advertisement
advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Mobile Payment Brawl: POS Players Vs. Reader Vendors

June 8th, 2011

In what could be seen as undermining its own consortium, Verifone executives have been telling reporters how difficult the Google integration will be for retailers, despite Google’s arguments that the integrations will be fast and easy. Much of that involves Verifone’s efforts to justify fees it wants to charge for such integrations. (What’s the reality? Like most things, it’s somewhere in the middle, being harder than Google said but easier than Verifone suggests. But y’all knew that already, no?)

According to players in the mobile payment space, the key wildcard in these efforts is Apple. The ISIS mobile carrier (AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile) alliance is not seen as viable long term, and PayPal has already said it will not directly compete with Google. Apple has not officially said that it will compete against Google, although its plans for incorporating NFC capabilities in an upcoming iPhone and iPad are well known.

If Apple cuts a deal with Google and takes the Google cash (and it would be worth a huge amount of money to Google to ink that deal), Google will likely run the mobile payment table: Instant interoperability, and Google would have its package across all iPhones and Android phones. Whatever is left of BlackBerry at that point would likely fall in line.

If Apple and Google do not cut a deal, things are likely to get quite messy. Apple’s recent history suggests that it would resist standardization efforts and opt for an especially proprietary approach. Given its healthy marketshare in the smartphone space and its marketing sway with consumers, that could be bad news for retailers hoping for a relatively quick and painless mobile integration. Disjointed payments are trivial and won’t be much of a problem, but different approaches to data could be disastrous.

Other players are on the sidelines, but there are no meaningful indicators that any would have the funding or relationships to challenge the Google group. (An interesting comment was made about the mobile differences between Google and Microsoft. Google, it was said, is very fond of creating solutions for which there is no problem, while Microsoft’s preference is to create problems for which there is no solution.)

The problem with other vendors trying to move in is that, as many startups are now discovering, it involves two success-killing realities. First, it will often involve selling to both the retailer and the consumer, which throws the vendor into a difficult chicken-egg problem. (Retailers won’t buy until lots of their customers have, and customers won’t buy until several of their favorite retailers do.) Second, this requires software to be installed within the POS and, specifically, in an area that interacts with sensitive card data. You can’t get much more invasive than that, and few chains—if any—will permit a startup to get even close to their card data.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

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.