Yet more about NFC and business models

Eric Schmidt’s very bullish comments about near-field communication (NFC) technology in the US retail market have got people talking about business models again.

Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chairman, believes that a third of check-out terminals in retail stores and restaurants will be upgraded to allow wireless “tap and pay” from mobile phones within the next year.

[From Google’s Schmidt predicts widespread “tap and pay” within a year | FT Tech Hub | FTtechhub – Industry analysis – FT.com]

These follow a series of statements by Google executives that, whether they are true or not, seem to have legitimised the technology in the eyes of a broad range of businesses.

She added that there is a ton of activity around NFC in international markets, giving the example of a successful trial of the technology that Starbucks ran in London.

[From Google Commerce Chief: We’re Making A Huge Bet On NFC As A Company]

I’ve never heard of this Starbucks NFC trial, so if anyone can point me in the right direction I’d really like to read up on it. But that’s beside the point. The point is that lots of people are now taking NFC seriously in the retail space and the mobile operators are developing NFC strategies. But what business model will there be for them? And what options do they have?

The question will then be how operators manage to regain relevance for their role in NFC transactions (which will come later, if at all), when the first trillion NFC interactions will have bypassed them.

[From Dean Bubley’s Disruptive Wireless: What will be the business model for free NFC-based interactions?]

You can see the problem that he is alluding to, but it may not be immediately obvious why it is such a problem specifically for operators. Look at the issue from a slightly different perspective, one that stems from security. I would argue that there are two different classes of application for NFC in mobile phones. These are, broadly speaking, “open” applications and “closed” applications. They are, broadly speaking, about interaction in the case of open applications and transaction in the case of closed applications. Creating such applications is, broadly speaking, easy to create in the case of open applications and difficult in the case of closed applications.

Why? Well, it’s because the closed applications need security and the open applications don’t. Open applications are things like games and business cards and “friending”, where consumers touch phones to something (which may be another phone) in order to get or exchange some information. These are what Dean means by “interactions”. Closed applications are things like payments and tickets, where real money is involved (other than the service providers own) and the applications must be what security professionals refer to as “tamper resistant”. They must also work, all the time and every time. These are what Dean means by “transactions”.

Working out how to do implement secure electronic transactions is (I’m happy to say, since it’s a big part of Consult Hyperion‘s business) difficult, complicated and interesting. It’s easy to picture how life might be with your credit card inside your mobile phone, but think what has to happen to realise that picture! How will the security keys necessary for the card application be transported across potentially insecure networks into the tamper-resistant chips (the “secure elements”, SEs) in handsets? How does the bank know that your credit card is going in to your phone and not a fraudsters? When you get a new phone, how does your card make its way from your old phone to the new one? How does the wallet application in the phone communicate with the card application in the secure element?

In the architecture developed by the transaction incumbents (by which I mean banks and telcos), the management of the closed applications is undertaken by something called a “trusted services manager”, or “TSM”, an entity that stis between the providers of closed services, such as banks and transit operators, and the mobile operators who connect to the SEs that they, in effect, own and rent out space on. This model may be disrupted, because it was founded on the assumption that the SE would be under the control of the MNO and that the TSM would have to cut a deal with the MNO to rent the SE space (what you’ll often here telco people refer to as the “apartment model”).

In the Google play, the TSM is operated by First Data and the SE is operated by Google (it’s in the Nexus handset, not on the SIM). The operator has no control over the SE and can extract no “rent” for its use. I notice that in the Nilson report (#972, page 7) it says that the Nexus S is the only smartphone in the US market with an SE not controlled by the mobile operators: it might have said that it’s the only smartphone in the US with an SE, full stop. The operators (in the form of Isis) are not yet in the marketplace. Why are Google being so active then? Well, on the Catalyst Code I read a while back.

Google has obviously made a decision that NFC is an opening into something more interesting and lucrative than transforming a phone into a payment card– advertising and marketing opportunities at the point of sale – the physical point of sale. And, it has done a deal with VeriFone that takes the economic sting away from the merchants who need to buy into their vision to make it work – and who have by and large turned their noses up at NFC up to this point. Layer on top of that their Google Checkout asset and their newly launched One-Pass wallet application and you have the makings of an interesting new payments player.

