4 ms·

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think half the buzzwords in the title are quite unnecessary.

by dmitri1981 15y ago

michaeldhopkins 15y ago
All of the buzzwords are unnecessary. "VISA invests in Square" tells me everything I need to know. I can tell Visa's strategy from the title. The investment actually makes me doubt Square is disruptive, but throwing a buzzword in there won't change my mind about it.
- carbocation 15y ago
  The "mobile payments" part helps, since otherwise I'm unfamiliar with Square, but I agree that the opinion words are unnecessary.
- pyre 15y ago
  Square isn't disruptive to VISA. It's disruptive to credit card processors (i.e. Authorize.net).
  - michaeldhopkins 15y ago
    Yes, that is true as it grows. However, I thought that Square planned to make their systems ubiquitous and use that leverage to lower fees and pressure Visa to make changes to merchant guidelines and offerings that benefit Square's goals. Yes, this is speculation as I'm not involved, but Jack Dorsey has an expansive mind and the fact that his ambitions for Twitter included its current role in exacerbating political revolutions suggests he wants Square to have similar power in business.
    - pyre 15y ago
      Perhaps VISA is willing to take a smaller cut so long as the total number of credit card transactions that flow through them increases quickly enough.
      - michaeldhopkins 15y ago
        The goal of a disruptive technology is to force the establishment to take smaller cuts to avoid losing market share, not to get them to agree to a fair exchange.
        pyre 15y ago
        But how is 'more ubiquitous credit card processing' going to eat market share away from credit card companies unless Square starts issuing its own credit cards? At some point the gambit would have to be "I'm going to drop VISA and start issuing my own credit cards... or VISA can just take a smaller cut." That doesn't seem likely.
        michaeldhopkins 15y ago
        I see it going down in three ways. First, Square might avoid needing a traditional credit card with their products somehow. I realize mobile payments and other methods have been tried before but eventually it's going to work. This would have the effect that Craigslist and Ebay had on newspaper classifieds by reducing the market for VISA's products for banks and merchants. Second, Square can definitely compete in the cardspace. What's impossible for them now could change with a big enough operation. Third, Square can use their ubiquitousness to lower fee structure as has been said. That will reduce market share of the fees in the payments 'stack' only; VISA/MC will still exist everywhere. I think this will be necessary for them because their biggest competitor right now is cash, because they want to do every financial transaction in the world. Since all of these 'disruptions' would probably boost the other I predict a combination from them from the company that gets as big as Square wants to be.
  - fendale 15y ago
    Visa also now own authorize.net. They acquired them around the start of this year I think.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- stephenhalter 15y ago
  Square certainly is not going to hurt Visa. The whole point behind Square is to make it easier for individuals and small businesses to accept credit card payments from which Visa naturally takes a cut (when their cards are being used). This doesn't mean that the technology isn't disruptive. Obviously, it is too early to tell for sure one way or the other, but I could imagine Square clearing the way for a new and potentially huge market for smart phones with built-in credit card readers. Given this scenario, Square would most likely not be profiting off of the technology, since I doubt smart phone manufactures would license a credit card reader from them, but that doesn't mean that the technology that Square is introducing isn't disruptive. In many ways it would be safer and more convenient for people to use credit cards for their personal transactions instead of cash. Credit card companies generally do a good job of mitigating fraud despite the ease of using stolen and copied cards. There are a lot of reasons the technology might fail too of course. For example, people might prefer the anonymity cash provides. We'll have to wait and see, but to argue that the technology isn't disruptive simply because an established player like Visa stands to benefit seems silly.
jonursenbach 15y ago
It also says something that I immediately knew who wrote the article before even clicking through.
esmevane 15y ago
Not only that, but they've used this same buzz word formula in almost the same exact context something like a week ago, except it was about Apple carrying Square readers in their stores. Edit: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/16/square-apple/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/16/square-apple/ As much as I'm annoyed to be spreading links to this sensationalist stuff.

