Mobile Money at Stake: Where Will Banks Fit When Mobile Payments Become as Common as Debit Cards?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding exactly what are, and figuring out how they fit in with your bank's overall strategy, will be crucial as today's smartphone-toting customers start looking for their banks' payment apps. The basic danger is, if your bank doesn't have an app, your customers will go find a bank--or something else--that does. Getting a fix on mobile payments has become all the more urgent since two financial services analysts-KPMG and Gartner--independently predicted that mobile payments will be mainstream among consumers within four years. Far fetched? Consider, as one industry observer points out, what Apple did to the music industry with iTunes. Plastic cards could go the way of music CDs. Smartphone is the new wallet When you mention you have to immediately define what you're talking about. Mobile payments are sometimes mentioned in connection with digital wallets, mobile wallets, or e-wallets. These generally refer to the same thing, analysts say; that is, the ability to conduct retail point-of-sale transactions through the use of a mobile device. Many observers point out that other forms of mobile payments have been around for a while, such as bill pay, remote deposit capture, online e-commerce, and person-to-person (P2P) systems. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] What's different is the realization that as people find they can do more and more with their smartphones, one result will be increased pressure to be able to do retail POS payments, that is, to buy a cup of coffee, movie tickets, gum, or anything. These are the next mobile payments and the smartphone is the new wallet. The technological ability to do this is here, or rapidly approaching. A number of other factors still have to be sorted out--how to convince merchants to obtain the countertop readers; how to embed near-field communication (NFC) chips in handsets that can be read by all interchange systems; and how to convince consumers such payments are safe. Major challenges, to be sure. The effect Perhaps the biggest question to be answered is who will take the lead in this new payments area. Banks, which have owned the payment territory for centuries? Or someone else? made a splash late this spring announcing Google a group effort involving Sprint, Citibank, and MasterCard. With the associated app, a consumer will be able to make a POS mobile payment--but only through these specific entities. It won't work, for example, through an AT&T account. Visa is working on a similar setup in con junction with 14 banks and credit unions in the United States and Canada, and is planning to launch it some time this fall. Both Visa and non Visa payments will be accommodated, press materials state, but details have yet to be seen. Other groups are working in the same area. Last November, Isis was formed as a joint venture between AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile USA, and Verizon Wireless in order to enable mobile commerce. In July, they were joined by Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express. PayPal is looking into it, and Apple is rumored to be interested. The Isis plan is to enable POS mobile payments through smartphones using NFC chips. It plans to launch the service in Salt Lake City and Austin, Texas, in the first half of 2012. The biggest banks also are getting involved through a number of pilots. Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and JPMorgan Chase formed a new venture called clearXchange, which really falls into the category of P2P payments, but is distinguished as being entirely bank-owned. It is also an indication of their interest in the mobile payments trend. Still, while several banks are involved in these developing systems, other nonbanks are perceived to be taking the lead. It is Wallet, after all. You used to hear, when banks talked about disintermediation, that they were primarily talking about PayPal. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it