advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

How Fast Does An NFC Transaction Need To Be?

April 21st, 2011

Fair enough. Dorf then reported on some glitches encountered during the data-write portion. “Writing data takes a big longer and moving the phone away from the reader during a write operation will cause an error. When a coupon is redeemed, we may want to erase it, or add a new one during checkout. This extends the time even longer. The fastest approach might be to simply store a read-only unique identifier on the phone that a third party can link to a loyalty number, list of coupons and payment choices on some far away server. Forcing all the work to the back-end servers would certainly simplify the role of NFC but also require the POS to be online.”

Dorf’s point about politics and turf control is a valid thought. But the fear goes both ways. How many retailers will fear opening up their CRM databases, wondering if the details might possibly leak back to the processor, to the phone (What? Apple might record something private? One can’t imagine such a thing!) and possibly wind up in the hands of a rival?

All of this gets us back to the question, “How much of a delay will this deliver?” The practical point is that consumers will likely accept any reasonable delays, as long as the offerings are ubiquitous enough. Remember the early days of ATMs and all of those consumer complaints? Whatever happened to those complaints? The consumers got used to it and the banks—being banks—smiled and ignored them.

One person who had strong concerns about what Dorf posted was J.P. Norair, the chief architect with Dash-7, a non-profit wireless data alliance with member manufacturers, systems integrators and developers. Norair posted a comment to Dorf’s piece, where he argued that “the biggest problem with speed isn’t the NFC, which is faster than older passive standards, but crappy middleware and crappy, message-based middleware protocols. The comm lag between the reader and the thing that is issuing commands and processing the data is the biggest source of slow performance. Taking NFC to 1Gbps (which isn’t actually possible) isn’t going to solve the performance issue.”

Norair also pointed the finger at “so many serial lines between POS and POP terminal still run at 9600 bps.” and lots of “messaging protocols require full circuits, all the way to the database, for even the most mundane commands.”

In a telephone conversation on Wednesday (April 20), Norair said his key concern is that too many POS systems today are designed to make a 200-milisecond (one-fifth of a second) round-trip hit for every individual task. “It needs 3 to 6 hits just for the authentication alone. The rest—for user data elements, preference setting, cookie equivalents, timeouts, things like that—take at least two and maybe five more hits,” he said. Instead, Norair argues that it’s better “to write a middleware protocol instead of hitting the server every time. A cloud model doesn’t scale wirelessly. And everything on some central server, that doesn’t scale at all. Some intelligence has to be brought down to the endpoint, to get latency down.”

The problem with Norair’s argument is: To what end? That’s a lot of effort and money and for what benefit? Will shaving off fractions of a second—and at most, maybe one full second—make any meaningful difference to the shopper’s experience?

Is a customer that hard to entertain for two seconds? Couldn’t that time be filled with a “paper or plastic?” or “do you have your club card today?” question?

IT people often strive for the ultimate in efficiency and needless delays are maddening. In this instance, though, the practical business reality is to just endure those frustrations. If the customers won’t notice, it’s really hard to cost-justify it.


advertisement

2 Comments | Read How Fast Does An NFC Transaction Need To Be?

  1. Miles Thomas Says:

    The real bonus for NFC will be in Chip and PIN countries, where it should be obviously quicker (no PIN to type, at least not every time)

  2. Dee777 Says:

    It is important transaction time, but most important is security. Protect your transaction!

    NFC technology 14 huge security gap= 10 places software, 4 places hardware and more 21 fraud point (point of sale, vending, etc.) very, very, bleed…

    They will be yet national security problems: USA (CIA, FBI and NSA), Europe and China (13.56MHz)… there is a better solution, than NFC.

    Would be wiser possibly to stand on two feet? Think again!

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.