You are viewing Payment methods

Advantages and Disadvantages of Contactless Payment Methods in Restaurants | Modern restaurant management

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was essential to reduce frequent points of contact in physical stores, including restaurants, bars and cafes. In bathrooms, it’s increasingly common to see touchless paper towel dispensers, hand soaps, and air dryers.

Another contactless feature that many restaurants are adding to their operations are payment methods. More and more alternatives to cash are emerging and restaurateurs must consider the pros and cons of using them to improve the transaction process.

Here are some of the pros and cons of implementing a contactless payment system in your operations, so you can better decide if it is right for your restaurant.

Growing popularity of contactless payment methods

Although contactless payment methods were first introduced in 1995 by South Korea’s public transportation system, the global pandemic has accelerated their adoption in the restaurant industry. Customers and business owners can benefit from their use. One of the main reasons these systems are growing in popularity is the convenience they bring to the table.

The payment method is quite simple: Customers can tap or hold their card or smart device on the point of sale system. Near Field Communication (NFC) technology then captures the card or device information and continues to process the payment. NFC technology uses a radio frequency that allows it to communicate with the restaurant’s point of sale system.

This payment method allows fast, reliable and secure transactions. Customers can avoid waiting for a waiter to deliver their check, execute their credit card, and sign the receipt. It is a much more efficient means of payment than cash or the insertion of a traditional card with entry of the PIN code.

Benefits of contactless payments

Here are some of the benefits of contactless payments that could help your business grow and prosper in a competitive environment.

1. Better customer experience (CX)

CX can make or break your business. People who have bad experiences paying their bills may not come back or convert to loyal customers.

However, if you offer convenient payment methods as a Unique Selling Point (USP), you may have a better chance of retaining your customers. Customer experience is a top priority for businesses over the next five years, and restaurants are no exception.

2. Secure transactions and fraud protection

Contactless payment transactions are secure and encrypted to discourage any hacking attempt. The last thing you want is for a customer to experience fraud or have their information stolen.

When a customer walks into a restaurant, their information must be protected and safe from potential criminals. Using contactless payment options will help secure payments.

3. Improved customer loyalty programs

When customers download your restaurant’s mobile app, they should also be able to connect a credit or debit card to their account. So when they order online or pick up their meal, it’s already paid for.

When customers sit in your restaurant, they should be able to pay for their meal with this app and earn rewards for their purchases. It helps build loyalty with your restaurant and keeps people coming back for more.

Disadvantages of contactless payments

While the benefits of using contactless payments can be compelling, it’s crucial to identify the downsides you might encounter if you decide to incorporate them into your restaurant operations.

1. Age gap in technology adoption

Millennials and Gen Z are known to adopt technology quickly, and there is evidence to suggest that they have steered us into a future of contactless payment.

This bodes well for you as a restaurant or business owner as you will have an easier time attracting these young customers. However, this is a double-edged sword – older populations may not be inclined to use technology to pay their bills. Taking this age gap into account is something you will need to consider.

2. Security issues

While contactless payments are known to be safe and secure for customers, they still come with risk. If a customer’s card is lost or stolen, contactless charges lack the PIN authentication that would typically prevent criminals from getting started. Fortunately, many banks can issue a 100% guarantee for customers who believe their card has been fraudulently charged.

When you know these pros and cons, you are in a better position to decide whether implementing contactless payment methods is right for your restaurant. Many establishments are adopting this new technology to improve their customer service and simplify transactions.

As technology advances, it’s interesting to see which trends hold and which don’t. Contactless payment may have been a fad at one time, but it is slowly taking over the restaurant industry. Describing the pros and cons will help you make the right decision for your restaurant.


Source link

Judge rules Apple can’t stop apps from offering alternative payment methods in Landmark Epic Games case

After more than a year of legal wrangling, the landmark App Store case launched against Apple by Epic Games last August has come to an end, with the court conceding a relatively minor point to Epic while dismissing the other claims.

Specifically, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers ruled that Apple was not a monopoly under federal or state antitrust laws, although she acknowledged that Apple had engaged in “anti-competitive behavior under California competition laws “.

Specifically, Judge Rogers challenged Apple’s “anti-leadership” rules – those that prevent app developers from even mentioning the capability of alternative payment methods within their applications.

The judge had focused on this issue several times during the trial, so it should probably come as no great surprise that the most significant outcome of his final decision was a permanent injunction which will prevent Apple from blocking links to other payment methods.

