In 2024 a QR code payment solution is a shite idea.
In 2015, when far less cards supported Apple/Google Pay and not all devices shipped with NFC chips and mobile wallet support (and it wasn’t super clear they ever would be), it was a reasonable stopgap(/speculative) solution for a vendor to push out. There were also plenty of people knocking about with iPhone 4s and 5s and similar supported-but-legacy Android offerings. It ran its course, and it’ll soon die.
The idea that Tesco actively tried to suppress Google/Apple Pay is absolutely bonkers. They were one of the first to support contactless at all and they were one of the first to support adding their loyalty card to digital wallets.
It’s a narrative that just doesn’t fit - unless there is some sort of inferred cost saving - but as pointed out above the fees for Tesco will not be any different for contactless transactions; in fact card not present transactions (as PayQwiq would have been) might well have cost more!
Most major banks supported Apple Pay on day one. All of them supported it before Tesco’s solution exited trials and was widely launched in December of 2016.
The conflation of the mobile wallet solutions with old fashioned contactless is downright irritating though. They’re not the same, so to suggest that Tesco’s early adoption of contactless means they’re not suprressing the capabilities of mobile wallets is facile and false. Tesco went out of their way to artificially restrict them to the contactless limit when the technology itself is not subject to limits. Regardless of their reasoning for doing so, that is, objectively, suppression of the technology’s superior capabilities over contactless. That’s not bonkers, it’s a fact.
That suppression remained in place for almost 7 years. Many years after these solutions had become widely adopted mainstay payment options in the industry. Many years after updates to the terminals (which shipped just weeks after Apple’s Pay launch) had removed the contactless limit for Apple Pay by default. And many years after the vast majority of retailers, including every other supermarket had been offering Apple Pay and Google without those same restrictions.
They only remedied that suppression during the covid lockdowns as a direct result of widespread criticism from customers being unable to pay for their weekly shopping contact free. And even then it was only to place it on a level playing field with their clubcard offering. To this day, it remains suppressed with an artificial cap of £250. High enough that it shouldn’t bother most families doing their groceries. But Tesco don’t only sell groceries.
But there’s no doubt in my mind that Tesco would want their customers to be using Pay+ over any other option. That reason alone is motive enough to act as they did (though they may claim otherwise, and you’re welcome to buy it). But their treatment of mobile wallets does help them attain that goal with no obvious upside to the customer. So it’s hard to see it as anything else. Especially in light of what it took for them to finally make a long overdue change that still doesn’t go far enough.
All major banks might have, but plenty of the market still didn’t, particularly with credit cards.
I note you say nothing of non-mobile wallet supporting devices tho - presumably because that is pretty unrefutable. In fact, here’s a period-correct news article which cites lack of compatible devices as a problem holding back uptake of mobile payments. PayQwiq was being trialled when this article was published.
I was one such PayQwiq user - rocking my favourite ever phone (still) but starting to get frustrated by lack of app support. PayQwiq worked a charm tho, and I was quite happy with it as a compromise. I’d gladly have done the same for other stores I used regularly if I had the chance.
I never had cause to use it again when I finally accepted the inevitable and moved on to something with Google Pay support in 2017, but I was far from the last person regularly using a phone with no associated wallet.
It’s not an irrelevance tho - at the same time this “suppression” was occurring Sainsburys still hadn’t rolled out contactless at all. Tesco chose to enable the functionality early (which they knew would open the door to mobile payments eventually), and their competitors didn’t. Surely, if they wanted people using PayQwiq the best way to “suppress” the alternatives would have been simply to not offer them at all, like their nearest competitor?
I note additionally you say nothing of Clubcard being added to payment wallets when it was. Presumably that too is rather hard to square with your view?
NatWest group, Nationwide, MBNA, Santander and HSBC group were all launch partners. HSBC ran into a last minute hitch and launched a week later but I still count them. That’s most of them. All that’s missing are Lloyd’s group, who joined the month later, and Barclays, who got on board early the following year.
So yes, they did. Onboarding 5 of the major providers and missing only two equates to most.
I actually did, at length, in my original draft, then deleted it prior to posting having noticed your edited post did not refer to them either. So it seemed fruitless replying to a point that had been retracted (or I had misread). Your recollection of the growth trajectory of iOS and android devices is warped somewhat.
