Talk:Apple Pay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability[edit]

This reads like a promotion for the Verge. What is the point of all these meaningless quotes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.19 (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is ApplyPay notable enough to have separate article? It is just reimplementation of MC PayPass, AMX ExpressPay, and Visa payWave over NFC. `a5b (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep it. It is likely to be a game changer. --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is based off whether there is enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (such as enough to write an encyclopedia article). Perhaps if you had an argument for redirecting this article while it's small... that could be entertained, but even given the coverage after a day, methinks it's more than enough for the GNG and its own article. czar ♔ 22:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just noted, that other NFC payment systems: MC PayPass, AMX ExpressPay, Visa payWave have no separate articles, but only short section in main article. If we consider Apple Pay as notable, should we create separate articles for other NFC systems too? `a5b (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Product notability is on a case-by-case basis. It depends whether there is enough significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) such there would be enough material to write a fully sourced article on the topic. czar ♔ 04:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely notable. It has tons of media coverage. Chris Arnesen 19:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Watch with the iPhone 5[edit]

Will apple pay work using an apple watch paired with an iPhone 5? If so, how is the "encryption vault" function of the iPhone 6 accomplished using an iPhone 5? Thanks! --Lbeaumont (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in that it works with the Watch, which works with the iPhone 5. No word on how the Watch works without Touch ID just yet. Will clarify in the article soon. czar ♔ 22:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apple's site (http://www.apple.com/apple-pay): "Apple Watch: Double-click to pay and go. You can pay with Apple Watch — just double-click the button below the Digital Crown and hold the face of your Apple Watch near the contactless reader. A gentle pulse and beep confirm that your payment information was sent." So that means T-ID is not used for Apple Pay on Apple Watches, but not sure of security here. Jimthing (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The watch supports NFC and has a Secure Element chip. Re. Touch-ID: Security is largely addressed by the form factor: Odds of losing control of something attached to your wrist: much lower than odds with something you hold in your hand and often put down...--{{U|Elvey}} (t•c) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually apparently the press are reporting... you first authorise the AWatch to do APay with your iPhone while the AWatch is on your wrist, and provided it stays on your wrist and you don't take it off, it stays authorised. Take it off your wrist, and you then have to use your phone again to re-authorise the AWatch for APay. Sounds clever, but we'll see how annoying or not it is in reality. Jimthing (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to other NFC mobile solutions[edit]

It seems somewhat disingenuous not to put Apple Pay in the context of other contactless NFC mobile payment systems. However mentions of the competition and even what is common with existing NFC payment systems seem to have been all but stripped from the article as if the article were an Apple press release. E.g. there was previously mention of tokenization existing in the NFC specifications, but now it's written like Apple/Visa invented the concept. —Pengo 05:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

The two instances of the phrase "will be" need to be reworked. And CVS and Rite Aid have banned <sic> Appple Pay. WalMart, Kmart, Lowe's, Gap, Target, Kohl's. Dunkin' Donuts are all nixing it too, all per [1]--Elvey(t•c) 18:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you can easily correct the "will be" phrases yourself and add that CVS/Rite Aid have banned Apple Pay along with other major retailers. Second, this information is not exactly outdated as this system literally came out a week ago. Just because this article doesn't have the newest information doesn't mean its outdated, the tag is more appropriate for an article that is a couple years out of date with no new information. It would have been alot easier to just fix it then post the tag, then post on here and then revert me (yes that was me, sometimes I'm lazy and don't log in). JayJayWhat did I do? 01:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising[edit]