[From Google Takes on NFC, Will They Crack the Code? at The Catalyst Code]

Karen is, as usual, spot on about this. But I’m not so sure about this…

What’s amazing is that Google was the first to connect all of these dots

[From Google Takes on NFC, Will They Crack the Code? at The Catalyst Code]

This doesn’t seem amazing to me, because I’ve been involved in numerous attempts to develop mobile proximity propositions involving banks and operators and from these experiences have developed (I think) a reasonably accurate map. A month before the Google announcement, I wrote on Quora that “I’m sure [loyalty and rewards] will be Google’s strategy too. Payments are not an interesting enough application to persuade people to go out an get an NFC phone.”

So how come banks and operators didn’t connect the dots, then? Banks and operators have smart people in them, and some of them have smart consultants too. But it is very difficult to make institutional strategies for non-core businesses and have them translated into a practical tactics with appropriate priorities. If you were in a European mobile operator back in 2009 and you had an idea for using NFC to create a new business, where did you go with the idea? I went in to an Orange retail outlet: they are the first operator in the UK to sell a commercial NFC handset with an onboard payment application: not only did the shop not accept NFC payments but they didn’t sell any NFC tchotchkes, such as blank NFC tags. If you’re a smart kid and you get one of these phones, and you have an idea for using tags as tickets for a gig you and your mates are running… well, hard luck. This is problematic, because we need lots of people to be experimenting, developing and playing with the new interface to create the new, open applications.

In April, Nokia’s vice president for industry collaborations, Mark Selby, speaking at the WIMA NFC conference in Monaco, contended that NFC applications not securely stored on SIM cards, embedded chips or other secure elements will account for two-thirds of the revenue that NFC technology will generate through 2013.

[From Nokia Introduces Its Second NFC-enabled Smartphone | NFC Times New – Near Field Communication and all contactless technology.]

I hope Mark won’t mind me mentioning that we discussed this over dinner a couple of weeks ago and, while I agreed with him about the market, I bored him at length with my moaning about the slow development of the ecosystem. Where are the Nokia NFC tags for kids to buy? Where are the NFC USB sticks to connect laptops and phones?

But, looking forward, there’s another issue here. This classification of open/interactive vs. closed/transactional NFC uses is too simplistic, because as the technology spreads in the mainstream, interactions will need to be secure too. When I tap my phone against an advert at the bus stop, I want to find out more about “Kung-Fu Panda 2” and not get directed to a porn site, a reverse-charge premium rate phone call to Honduras or send a text message to someone who wants to sell my mobile number to commercial organisations. I want my phone to check the digital signature on the tag and make sure that it is valid, and that it is signed by an organisation recognised by UK phone operators, or banks, or the government, or whoever. But signing the tags (which is part of the NFC standards, but no-one uses at the moment) means that someone has to distribute keys, and certificates and all that stuff. None of this exists right now, but in the future it will have to.

So… Not only is there no ecosystem for transactions, there’s no ecosystem for interactions either. Now you can see why the mobile operators are going to have to work so hard to stay in the NFC loop. A couple of years ago they could have started to roll out the handsets for open, interactive purposes and started many communities off on experimenting with the new technology while they developed the necessary infrastructure for both secure transactions and secure interactions, but they didn’t because they couldn’t see a business case. What’s the business case for selling public key certificates so that advertisers can digitally sign tags using their internally-generated private keys?

It’s hard to work out a conventional business case around a business that simply doesn’t exist yet, and I understand that. But I think that even three or four years ago, the consumer response to the early pilots and trials was so positive that it was clear that the technology would make the mainstream. Now that Google’s activities have served, in an odd way, to legitimise both NFC technology and the business models around it, maybe the operators should adopt a more Google-like approach to business model: start building way more cool stuff, monetise what works and then be ruthless in killing off what doesn’t.

My employer, Consult Hyperion, has provided paid professional services to some of the organisations named here in connection with products and services discussed here, but the opinions in this post are my own (I think) and presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public

Harsh, but fair

[Dave Birch] A few days ago I was at Experian’s annual Payment Strategies conference, where I had been kindly invited to provide a closing keynote. In it, I made a few predictions about the next phase of evolution of the European payments business, and in passing I mentioned that I felt that some progress had been slow.

Birch lambasted traditional banks and payments providers for their failure to grasp the nature of the opportunities presented by mobile technologies, which has led them to miss the boat. “I’m almost embarrassed to stand before you and say that I thought that banks and mobile operators could work together,” he told the conference. “It was a stupid fantasy for which I apologise.”

