PayPal’s In-Store Mobile Pitch Doesn’t Seem To Know Problems Even Exist

Written by Frank Hayes
September 21st, 2011

PayPal’s not-quite-a-mobile-payments-announcement on September 14 was a nearly perfect primer on how not to convince retailers you’re a serious player in in-store payments: Trot out a collection of rebranded (but unintegrated) technologies—everything from your own mag-stripe cards to self-checkout by phone to yet another nonstandard use of PIN pads—and then demo them without any hint that you recognize the unsolved problems they carry, never mind having solutions.

The problem isn’t just that PayPal has apparently done nothing to pull together its pile of recently acquired technologies into a suite of payment services. It’s that each of these services has real problems that have dogged retailers’ efforts at mobile payments for years. And astonishingly, PayPal doesn’t seem to have solved any of them.

Consider PayPal’s answer to NFC-equipped phones (what Google Wallet and ISIS and, if it ever materializes, Apple’s mobile-payment system all use). No NFC for us, PayPal says: Just type your phone number and a PIN into a countertop PIN pad to pay, and choose either a paper receipt or an E-receipt that’s sent to your phone.

What’s wrong with this picture? Yes, it’s less convenient than a card swipe or contactless tap, more prone to error and apparently more at risk for fraud, because anyone looking over the customer’s shoulder can capture all the information needed to make a purchase on the account. (One of PayPal’s recent mobile-payment acquisitions is Zong, whose system also sent a message to the customer’s phone to confirm the payment. Amazingly, if that’s part of the offering, it’s nowhere in the demo.)

But the real problem is the biggest hurdle faced by any new payment approach: This PayPal in-store play requires changing the retailer’s back-end software, which retailers understandably hate touching.

Google Wallet and ISIS will require back-end changes, too, along with new PIN pads. But they’re not claiming, as PayPal is, that they won’t require new infrastructure. Yes, back-end software is infrastructure.


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.