I suspect, but cannot prove, that there is an important hidden variable: customers who can use Apple Pay typically have more disposable income [1], and that makes them hesitate less before hitting the final 'checkout' button.
[1] I do not have data supporting that, but find it likely, given that they bought an iPhone 6.
This does have an effect, but I doubt it explains the entire story. I know from personal experience that having to input credit card details into a website, and the delay that input step causes, can often turn me away from finalizing a purchase. Amazon's 1-click proved the value of this sort of process improvement years ago.
This is one of the reasons I've bought so much stuff from Amazon (or used Amazon's payment service). They have my address, they have my card, it's fast as easy.
I don't have to go create a new custom account on someone's store, re-enter that info, possibly make a typo, pull out my CC because I don't have the number memorized, etc.
I'm willing to pay Amazon more than some other stores because, even ignoring shipping, there is much less friction.
I was excited about Apple Pay and used it where I could for about a month or so. Though, as we all have to do once or twice a month (ridiculous) I had to get a new debit card and since I havent bothered taking a pic of my newest card for Passbook.
The first few times I used it at Wegmans and Walgreens it was quick and awesome. It probably still is great to use at Wegmans, but Walgreens bogged down the experience by adding tons of prompts for me to agree to complete my order.
Maybe one day mobile payments will be realized, but until Apple gets every huge to mid size retailer on board it's just not useful to me.
> Though, as we all have to do once or twice a month (ridiculous) I had to get a new debit card and since I havent bothered taking a pic of my newest card for Passbook.
ApplePay allows banks to update your saved card automatically when they need to give you a new card number.
CapitalOne did this, and it meant that I could still use my credit card recently when it got closed without waiting for them to mail me a new one.
(CapitalOne's own customer support don't know this, though, and said I'd have to delete the card and add it again myself.)
Also, if you're using a debit card to pay at places that are getting their card transactions hacked I think you really need tokenization!
I was travelling to Europe but the Capital One card I had only had a magnetic strip. I've had this issue before with other US banks and it was fairly trivial to get a Chip & Pin card instead.
So I spoke to Capital One's CS, I explained I was going to Europe and needed a C&P card. They then read out this statement about C&P rollout in the US and how they would be replacing all Capital One cards within the next 12 months (or similar).
I told them I was leaving in just over a month, and that magnetic strip cards don't work in much of Europe (which is true, a lot of places have physically removed magnetic strip readers now).
So they re-read out selective parts of the statement about the US rollout and said they cannot provide me with a C&P card and "not to worry your card will work fine until then."
I was and still am flabbergasted. It is like they weren't even listening to what I had just said. The worst part? This is a card which advertises itself as having "No foreign transactions fees" as a major perk, yet they don't offer C&P for people who, you know, actually travel? Mind boggling.
I bet before this US C&P rollout they were providing C&P to people who asked for them, then they set up some internal process for C&P rollout for all of their customers but confused themselves and now think that they cannot provide it unless you're rolled out to...
Regardless I just gave up. Their brand of stupid was too much for me, their CS just ignored what I said and keeped on parroting.
As an aside, no USA banks issue chip and PIN cards. The EMV-capable cards being rolled out are chip and sign cards. This usually doesn't matter but can cause issues at fully automated tills (the common example being issues when trying to purchase transit tickets).
Wikipedia's article on EMV has a section explaining the technical differences[0] between the card types.
Yes they do. Wells Fargo issued me one to use on my trip to Paris. It worked fine in Paris, plug it in, enter the pin, and done. It does take some getting used to, but my Target Red Card works the same way now in the US (enter a pin, etc).
Also your link contradicts your point:
> As an aside, no USA banks issue chip and PIN cards. The EMV-capable cards being rolled out are chip and sign cards.
But if you actually read the very section you linked it says that they are Chip and Pin and not only are they Chip and Pin, but they're the exact same "EuroPay" compatible cards issued in much of Europe.
Did you even read what you linked to, like at all..? Because:
> The chips in these cards feature "PIN" ranked first in the list of possible cardholder verification methods (CVM), but with signature allowed as a fall-back option (or even no verification at unattended terminals).