Nonetheless, the lawsuit found that Apple was engaging in anti-competitive behavior under California competition laws. The Court finds that Apple’s anti-leadership provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, Rule 52 Merits Post-Trial Order, Epic Games v Apple.

Apple also likely saw the writing on the wall here, as the company boldly announced last week that it would start allowing “reader” apps – those that “allow a user to access content previously. purchased or subscriptions to content, such as magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music and video “- to start including links allowing users to sign up for subscriptions outside of the App Store .

However, Judge Rogers’ injunction goes beyond the relatively minimal concession made by Apple, as it applies to all apps on the App Store – not just those like Netflix and Spotify – and it effectively prevents Apple limit the type of links or buttons. that can be used.

Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees and any person in concert or active participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently prohibited and enjoined from prohibiting developers (i) from including in their apps and metadata buttons, external links or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to in-app purchases and (ii) communication with customers through touchpoints obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration in the app.

Permanent injunction, United States District Court, Northern District of California, in Epic Games vs Apple.

While the injunction is not effective until December 9 – 90 days from the date it was issued – once it goes into effect, Epic may be able to revert. Fortnite to the App Store mainly on its own terms.

The text of the injunction suggests that applications will be limited to linking to external payment pages, however, rather than providing their own payment processing right in the app, which Epic has done with Fortnite. Whether this will satisfy Epic Games remains to be seen.

To be clear, while any ground gained might be seen as a small victory, Epic ultimately only prevailed over one count – something that is arguably the App Store’s most egregious rule in the first place.

On all other points, Judge Rogers ruled strongly in favor of Apple, stating that it was not a monopoly in the “digital mobile game transactions” market and that “a considerable market share “And extraordinarily high profit margins” do not automatically translate into antitrust conduct.

“Success is not illegal,” adds Judge Rogers.

After defining the relevant market as digital mobile game transactions, the Tribunal then assessed Apple’s behavior in that market. Based on the trial record, the court ultimately cannot conclude that Apple is a monopoly under federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys a sizable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not indicate antitrust behavior. Success is not illegal.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, Rule 52 Merits Post-Trial Order, Epic Games v Apple.

That said, Judge Rogers made it clear that it was not impossible to argue that Apple is a monopoly, but simply that Epic Games “failed in its onus” to argue this case. For example, Epic has presented no evidence of “other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and decreased production or decreased innovation in the relevant market”.

Epic does not get by without tape

Epic made a pretty brazen move last summer in an attempt to argue its case against Apple, sneaking into its own in-app purchasing system. Fortnite in direct violation of the rules of the App Store.

While it was Epic’s whole case that these rules shouldn’t exist, the reality is they did exist at the time, and Epic had a contractual obligation to follow them. As a result, Apple officially terminated Epic’s developer account, and when Epic sought an injunction to force Apple to reinstate it, Judge Rogers flatly denied Epic’s request, stating that the company had to. live with the mess she had chosen to create.

It was, as Judge Rogers put it, “a move calculated to violate” and Epic “cannot do irreparable harm when [it] create evil [itself]. “

In the midst of that, Apple also hit back with a counter-suit against Epic for breach of contract, and in today’s ruling Judge Rogers ruled in favor of Apple, stating that Epic must pay Apple. 30% of the money they earn through their own in-app purchase system.

To be fair, Epic admitted in his statements that he had violated its Developer Product License Agreement (DPLA) with Apple, and even admitted that Apple would be entitled to compensation – “to the extent that the court finds the DPLA to be enforceable.”

Of course, the whole Epic thing was that the DPLA wasn’t enforceable in the first place, which made it a meaningless concession. Essentially, the company was admitting to violating a contract that it had never considered legal in the first place.

Epic Games maintains that all of Apple’s counterclaims are prohibited despite its acknowledged violation of the DPLA because the provisions of the DPLA it violated are unenforceable (i) under the doctrine of illegality; (ii) because they are void against public order; and (iii) because they are unreasonable.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, Rule 52 Merits Post-Trial Order, Epic Games v Apple.

However, since Rogers J. ruled that Apple was not considered a monopoly under federal or state antitrust laws, and more specifically that “no provision of the DPLA at issue in this action is illegal under of the Sherman Law or the Cartwright Law “, contracts are not” illegal and unenforceable “.

In fact, it seems Epic was too cocky for his own good here. Judge Rogers admitted that Apple’s 30% commission rate may not be justifiable, but adds that Epic has not argued it should pay less – he tried to argue that he shouldn’t pay anything at all.

