UKCards Association says "44.6 million contactless cards in circulation in the UK, used to make 22.1 million contactless transactions in May 2014".
There are also NFC enabled stickers, watches and key fobs.
That's what I don't understand...why does a NFC transaction have to involve smartphones? What is it that needs the processing power of a smartphone? Is it so that Goog Wallet/Apple Pay can access your transaction data?
NFC payments don't have to involve smartphones, but look at what Apple Pay gets you:
- Biometric auth
- one-time numbers generated for each transaction
- multiple cards in one place
- hides your info from the vendor (and apple for that matter)
Those are pretty nice things to get from something that lets me ditch my wallet...
"The alternative is to provide your own server-side solution to receive payments from your app,
decrypt payment tokens and interface with the payment provider. Handling credit and debit
card payments can be complicated and unless you already have the expertise and systems in
place, an SDK from a payment provider is the quickest and most reliable way to support Apple
Pay in your app."
Once you're done that, you've built a small-scale, inefficient, featureless, and altogether shitty version of what Stripe will offer up to anyone with an e-mail address, and it's taken you six to eight months to build. Oh and your app is out of date and all your competitors have taken your customers.
As fgblanch points out, a merchant using Stripe only needs a single account with them to handle credit cards, Apple Pay, and whatever else comes along tomorrow.
As Igglybook and zaidf point out, Apple wants to provide the hardware and software for the user, but they don't actually want to be a financial services company like Stripe.
When the payment is processed, that same network/bank takes the token provided, translates it back to a card number and passes the card number to the issuing bank.
I think it's actually quite a feat that Apple managed to tokenize all 800 million existing card numbers, because of this requirement.
Curious, was the majority of the work required to support ApplePay related to the format of the PKPayment? I assume in other cases, you just pass the raw PAN + pin, etc, where as now you need to pass the encrypted single use token + cryptographic data + more. Was more work required to support ApplePay?
And if so, did Visa/MC/Amex and the processing networks recently start supporting this payload, or has it been in place for some time?
Finally, what does Apple use the Merchant ID for?
Or, should I say, "I hope"...
All of this, is of course implementation dependent. And at the moment, I won't think that we have enough information to rule it out.
Using your device to authenticate web purchases is a more complicated and difficult (and potentially insecure) prospect, and thus, will take longer before it's viable.
Apple's normal mode of operation is to start with the smallest essential thing that adds value, and then extend it over time. In a way, what we saw today is Apple's idea of an MVP.
If the web isn't an area where Apple can add value, they won't do it. Or put another way, if other people do a better job on the web (e.g.: stripe) then Apple's not going to try and compete with them.
Today you can go to the amazon or target app and buy physical goods using a credit card and Apple's cut of the sale is %0.
This just makes it easier and more secure for apps to take credit card payments. I think Apple may be getting a cut of the credit card fees when this happens, but that's between Apple and the card companies.
(We should update the page to say this...)
Edit: Some more context on how this all works from the other ApplePay thread on HN: http://clover-developers.blogspot.com/2014/09/apple-pay.html
For non-digital goods, Stripe is offering a library for iOS for a few years now which isn't affected by the 30% cut.
I assume this would apply to Apple Pay, too.
I believe this will follow the pattern that Apple normally follows for complex regulatory-involved industries (e.g.: the cellular carriers to support the iPhone). They're probably already working on BRIC and the G8 countries, will focus on them initially and then start rolling it out to wider and wider countries (with deeper and deeper integration in those initial countries.)
I think this is going to be a multi-year process, assuming it's a success, and it will be something that future keynotes include an update on (like "I'm pleased to announce that Apple Pay is now in 80,000 retailers in 8 countries")
Edit: bills and rent are possibly the last hold out, but usually you set up bill payments through your bank.
Basically his experience was:
- Cheques were still reasonably common, to the point that some bank(s) had mobile apps to scan a cheque to deposit it!
- "Bill payments" through a bank usually involved bank staff literally preparing a cheque on your behalf, and mailing it to the biller
As for your comment about "person to person is Paypal" - ok and what if I actually care about what happens to the money, rather than it randomly being held by some non-bank? Do US banks really not have a standard way to transfer money to another individual electronically?
In Australia all that's needed are BSB number (Bank-State-Branch, a unique identifier for each individual branch through the country) and Account number. Transfers could take up to a day or two, the last time I tracked it
In Thailand, there is a similar system where money can be transferred directly to an account belonging to someone else (or your own account at another bank). So far it has always been instant transfer.
Both of these systems are available via internet banking, mobile apps and in Australia, phone banking (not sure about Thailand, promo material isn't always in English)
I remember a few years ago a client in the US apologising for an incorrect wire transfer to me, as he'd given the teller the wrong amount (swapped a 5 and a 2 or something). I was stunned to think that the founder of a tech startup would not be using internet banking to make wire transfers to contractors, but after reading about the cheque situation it occurred to me that maybe he didn't have the choice.. can anyone confirm deny this is available?
I sometimes still get paid by clients using checks, but most have switched over to direct deposit or paying with credit cards.
International wire transfers are another beast due to the IRS and all the regulation around it. You need their bank account, ABA routing number, name, branch address, etc. I wire funds to Vietnam all the time, but there is a limit to the frequency and amount that I can do. It also will raise flags with the IRS, which is something to avoid.
Paper checks are suspected to go the way of the dinosaur in the US by 2028.
The UK is also a big check writing country too, fwiw.
And, honestly, checks aren't a pain in the ass. It's probably the same amount of time/effort as logging into a website and sending money, except for the time it takes to mail it or deliver it by hand.
Edit: did you notice what I said about transfers in Thailand: instant. I can, within about 90 seconds, send money to a person or business at any other bank in the country. A cheque is only "basically the same time" if your scale for comparison is years.
Cheques are absolutely a pain in the ass, and you're kidding yourself if you think the us isn't woefully behind the times in terms of banking.
I thought thailand was bad when I tried to setup a foreign currency account, but it's like Star Trek era banking compared to amercia
Checks are cleared almost instantly now. When you take a photo of it, it's run through ACH just like a wire transfer is. At most, it takes a day depending on when you deposit it.
I never said the US was ahead or behind either, that's something you erroneously inferred. Checks are no longer common, as I said a few replies up. Other than dealing with come clients that still pay by check, I haven't seen one or dealt with them for years.
Also, I live part-time in Vietnam, so I know all about wire transfers thank you very much. I also know what dicks Aussie ex-pats are too, thanks for confirmation.
If you look again you'll see I didn't ask for an opinion, like "are cheques a good way to transfer funds" I asked for confirmation/updates about a previously documented fact - the use of cheques in us banking.