- From: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 08:24:29 +0200
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- CC: Web Payments CG <public-webpayments@w3.org>, public-webpayments-comments@w3.org
On 2014-10-18 16:36, Melvin Carvalho wrote: <snip> > What happens is that you create an open and universal core that works on > its own merits. Then you can hook in other systems (think linux drivers) > to become compatible. Some systems will be trivial to write drivers for, > and some will take some ingenuity. No secret there. The firms that on > this will probably do very well for themselves. You can probably create an abstract framework for dealing with *payment initiation*. However, such a framework is not really the core, because each payment system (like EMV) already has its own core including message flows, security, etc. Thus I don't see where Identity Credentials, Secure Messaging or even JSON-LD comes in unless we are actually talking about entirely new payment systems which is explicitly stated as a non-goal of the WebPayments IG. Note: I don't say that the CG and IG must necessarily have the same goals, I simply find them to be completely different. Right or wrong? New payment systems must IMO compete favorably with existing systems to get traction. Being competitive IMO requires client platform integration like Apple and Google do. The Web Payment CG claims this is not important. What the Web Payment IG thinks here would be interesting to know! Anyway, I wish you the best of luck! I continue my struggle for creating a more generically useful web client-platform which is pretty hard as well... Anders > > What is being done here is to create a universal interoperable standard close to the openness of the web (we hope!). I'm defining universal to mean the property that it is interoperable with any other universal system. None exist as of today, but if another comes along and passes the TOII (Test of Independent Invention) we automatically increase traction. > > Other payment processors will be hooked in based on how much manpower is available. > > The W3C creating yet another payment system is not viable, and not worth spending time on. The W3C creating a universal payment system aligned to the web IS worth doing, and there's some track record here... > > We are about co operation, not competition ... > > > Anders > > >> >> Joseph >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com <mailto:anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On 2014-10-17 23:10, Manu Sporny wrote: >> >> We have a presentation[1] to the Web Payments Interest Group at W3C TPAC >> at 11am on Monday, October 27th 2014. The goal is to introduce the new >> IG members to the work we've been doing over the past 4+ years in the >> Web Payments CG. We have 60 minutes allocated, with 20 minutes of >> presentation and 40 minutes of discussion. >> >> Please review the slides and let us know if there is anything that is in >> there that shouldn't be, or something that should be in there that isn't. >> >> https://web-payments.org/slides/2014/tpac-wpig-wpcg/ >> >> >> It was a nice presentation. Personally I'm worried that messages like the >> one I got yesterday from a payment specialist will turn out to be true: >> >> "Apple Pay is very good, both systematically and cryptographically. >> Additionally, they did their ecosystem homework, signing up MasterCard, >> Visa and Amex, and the five largest payment processors. I believe that >> they have in effect created the next generation of payment card. >> Because of the ecosystem involvement, Apple will be forced to allow >> this to be implemented by others so that this method becomes ubiquitous. >> If Apple Pay has any significant adoption in 2015, the method will quickly >> be spread everywhere. It will be very hard for any architecturally competing >> schemes to get any adoption. (Several of my friends in the payment business >> here in XXXXX helped Apple design Apple Pay. There are many years of payment >> experience embedded in its design.)" >> >> IMO, the W3C must carefully consider the value proposition of any future work >> so that it has a chance of getting traction. >> >> Challenging existing payment networks (and Apple) could be such an option >> but wouldn't that be ignored/voted down by the major platform vendors? >> >> A web interface to Apple Pay could be another venue. BTW, I think this would >> be trivial since the only thing you need (AFAICT...) is opening an opaque channel >> to the merchant web-server since the actual payment is dealt with in the phone. >> >> Regarding the Web Payment CG and IG, I see no apparent relationship since the >> IG seems to focus on payment initiation [1] which exclude credentials, signatures >> etc. because these things belong to the specific payment system itself. >> >> Cheers, >> Anders >> >> 1] "While the Web Payments Interest Group is not chartered to develop new >> payment methods, it will create a framework to ensure that Web applications >> can interface in a standard ways with all current and future payment methods" >> >> >> -- manu >> >> [1] >> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Draft_F2F_Agenda_-_TPAC_2014_-_27/28_October_2014#Day_1_.28October_27.29 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joseph Potvin >> Operations Manager | Gestionnaire des opérations >> The Opman Company | La compagnie Opman >> jpotvin@opman.ca <mailto:jpotvin@opman.ca> >> Mobile: 819-593-5983 <tel:819-593-5983> > >
Received on Sunday, 19 October 2014 06:26:19 UTC