advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Apple’s Mobile Payments: Not Bluetooth, But Maybe Closer Than You Think

May 23rd, 2012

Then there’s the fact that even Apple Stores aren’t using anything other than magstriped plastic cards for in-store mobile payments. Customers can’t even charge a purchase to an iTunes account, and Apple isn’t using Bluetooth or NFC for payments—at least not yet.

Apple may indeed intend to use Bluetooth for payments. But what if that’s not the case? Then how to explain putting the most advanced version of Bluetooth on all its new devices, if not for payments? After all, as the Apple watchers point out, Apple has a long history of not jumping on the latest and greatest technologies.

True enough. But Apple also has a long history of locking in customers with technologies that no one else is using. Maybe this new version of Bluetooth (dubbed Bluetooth 4 or Bluetooth Low Energy) is simply a good product idea in Apple’s eyes. Anything that forces customers to buy peripherals from Apple is viewed kindly in Cupertino.

That particular Apple tradition goes back at least to the earliest days of the Mac. Keyboards and mice? Macs used the Apple Desktop Bus connection, not the PC’s PS/2. Mac printers used RS-422 serial connections, not the PC’s parallel ports. Mac modems used RS-422, too, instead of the PC’s RS-232 serial ports. Mac video monitors were just a cheap converter away from being PC VGA monitors, but that still made it easy for Apple to get its everything-should-just-work Mac customers to simply buy everything from Apple.

Today, Apple sells Bluetooth peripherals that, according to the packaging, require Apple hardware to use. Actually, they mostly work fine with PCs. But Apple doesn’t mind not selling to the PC crowd, where almost all other vendors have lower prices for pretty much the same products.

And if Apple can get all its iPhone, iPod and iPad customers to believe that they need the latest-and-greatest version of Bluetooth for their peripherals—and from Apple, of course—that’s a much more profitable and less risky reason for that Bluetooth strategy than mobile payments.

Will there ever be an Apple mobile payments rollout—and what will it look like? Apple has certainly filed a batch of mobile-payments-related patent applications (several of which refer to using NFC), but we’re still waiting for anything more than rumors from Apple. It may never happen; the slow-motion launches of Google Wallet, PayPal’s in-store payments and ISIS’s mobile wallet suggest that rectangular plastic cards are still the favorite payment medium for both customers and retailers, and Apple knows it.

But if it’s the season for thinly supported predictions about Apple’s entry in the mobile payments race, here’s one: If it’s coming soon, Apple will announce it no later than mid-August, for rollout in both Apple Stores and—drum roll, please—JCPenney.

What’s the evidence? Well, Apple will need a major chain on board—Apple Stores just don’t carry enough products to prove the concept. And with ex-Apple Stores boss Ron Johnson as CEO, JCPenney is the logical choice, especially since Johnson recently told analysts that at his chain’s next earnings call in mid-August, “we will then talk about our new technology platform, how we’re going to win with technology and become—I think—the leading retailer from a technology perspective.”

Sound crazy? Maybe so—but it’s a lot less ridiculous than the idea that Bluetooth will kill cash registers.


advertisement

One Comment | Read Apple’s Mobile Payments: Not Bluetooth, But Maybe Closer Than You Think

  1. Jason Goldberg Says:

    Apple does in fact allow you to pay in-store using your iTunes account… via EasyPay their self-service checkout tech.

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.