tmiw

Went to the mechanic's today and my CFU on Google Pay gave a "Card Not Accepted / Use Chip Reader" on the standalone VX520 + VX820 PIN pad. Tapping the physical card worked fine (albeit with a signature line). Kinda wondering if I need to re-add my card now since this is the second place I've had issues with it.

tmiw

Props to the McDonald's in Poway, CA for handing the MX915 out the drive-thru window this morning despite me using a physical card and also despite not asking them to do so. Most of the ones around here don't hand the terminal over unless you specifically ask to use Apple Pay (and even then, at least one won't do that either). Hopefully this starts happening more often at McDonald's in general.

BTW, this one didn't seem to have the new mount that was previously reported to be rolling out.

PrendellHiggins

Complain. I contacted corporate about my local one and they said they'd fix it straight away. Took a few weeks, but as of two days ago they now hand out the terminal. I've since gone to other McDonald's and complained about the ones that didn't hand out the terminals as well. I've also complained to PDQ, and they said they would introduce the practice soon. Personally, I care more about increased payment security than avoiding COVID, but unless you mention the disease and how it spreads through contact, they seem to not take the suggestion seriously.

tmiw

Honestly, not handing out the terminal for Apple Pay users is probably the most egregious offense. Not handing it out for physical cards is unfortunately pretty much SOP for how drive-thrus in the US work--despite COVID--so it might be a harder sell to wholesale get franchisees to stop doing it. That's not to say that something shouldn't be done, of course.

Really, the best long-term solution would be to go away from terminals like the MX915 for the drive-thru in order to make it harder to justify not handing them out the window for non-mobile wallet users. While they were probably a good idea when signature was still required, there's not really much of a need for large form factor terminals if that's the only reason why a restaurant is considering them. Come to think of it, the ones that do hand the terminal out the window for everyone chain-wide (around here: KFC, Taco Bell, Starbucks, In-N-Out, Chick-fil-A that I know of) are way more likely to have terminals like the iPP3xx/Lane3000 or VX8xx/Px00 series than ones like the MX915 or iSC250; the difference becomes less when counting the ones who will do so for mobile wallets, of course.

storewanderer

I think a low cost solution to mount outside the window to support NFC should do the trick for these fast food places. Something like the little Square reader that does NFC and EMV. Similar to but smaller than what Jack in the Box had 15 years ago...

Now for swipe cards I guess those can still go through the window.

tmiw

It's not so much cost as wanting to be consistent across everything. I imagine it's a bit of an administration nightmare to have multiple different devices from potentially multiple manufacturers. Plus, they seem to be focusing more on stuff like mobile ordering anyway (which theoretically bypasses the problem altogether).

tmiw

Google Pay failed at In-N-Out last night too, this time with a different card. I was going to re-add the previously failing card but decided to try rebooting my phone instead, which seemed to fix the issue when I tried at 85C today. Kinda weird, honestly, and if this was anywhere near common I'd see why people might prefer tapping cards instead of devices.

Also, the 7-Eleven here with MX915s is apparently closing next month for a remodel. I suspect the MX915s will stick around after they reopen, but who knows, they might switch to Ingenico and actually have working contactless (inside, at least) for once.

Barciur

Question regarding online pin and offline pin. In Poland, most of the transactions apparently are done in ONLINE mode. But does that necessarily imply that PIN is also verified Online? According to CVM database, my TD Debit Card should be using the online PIN before going to signature, but inserted it always asked for a signature. Same with contactless over their limit. So I wonder if that means the transaction is done online but PIN is verified offline, or if the CVM database is just wrong/out of date?

NYCFlyer10001

The terminal can choose to not support Online PIN (many don't) so it would skip that CVM and go to signature. However, looking at the EMV database for TD Debit, I see the CVM list of Online PIN and then No CVM. Many terminals (incorrectly) still prompt for signatures on No CVM transactions, which may explain some of the behavior you saw.

Barciur

I think you may be looking at the wrong cards; when you click here: https://www.spotterswiki.com/emv/car...%5B%5D=prepaid the TD Debit card shows the following:

1: Enciphered PIN verified online
2: Signature (paper)
3: No CVM required

Unless of course you are looking at a different database and it is updated.

tmiw

Online authorization doesn't imply online PIN, but offline authorization definitely implies lack of online PIN use. And needing PIN when inserting also doesn't imply PIN will ever be needed when tapping, even if over the limit.

You may be looking at the common AID list, which wouldn't be used outside the US.

Barciur

Unfortunately, TD Debit is no longer a no-FTF card so extensive experiments are not likely any more, but when I tried it in Poland last year it was always asking for a signature, despite the terminal connecting to the internet to authorize the transaction. So my assumption would be that they were just using offline PIN.

I'm very curious to see how our cards will behave with the new limits in EU. But obviously it might be a while until I can report on that...

Thanks for clearing that up.

sullim4

I agree with you - I wish retailers would dump the MX915s. There are a few chains that like the larger screens and use it for marketing but it is otherwise a beast that provides little benefit over simpler readers. My favorite reader (it feels kind of odd to have a 'favorite' reader, but whatever) is the Square chip/contactless reader. It just works, every single time, without any finnicky behavior. The vx8XX series is also good - again, these tend to be hooked up to simple POS systems that just work.

The 915s are almost always heavily customized and are often a crapshoot as to whether they work with contactless.

storewanderer

MX915 is a rather useless machine but it seems to be increasing in popularity. American Retailers, especially the fast food ones like McDonalds, got severely oversold on those MX915s. What is weird is how McDonalds has the smaller readers in every other country but then in the US went with the clunky MX915s for some reason. We did get a few like Starbucks, Burger King, Subway, etc. who got it right and went with the smaller readers. I look forward to these MX915s disappearing as time goes on, but am not sure they will disappear.

The moment signature got eliminated, was the moment the MX915 became too much of a machine. In machine replacements, many retailers should move to a smaller pinpad.

tmiw

Honestly, Verifones in general are pretty craptastic; I've had problems with most of the others at various points (with the possible exception of the P400, though I only have a small sample size for those instances). Ingenico, PAX and the others seem well designed in comparison.

Its larger screen could make it easier to comply with the ADA in that fonts and UI elements can be set bigger than they otherwise would have. However, if all it's really going to show is "insert/tap/swipe card" and "remove card" (e.g. McDonald's seemingly not supporting any CVMs other than "no CVM"), there might not be much value in that either.