Your opinion on Rite Aid and CVS removing NFC payments

[neurodave]

I see a lot of people trying to compare this to Apple removing Bose products from its stores. My opinion on that part is that Apple purchased Beats and is now producing audio products, so it is a conflict of interest. CVS and Rite Aid are a pharmaceutical (primarily) company and will be using a service for processing payments, a service they are a PART of but don't own or produce themselves. Conflict of interest does not apply to the latter. This all boils down to their bottom end, not the consumer. If it were conflict of interest, then they should remove ALL card machines and enforce a "cash only" system until CurrentC is available to use in their stores. They are solely isolating NFC payments.

 

[volsfan0911]

I'm stuck with CVS 'cause they're my Rx plan provider. CurrentC looks like a clumsy process that is much more of a PITA to use than pulling out a traditional debit card. That will probably torpedo the whole thing right there. I don't need any additional incentive to avoid Best Buy. And if someone doesn't accept NFC payments? Then I'll use my debit card. But if you use my wife as an example (sorry honey), this is a woman who will drive 3 miles out of her way to go to the Starbuck's WITH a drive through. If it's not convenient? Forget it, you're not getting her money. That consumer attitude is a large part of what Apple got right with Apple Pay IMHO.

 

[Premium1]

I feel like from a business perspective, I can see them trying to get all the profit they can. Now that being said, I could see this backfiring on them by people shopping elsewhere. I mean for me I never shop at those stores anyway, so I'm not really missing out on anything. If it hits them with people shopping elsewhere, I can see them changing their stance if apple pay really takes off in the next year. Personally I do not feel comfortable with these chains getting access right into my bank account and it being stored in some sort of cloud. It seems everyday is a new hack, too much risk for some meh implementation.

 

[sting7k]

Don't shop at CVS or Rite Aid. Don't have much interest in mobile payments either. I'm just gonna enjoy the show.

If I am Tim Cook, I will get the CEO of Google on the phone and agree on the removal of CurrentC from both app stores.

Apple and Google would be dragged into court the next day if they blocked that app on Anti-trust violations. Assuming the app is in full compliance with both store front guidelines.

 

[calebt]

Here is another good read.
http://www.macworld.com/article/283...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer



Sent from my wrapped in leather iPhone 6 using Tapatalk

 

[HankAZ]

Apple and Google would be dragged into court the next day if they blocked that app on Anti-trust violations. Assuming the app is in full compliance with both store front guidelines.

Not sure that’s true. No more an anti-trust violation than CVS and Rite-Aid are committing with their blocking all Pay and GoogleWallet transactions.

 

[Ledsteplin]

I think its foolish and at some point they will add it back- I personally dont frequent either store- I prefer to give the Mom and Pop drugstores my business

Exactly what I do. Better service, friendlier people, and we're on a first name basis. I quit Rite Aid 2 years ago. We go there only if a Doc calls in a med like on Sunday. Mom and Pop be in church on Sunday.


Sent from my ancient but trustworthy iPhone 5.

 

[essay2u]

I see a lot of people trying to compare this to Apple removing Bose products from its stores. My opinion on that part is that Apple purchased Beats and is now producing audio products, so it is a conflict of interest. CVS and Rite Aid are a pharmaceutical (primarily) company and will be using a service for processing payments, a service they are a PART of but don't own or produce themselves. Conflict of interest does not apply to the latter. This all boils down to their bottom end, not the consumer. If it were conflict of interest, then they should remove ALL card machines and enforce a "cash only" system until CurrentC is available to use in their stores. They are solely isolating NFC payments.

I'm thinking this might be somewhat comparable to the Face(play)book migration to messenger. Force your customers to adopt your "new and improved" version of a service you were already providing gratis. I live next door to a cvs. But I will make the effort to use Walgreens now instead. I have something against companies who cripple existing technology at my expense to fatten their own pockets.

 

[Flapalms239]

Ahh I see I haven't really ever bought anything at CVS LOL.