To prevent an edit war, I have tagged the article as advertising. Main reason for that are the list "List of participating payment systems and banks" and "List of major US retail partners and brands". Both list are completely irrelevant for the subject but act as coat rack to mention as many company names as possible. (And 14 of them link to disambiguation pages) The list are irrelevant, as the participants and apps are highly fluid and - in most cases - have no real influence on the subject itself. The sections are also sourced by primary or related sources. Not by reliable sources. The Banner talk 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to removal of those lists? The Banner talk 16:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No! MrCellular (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why would you like to keep those spammy lists full of links to disambiguation pages? The Banner talk 18:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No explanation why it should stay, so I will remove it. The Banner talk 23:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same for the list "Stores That Beginning To Accept Apple Pay": plain promo. The Banner talk 01:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list at this point is short enough to include in the article. There is no reason to remove because the list improves the article at this point. If in the future re list becomes too long then removal may be warranted, but the list of participating stores is notable and has been covered extensively by reliable sources JOJ Hutton 14:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any independent sources? Has this promo list any real effect on the subject of the article? The Banner talk 15:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are independent sources. Are you joking? And yes it is notable to the article because the sources say it's notable. JOJ Hutton 15:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I did no see any independent sources. The Banner talk 15:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with The Banner. If there's some independent coverage of the progress of Apple Pay's market penetration, a summary may well improve the article. A mere list of stores that's largely unreferenced or based on primary sources, however, does not improve our readers' understanding of the service, and its only effect is, "Go here to pay with your Apple Pay!" We don't need that. Huon (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We typically don't keep lists of this nature as it borders on indiscriminate listing. A few of the main companies were already listed in the prose, and other big retailers can be added to the prose if reliable sources indeed confirm that their acceptance of the service mattered in some way. But the full list is not encyclopedic in nature—too unbounded czar ⨹ 16:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner has twice reverted the following text: "In the United Kingdom, payments using contactless cards are limited to £20 (£30 from September 2015) because they have only one-factor authentication. Although payments using Apple Pay have two-factor authentication and therefore have no transaction limit, they are in practice subject to the same transaction limits until retailers upgrade the software in their terminals to support the latest network contactless specifications.[1]". Please explain which words or phrases in this paragraph comprise advertising or promotional material. If you read comments by UK consumers, you will see a considerable amount of confusion over the £20 limit and who imposes it. Many consumers believe that the limit is imposed by Apple; it is not. Even independent media are misreporting this. Please discuss here before vandalising the page by removing entire paragraphs without explanation. NFH (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see anything wrong with this either. It was also my understanding that one should explain themselves on the talk page when adding notices like {{overly detailed}} and {{advert}}, especially when reverting edits on that basis. The onus is on the claimer. Not a good style, to be honest.–Totie (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So we're going with primary sources over reliable secondary sources? Yes, I do see something wrong with that. Apple would say it's not their fault. Personally I'd consider such details useless trivia, but if it's useless trivia based on what Apple says over what The Independent says, I fully understand why it was tagged as advertisement. Huon (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we’re going for a correct source as opposed to an incorrect source. Even when websites like The Independent are regarded as reliable sources, this doesn’t mean that everything they say is correct. Moreover, the sources don’t expressly seem to conflict on this point, the primary source is rather supplementary.–Totie (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the text NFH is pushing is overly detailed and is advertising. What on earth is the relevance for Apple Pay itself that there are certain limits and limitations? To me, it is a kind of company disclaimer that you can't do everything with Apple Pay in the UK what you can do in the USA. Yes, it is sourced but it is totally irrelevant and plain product information (= advertising). The Banner talk 20:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ow, and when you immediately start shouting "vandalism" it is clear (at least to me) that you have a certain agenda to push the info. The Banner talk 20:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the product works differently in some countries then that is relevant information for this article. It is interesting for the comparison to other NFC or electronic payment methods and it is part of the essential feature of the service, namely its use as an everyday payment method. I don’t see this as advertising and all. Also, I think that you both got off on the wrong foot here. It’s not a good style to accuse others of vandalism, but it’s neither good to simply revert everything that doesn’t fit your own view of relevance, without putting it up for discussion first. I suppose we need some more opinions on this.–Totie (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be information that you should expect on the company website, not in an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 09:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be rather disastrous for the article when each country gets a listing with its launch date and country-specific limitations. To make the article neutral, you also have to list the countries where the service will not be launched and the reasons why. Sounds silly? Yep, but it is the consequence of the statements above to keep the article neutral and un-biased. The Banner talk 09:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? I expect to find such information here too. We also don't need to explain why the service is not offered in some countries, because that information is not available in the first place. We explain that the rollout is ongoing instead and that is the truth. Two countries, with two slightly different, but still (in my judgment) noteworthy, implementations. When we reach the point where more countries are added and where each one needs a different passage then we can always discuss this again. Currently, I don't see any harm.–Totie (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I added information about the £20 transaction limit because a lot of the UK media have been misreporting this as a feature of Apple Pay, whereas Apple Pay in fact has no such feature. Not least in light of the publicity surrounding Apple Pay's launch for UK-issued cards today, it was therefore necessary to include a referenced explanation as to where the £20 transaction limit came from. It is very common for Wikipedia pages to dispel popular myths and widely-held misunderstandings. NFH (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And you know the media are wrong and Apple is right because...? It's common for Wikipedia to summarize what reliable third-party sources report. Being a platform for a company's self-representation when it's explicitly contradicted by generally reliable third-party sources is less common, and rightly so. I also don't see why the source of the limitation is important. Huon (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the limitation is important because readers should not be misled into believing that Apple Pay has a £20 transaction limit when it does not. Some of the launch retailers have already upgraded their software to impose the £20 limit only on contactless cards and not on Apple Pay; others are lagging behind. The UK media have misreported this as a blanket limit across Apple Pay, which is not true. In fact only specific retailers impose such a limit. NFH (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopaedia is not the place to publish that kind of consumer information. It is up to Apple to advertise that in newspapers but not here. The Banner talk 07:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consumer information? The whole page is consumer information, as it is about a consumer