> requires internet connection for both parties (credit cards only require the merchant to be connected)
In China it's quite common for the merchant to have a static printed-out QR code for receiving payment. This requires a connection only for the payer (and merchants will often have WiFi available, so you're likely to be able to connect one way or another). These merchants tend to just trust you when you pay and then show them the "paid" screen on your phone. You could fake it, but I guess in general people don't, and the "paid" screen does include the merchant's chosen profile image, so you would have to have done your homework to fake it.
> scanning is worse ux than tapping
This is really true. When I lived in Shanghai it was pretty common to be stuck behind someone at the metro turnstile who was trying to use the stupid QR scanning thing to get in. Contactless is much smoother, but at one time QR code was the only way to use your mobile device to get into Shanghai's metro. Now Apple Pay supports the Shanghai transit card.
>These merchants tend to just trust you when you pay and then show them the "paid" screen on your phone. You could fake it, but I guess in general people don't, and the "paid" screen does include the merchant's chosen profile image, so you would have to have done your homework to fake it.
But that's only if they don't want to verify themselves. Which is not an issue, really. Or, if they do not have internet, in which case with NFC they couldn't do the transaction at all.
I feel like it's a case of abuse being so rare that they don't care.
One consequent advantage of cheap that you leave off:
Ubiquity.
I can't assume that every place, even in the most sophisticated cities in the US, will support NFC payments. Most don't, actually. So I still have to carry around a credit card and use it, with all the inconvenience and security issues associated with it.
Also, that cheapness allows for user experiences that are prohibitively expensive for NFC. E.g., paying at your table after eating.
Isn't this classic innovator's dilemma? On one hand we have the incumbent that provides a good, polished solution to the problem (credit card companies), on the other we have the innovator that can focus on markets that are too small for the incumbent (micro transactions, small shops etc).
> Doesn't require active internrt connection. There is an SMS and credit based fallback for when connectivity is low.
How does this work? Do you manually compose a text message to alipay with the payment information?
>Scanning is better than tapping as it can be done from range.
In what context would this be advantageous? If you're at a supermarket checkout, you're already standing close enough to the cashier that you can easily tap/swipe. The same applies to most other situations I can think of.
Plenty of corner cases which collectively add up to a majority of cases.
Pandemic: you don't want to get too close to the checkout, so you can do it from a six foot distance.
Retail locations with limited space: all you need is a flat wall to put a QR code on, and you can put it up in multiple areas. You could even put it on the floor or hang it from the ceiling.
Forced serialization: multiple people can scan a QR code simultaneously, while the NFC nearness requirement means that only one person can tap at once.
Restaurant table: put a QR code on the menu, scan.
Websites on your desktop or laptop: can't tap, but can scan as usual
That's all just talking about payer UX, not even considering seller UX. QR codes are cheaper and more flexible than NFC.
And, most of all, the fact that QR codes work in such a wide range of scenarios enables the biggest advantage: ubiquity. When they're ubiquitous, they become a single payment interface that you can assume will be available no matter where you go, which is game changing.
The way "passive" payments work is that your phone generates a new QR code every few seconds, same way that those one-time password authenticator apps work. The vendor scans your code and charges an amount, then you get an SMS receipt (or confirmation request, for larger amounts).
The other way around - the internet-lacking vendor has a static QR printout (or one-time code) which the buyer scans, keys in the amount, then pays with their internet connection. Vendor gets SMS receipt.
Either way, I do think one of the two parties needs to have internet for a payment to successfully go through.
Tap/swipe requires you to be able to extend hand to a specific terminal. QR tags can be:
- Printed all around the store/restaurant
- Zoomed in from distance and still scanned
yea there are a few use cases where scan is better. For example when you're too far to comfortably tap, like a drive through / toll station. With a tap you often have to reach over, of they have to bring the terminal out of the window / booth. Scan they just hold it up and you scan.
I paid for my diner earlier by scanning a QR code. It's only something I do when I have forgotten my card, as it is much more of a bother than contactless.
Well in China people also scan QR stick on the wall when exiting the parking lot, which seems handy. Also in some places You could start paying while you are in the line by scanning the QR. Anyway it has seen vast success in China
> You could start paying while you are in the line by scanning the QR
You can save them in the app and not have to scan every time too. It's pretty common at people's regular lunch places for them to pay while they wait in line. There's no deep technical reason this couldn't be implemented with the card system either, of course.