Extreme waste of paper

 

[natasftw]

I'm thinking this might be somewhat comparable to the Face(play)book migration to messenger. Force your customers to adopt your "new and improved" version of a service you were already providing gratis. I live next door to a cvs. But I will make the effort to use Walgreens now instead. I have something against companies who cripple existing technology at my expense to fatten their own pockets.

You call that crippling? Hyperbole much?

What expense is it giving you?

 

[essay2u]

You call that crippling? Hyperbole much?

What expense is it giving you?

What are you even talking about? THEY SHUT DOWN ALL NFC PAYMENTS on terminals that were ACCEPTING NFC PAYMENTS. i.e "crippled" existing technology.

Read much?!?!?!!!!

 

[nj1266]

Don't shop at CVS or Rite Aid. Don't have much interest in mobile payments either. I'm just gonna enjoy the show.



Apple and Google would be dragged into court the next day if they blocked that app on Anti-trust violations. Assuming the app is in full compliance with both store front guidelines.

They do not have to announce it. They do not even have to communicate with each other. If one does it, then the next one would follow.

 

[natasftw]

What are you even talking about? THEY SHUT DOWN ALL NFC PAYMENTS on terminals that were ACCEPTING NFC PAYMENTS. i.e "crippled" existing technology.

Read much?!?!?!!!!

/sigh

They also don't sell cars. I guess they've crippled vehicle technology.

If we believe they're the only place that accepts NFC payments and that NFC payments are the only use for NFC technology, you're showing a crippling effect. Here in the real world, the impact is negligible. Common sense much?

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

I am sorry but this is not capitalism. This is collusion among a few actors in the marketplace to subvert innovation. Capitalism is about individual buyers and sellers meeting in the marketplace and using freely accessible tools to exchange goods.

What these bad actors are doing is to subvert technological innovation in order to save a few bucks and add to their profits and to mine my data for marketing purposes.

If they were really interested in the free market then they would let BOTH NFC and CurrentC stand and would allow the users to decide which one to use.

As I understand it, CurrentC is old tech and is not user friendly at all. It requires far more steps to use than AP NFC or even Google Wallet. Second, using my ACH account rather than my CC to purchase goods does not afford me the needed fraud protection.

If anything, this practice is anti competitive and should be investigated by the FTC.

They're businesses and I don't blame a business for trying to "save a few bucks" as you put it. Until you're looking at CVS' books, you're in no position to judge whether what they're saving are a "few bucks" or not. Them mining your data for marketing purposes is totally in your control no matter what. You can either just pay cash or not shop with any merchant that doesn't use Apple Pay even if you could easily pay with cash.

I agree that the technology that they're using is old, but they made deals with CurrentC and as far as we know, these merchants wanted to welcome Apple Pay with open arms but probably got pressured by CurrentC to be rid of it. It could also be that some merchants have exclusivity deals for a certain amount of time. They are in no position to have to explain themselves on contract terms to us.

A merchant can go as far as not even accepting credit cards period. That's not anti-competitive at all. Go to Peter Luger's in New York and see if they'll accept anything but cash or a debit card and tell them they're anti-competitive.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

And for the suggestion of Apple and Google coming together to rid their app stores of the CurrentC app is fighting what you call collusion with collusion.

 

[nj1266]

They're businesses and I don't blame a business for trying to "save a few bucks" as you put it. Until you're looking at CVS' books, you're in no position to judge whether what they're saving are a "few bucks" or not. Them mining your data for marketing purposes is totally in your control no matter what. You can either just pay cash or not shop with any merchant that doesn't use Apple Pay even if you could easily pay with cash.

I agree that the technology that they're using is old, but they made deals with CurrentC and as far as we know, these merchants wanted to welcome Apple Pay with open arms but probably got pressured by CurrentC to be rid of it. It could also be that some merchants have exclusivity deals for a certain amount of time. They are in no position to have to explain themselves on contract terms to us.

A merchant can go as far as not even accepting credit cards period. That's not anti-competitive at all. Go to Peter Luger's in New York and see if they'll accept anything but cash or a debit card and tell them they're anti-competitive.

