AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile Bet Big On Mobile Payments 88
An anonymous reader writes "Bloomberg reports that AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile USA will be dumping over $100 million into developing their mobile payment system, Isis, in an effort to battle back against Google Wallet. 'Isis aims to get ahead of its rivals by relying on its carrier partners' existing distribution network and customer relationships. Phones set up for Isis service are expected to be available at carrier stores in the trial cities. ... The carriers could potentially preinstall Isis software onto their phones, making it easier to use. They also may push handset manufacturers to adopt Isis software.'"
Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see that the carriers are going to be sticking their dicks into this one. I wonder what surcharges and fees will be associated with this. I also wonder what handset and device restrictions will be imposed as a result of this.
I LOL'd (Score:4, Insightful)
Isis aims to get ahead of its rivals by relying on its ... customer relationships.
Yup, because most people have a great relationship with their mobile providers right?
Additionally I'm not so sure I want these people [blogspot.com] responsible for my "virtual wallet".
Re:I wonder if Apple will get a cut (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not a 30% cut, but if they develop their own system you can bet there will be some sort of cut...
Too bad all these mobile payment services can't standardize on a multi-connection protocol for their transactions. You have some using QR codes, some using NFC, some using Bluetooth and some going through the Internet, all in their own little walled garden. What a sad clusterfuck this is going to be.
Re:Two words: Bitcoin (Score:3, Insightful)
No, seriously. Dream on, and stop trying to convince the world how great B**coin is. It's not and we're tired of hearing about.
One more way of reducing your privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Folks, the rush towards mobile payments is a gold mine for marketers and other creepy advertising types. Bank cards may be electronic but they aren't the equivalent of a primary key. Bank cards might be tied to a name and unique number but the information is quite fragmented across multiple systems in tables which can't be joined.
A mobile payments system tied to a phone number which follows somebody for decades does have a suitable primary key. Everything you buy will be part of a giant telco database, sold to the highest bidder.
What's more, large retailers will also have your phone number or device ID as the primary key for you in their own databases.
Nerds should have the understanding to realize that this push towards anti-privacy has been engineered by megacorporations and plutocrats for their benefit, not ours. We should be able to understand the pitfalls. Why do we embrace something designed in their favor, not ours?
Mobile payments were designed to make their sales pitches to you more convenient. Your shopping experience is a secondary concern. They're counting on herd-like neophiles to sign up for even more intrusive marketing.
The same understanding which drives us to run AdBlock Plus and Noscript should lead us to avoid this intrusive garbage, lest we end up like tagged cattle.
So many of the world's sustainability problems are the result of 150dB of advertising noise blaring orders at us to spend money we don't have on things we don't need. I love technology as much as the next Slashdotter, but more is not always better. I'd argue that a society free of advertising and mindless consumerism is more advanced than one with the spiffiest gadgets.
Mobile payments are like a superglobal loyalty card.
One loyalty card to rule them all.
Awesome! (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone remember how badly the phone companies fucked pretty much everyone back in the days when they were willing to act as billing agents for anyone and everyone that was willing to claim that callers intended to pay for things via their phone bill?
Remember how much fun it was when the phone company automatically took the vendor's side because they only got paid for successful payments? They threatened to cut off your phone service and send your bill to collections, unless you could prove that you didn't authorize the payment.
Remember the delight of the offshore scammers when they realized that the phone companies were essentially acting as willing accomplices, and they started making "mistakes" knowing full well that many people would just pay up rather than try to fight the phone company?
If the only food in the world was being sold by someone that only took payments through this system, I would rather starve to death than give that power back to the phone companies.
Re:Two words: Bitcoin (Score:3, Insightful)
and then hopefully the rubes will invest in it, and the people pushing it can cash out right before the thing collapses.
And this is where the entire of Slashdot fails.
Bitcoin is not something to "invest" in. It's a payment system. You use it to get money from A to B, without the involvement of such trusted middle-men as Paypal [wikimedia.org].
When you say "collapses", I presume you refer to the exchange rate between BTC and USD. This is completely irrelevant to anybody using it as a payment system. All it means is that, in order to send $10 to someone, you'll have to send 100 BTC instead of 1 BTC. The actual number of BTC involved is utterly unimportant.
Yes, I realize that a lot of people are speculating on the value of Bitcoins. Ignore them; they're irrelevant to Bitcoin's use as a payment system.