Re: Apple Pay - Security Description

What I mean is that there's several parts to what you were mentioning:

1) create a Webby version of the scheme
2) create a "decentralized" (pending definition) version of the scheme
3) create a completely separated version of a complete payment system,
independent of "the traditional payment industry"

It is really difficult to get momentum doing all 3 at once - Apple did
basically their own version of 1) - substituting "webby" with "for Apple's
platform of choice"

Saludos!

--
ricardo


On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Anders Rundgren <
anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2014-10-03 11:21, Ricardo Varela wrote:
>
>> I may be missing something here. In my understanding what Apple has done
>> is a (very smart, I give them that) EMVCo compatible implementation. The
>> underlying capabilities are still Visa, Mastercard, AMEX et al, plus the
>> bank network (eg: "the traditional payment industry") - I mean, even the
>> spec was created by them
>>
>> My two cents: I still think its a bit difficult to have lots of groups
>> continue pushing to "create an alternative" over structures that are not
>> working yet, instead of "create a layer over what already works" and then
>> "add an alternative implementation with the alternative". For innovation
>> purposes, yes of course is a good thing, but for
>> practicality/adoption/create momentum, not so much. Apple is big enough
>> that they COULD have done an alternative and chose to do this instead - I
>> may be wrong but maybe its a good thing to check why?
>>
>
> My core message is that it only works well because it is Apple, nobody
> else (of any significance) have implemented tokenization.
>
> Creating a Decentralized and Webby version of their scheme would be great
> but there's (AFAICT) no push behind that, so for Secure AND Convenient
> payments our alternatives are super-providers like Apple, Google, PayPal
> and Alibaba.
>
> Anders
>
>
>> Saludos!
>>
>> ---
>> ricardo
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:44 AM, Anders Rundgren <
>> anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>     http://m.tuaw.com/2014/10/02/apple-pay-an-in-depth-look-at-
>> whats-behind-the-secure-payment/
>>
>>     It is pretty clear that the traditional payment industry is YEARS
>> after Apple.
>>     The missing link is a way combining Security AND Decentralization.
>>
>>     The latter is something the "Super-Providers" have no reasons to
>> bother
>>     about since they don't need it.
>>
>>     So what's the problem then? The only people interested and *prepared*
>> challenging
>>     the super-providers represent economically and politically
>> insignificant entities.
>>     In addition, this lot is *highly divided* making alternatives poorly
>> funded and marketed.
>>
>>     I'm a pessimist?  Well, where is your "brave" bank who gladly sinks a
>> couple of million
>>     bucks in a risky high-tech project that their competitors can also
>> use?
>>
>>     Anders
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ricardo Varela - http://twitter.com/phobeo
>> "Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"
>>
>
>


-- 
Ricardo Varela -  http://twitter.com/phobeo
"Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"