Although the court found that the evidence suggests that Apple’s 30% commission rate appears inflated and is potentially anti-competitive, Epic Games did not dispute the rate. On the contrary, Epic Games has challenged the imposition of any commission whatsoever.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, Rule 52 Merits Post-Trial Order, Epic Games v Apple.

Indeed, Rogers J. ruled that Apple had the right to some commission, and since the commission rate was not in dispute, declined to comment on whether 30% was considered fair or not.

Instead, she ordered Epic to pay Apple the commissions it should have earned from in-app payments in Fortnite players that were made outside of Apple’s systems.

The remedy to which Apple is entitled is that to which Epic Games has stipulated in the event that the Court has found it liable for breach of contract, namely: (1) damages in an amount equal to (i) 30% of the $ 12,167,719 of Epic Games revenue collected from Fortnite app users on iOS via Epic direct payment between August and October 2020, plus (ii) 30% of such Epic Games revenue collected from November 1, 2020 to the date of the judgment.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers, Rule 52 Merits Post-Trial Order, Epic Games v Apple.

While 30% of $ 12,167,719 equates to just $ 3,650,316 – pocket currency for Apple and Epic – there is obviously a principle at stake here. Ironically, the end result is that Epic loses more money than if he had just left him pretty well alone.

Since Epic was trying to make his point by selling in-game currency by Fortnite with a 20% discount, and he’s now forced to pay 30% of the income he earned from those already discounted purchases, he ended up losing $ 1.40 more on every $ 10 transaction than if he had simply given Apple its 30% cut in the first place.

Judge Rogers also ruled that Epic is required to declare that “Apple’s termination of the DPLA and related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful and enforceable”, and that Apple “has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of the subsidiaries, affiliates and / or other entities wholly owned by Epic Games under the control of Epic Games at any time and in Apple’s sole discretion.

Given Judge Rogers’ rather pointed comments at Epic Games last fall, when the company sought a preliminary injunction to force Apple to restore Fortnite on the App Store, it’s no surprise that Epic was slapped pretty hard on the breach front. The courts generally have a bad opinion of plaintiffs who play games like this, and we can’t help but wonder if Epic would have been better off had it simply gone for a quieter trial.


Source link

Global Mobile Payment Methods 2021 After COVID-19

China was considered to be one of the world’s leading markets for the rate of adoption of proximity mobile payment in 2021. The latest publication “Global Mobile Payment Methods 2021 Post COVID-19” provides an overview of the current state and future trends of the global mobile payment market.

New York, August 26, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Reportlinker.com announces the publication of the report “Global Mobile Payment Methods 2021 Post COVID-19” – https://www.reportlinker.com/p06130518/?utm_source= GNW
Among other findings, the publication reveals that the value of biometric-authenticated mobile payment transactions globally is expected to increase by 50% between 2020 and 2025.

Global mobile commerce is expected to hold around 80% of the global e-commerce transaction value in 2025

Mobile payments saw increased development after the world faced the COVID-19 crisis in 2020. Although the value of mobile commerce is only expected to increase by 8% globally from 2020 to 2025, it is expected to account for almost 80% of the total. Value of E-Commerce transactions in 2025. China will be the market leader in terms of the number of proximity mobile payment users, with 87% of mobile Internet users paying via mobile in 2021, followed by South Korea and the States. -United. Additionally, when shopping in stores, 41% of adults globally expected mobile payments to be offered as a payment method in 2020, followed by mobile wallets. Major payment service providers in 2020 included iD and Suica Mobile in Japan, Naver Pay and Kakao Pay in South Korea, and PayPal for most European countries.

Hong Kong, China, and Singapore were the top three global market leaders in mobile wallet adoption in 2020.

The COVID-19 health crisis has indeed boosted the adoption and use of the digital wallet in the world in 2020. Namely, the number of users has increased significantly in 2020 and is expected to accelerate further, with a projection from a peak of 70% between 2020 and 2025. This is due to the wide and rapid spread of mobile payments in various markets and verticals around the world. Hong Kong, China and Singapore were the leading countries in mobile wallet adoption, with penetration rates of 85%, 84% and 71%, respectively, while mature markets like the UK and United States fell back. Companies have also mainly preferred to offer digital wallets for B2C e-commerce in 2020, while for B2B they have mainly gone for bank transfers. Additionally, QR code payments, which accounted for 47% of digital wallet transactions in 2020, are expected to decrease and hold 40% in 2025.