product. Of course Wikipedia should not become a consumer guide containing advice and tips, but objective facts about a consumer product should be included, particularly if those facts have been misreported elsewhere. NFH (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, read encyclopaedia and WP:SOAP. The Banner talk 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm already well aware of that, but it has no relevance to what we're discussing. Nothing that I contributed is remotely advertising or promotion in any way. I have merely added objective facts. NFH (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then please reread it, because your last edit was again plain and explicit advertising. The Banner talk 09:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My last edit was nothing of the sort. Which words or phrases do you believe are advertising? You have a very warped view of what is advertising or promotional content. This is evident from your own page. NFH (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, you are out of arguments so you get personal. Thanks for that. The Banner talk 19:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not about "getting personal". The point is that you remove any contributions that include objective facts that might appear as positive for the producer of the product in question on the false premise that it is advertising or promotional. You need to accept that many objective facts will inevitably be positive. Your extreme view of what constitutes advertising is unique and differs from most editors. If you think that a fact has been phrased in a promotional way, then you should edit it rather than remove it. Your destructive approach is unhelpful and irritating to other editors who have spent time to add objective material in good faith. NFH (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I have a harsh opinion about what is advertising and promotion but funny enough I do not get much serious criticism on that. Most criticism I get is from people who are here with the intention to promote and advertise. The Banner talk 10:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is progressively turned worse, taking Apple ads as references and then misinterpreting them. "Outside the United States, Apple Pay is accepted at all retailers that accept contactless payment cards. Therefore adoption by retailers is automatic." The first part is flat-out wrong, the second is not even claimed by Apple itself. The rest of the recent additions isn't much better and in particular is not supported by the given references either. Huon (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NFH, could you please stop with turning this article into a blatant advertisement? Now you are adding a load of company names and brands to the infobox with as poor excuse that the other image was US-centric. But better US-centric than plain advertising. The Banner talk 09:02, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And seen the level of involvement and advertising, may I remind you that you are obliged to declare any Conflict of Interest. The Banner talk 09:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new image contains less advertising than the previous image. The previous image contained 8 US brands, whereas the new image contains only 7 brands (3 US brands, 3 UK brands and 1 German brand). Please stop reverting my edit to an image that contains more advertising than the image that I added. NFH (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The brands are far more visible and readable, so more promotional. I am now contemplating nominating this article for deletion due to advertising. The Banner talk 09:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're clutching at straws now in a bid to defend your destructive approach. The brands are no more visible than in the US-centric image. The size of the overall image is the same and the size of each card or partial card is the same. If they're more legible, than that's because I used PNG which is lossless compression whereas the previous image was JPG which is lossy compression. Therefore the quality of the new image is higher. Your suggestion to nominate the article for deletion only serves to demonstrate your destructive approach. Your false premise of "advertising" and "promotion" is no justification. Nobody will agree with your nomination for deletion, as nobody else shares your destructive approach. NFH (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, as for conflicts of interest, I question why you're on this article at all. I've looked back at your edits since the page was created, and you have not contributed once. All you have done is revert others' edits and remove content. Why don't you find some new facts to add to the article instead of removing content? Your objective appears to be destruction, not contribution, and your suggestion to delete the page only supports this impression. This suggests that you have a external motivation against the topic of the article. NFH (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read my edits correctly, you had seen that my primary concern towards this article is advertising and promotion nd the prevention of that. I can imagine that you don't like that. The Banner talk 14:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that most of your edits are nothing to do with advertising or promotion, yet you quote advertising and promotion as a false premise for removing positive facts about the product. It seems that you revert any improvement just for the sake of impeding development of the article. Reverting an improved image that actually contained fewer brands was a case in point. In future please think very carefully before reverting a good-faith edit and really consider properly whether it is merited. NFH (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, you sound now like a frustrated marketeer. I do my best to keep the article neutral in style, tone and content. Nothing more. Even with my harsh stance on advertising, it is still possible to add relevant and neutral information. The Banner talk 21:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be considerate, no personal attacks, please. You don’t need to add information to an article for it to be considered a contribution, you can help in other ways, e.g. by assessing the overall quality and its compliance with Wikipedia policies. I suggest you both stop arguing and bring in more opinions. This is going no where. On topic: I agree that this article is getting more convoluted, without necessarily agreeing that it is advertising.–Totie (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve cleaned up the adoption section a bit and removed some carrier-specific information. I think we can find a compromise here when we remove the, admittedly, many references to individual adopters and reformat sentences to be more general. That should make the article a bit more concise and we avoid the advertising.–Totie (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that my paragraph about problems on TfL might have been too detailed, but thank you for leaving the most significant part. TfL problems should go away over time anyway, so content you removed should become less relevant. I agree that we should avoid references to specific merchants unless there is something particularly noteworthy, e.g. TfL (the largest), Walmart (refusing it) etc. NFH (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting sick and tired of this constant edit-warring on both sides. Cut it out! Make constructive improvements/removals and stop blanking/re-adding entire sections. I suggest that we stop using the undo button for a while.–Totie (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The Banner has contributed nothing to this page, only destruction. There is no tone of advertising on the page, only objective facts with references. The Banner, please list at least several examples of the alleged advertising in order to support the addition of the advert banner. Until this is done, the advert banner will be removed through lack of supporting evidence for it to remain. NFH (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, mate. In my experience only marketeers want to know what is considered advertising. In my experience it are also only marketeers who consider the removal of advertising as "destructive", as you do. Please take the encyclopaedia seriously and keep the information relevant and neutral. The Banner talk 12:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your experience is not the relevant point here. If you're going to insert an advert banner on the page and other editors disagree with it, then you need to give some examples of why it is merited. The above discussion does not give any examples of advertising on the current version of the page. If you're unable or unwilling to give examples, then please stop falsely alleging that the page contains advertising. NFH (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ About Apple Pay for merchants in the UK. Apple https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT204906. Retrieved 12 July 2015. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please, can you confirm this fact?[edit]

