Skip to footer

Six mobile payment systems and how they’re working so far

Here's a look at a few mobile platforms offered by tech companies, retailers, and phone carriers vying to replace consumers' wallets.

2. Android Pay/Google Wallet

Eric Risberg/AP/File
Apple Senior Vice President of Internet Software and Services, demonstrates the new Apple Pay mobile payment system at a Whole Foods store in Cupertino, Calif., in October 2014.

Google Wallet, first unveiled in 2011, also offers tap-based payment options linked to users’ debit and credit cards. But Google has also gradually expanded its services to offer features not available elsewhere in the US, such as a physical Google Wallet card, which allows users to spend money from their Wallet account instantly.

The Wallet card, which was introduced in 2013, expanded the search engine giant’s services closer to resembling an online-only bank, allowing users to withdraw money from an ATM with the physical card or receive payments from friends or family and then spend the money in their accounts without waiting for the payment to register in their existing bank accounts.

But making a purchase using the app was trickier — a user had to launch the app and type in a pin that unlocked his or her credit cards before using it. Google attempted to simplify its services by unveiling Android Pay in September 2015, which allows users to tap their phone to make a purchase without launching a separate app, though it does not use fingerprint authentication, as other services do.

But while the company announced partnerships with more than 700,000 stores and the support of mobile phone companies after it acquired Softcard, the system hasn’t yet taken off.

Only 8 percent of users said they used either Android Pay or Apple Pay weekly to make a purchase, a recent survey by the management consulting firm Accenture found.

Over the 2015 Black Friday weekend, people who used Android phones only made 2 percent of their purchases using Android Pay, the consumer data firm InfoScout found. By contrast, more than 73 percent made purchases using credit or debit cards, with about a quarter using cash or other means.

2 of 6
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.