- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 11:50:05 +0200
- To: Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com>
- CC: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>
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"
Received on Friday, 3 October 2014 09:50:37 UTC