The blocking of bitcoin wallet apps, "a policy which was only recently changed. Too late for bitcoin. The average user would much prefer using ApplePay. Blocking bitcoin wallets halts the spread of usage while Apple is building their ApplePay strategy, allowing them an unfair advantage", wibki.com/blog.

If well founded we can create a Criticism section with it (and perhaps other facts)? --Krauss (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A blog is not in itself a reliable source. Also outright "criticism" sections are frowned upon. It would be better to organize the reception by issue, but I'm not sure what fact you're looking to include here czar ⨹ 23:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of stores[edit]

I do not think that listing stores that accept Apple Pay a way of advertising. I imagine sometimes people forget if a store accepts it and a list makes that nice. I do know that it is relevant information and I would be more than happy to keep it relevant like I do with the IFTTT article.

Daylen (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "list of vendors" that accept Apple Pay has already been discussed above. The basic idea is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that such a list is best maintained not in an encyclopedia but on some other site. czar ⨹ 17:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the UK, Apple Pay is accepted by every retailer that accepts contactless payment cards. This accounts for a huge number of retailers. Apple's list of participating retailers in the UK launch is very much advertising for those retailers, given that there is nothing to distinguish those retailers from any other retailer that accepts contactless payments. Therefore no UK retailer should be mentioned unless there is a noteworthy reason. NFH (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Why is a photo with less readable brand names less neutral/advertising than a picture with fully readable brand names? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is decided based on your criterium of advertisement alone. I personally prefer the PNG image because of its better quality than the JPG with visible artefacts. If there is a PNG version with fewer visible brand names then we can use that one. This is something you could have done yourself, NFH didn’t even object to that.–Totie (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has come up again: I suggest we use one of Apple’s PR images that has as few branded images on it as possible. The one with the American Express card looks good, because there is nothing else mentioned on it aside from Apple and American Express. If someone can find a better one, please mention it.–Totie (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fee[edit]