Sorry to be pedantic, but I think half the buzzwords in the title are quite unnecessary.

All of the buzzwords are unnecessary. "VISA invests in Square" tells me everything I need to know. I can tell Visa's strategy from the title. The investment actually makes me doubt Square is disruptive, but throwing a buzzword in there won't change my mind about it.

carbocation 15y ago
The "mobile payments" part helps, since otherwise I'm unfamiliar with Square, but I agree that the opinion words are unnecessary.
pyre 15y ago
Square isn't disruptive to VISA. It's disruptive to credit card processors (i.e. Authorize.net).
- michaeldhopkins 15y ago
  Yes, that is true as it grows. However, I thought that Square planned to make their systems ubiquitous and use that leverage to lower fees and pressure Visa to make changes to merchant guidelines and offerings that benefit Square's goals. Yes, this is speculation as I'm not involved, but Jack Dorsey has an expansive mind and the fact that his ambitions for Twitter included its current role in exacerbating political revolutions suggests he wants Square to have similar power in business.
  - pyre 15y ago
    Perhaps VISA is willing to take a smaller cut so long as the total number of credit card transactions that flow through them increases quickly enough.
    - michaeldhopkins 15y ago
      The goal of a disruptive technology is to force the establishment to take smaller cuts to avoid losing market share, not to get them to agree to a fair exchange.
      - pyre 15y ago
        But how is 'more ubiquitous credit card processing' going to eat market share away from credit card companies unless Square starts issuing its own credit cards? At some point the gambit would have to be "I'm going to drop VISA and start issuing my own credit cards... or VISA can just take a smaller cut." That doesn't seem likely.
        michaeldhopkins 15y ago
        I see it going down in three ways. First, Square might avoid needing a traditional credit card with their products somehow. I realize mobile payments and other methods have been tried before but eventually it's going to work. This would have the effect that Craigslist and Ebay had on newspaper classifieds by reducing the market for VISA's products for banks and merchants. Second, Square can definitely compete in the cardspace. What's impossible for them now could change with a big enough operation. Third, Square can use their ubiquitousness to lower fee structure as has been said. That will reduce market share of the fees in the payments 'stack' only; VISA/MC will still exist everywhere. I think this will be necessary for them because their biggest competitor right now is cash, because they want to do every financial transaction in the world. Since all of these 'disruptions' would probably boost the other I predict a combination from them from the company that gets as big as Square wants to be.
- fendale 15y ago
  Visa also now own authorize.net. They acquired them around the start of this year I think.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
stephenhalter 15y ago
Square certainly is not going to hurt Visa. The whole point behind Square is to make it easier for individuals and small businesses to accept credit card payments from which Visa naturally takes a cut (when their cards are being used). This doesn't mean that the technology isn't disruptive. Obviously, it is too early to tell for sure one way or the other, but I could imagine Square clearing the way for a new and potentially huge market for smart phones with built-in credit card readers. Given this scenario, Square would most likely not be profiting off of the technology, since I doubt smart phone manufactures would license a credit card reader from them, but that doesn't mean that the technology that Square is introducing isn't disruptive. In many ways it would be safer and more convenient for people to use credit cards for their personal transactions instead of cash. Credit card companies generally do a good job of mitigating fraud despite the ease of using stolen and copied cards. There are a lot of reasons the technology might fail too of course. For example, people might prefer the anonymity cash provides. We'll have to wait and see, but to argue that the technology isn't disruptive simply because an established player like Visa stands to benefit seems silly.

jonursenbach 15y ago

It also says something that I immediately knew who wrote the article before even clicking through.

esmevane 15y ago

Not only that, but they've used this same buzz word formula in almost the same exact context something like a week ago, except it was about Apple carrying Square readers in their stores. Edit: http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/16/square-apple/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/16/square-apple/ As much as I'm annoyed to be spreading links to this sensationalist stuff.