Community

How does this relate to ‘Brexit’ ?

The picture is getting complete ... it would be nice if this key-information would be included in an article as published, to help grasping the picture from the start - inherently contributing to the acceptance of the topic (e.g. concept) described.

Practical experiences in supermarkts show that customers do not always (either intentionally or unintentionally) scan all articles they take away or (example) in case the price for a bottle of normal coke, sugarfree coke, lemon coke, .... is the same they just scan one of them a number of times thinking that the bill then shows the correct amount to pay. But not considering at all the consequences for the inventory system. How are these phenomena catered for ?

Still somewhat puzzled ... http://www.retail-systems.com/rs/Co-op_Pay_In_Aisle_Technology_Mastercard.php says '... a new mobile app where customers can checkout their in-store purchases on their phone, without visiting a till.' There (indeed) must be some connection from the app to a 'back-end-inventory-management-system' and I see how price offers are then taken care of. But where scanning a jar of peanut butter at a till / POS unambiguously shows that that jar is leaving the store in question and hence should be 'subtracted' from its inventory, there is no 1:1 relation between the app and the physical location / identification of the store. Bar codes are unique per product (witnessed by the fact that there are apps that allow you to scan a product in store X and it then informs you if that product is cheaper in store Y, Z, ...), so from a bar code one cannot identify the store a product is in; what happens if a customer from store A goes into a store B (from the competition perhaps) and there scans a jar of peanut butter ? If store B supports the same app, which inventory is the jar then subtracted from ?  

would be interesting to know how a) inventory / stock management is done as the goods purchased are obviously not presented to a scanner of the store anymore and b) how special price offers (e.g. temporarily reduced item price or 3 items for price of 2) are being taken care of ?

The rationale behind the conclusion in “..... decline in the use of cash machines for withdrawing money and checking balances, AS contactless cards and mobile banking services take hold” should be underpinned with a graph showing the availability of ATM’s ? After all, if that number is declining then necessarily also their use is declining ? And the role for “mobile” would be less ?

I am afraid that - as a spin-off from the original topic - the direction the discussion is taking underpins my 'food-for thought' for a number of reasons:

In "... for that reason deserves more trust ?" the words have been chosen carefully by me. I did not intend to express absolute trust in the POS device, but (simply by inserting the word 'more') that amongst the fraud mechanisms in payments (from fake paper invoices up to skimming devices attached to ATM's) hacked POS terminals are pretty unknown. So "What makes you, as a customer think that the POS device has not been hacked?" is NOT what I meant: an unfamiliar POS terminal from a statistical point of view can be trusted more than an unfamiliar phone especially if I have not seen both of them before. And knowledge about the brand/company behind the POS is not necessary as it is not relevant for the payer using the POS terminal. Note that a regular POS terminal provides a tangible proof of the transaction carried out, issuing a piece of paper with a timestamp, an amount and a transaction reference. So in case a POS terminal would be hacked and transfers ten times the amount it shows to the payer from the payer's account to the merchant, the payer has a proof to be used in court while disputing the transaction. The article does not mention any such proof being given to the payer in the pilot described (and I necessarily base myself on the information available). So, and that is what I meant, if the app has been hacked and transfers more than it shows to the payer, it is the payer who has a problem proving his right. And NOT the merchant or the payment service provider ..... while all the payer wanted to do is settle his debt. This is one risk-related element in the 'money ownership dimension' that I referred to.

Note that the original ING article says 'Any Android-based smartphone or tablet can be transformed into a mobile POS with the ‘Tap on Phone’ app and an activated near-field communication' . Where it is very difficult for a hacker to insert modified software into a POS terminal, it is (relatively) simpler for a hacker to upload an app to the app-store, convincing members of the public to download and install that one instead of the original one and there you go. Analogous to the well known 'phishing' by e-mail. This app-based mechanism (as opposed to POS based mechanism) exposes a (technically) ignorant merchant/payer to a risk that he did not ask for. Why should a payer want that ? I am afraid this is indeed 'another example of reasoning from the not-payer perspective' as mentioned above, but I gladly see myself proven wrong and I am still very interested in further information detailing which preemptive measures have been taken to take away the risks from the payer.

I dove a little more into the subject: Obviously (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZ5hz3NjPk of July 3, 2018) the payment is done by means of 'tapping' a creditcard onto the mobile phone of the merchant. That explains also the mentioning of 'activated near-field communication' (NFC, https://www.ing.com/Newsroom/All-news/Turning-smartphones-into-mobile-points-of-sale.htm). The same article states 'there are 1.5 million small-medium enterprises and millions of other micro businesses owners such as taxi drivers, florists and electricians who can increase their sales and lower costs by adopting digital payments' and the quote “My customers who normally don’t have cash on them are able to pay by card now” This yields more questions than answers: obviously the mechanism is intended for those circumstances where the customer has no standing relation with the merchant (e.g. taxidriver) and uses a creditcard 'while on the move' rather than cash .... ? My reservations about the trust (relation) still stand. I look forward to any future reference to outcomes of the pilot(s - Mastercard mentions more locations than Finextra).

Food for thought: Money is the universal means mankind has accepted to be usable in barter ... now called 'purchases'. For all kinds of reasons money storage is nowadays by electronic means, also allowing for the transfer of money without the actual physical exchange of coins and over longer distance - without the owner of the money even being present. But this does not at all change the concept of the ownership of the money: while the money is in the bank account, it is still the money of its owner ... Of course a customer realises that a certain amount is due to a merchant after a purchase. But getting money from your account physically into your purse (and use it) is more difficult by the day ? Many still prefer cash, with its benefits (e.g. instantaneous view of what is left by looking into the purse), portioning over time, instantaneous settling of a debt caused by a purchase, etc. (not talking about web-purchases). Then why should the payer be bothered with the implications 'on the recipient side' of a payment (in terms of attempted migration to non-cash, trust / risks, handling costs, payment delay, ...) where the introduction of the non-physical money at the POS is beyond his control ? The pilot at hand seems yet another example of reasoning from the not-payer perspective and it would be interesting to learn how this 'money ownership dimension' is taken into account. This may certainly be assumed to be a critical factor in acceptance of this concept (and similar ones).

Although the headline suggests otherwise, it seems to be the merchant’s device that this topic is about. And why would I, as a customer, trust the phone of somebody else - that I have absolutely no control over and cannot know what’s in it - with my money ? Such as opposed to a ‘regular’ (usually third party) POS device that both merchant and I have no control over and for that reason deserves more trust ?

ISO 20022 is a methodology, or recipe, which can be followed when creating financial messaging standards. ... This standard is maintained by ISO TC68 (see https://www.iso.org/committee/49650/x/catalogue/)

The standard has been used to develop many ISO 20022 compliant messages (see https://www.iso20022.org/status_of_submissions.page).

I do not think that '... mass-market switch to the ISO 20022 standard for payments ...' is supposed to suggest that Switzerland will develop specific national ISO 20022 compliant messages to be used for payments.

I do suggest to Finextra that texts referring to 'ISO 20022' be unambiguously formulated to help prevent further confusion on this topic