What is the relevance of the fee that has to be paid for use? The Banner talk 14:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about providing some background information to what happens between the banks and Apple? This is informative. How is that advertisement?–Totie (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overly detailed information. The Banner talk 10:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again: How is that advertisement?–Totie (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance is that it shows the motivation of Apple to provide the service. In the US, it's more about transaction revenue, whereas in the EEA it's more about hardware revenue. NFH (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising tag[edit]

User:NFH, could you please stop removing the advertising tag? The style, tone and content are clearly advertising. The Banner talk 14:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mention more specific passages that you deem advertising and we can discuss them. Others have disagreed with you on this as well, so be more specific.–Totie (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See the attemps to discussion on this page. Two above (Photo and Fee) and one below (Transport of London) this one. The Banner talk 21:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on all of them. I only agree on Transport for London, parts of which I largely removed. The other two points I disagree with.–Totie (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How could the paragraph about fees be considered as advertising? This is not consumer information (as consumers don't directly pay these fees), but industry analysis. NFH (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transport for London[edit]

What is the relevance of the mentioning of Transport of London? The sentence Although only payment cards issued in the US and UK are supported, the service can be used worldwide where contactless payment cards are accepted. contains in fact the same information and is less spammy. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about TfL either. When I look at the references I read that TfL is generally very open to and interested in contactless payment systems. They may be one of the bigger adopters of Apple Pay in the UK, but Apple Pay is not their most popular system, if I understood that correctly. This is something that belongs into the TfL article.–Totie (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It gives an example of where US-issued cards could be used with Apple Pay outside the US before the service was launched outside the US. The reference proves that Apple Pay is not restricted to the countries where it has been launched, but the reference is meaningful only with the explanatory text. If the sentence's purpose is not obvious enough, please rephrase it to make its purpose obvious rather than removing it. There seems to be a culture of removing text rather than rephrasing it; this is not productive. NFH (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t need proof or examples for everything. The sentence before that example explained it well. Unless there is a specific reason to mention Transport for London other than as an example, I would rather remove that part as well. Given the sensitivity of the issue with The Banner, I am inclined to agree that we should remove certain commercial entities as much as possible when they are not relevant for understanding the text. There is nothing wrong with removing text, you are also under an obligation to demonstrate that anything you add is relevant. The burden of proof doesn’t shift simply because you add something.–Totie (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the last sentence to the Apple Pay section of the Transport for London article. I think it makes a lot more sense there.–Totie (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Transport for London is the most used Apple Pay merchant is noteworthy and should be mentioned on the Apple Pay page, even if it is also mentioned on the TfL page. NFH (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you made a kind of hallelujah section about it. Great. The Banner talk 10:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was you, The Banner, who added this section on the Talk page. If you're referring to the article itself, there is no section about TfL, just one sentence. NFH (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The hallelujah section refers to the article... The Banner talk 21:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the section to which you are referring. It does not exist. NFH (talk) 08:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your innocence is funny, especially because of this: "shortened TfL sentence" The Banner talk 09:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As already stated above, I see one sentence. I don't see the section to which you refer; it does not exist. Unless you have something useful to contribute, please do not continue with this sub-thread. NFH (talk) 10:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the most used Apple Pay merchant, it is the most used Apple Pay merchant in the UK, allegedly if I may add (no official numbers, only a "study [based on] 26,000 tweets and 15,789 people"). Given that TfL is itself very open to contactless payment methods, I don't see how it is relevant at all to mention TfL there. What I do see is some criticism about it and some issues that specifically relate to TfL. Maybe you can mention that in the criticism section instead?–Totie (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a US merchant that processes more contactless payments than TfL? I did include the criticism to which you refer but it was subsequently removed. NFH (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find a reliable source that says so, we shouldn't include it and I don't think that it is that interesting anyway. It's trivial information. About the criticism, I removed it because it was too much about TfL rather than a general criticism about Apple Pay. I have nothing against supplementing the criticism paragraph with issues that Apple Pay users encountered, as long as it is neutral.–Totie (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I didn't have a problem with you removing the TfL problems was because, as you point out, they were more to do with TfL than with Apple Pay. They were caused by user error, not by any design flaw in Apple Pay. I've amended the sentence to reflect the lack of supporting evidence for TfL being the largest Apple Pay merchant globally. NFH (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use outside the US and UK[edit]

