Is It Apple Vs. Google In Mobile Payments?

Written by Frank Hayes and Evan Schuman
September 22nd, 2011

When Visa announced Monday (Sept. 19) that it had officially sold a license to Google Wallet, it signaled a key next step in the mobile payment maneuvers. Google now appears to have the best position with retailers, while ISIS gets love from banks and card issuers, and PayPal is relying on its own online payment abilities. Then there’s the mobile payment candidate waiting in the wings. Will Apple in a month or so make its NFC mobile move?

That’s increasingly likely—at least if Apple is ready. This particular fight may be moving to the hearts and phones of consumers, where two players—ISIS and PayPal—have serious handicaps. But consumers see Google as a search engine that does a lot of stuff for them for free. And if any company generates even more warm-and-fuzzy feelings than Google, it’s Apple.

Consider: ISIS has become the favorite of banks/issuers since the telco coalition shifted its go-to-market strategy in May. (Indications are that the Visa-Google deal was pushed in part by those ISIS changes.) Phone companies and banks? That’s not exactly the short list of consumers’ favorite companies to deal with. And PayPal, while it just jumped into the mobile payment pool, has a decade of its own baggage behind it, along with a long trail of irritated customers.

Currently, that leaves Google as the favorite, and you can expect to see some intense marketing campaigns aimed at consumers, but with retailer persuasion being the ultimate goal. If consumers shift strongly in one direction, that could be crucial.

But with the latest jockeying, the attractiveness of Apple in mobile payment is becoming stronger. In a battle for consumer support, Apple has all of the other vendors beaten easily. But that’s an emotional connection. What about the facts?

Fact One: The biggest challenge in getting mobile payments to have any kind of decent acceptance will be through lots of early adopters. Given the fact that almost no retailers will adequately train associates, print and distribute effective signage and launch extensive awareness and customer-training efforts, many consumers will be left to figure out how to make it work on their own.

When you tried using contactless payment in its early months, think of how many associate blank stares you saw when you asked for help. When I was visiting retailers using ShopKick, I made it a point to ask a wide range of associates and managers questions about how the app should be used. Suffice it to say, none had known anything about it.

Choosing from the ISIS telco consortium, Google, PayPal and Apple, whose history suggests the best strength in creating intuitive designs?


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.