeback is when there is no charge!
> one reliably and repeatably works, and the other I'm not sure (and not willing to find out.)
But that's exactly my point! People perceive credit cards as safer and don't try anything else, so the perception remains prominent.
It's just a regular trust bootstrapping problem that could only be solved by powerful market players breaking the cycle, and it seems like there isn't really appetite for that in the US.
> Apple Pay gives the merchant a generated CC number (per-card, per-device)[...]
Ah, yes, it does generally protect you from merchant data breaches. But your original point, "you're never out of more than what you hand over", is not quite true – the original merchant can post some subsequent charges on Apple Pay as well without you having to accept anything on your phone.
> trust bootstrapping problem that could only be solved
Onus of proof is on you that it needs to be solved, as the alternative exists and is working well. Think of it this way: I have my trust in US dollar (because everybody else has it too); maybe I could give the same trust in Swiss franc, or Emirati dirham, or South African rand — but why would I? US dollar already gives me everything I need.
> it does generally protect you from merchant data breaches
And from rogue merchants, too.
> the original merchant can post some subsequent charges
This has never happened to me; however my original point is that Apple Pay gives me better protections than regular CC, and it was given as a response to your point of "exactly the same dispute protections". Apple Pay is better since using it leads to fewer disputes in the first place; once the dispute is happening, the protections might be the same.
> Onus of proof is on you that it needs to be solved, as the alternative exists and is working well.
They are incredibly expensive. I think that part should be solved.
One obstacle on the way there is this perception that everything else is worse in terms of risk to consumers. A lot gets bundled up in the US to yield this common perception of "credit cards good, everything else bad".
>> > the original merchant can post some subsequent charges
> This has never happened to me;
I've rented cars, paid gym subscriptions etc. with Apple Pay. I can assure you merchant initiated charges are possible.
In theory; in practice, one reliably and repeatably works, and the other I'm not sure (and not willing to find out.) I've had some experience with stolen checks; while the money has been ultimately returned to me, it was a major hassle, and cost me several sleepless nights.
> How does Apple Pay factor in here?
Apple Pay gives the merchant a generated CC number (per-card, per-device) with a generated one-time security code (for every single purchase.) If the merchant is breached, all the hackers are getting is a generated CC number and a (expired after single use) security code, so they can't charge my Apple Pay card at all — and of course not my real card (which has never been exposed to the merchant to begin with.) The easiest and fastest chargeback is when there is no charge!