The statement in the section above, "the service can be used worldwide where contactless payment cards are accepted", seems to be flat-out wrong. Apple Insider reports that it's unclear when the service will be introduced in "other important markets such as China, Japan, or mainland Europe", some of which do have NFC technology. I can provide explicit references that state it won't work in some of those markets. I have removed claims of universal applicability outside the US before; they keep coming back, supported by sources that don't actually say so. I'm particularly concerned by NFH's attempts to emphasize that Apple Pay is usable in multiple countries when in fact it isn't, at least not as widely as NFH (and Apple) would like to imply. In the current version of the article, the following statements are still incorrect:

  • "Outside the United States, Apple Pay is generally accepted by retailers who support the industry standards for NFC-based payments." (based on Apple itself, and the source doesn't say so)
  • "Although only payment cards issued in the US and UK are supported, the service can be used at any payment terminal that supports the industry standards for NFC-based payments." - the source has an US-only context and does not say anything about either UK-issued payment cards or use outside those countries.

I'll remove and/or rewrite those false claims. Huon (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Apple Insider article specifically distinguishes adoption of Apple Pay by payment providers and retailers. That it is "flat-out wrong" is thus a false claim on your part. It also true that Apple Pay can, in principle, be used everywhere else in the world as long as the payment terminal support it ("Apple Pay does not require Apple-specific contactless payment terminals and will work with Visa's PayWave, MasterCard's PayPass, and American Express's ExpressPay terminals"). This is what Forbes also mentioned. NFH specifically argued before that Apple Pay could be used in the UK with American payment providers and I read before that the same is possible elsewhere in Europe (e.g. in Dutch Starbucks, you can use Apple Pay as well with American and British payment providers). Before you start changing the article, give NFS the opportunity to clarify this and to provide additional sources.–Totie (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NFH has repeatedly cited Apple itself for such statements, even though it didn't say so, including after the statements and the sources were challenged. NFH accepts Apple's word (or what they say is Apple's word) over that of third-party sources. Your source above is far better than any presented by NFH before, and I rather doubt giving them another chance to produce sources would yield better results. I'd love to be proven wrong. Huon (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the sentence; reworded it and added two more sources.–Totie (talk) 13:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Service section[edit]

I feel that this section is convoluted/unstructured. Perhaps we can use a couple of headlines to separate the text into smaller pieces. Particularly I think that we should separate the user side (setup and usage), the privacy/security side and the business model (implementation by banks, limits, liability, etc).–Totie (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good approach. For example, the last paragraph currently mixes various topics that belong in separate paragraphs. You're welcome to make your proposed changes while preserving the existing content as much as possible. NFH (talk) 11:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page should mention discover[edit]

I added that discover now processes apple pay as of ios 9 and september 2015 and another user is reverting me stating "We don’t mention specific providers for a reason." The article clearly mentions amex mastercard and visa, and not only that the giant main photo mentions royal bank of scotland and natwest, starbucks and others. Discover is the fourth major credit card processing system in america (visa,mastercard,amex and discover), it is no different then listing amex who processes thier own cards. and it deserves to have a mention or the article is incomplete. -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The other credit card providers are mentioned in a different context: to point out the compatibility with pre-existing NFC-based hardware (I removed the names now) and to illustrate what happened behind the scenes before the official announcement (see history). That goes beyond mere advertising. However, the same cannot be said about Discover, regardless whether it is a major credit card provider. What you did was specifically highlight Discover without providing any other context that could be of relevance to readers, other than ’it’s fourth major credit card’. As for the image, there has been a discussion about this before (see above). Even if we replace it with an American version, Discover would still not be on it and there would still be no reason to mention it specifically in the text.–Totie (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Apple Pay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2017[edit]

Jhnper8 (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Availability[edit]

I am wondering why in this section there are added unconfirmed countries? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should contains only verified information, not assumptions based on the average reliability leaks (for example: anonymous editors add Poland, but the only proof is a forged photo of a card from a polish bank added to ApplePay - source: https://twitter.com/i/moments/921785694829334531). I think that countries which aren't confirmed yet shuld by deleted from the list. MrNeo (talk) 08:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Republic[edit]

