advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Is It Apple Vs. Google In Mobile Payments?

September 22nd, 2011

Choosing from the ISIS telco consortium, Google, PayPal and Apple, whose history suggests the best strength in creating intuitive designs? If we’re going to teach consumers to swim in the waters of mobile payment, Apple’s GUI efforts at least give them the best chance to not drown.

There’s another fact about Apple that could prove crucial. It’s the only likely mobile payment vendor that is also a legitimate national retailer. Although it’s retail store revenue is tiny compared with the Wal-Marts, Targets and Home Depots, Apple is more than just a retailer. It’s easy to make the case that it’s the most cutting edge—and copied—retailer in the U.S. today.

Given that we’re talking about mobile payment, which retailer pioneered in-store mobile payment—and has since had a laundry list of traditional retail chains copying its effort, right down to using Apple hardware.

What about merged channel (the ultimate progression of multi-channel to cross-channel)? A few weeks ago, I was in a local mall and discovered a small glitch in my iPhone. I quickly accessed the Apple site and, in less than a minute, scheduled an appointment (to happen 30 minutes later) with an Apple Genius (tech support) at their store. I walked to the store and the appointment happened right on time.

Think about what that involved. Can you think of any retailer’s mobile app that is to integrated with in-store operations that it could be used to schedule an appointment with an in-store associate? The integration that Apple has created between mobile, online and in-store is nothing short of stunning, when compared with comparable efforts of much larger chains.

Set aside the GUI skills, the consumer popularity and the retail technology leadership and you have one other powerful differentiator: iTunes. Of the major contenders, only PayPal could challenge iTunes for its actual mobile payment transactional expertise and practical experience.

As we’ve argued before, there are a lot of strategic reasons why Apple may not want to engage in hand-to-hand combat on mobile payments and might prefer to cut a deal with someone—quite possibly Google—and simply take a big one-time check plus millions of mid-sized checks for Apple cooperation.

But if Apple opts to make the move—and rumors of an October iPhone announcement that can support mobile payments are true—it would have a lot of compelling arguments to make.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Is It Apple Vs. Google In Mobile Payments?

  1. ed Says:

    It is possible that Apple may be working with mobile/telco providers using direct billing to establish a stored valued account for their mobile payment strategy.

    Either way, Apple iTunes success and creating an offline mobile payment strategy that ties into iTunes is the speculation that is fueling their stock prices right now.

Newsletters

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!
advertisement

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...

StorefrontBacktalk
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.