[From Identity is the next big thing for payments | Banking Technology magazine]

This isn’t a new rant, but a considered opinion. In fact, I wrote about this last year, round about the time I made some similar remarks at an event at the GSMA, reflecting the fact that I think that mobile operators should have been quicker in to the NFC space and with more open models, and that I think banks should have been quicker to develop and implement mobile approaches other than “windows on to the web” or “cut down ATM” solutions.

All of my experience over the last few years has served to reinforce my opinion from those ancient times that it’s much harder for banks and operators to work together than either of them might think. So perhaps this part of the [Booz Allen Hamilton] 2001 vision for 2010 may never become reality

[From Digital Money: Let’s put the future behind us]

The reference to Booz Allen Hamilton, a management consultancy, is because the post was discussing a magazine article by them from a decade ago:  “Why banks and telecoms must merge to surge” from the Booz Allen Hamilton strategy+business magazine that I’d filed away back in 2001. I took some comfort from it, because it meant that I wasn’t the only one who had expected banks and operators to get together, but I was commenting on the cultural factors that meant that it had proved very difficult for them to co-operate effectively.

This has meant that it has taken longer for the infrastructure to develop than he’d predicted, but more importantly, banks are still missing out: only recently, banks in the US had told him that there is no business case for subsidising the installation of contactless readers in retail premises, just as Google was announcing that it will.

[From Identity is the next big thing for payments | Banking Technology magazine]

It is absolutely true that I (as well as number of other consultants) were at an event with US banks earlier in the year where this opinion was expressed. But there was nothing special about it: the banks had said exactly the same thing in public to retailers.

Representatives of three of the country’s largest banks, Bank of America, Citigroup and U.S. Bank, attended a meeting last month organized by the Merchant Advisory Group… to talk about the new opportunities that mobile technologies, such as NFC, will create for the payments industry. “You know what they (banks) told us? There’s just not a business case right now,” Dodd Roberts, head of the merchant group, said last week

[From Digital Money: Inception]

But back to the 2001 article, which agreed with me about one particular strategic element. That is, that while banks had have a strong hold over payment systems, mobile network operators would be challengers.

Today, banks are at another competitive crossroads. This time the new contenders in financial services are telephone companies, specifically wireless telecoms.

[From Why Banks and Telecoms Must Merge to Surge]

The Booz Allen Hamilton article finishes up by saying that it would be logical for “mega players” such as Vodafone and Citi to combine. This hasn’t happened and I can’t help but observe that Vodafone’s most successful mobile payment service, in fact, probably the world’s most successful mobile payment service, M-PESA, doesn’t involve banks at all except as a secure repositories of funds.

So why did my comments about banks and operators working together sound so harsh? It’s because we (Consult Hyperion) have been involved in a number of projects, going all the way back to the Orange/NatWest joint venture, and so have seen at first hand what works and what doesn’t in these relationships. And, yes, things are improving: but it may well be the case that having let a couple of years evolution slip away, the idea of the bank/operator partnership as the central organising principle for mobile payments is over. European operators have started to apply for their own Payment Institution licences, while I expect banks to focus more on developing value-adding services for the retailers and consumers and less on the “bare” retail payments (where the downward pressure on transactional fee income will continue).

Incidentally, I wonder if both the banks and the mobile operators held back because they’d been listening to their customers? If you had done a survey of consumers asking them if they wanted an iPod, the day before hte iPod had been invented, you would never have launched it.

in an interview with the Daily Telegraph in February 2005. The founder of Amstrad said: “Next Christmas the iPod will be dead, finished, gone, kaput.”

[From Bill Gates and Sir Alan Sugar made some of worse technology predictions of all time – Telegraph]

Predictions are difficult, as the saying goes, especially ones about the future. Of course, you do have to understand what it is that you are predicting, and in many cases people don’t really understand the proper context. This is why I read surveys like these with a raised eyebrow.

Just One-in-Five Brits Currently Interested in Paying by Mobile Phone

[From Just One-in-Five Brits Currently Interested in Paying by Mobile Phone]

Now this might be interesting news if I cared what the public think about anything (I don’t), but I wonder if it’s the sort of thing that causes mass market players to slow down? It caught my eye because it tallies with the revealed consumer preferences of Japanese consumers, where mobile proximity payments are mainstream. Indeed, only around one in five or six people in Japan use their proximity handsets for payments. But then only one in five or six people here pay for things using credit cards (debit cards dominate in Europe) and that’s still a business. The headline intends to be negative, but what it says to me is that the potential for mobile payments is such that ten million people could be using them in the UK in the not-too-distant future, if banks and operators (or someone else?) can come up with the right proposition.

