CurrentC vs. Apple Pay
HOLY SHIT PEOPLE!!!! You ARE incredibly F***ing STUPID.
Read this article today, but that article is just a drop in the bucket. Not trying to say anything specific about this one article, but rather the group delusion as a whole.
I said WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY before Apple Pay was released to the public that getting adoption would be the biggest hurdle. And I implied it wasn't just a hardware issue... which works out well for me because the whole CurrentC debacle isn't about hardware. The hardware is there and it can work with Apple Pay, they are just contractually obligated not to use accept Apple Pay.
So, what makes people stupid? Well, blaming CurrentC for one. Yes! They are being shit heads. And the reason you cannot use Apple Pay at those retailers is their fault. BUT, and this is a HUGE but... those contracts were in plane LOOONG before Apple Pay was unveiled. Put simply... Apple HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that CurrentC was out there and that the contracts would ban their members from accepting their payment. Not knowing would only mean they didn't do their homework. And I find it hard to believe that they didn't. But ignorance would not be acceptable anyway.
What, more likely happened, was Apple did this fully aware of CurrentC and its implications and hoped for exactly this sort of shit storm to happen.
What could Apple have done differently? Well, they could have worked WITH CurrentC. But that isn't Apple's MO. But, why are we blaming CurrentC when they were around first and Apple refused to play nice? Well, as the first line of this blog said... because people are incredibly stupid.
Incredibly.
Stupid.
If this all plays out as I assume Apple plans, it will bode well overall for the consumer. And for that I applaud them. But it likely won't. This won't break fragmentation in the payment space at all. Starting with the market share of Apple devices and leading to the fact that a victory here would simply open up retailers to not only accepting Apple Pay, but also any other competing platform that should arise afterwards. And if Apple can integrate with existing hardware then other players can too.
I can't blame consumers for wanting their mobile payment solution to work "everywhere". But I can blame them for expecting it even after the group with the largest market share failed to get universal traction... that being Google's solution. The fact that this is making huge waves just shows that Apple fans are more sophisticated at whining. I know that is a cruel generality. But when a group 1/4 the size manages to make orders of magnitude more headlines I'm at a loss for means of describing it.
The other side of this... making a huge deal about CurrentC really does nothing. If they simply hold the course and wait out the contracts barring members from accepting competing solutions, then Apple Pay will have likely already died off by then.
And, lets face it... this is actually one of the exact reasons for such a contractual obligation. Using the consortium's widespread influence to block other entrants, giving them time to produce and promote a competing solution.
Oh! Also, all of those merchants you want to use your Apple Pay at and can't... ARE PART OF THAT CONSORTIUM. They are directly responsible for the exact contractual obligations you're whining about. It is probably fair to say that many wouldn't have accepted those terms or joined the consortium if they had seen this coming... but that doesn't make them any less culpable for the actions. It just means that they think with their wallets.
So, if you hate the consortium soooooo damn much for this... why do you want to shop at its member stores in the first place? You're supporting them by shopping with them. You affirm their actions by giving them your money. You affirm their actions by indicating that you want to give them your money.
I don't mean to offend anyone. And I don't mean to sound like I support CurrentC as I don't. But Apple created this problem by entering into a market where it either knew or should have known that this barrier existed.
The final amusement here is the parallels. CurrentC has a contract with its members that effectively gives it a monopoly over mobile payments. That sounds an awful lot like what a patent does, just amongst a smaller group rather than a national entitlement to that monopoly. And guess who has and enforces a boat load of patents? Apple!
A company leveraging patents to strategically block incumbents from entering into their space isn't much different from a group of companies banding together to agree to block incumbents into their space. One is leveraging a government sanctioned monopoly and the other is simply contractual agreement.
So, while I don't agree with CurrentC's guerilla tactics for keeping others out and I also don't agree with what I see as Apple just intentionally creating a media shit storm to destroy its competition , in my mind, Apple is the greater evil this time around.