For individual market report purchases:
1. A “single user license” means that only one (1) individually named user from an organization has the right to access the report.
2. A “site license” means that up to ten (10) users in a given geographic location (ie a country) of an organization will have the right to access the report.
3. A “Global Site License” means that up to ten (10) Global Users from an organization will be entitled to access the report.

In all cases, the term “organization” refers only to the buyer’s specific company and excludes any third parties, including affiliates.
Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06130518/?utm_source=GNW

About Reportlinker
ReportLinker is an award winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need – instantly, in one place.

__________________________

CONTACT: Clare: [email protected] US: (339)-368-6001 Intl: +1 339-368-6001


Source link

Asia-Pacific 2021 online payment methods after COVID-19

Electronic and mobile payments in the Middle East and Africa have seen an increase in their adoption and value. The latest publication “Online Payment Methods in the Middle East and Africa 2021” provides an overview of the current status and future trends of the online payments market in the Middle East and Africa.

New York, August 19, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) – Reportlinker.com announces the publication of the report “Asia-Pacific 2021 Online Payment Methods After COVID-19” – https://www.reportlinker.com/p06130123/? utm_source = GNW
Among other findings, the publication reveals that even after the removal of social isolation measures, consumers planned to continue using cellphones / smartphones to shop.

Electronic payments around the world have gained momentum, especially after the onset of COVID-19, encouraging consumers to embrace them and learn more about them

Online payments and alternatives to cash are gaining ground around the world, even more gradually after the onset of the pandemic in 2020. Credit and debit cards are among the main payment methods common around the world. QR codes, which were increasingly accepted around the world, are expected to decrease in frequency of use due to the acceleration of features such as card acceptance through NFC smartphones, which are now easier to adopt. Another form of payment that is gaining momentum today is cryptocurrency. A recent survey cited in the report found that a significant share of young consumers became more open to this new currency in 2021 compared to the previous year and more than 70% of them are ready to learn more about it. his subject.

Consumers in the Middle East and Africa have steadily increased their use of online payments and the acceptance of emerging forms of payment has increased.

The online payment industry in the Middle East and Africa has accelerated since the start of 2020. One of the main drivers has been the COVID-19 pandemic. Consumers in the region were open to adopting digital payments and even trying new emerging payments such as cryptocurrency, biometrics, QR code, and more because they are fast, secure, and contactless. Many consumers surveyed have opted to use cryptocurrency more than last year. Moreover, even after the removal of social distancing / social isolation measures, most buyers still preferred to use cellphones / smartphones to shop.

Overall, a considerable portion of UAE consumers chose online payments because they believed it helped them save money. While in Israel, online shopping has been preferred due to the lower risk of COVID-19 infection in 2020.

In general, in the countries of the two regions, card and mobile payments dominated. Namely, in South Africa and Egypt, the value of card payments is expected to increase steadily over the next few years. In Egypt, the number of electronic cards increased significantly from December 2017 and exceeded 40 million in December 2020.

In Morocco, local card payments prevailed over foreign card payments. The value of digital transactions via Moroccan cards reached over 4 billion dirhams (around 400 million euros) in the first 9 months of 2020, while the value of online payments with a foreign card has declined from of 2019 and reached just over 225 million dirhams (over 21 million) in the first 9 months of 2020.

Mobile payments have also increased in acceptance in both regions. Namely, in Jordan, the volume of transactions made through a mobile payment system increased in 2020 and exceeded 1 million in December 2020. While in Kenya, the number of mobile payments continued to grow every year and reached over 60 million at the start of 2021.

For individual market report purchases:
1. A “single user license” means that only one (1) individually named user from an organization has the right to access the report.
2. A “site license” means that up to ten (10) users in a given geographic location (ie a country) of an organization will have the right to access the report.
3. A “Global Site License” means that up to ten (10) Global Users from an organization will be entitled to access the report.

In all cases, the term “organization” refers only to the buyer’s specific company and excludes any third parties, including affiliates.
Read the full report: https://www.reportlinker.com/p06130123/?utm_source=GNW

About Reportlinker
ReportLinker is an award winning market research solution. Reportlinker finds and organizes the latest industry data so you get all the market research you need – instantly, in one place.

__________________________

CONTACT: Clare: [email protected] US: (339)-368-6001 Intl: +1 339-368-6001


Source link