The TL;DR is essentially that iOS and android exploded in popularity in 2010 (not 2015 as was originally implied above), growing to a combined 50% market share. By 2014, when mobile wallets were taking off, they had 87% of the UK market. By 2017, when Tesco launched its solution, they had 98% of the market. So market share wasn’t an issue. And even if it was, it’s no justification to artificially limit the capabilities of a new payments technology. They could have just left it alone to work as intended.
By October 2016, if you’re one of the vast majority of folks who upgraded their iPhone every 2 years back then, you’d have had an Apple Pay compatible handset. If you’re one of the vast majority of android users who bought a Samsung device since 2012, your device also would have theoretically (I’m less well versed here and know software lifespan was significantly shorter on android devices at that time which may impact that) been compatible with Google Wallet.
From the moment Barclays supported Apple Pay, I adopted it instantly. Used it everywhere I went that accepted card payments. The only place Apple Pay failed for a transaction over the contactless limit in all my time using it was at Tesco.
I could even argue Tesco’s treatment of it certainly didn’t help with adoption. They’re one of, if not the biggest supermarket in the UK. Them not supporting it properly certainly limits its appeal. Why would anyone bother setting up Apple Pay if merchants are restricting it to be no better than contactless in terms of how much you can spend?
This again is a distraction from my core point though. Marketshare, and number of devices capable of supporting the technology are not reason enough to artificially hobble it. It’s a good justification for building their solution, but that’s not what I’ve been arguing against.
You’re inferring your own view onto a point made without comment in that BBC article. Nowhere does it cite lack of compatible devices as the reason for holding back uptake. That’s your opinion, and I don’t believe it’s an accurate explanation. I believe it’s more to do with inertia.
In fact, the word compatible is used only once, and it’s in this paragraph:
In addition, it can be used as a way to pay for goods within compatible apps without a user having to type in the linked card’s three or four-digit security code.
But in my view, it is. That’s where we’re seemingly getting tangled up here. As is whatever Sainsbury’s were up to that time, as if their slowness to adopt contactless at all exonerates Tesco from artificially limiting the payments innovations brought about by Apple and Google. It does not.
Again, like Sainsbury’s, and like smartphone adoption rates, it serves no relevance to the discussion topic at hand, nor my view, and completely misses my core point, so I’m not quite sure why you’re pressing for my thoughts on those things in relation to this issue. They don’t matter.
Tesco were early adopters of passbook. Cool. It furthers their goal to get everyone using the club card for everything, so I’m not surprised. They’re a data broker masquerading as a bank and service provider at this point. It’s an action consistent with their choice to suppress mobile wallets, and in turn, consistent with my narrative.
I was genuinely enjoying this topic - until I lost the plot. I applaud the energy and erudition, though from a non-partisan perspective, the exchanges made it all rather impenetrable - never mind.
(I will point out, though, that the ’s are out of place ).
Agree - I think it’s a decent way of simply expressing ones dissatisfaction, for example with their view being completely miscomprehended and equated to another member’s.
I think reacting to every message which expresses a view contrary to your own with a thumbdown feels a little petty but to each their own.
While the thumbs down emoji has it’s place, it can cause bad feeling where it’s not intended. Graphics and pixels are hard to get your point across, I get that. We’ve removed the thumbs down emoji from the list and just left the others to avoid any negative thoughts. This also reflects what other sites use (e.g. social networks).
I’m sure no bad feeling was intended with the thumbs down reactions, it’s just part of the flow of conversation and perhaps used where they disagreed with a particular point (rather than the individual, their view or the whole post). Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but we kindly ask that people are considerate and respectful of other users and their posts.
I think perhaps we should move on from this thread and maybe stick to good, happy and positive news for the time being?
Some people just don’t accept that you sometimes just need to agree to disagree.
I personally just move on or block (if required) as life is too short IMHO
People can spend their time however they like, I’m not sure it’s particularly helpful denigrating anyone for involvement in a debate. (I’d thumb down the two posts above if I could!)
Digital wallets are ubiquitous here, transfers are instant, fees for merchants are significantly lower than Mastercard or Visa, works online and offline and mini-applications are often built into these mega-apps in the process cutting out the apple/google taxes too
I’m not sure I see that any of those things are impossible with an NFC wallet solution over a QR code? This is my point, to my mind it made a lot of sense as a stop gap solution.
’s are out of place 
).
if you feel that it’s deserved (IMO).