These opinions are my own (I think) and presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public [posted with ecto]

Why use contactless?

The results from the first couple of years of contactless payments use in the UK show that, as expected, contactless is being used as cash replacement for small transactions.

The average value of a contactless transaction is only £4.93.

[From Tap-and-go is on the move to a shop near you | Mail Online]

It’s not always used simply because of the convenience, as one commentator noted in the comments on this story:

I have swtiched to using the contactless payment method to purchase sandwiches at shops such as Pret A Manger and Eat mainly because I am fed up with them ofloading their fake pound coins on me in their change

[From Tap-and-go is on the move to a shop near you | Mail Online]

Bizarrely, I was thinking about this the other day. I parked in Derby, which is in the midlands and when I returned to the car the local council wanted to charge me £11.20. In some kind of hommage to Derby’s past, the machine didn’t take cards or mobile payments, so we were reduced to emptying out our pockets, rummaging in the glove compartment and searching the floor of the car for change. Fortunately, my fellows had plenty of pocket change. But when we started feeding it into the machine, four out of the ten £1 coins we had amassed were repeatedly rejected, presumably because they were fake. I’d never really thought that the avoidance of fake currency would be part of the retailer’s business case, but I need to revise my opinion!

But what is the business case? Is it just about payments? For some kinds of retailers, the convenience of contactless payments makes sense only when it is also part of some bigger model, generally involving value-added propositions such as loyalty. The was recognised by Bling Nation, when they decided to refocus on the loyalty side of things…

John Paul Coupa of Coupa Café has the system in all three of his northern California locations. “It gets used a lot,” says Coupa, “(even) more than American Express.” Coupa recently implemented the FanConnect system.

[From ContactlessNews | Contactless payment scheme enables loyalty via Facebook]

In Northern California, then, things look good. But on the other side of the country, on the apparently more conservative east cost, the results were quite different.

Other merchants have not enjoyed the same level of success. Charles Savas, president of Center Beverage in Stoneham, Mass., got rid of the system after just three months. “They were going to charge me $40 a month,” he says, “and I only had $35 in sales for the first three months.”

[From ContactlessNews | Contactless payment scheme enables loyalty via Facebook]

A mixed picture. But does any of this early experience matter? If contactless is important only as the rails for mobile to run on, then the early feedback from the contactless card deployments doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t tell us anything about the mobile future, does it?

These, and related topics, will be discussed at Contactless Cards and Mobile Payments in London on 20th and 21st June at the Kensington Hilton. I’m chairing the event on 21st and look forward to see you all there. And guess what? The utterly splendid people at SMi have given me a two-day delegate pass worth an astonishing ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE POUNDS to give away on this blog as a competition prize. So if you are going to be in London on those dates and you’d like to come along to learn more about the world of contactless, all you have to do is be the first person to respond to this post with the current maximum payment value for “no PIN” contactless payments in the UK.

In the traditional fashion, this competition is open to all except for employees of Consult Hyperion and members of my immediate family, is void where prohibited and has been designed to be carbon neutral. The prize must be claimed within three months. Oh, and no-one can win more than one of the Digital Money Blog prizes per calendar year.

These opinions are my own (I think) and presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public [posted with ecto]

Yet more about NFC and business models

kjhjhgh

There are two different classes of application for NFC in mobile phones. These are, broadly speaking, “open” applications and “closed” applications. They are, broadly speaking, about interaction in the case of open applications and transaction in the case of closed applications. Creating such applications is, broadly speaking, easy to create in the case of open applications and difficult in the case of closed applications.