Since a business is there to maximize its profits and has a responsibility to do so for the shareholder, then what would have been the harm of allowing NFC (they already invested in these POS machines) to continue while waiting for CurrentC to come online?

They already had the machines and they would have maximized their profits by allowing consumers to use the machines. Turning them off to try and undermine Apple Pay smacks of protectionism and fear. If I was a shareholder in these companies, I would not be happy because the CEO is not looking after value of my shares.

 

[BreakingKayfabe]

Since a business is there to maximize its profits and has a responsibility to do so for the shareholder, then what would have been the harm of allowing NFC (they already invested in these POS machines) to continue while waiting for CurrentC to come online?

They already had the machines and they would have maximized their profits by allowing consumers to use the machines. Turning them off to try and undermine Apple Pay smacks of protectionism and fear. If I was a shareholder in these companies, I would not be happy because the CEO is not looking after value of my shares.

Again, you're not in the board meetings to decide how much money you think they would be giving up by de-activating the terminals for that period of time vs when CurrentC comes around. I'm sure the CEO's and all their financial advisors around them have shareholders' interests in mind here and decided their method vs yours works out better for them.

 

[mistabritt]

In my personal opinion this is all about money (the root of all evil). Having said that I will use  Pay in stores that accept it. I may think twice about visiting merchants that refuse to support  Pay unless I absolutely have to purchase from that particular store. I think and hope in the long run that stores/companies that are initially refusing to support this will soon learn wise up, because from the little bit that I've read on this supposed CurrentC campaign is that its not stacking up to be what everyone is hoping it to be, although it's still in it's infancy. On the flip-side, even though Apple may still have a few kinks/bugs to iron out, plus with awesome reviews that's flooding the web, it kinda puts it into perspective and gives Apple in my opinion, one-up on competitors.

 

[nj1266]

Again, you're not in the board meetings to decide how much money you think they would be giving up by de-activating the terminals for that period of time vs when CurrentC comes around. I'm side the CEO's and all their financial advisors around them have shareholders' interests in mind here and decided their method vs yours works out better for them.

Neither are you!!! So what makes what you type more valid than what I type? You are making suppositions and I am stating what is happening on the ground.

1. NFC existed before ApplePay and was being used by these CVS and RiteAid.

2. CurrentC is not active and will not be active anytime soon.

3. ApplePay is safer, and more private than CurrentC.

4. There are one million cc and debit card holders that activated ApplePay.

5. There must have been Android smartphone users using NFC otherwise these companies would not have invested in the tech and kept it active.

6. Allowing consumers to diversify their method of payment will earn the business more revenue especially since ApplePay became active and the purchasing power and loyalty of those who use Apple products.

7. Therefore, logically, shutting off NFC devices will hurt in two ways. First, you will lose the value of the investment you made in these machines. Second, you will lose customers who like NFC Google Wallet, ApplePay and value their privacy.

8. If you are a CEO, you are not maximizing shareholder value. You are costing the shareholders money. You have wasted money on machines that are not going to be used to their full capacity. You could have invested in cheaper machines that did not have the NFC chip. And you are turning away customers by denying them an alternative method of payment. A business wants MORE customers, not less.

None of what I said is based on suppositions like yours. They are logical business decisions based on the available facts.

 

[essay2u]

/sigh

They also don't sell cars. I guess they've crippled vehicle technology.

If we believe they're the only place that accepts NFC payments and that NFC payments are the only use for NFC technology, you're showing a crippling effect. Here in the real world, the impact is negligible. Common sense much?

Sadly your car analogy is far fetching, if not completely off the mark. You needn't try to voice your opinion by attempting to attack my own. Maybe you needed me to add a pronoun to understand I was talking about crippling "their" technology or maybe you're just that literal.

Based on the title of the thread "your opinion," I did just that and voiced my opinion. The fact that you wish to argue about my perspective with no real information is insane and trollish. Or maybe shillish? You can decide since you are the wordsmith.