Payment Authorization Terminal Sales Soar Worldwide

Written by Evan Schuman
October 17th, 2008

As retailers across the globe modernize, the installed base of payment authorization terminals has soared almost 22 percent from 2006 to 2007, according to a report in this week’s Nilson Report, a well-respected newsletter covering payment issues.

The report said that some two-dozen terminal vendors shipped 11.9 million units worldwide in 2007, a 21.8 percent increase from the 9.8 million in 2006. The report said it’s figures were limited to "stand- alone types or (terminals) connected to electronic cash registers or to PC-based systems. Figures do not include newly manufactured ECRs, the PC-based systems themselves, unattended card readers at gas stations and PIN pads."

As happens typically in a growth segment such as authorization terminals, vendor consolidation has concentrated control—and, therefore, retail purchase options—in far fewer hands. Nilson reported that the top six vendors last year controlled 85.7 percent of all terminal shipments, an increase from 79.3 percent in 2006.

The top 10 were France’s Ingenico with 3.8 million shipments (a 73 percent increase), the U.S.’s VeriFone with 3.6 million shipments (a 16 percent increase), the U.S.’s Hypercom with 1.8 million shipments (an 86 percent increase), South Korea’s CyberNet with 534,000 shipments (a 17 percent increase), France’s Gemalto with 372,000 shipments (a 26 percent increase), Japan’s Panasonic with 185,000 shipments (a 62 percent increase), Hong Kong’s Pax Tech with 171,000 shipments (a 67 percent increase), South Korea’s Bitel with 146,000 units shipped (an 11 percent increase), China’s Fujian Landi with 128,000 units shipped (a 106 percent increased) and China’s SZZT Electronics with 126,000 units shipped (a 33 percent increase).

The vendors suffering the biggest decreases in sales, according to the report, were on the lower end of sales. Obviously, a 1 percent increase from a significantly smaller total number of units shipped can be a lot less meaningful than it would be for those firms with a larger marketshare.

That said, Italy’s DA Networks suffered a 66 percent loss (with 53,000 units shipped), Belgium’s Intellect took a 54 percent hit on 56,000 units shipped, the U.S.’s MaxID suffered a 35 percent loss (on what the report said was sales of only 41 units in 2007), South Korea’s Hanchang dropped 30 percent on 66,000 units shipped, Japan’s Toshiba TEC suffered a 26 percent loss on 15,300 units shipped and China’s Fujian Newland swallowed a 9 percent fall on 17,000 shipped units.


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.