Why? Well, it’s because the closed applications need security and the open applications don’t. Open applications are things like games and business cards and “friending”, where consumers touch phones to something (which may be another phone) in order to get or exchange some information. Closed applications are things like payments and tickets, where real money is involved (other than the service providers own) and the applications must be what security professionals refer to as “tamper resistant”. They must also work, all the time and every time. Working out how to do this is (I’m happy to say, since it’s a big part of Consult Hyperion‘s business) difficult, complicated and interesting. It’s easy to picture how life might be with your credit card inside your mobile phone, but think what has to happen to realise that picture! How will the security keys necessary for the card application be transported across potentially insecure networks into the tamper-resistant chips (the “secure elements”, SEs) in handsets? How does the bank know that your credit card is going in to your phone and not a fraudsters? When you get a new phone, how does your card make its way from your old phone to the new one? How does the wallet application in the phone communicate with the card application in the secure element?

In the architecture developed by the transaction incumbents (by which I mean banks and telcos), the management of the closed applications is undertaken by something called a “trusted services manager”, or “TSM”, an entity that stis between the providers of closed services, such as banks and transit operators, and the mobile operators who connect to the SEs that they, in effect, own and rent out space on. This model may be disrupted, because it was founded on the assumption that the SE would be under the control of the MNO and that the TSM would have to cut a deal with the MNO to rent the SE space (what you’ll often here telco people refer to as the “apartment model”).

In the Google play, the TSM is operated by First Data and the SE is operated by Google (it’s in the Galaxy S2 handset, not on the SIM).

So, for example, on the Catalyst Code, I read a while back.

Google has obviously made a decision that NFC is an opening into something more interesting and lucrative than transforming a phone into a payment card– advertising and marketing opportunities at the point of sale – the physical point of sale. And, it has done a deal with VeriFone that takes the economic sting away from the merchants who need to buy into their vision to make it work – and who have by and large turned their noses up at NFC up to this point. Layer on top of that their Google Checkout asset and their newly launched One-Pass wallet application and you have the makings of an interesting new payments player.

[From Google Takes on NFC, Will They Crack the Code? at The Catalyst Code]

Karen is, as usual, spot on about this. But I’m not so sure about this…

What’s amazing is that Google was the first to connect all of these dots

[From Google Takes on NFC, Will They Crack the Code? at The Catalyst Code]

This doesn’t seem amazing to me, because I’ve been involved in numerous attempts to develop mobile proximity propositions involving banks and operators. A month before the Google announcement, I wrote on Quora that “I’m sure [loyalty and rewards] will be Google’s strategy too. Payments are not an interesting enough application to persuade people to go out an get an NFC phone.” Banks and operators have smart people them, and some of them have smart consultants too. But it is very difficult to make institutional strategies for non-core businesses and have them translated into a practical tactics with appropriate priorities. If you were in a European mobile operator back in 2009 and you had an idea for using NFC to create a new business, where did you go with the idea? I went in to an Orange retail outlet: they are the first operator in the UK to sell a commercial NFC handset with an onboard payment application: not only did the shop not accept NFC payments (come on guys – you have to eat your own dogfood, as our transatlantic cousins are wont to say) but they don’t sell (for example) NFC tags. If you’re a smart kid and you get one of these phones, and you have an idea for using tags as tickets to a gig you and your mates are running… well, hard luck.

My employer, Consult Hyperion, has provided paid professional services to organisations named here in connection with products and services mentioned here, but the opinions in this post are my own (I think) and presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public

Inception

At the end of March, we learned that there is no business case for moving to NFC at POS in the USA.

Representatives of three of the country’s largest banks, Bank of America, Citigroup and U.S. Bank, attended a meeting last month organized by the Merchant Advisory Group… to talk about the new opportunities that mobile technologies, such as NFC, will create for the payments industry.

“You know what they (banks) told us? There’s just not a business case right now,” Dodd Roberts, head of the merchant group, said last week

[From Big U.S. Banks Look for A Business Case for NFC | NFC Times – Near Field Communication and all contactless technology.]

That’s a shame, because it’s a fun technology that consumers like. Never mind. Of course, not everyone thinks that banks can’t make a go of it, and going back a couple of years we can find some positive projections.

Celent estimates that a 30% cash displacement ratio, or an incremental US$151 per card account, per year is reasonable, with an average revenue increase of US$1.83 per debit card account per year.

