Talk:EFTPOS

message: Does this page add anything to the term 'debit card'?  Does anybody use this term?
:The term is used fairly extensively in New Zealand (and possibly Australia). I don't know about anywhere else. But in New Zealand, the term "debit card" isn't used very much at all - I doubt most people would know what one is (I didn't, until I read the Wikipedia article). As far as I know, we usually just refer to them as "EFTPOS cards", or sometimes "Eftpos cards". -- Vardion 05:37, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  And Australia. Dysprosia 05:53, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  It also dosen't use the credit card systems like a debit card, instead it has it's own network and transation system. In Australia a "debit card" is purely a credit card with the 'credit limit' set to the amount currently in the bank account. --ElectraFlarefire 17:00, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is the same in the United States, as a debit card uses a credit card network (usually VISA) and then directly debits your account through the credit card network.  In Canada, a debit card is synonymous with an ABM/bank card. Snickerdo 02:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes, agreed. It's a well used term in NZ. --Dom 11:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: EFTPOS seems to be exactly the same thing as the thing known as "J-Debit" in Japan, where you use the cash machine cards for paying.  These cards can be used solely for "J-Debit" and cash machines, and the money is instantly charged from your bank account. All shops call these cards debit cards (debitto kādo). (Stefan2 14:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, there is a distinction: EFTPOS is the process used when using a debit or credit card to make payment for goods/services at a point of sale.  An analogous distinction would be the act of driving versus a car.  I think these should remain separate articles. Adw2000 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Debit Card

message: Does anyone have an exact number for POS terminals per person in New Zealand?  In Canada, there are 16,416 (2003) per one million people, which I understand is one of the highest in the world.  I'd be interested to know the exact number for New Zealand.  If no exact figure is available, the line in the article should be removed. Snickerdo 07:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminal per Person in New Zealand? 

message: I heard unverified information a few years ago that one of the biggest reasons EFTPOS became so popular in New Zealand was because it was set up in such a way that the transaction cost for retailers was very low, which is why so many retailers leapt on the chance to install EFTPOS terminals and why nobody cares about customers using EFTPOS for 50 cent transactions. Charges went on consumers, but many consumers have deals with banks for no fees or for flat monthly rate fees.
Can anyone verify if this is true, and (even better) if it's something that didn't happen the same way in other countries? If it is true, I think it'd be a useful insight for the article. Izogi (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fees and popularity in New Zealand 

message: Here are some current statistics
Debit and credit use is higher than any other country with New Zealanders averaging 200 transactions per year; more than twice than the next highest, the Canadians, with an average of 80.
"Plastic is fantastic for Kiwis" - The Press, 17 September 2008
http://www.paymark.co.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=134
Data from Norway's central bank shows that Norway had more than 200 transactions per capita in 2008, and in the PDF report you can see that Iceland had even more, so I'll remove the claims that New Zealand had or have the highest usage. 122.150.214.102 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand history and usage sources 

message: What about Scheme debit - would this drive out the traditional EFTPOS/Debit model. Scheme debit as you may know is a Scheme product driven by VISA and MasterCard and uses their credit routing links to route debit transactions. The downside being that whilst EFTPOS/Debit (traditional model) in NZ is free for merchants (and mostly free for cardholders) the Schemes will look to apply interchange on these transactions therefore making what is a free/low cost service, one that will eventually be subsidised by cardholders/consumers. Benefit for the consumer is that they can buy stuff onhline 9e-commerce) and use their debit accoutn to pay for the goods instead of credit.
All views are welcome.
See http://www.visa-asia.com/ap/nz/merchants/productstech/visadebit.shtml
AND
http://www.westpac.co.nz/olcontent/olcontent.nsf/Content/Debitplus+Visa+Card?Opendocument&refr=personal
Buying stuff online is currently linked to a mobile, with app, data package, texting, and online banking. Those of us who do not want these complications (changing conditions and procedures every two years) would  want a new system that does not require involvement of a mobile phone. The average person cannot keep that upgraded and secure so the only viable way to not lose money is to avoid online money. We have no more access now to online money and shopping since they (NAB, visa) changed conditions. If it's a facility that leaves the mobile phone out and does not require really complicated procedures that is fine, but otherwise no.  
Interestingly, in Russia they acknowledge that the average Joe and Jane cannot keep their own system secure. Metro stations and supermarkets have green machines where you can pay your bills and shop online. Having to use an own device which we have to keep up is the problem. We could never prove that we have done everything right. 
It should also be noted that you can draw cash and pay bills at every Australia Post with your EFTPOS card. You don't have to buy anything if you just want to draw cash. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:AC95:4A53:450E:C2F3 (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scheme Debit and the long term outlook for regular Debit 

message: eftpos is awsome. you get to use it in the shop to buy things. i use it all the time!! not really, he he he. have fun reading this articale about the things that i know about eftpos and the things that i think that i know about eftpos!! ttfn (ta ta for now)!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.77.104 (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFTPOS 

message: The last paragraph of the Australia section is about the contactless systems PayPass and payWave. I'm a little concerned that the sentence "The banks have unilaterally incorporated the ... technology into new cards, and it cannot be deactivated by the cardholder" is not neutral, with negative connotations about the bank's forcing unwanted technology onto the cardholders. I've already toned the wording down once, but then Ewawer added the word "unilaterally". 
Does anyone else have an opinion on the neutrality of the sentence? (Perhaps I'm being overly sensitive.) Is there a better way to word it? And/or do we need / can we get a reference for "unilaterally" and "cannot be deactivated"? Mitch Ames (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality of PayPass/payWave's "unilateral" introduction in Australia 

message: PayPass and PayWave are not functions of eftpos but are rival products owned by Visa and Mastercard. I have amended this entry to reflect this. However, I question the relevance of including an explanation of these on the EFTPOS page at all. DerryckTatum (talk) 04:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this into a new section, because it's a separate issue (from the neutrality of the wording). Mitch Ames (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: PayPass and PayWave do still appear to be a form of "electronic funds transfer at point of sale", ie they are a subset of the general term - and the article covers both the generic term and the specific brand name. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

text: You seem to have re-added the sentence "Some merchants do not offer a cardholder the option of signing or entering a PIN when the transaction is below their threshold amount." which I removed here. The issue here is whether it is the merchant or the bank who sets the rules about whether to prompt for PIN or signature. My understanding is the bank sets the rules (albeit sometimes on a per-merchant basis), not the merchant. Do you have a ref for the merchants setting the rules? Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  PayPass and PayWave are not functions of eftpos 

message: Tesco use the term on their 'till check readings' (source: I work for them haha) db1987db (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: UK

message: I am in the USA; most cards these days are no longer embossed. 2601:4C0:8003:FF70:E0AC:9BFD:8E23:AAE3 (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and I have removed the references embossed as that is not a requirment for an eftpos systems.Sargdub (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Embossing of Cards