There's no evidence that Apple Pay will launch in Czech Republic at all, quite the opposite. This article (Czech) mentions that Czech banks ČSOB, Moneta and AirBank are interested in Apple Pay, but they do not know of any intention from Apple to enter the Czech market. Oberststen (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same situation like in Poland. Banks say that they are interested it Apple Pay but nothing more.MrNeo (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merchant-specific restrictions[edit]

Tesco in the UK have their own mobile payments app called Tesco Pay+. Because of this, they limit all other mobile payment methods to £30, including Apple Pay. This article doesn't mention merchants setting their own limits. I would put it in myself, but I'm struggling to find a source that isn't just forum posts or my own experiences. Can someone help me out? I think this is worth mentioning in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.98.64.122 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected[edit]

Do we really need a rejected section? At the end is not like Apple banned that country, it might become available later. Oberststen (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transport Section Repurposing[edit]

I think the supported transit agency section should instead just mention the supported transit cards (SmarTrip, Suica, etc.) that Apple Pay offers. Transit as a whole is largely moving towards open loop EMV contactless ticketing. It'd be similar to the loyalty card section, where instead of mentioning every retailer that offers contactless payments, we focus on the special few that are more integrated. Tytygh55 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transaction limits[edit]

The article makes no mention of the limits on transaction size using Apple pay. This should be central to the article. Indeed all the Apple pay advertising in the UK suggests that there is no transaction limit or a very large limit. From Apple web site: "And now you can use Apple Pay without the £45 limit at countless locations"; and " Unlike contactless card payments that limit you to a £45 spend, there is no limit for Apple Pay". Other Apple pay adverts state that the limit for Apple Pay is "... up to £10,000" [All three quotes a direct cut and paste from the Apple web site]. So there is no consistency on what the limit is or even if there is one. However following a recent spate of declined transactions, it turns out that there is a limit and it is individually set for every merchant and it is nowhere remotely near £10,000.

I recently had a £1,100 transaction declined following a spate of other declined transaction, and went into the bank to have a row about it. Once I was able to talk to the correct person, that person was able to print out a list of all the declined transactions (five of them). The reason for the declination was in all five cases "Transaction declined. Merchant limit exceeded". One of the declined transactions was for just £199. When I went back to the merchant for the £1,100 declination, he stated that he was unaware that there was any such limit and that he believed it was £10,000. The bank had pointed out that it was up to £10,000 - that is the actual limit was less than £10,000 and in reality a lot less than £10,000 (and clearly some less than £200). The actual limit is set by the card issuer and as such may not be the same for every card that the merchant accepts (I was able to use American Express by Apple pay for one transaction of £540 when the Visa Apple pay was declined).

The Apple website itself, if you find the right page states for the UK, "You may not be able to use Apple Pay for purchases over GBP 45" clearly implying that some merchants have the standard contactless limit of £45. This renders the use of Apple Pay not as advantageous as the advertising makes out. The idea is that you can carry your cards on your iPhone without having to carry the physical cards or touch the card terminal (very important in these COVID-19 times). The reality is that when buying anything, the transaction can be declined as over the Merchant's limit (which he doesn't know about) and with no other means to complete the transaction.

This is all vital information which an article such as this should document. -81.129.194.183 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, by limit you mean "limit without PIN". With PIN there is almost no limit. Second of all, "the standard contactless limit of £45"... Apple Pay is not contactless. It is CDCVM. It is different, if POS terminal supports CDCVM, this limit does not apply, PIN not needed. If it does not then it is indeed just contacless application with PIN and stuff. 2A00:1370:812D:9ED:5853:51BE:806D:69B3 (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Cash?[edit]

I don't understand why the image caption and first sentence of the article mentions that Apple Pay is known as or renamed into Apple Cash. In the article, it mentions that Apple Cash is "a feature that allows the transfer of money from one user to another". Apple Pay is — according to the article — "a mobile payment and digital wallet service by Apple Inc. that allows users to make payments in person, in iOS apps, and on the web using Safari.". It looks like Apple Cash is an extension of Apple Pay; not the same thing. Therefore, the article is incorrect. If someone would like rectify this, feel free to do so, as I refuse to edit major parts of an article. 24.22.108.174 (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy?[edit]

Is there any info on what information does Apple gather on transactions? Apple gets to know when and where (who from whom) a purchase has been made and the sum, but do they know what was purchased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.252.5.66 (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Pay&oldid=1198877223"