[From The View from the Mobile NFC Finish Line: Bank Economics in a Mature Mobile NFC Payments World]

Anyway, a month after the US banks told the Merchant Advisory Group that there was no business case, we learned that…

France-based POS device manufacturer Ingenico has confirmed that it is working with Google on the development of NFC-based services for retailers

[From Confirmed: Google developing NFC solutions for retailers • NFC World]

Was this an “Inception“-style paradox? A fault line between two sets of dreams that don’t quite connect? A glitch in the matrix that could be eliminated if we all take the bank’s blue pill? Because now someone is offering red pills…

The first NFC service launched by Google for its Nexus S phone is an enhancement to its Google Places service. Customers tap the phone against NFC tags embedded in stickers or decals that merchants affix to their storefronts to access information about the local business, including phone numbers, hours of operation, payment types, reviews and recommendations.

[From Checking in with NFC–Some Social-Networking Start-ups to Use NFC | NFC Times – Near Field Communication and all contactless technology.]

Aha! So now we can see how to resolve the paradox. There’s no business case if you only think about transaction revenues (the bank model) but there is a business case if you “ignore” payments and focus on value-added services that retailers will pay for (the Google model). This has got the mobile operators interested enough to start upping the orders.

Such Android handset makers as Samsung, HTC and likely LG and Motorola are preparing for NFC, based on keen interest or orders from mobile operators, including South Korean telcos, SK Telecom and KT; China Mobile; as well as American and European carriers, NFC Times has learned.

[From ‘Open’ Battles Break Out Among NFC Vendors Over Android | NFC Times – Near Field Communication and all contactless technology.]

But is Google’s interest enough to create the contactless rails for these mobile devices to run on, as we keep talking about? Chris Skinner made a very accurate post about this recently.

And here’s the rub: we need more terminals. Maybe they could learn something from Zapa in Ireland, where AIB Merchant Services has worked closely with them to rollout terminals that can use the tags. Half of all AIB’s merchant terminals are now Zapa ready: that’s 40,000 of their 90,000 terminals, with over 1.5 million contactless transactions in the year to September 2010. Compare that with Barclaycard, which has rolled out just 42,500 merchant terminals to date and is processing just over a million transactions by November 2010, and you can see the challenging dimensions they face.

[From BAI | Banking Strategies | Distribution Channels | Mobile | Why Mobile is Critical to Banking]

A characteristically well-informed comment from Steve Mott delves further into resolving the paradox. Perhaps payments are losing their strategic appeal for banks because they are becoming commoditised, utility businesses that just won’t generate the cash that they did in the past.

Consultant Steve Mott, CEO of BetterBuyDesign, who also attended the Merchant Advisory Group meeting, told me the U.S. banks do see the advantages of mobile to increase transactions. But mobile confronts them with an unfamiliar payments landscape at the same time they are being squeezed by regulators with the Durbin amendment,

[From Big U.S. Banks Look for A Business Case for NFC | NFC Times – Near Field Communication and all contactless technology.]

Banks aren’t stupid. They know that NFC is coming, that consumers and merchants like it, that it means disruption. But it is very difficult to change core businesses, especially at a time of great regulatory uncertainty. In the meantime, the non-payment use of NFC will lead it into the mass market. But will the new technology pull in the customers? Sam Shrauger, VP Global Product and Experience at PayPal, puts it succinctly:

People couldn’t care less which technology a hardware or software manufacturer would like to sell them. They couldn’t care less which technology merchants may or may not put in their stores. Ultimately, they just want something that makes their life better when it comes to buying and paying.

[From Why the Mobile Payment Debate Is Headed in the Wrong Direction [OPINION]]

Now, as it happens, I was chatting with Sam last month and I agree with him about many things, but I think that in this particular case he may be underestimating the impact of “tap and go” technology. The point is that tapping is so much simpler, so much quicker, so much more convenient for consumers that it will make a difference to them. People will start looking for the phones that you can tap together to become Facebook friends, or whatever, because that experience blows away bumping, or texting or QR codes or whatever.

This, I think, means risky time for bank payments. Once people are using their non-bank wallets on mobile phones to execute retail transactions, initially using bank-provided payment schemes, it will be a small step to get them to move to non-bank payment schemes inside those wallets. Banks need more active responses to the changing environment and I hope I won’t be offending anyone to say that I know from personal experience with recent projects that banks are losing opportunities right now because they are not able to deliver products in the timescales demanded by other industries.

These opinions are my own (I think) and presented solely in my capacity as an interested member of the general public [posted with ecto]


Subscribe to our newsletter

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

By accepting the Terms, you consent to Consult Hyperion communicating with you regarding our events, reports and services through our regular newsletter. You can unsubscribe anytime through our newsletters or by emailing us.