So you're wrong. Every USA bank is issuing Chip and Pin you just cannot read.
I wasn't aware of Wells Fargo issuing Chip and PIN cards[0] and I appreciate you pointing that out!
The other USA banks that I've looked at (Bank of America[1], for example) issue signature-only cards. These not working in unattended kiosks is mentioned in the last paragraph of the Wikipedia section we're both referring to.
The main problem with Chip and PIN cards in the USA is PIN management. Since EMV was developed before every ATM was online, the card needs to be aware of its PIN. Not many USA ATMs support reading EMV cards, which makes changing the PIN on the card difficult.
This is why Wells Fargo[0] don't allow you to change your card's PIN and is why many USA banks simply chose to skip PINs altogether. The last sentence of the Wikipedia section we're referring to mentions this.
Try calling again. It sounds like you talked to only 1 or 2 people; sometimes it takes a few tries with call centers to get to someone who will listen to you. It's totally annoying, but in the end maybe the person you talked to was distracted and was just having a bad day. It was wrong of them to not listen to you, but if it's a chronic problem with that person, some sort of automated satisfaction survey should eventually pick that up.
And this is why I closed my ING Direct account very shortly after they were bought by Capital One.
On the other hand when I called USAA with a question about Apple Pay, within about five minutes I was talking to a specially trained Apple Pay expert that they had on hand.
Don't forget that CVS and others disabled NFC payments entirely to hamstring Apple because Apple makes it impossible for them to capture customer data (unique ID per transaction as opposed to a credit card number that's always the same). It's annoying for the folks that were using Google Wallet for a year before Apple Pay was introduced and the retailers turned it off.
There were a lot of places I was able to use Google Wallet to pay where contactless payments have been disabled completely because of this. I can't blame Apple; I suppose this was bound to happen at some point once the retailers figured this out.
well they are all going to eventually learn how share information, else I am quite convinced that some retailers are large enough themselves, and definitely in groups, to ignore Apple and some banks.
Actually I hope they do. I am aghast at how fast people will jump into something just because Apple's name is on it when we don't know all the catches. You are effectively paying Apple to make a purchase, one you could make without yet another party interjecting itself into the stream.
I do not like adding touch points. If it means I have to swipe a card, I prefer signing all receipts, instead of just having my phone I am more than willing if one less exposure is available.
Apples system is just reusing already existing payment technology. Its closer to Google Pay (ignoring the phone side security aspects here).
And it is entirely worth using it. Even from my limited experience using it (walgreens and lunds are the only places it currently has worked), it is miles better for paying things. No swipe, no receipt, no hassle with the stupid touch screens etc... I may not like the intervening data aspect of all electronic, but after using it its like the move from writing cheques to credit cards.
I hope those other places do say no to apple pay, I'm already planning on ignoring buying from them for their refusal to make my life simpler and get out of their store.
I'd rather not deal with any inconvenience at all. In a dream world I don't have to swipe/touch/anything, Starbucks just knows who I am and charges the total based on my phone being in my pocket or something.
I don't care how, I just want to get the paying part done in the least possible effort. I'm lazy. At this point I get mighty vexed when I can't just touch my card and have to actually put in a pin number.
Square Wallet[0] used to implement something similar to what you're describing. It used your phone's GPS to register you as near/inside a store and merchants selected you based on a photo you provided. It was pulled in May[1] in favour of Square Order.
I use it at Walgreens all the time and I don't have any prompts to agree to. I hold the phone to the NFC reader, put my thumb to the phone, and then I'm done. That's it.
Maybe it depends what Walgreens you go to? Im here in the north eastern part of Maryland and as noted it worked smoothly/great at Walgreens initially. Like you described.
Though a month later I noticed I had to hit yes/confirm through 3 to 5 screens to finish the transaction. This greatly reduced the UX and my excitement for using it.
Walgreens thrives on horrible UX for some reason. I haven't quite figured it out. Their purchase flow is slow, their employees seem to never be in a hurry, and their receipts are about 2ft too long on average.
[1] I do not have data supporting that, but find it likely, given that they bought an iPhone 6.