Read this article today, but that article is just a drop in the bucket. Not trying to say anything specific about this one article, but rather the group delusion as a whole.
I said WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY before Apple Pay was released to the public that getting adoption would be the biggest hurdle. And I implied it wasn't just a hardware issue... which works out well for me because the whole CurrentC debacle isn't about hardware. The hardware is there and it can work with Apple Pay, they are just contractually obligated not to use accept Apple Pay.
So, what makes people stupid? Well, blaming CurrentC for one. Yes! They are being shit heads. And the reason you cannot use Apple Pay at those retailers is their fault. BUT, and this is a HUGE but... those contracts were in plane LOOONG before Apple Pay was unveiled. Put simply... Apple HAD TO HAVE KNOWN that CurrentC was out there and that the contracts would ban their members from accepting their payment. Not knowing would only mean they didn't do their homework. And I find it hard to believe that they didn't. But ignorance would not be acceptable anyway.
What, more likely happened, was Apple did this fully aware of CurrentC and its implications and hoped for exactly this sort of shit storm to happen.
What could Apple have done differently? Well, they could have worked WITH CurrentC. But that isn't Apple's MO. But, why are we blaming CurrentC when they were around first and Apple refused to play nice? Well, as the first line of this blog said... because people are incredibly stupid.
Incredibly.
Stupid.
If this all plays out as I assume Apple plans, it will bode well overall for the consumer. And for that I applaud them. But it likely won't. This won't break fragmentation in the payment space at all. Starting with the market share of Apple devices and leading to the fact that a victory here would simply open up retailers to not only accepting Apple Pay, but also any other competing platform that should arise afterwards. And if Apple can integrate with existing hardware then other players can too.
I can't blame consumers for wanting their mobile payment solution to work "everywhere". But I can blame them for expecting it even after the group with the largest market share failed to get universal traction... that being Google's solution. The fact that this is making huge waves just shows that Apple fans are more sophisticated at whining. I know that is a cruel generality. But when a group 1/4 the size manages to make orders of magnitude more headlines I'm at a loss for means of describing it.
The other side of this... making a huge deal about CurrentC really does nothing. If they simply hold the course and wait out the contracts barring members from accepting competing solutions, then Apple Pay will have likely already died off by then.
And, lets face it... this is actually one of the exact reasons for such a contractual obligation. Using the consortium's widespread influence to block other entrants, giving them time to produce and promote a competing solution.
Oh! Also, all of those merchants you want to use your Apple Pay at and can't... ARE PART OF THAT CONSORTIUM. They are directly responsible for the exact contractual obligations you're whining about. It is probably fair to say that many wouldn't have accepted those terms or joined the consortium if they had seen this coming... but that doesn't make them any less culpable for the actions. It just means that they think with their wallets.
So, if you hate the consortium soooooo damn much for this... why do you want to shop at its member stores in the first place? You're supporting them by shopping with them. You affirm their actions by giving them your money. You affirm their actions by indicating that you want to give them your money.
I don't mean to offend anyone. And I don't mean to sound like I support CurrentC as I don't. But Apple created this problem by entering into a market where it either knew or should have known that this barrier existed.
The final amusement here is the parallels. CurrentC has a contract with its members that effectively gives it a monopoly over mobile payments. That sounds an awful lot like what a patent does, just amongst a smaller group rather than a national entitlement to that monopoly. And guess who has and enforces a boat load of patents? Apple!
A company leveraging patents to strategically block incumbents from entering into their space isn't much different from a group of companies banding together to agree to block incumbents into their space. One is leveraging a government sanctioned monopoly and the other is simply contractual agreement.
So, while I don't agree with CurrentC's guerilla tactics for keeping others out and I also don't agree with what I see as Apple just intentionally creating a media shit storm to destroy its competition , in my mind, Apple is the greater evil this time around.
Comments
Post a Comment