Sign In

Why are big banks still investing in payment wearables?

It’s now unusu­al to go a week with­out a new data breach, but this sum­mer there was a secu­ri­ty sto­ry with a twist. A mil­lion bio­met­ric fin­ger­print scans, most­ly unen­crypt­ed, were leaked from the unse­cured inter­net data­base of a South Kore­an com­pa­ny. The usu­al advice in sim­i­lar data breach­es is to switch pass­words and update soft­ware, but how can vic­tims change their fin­ger­prints?

Con­cerns like these go some way to explain why pay­ment wear­ables shouldn’t be count­ed out just yet, despite on the sur­face seem­ing less advanced than bio­met­rics.

In fact, there are signs that fin­tech star­tups and banks in a num­ber of regions, includ­ing Scan­di­navia, are con­cen­trat­ing their efforts on rel­a­tive­ly sim­ple tap-to-pay watch­es, straps, track­ers and jew­ellery for pay­ments. In August, two of Sweden’s lead­ing banks, Swed­bank and Nordea, announced they would start allow­ing cus­tomers with Mas­ter­card deb­it cards to tap-and-pay for small pur­chas­es via wear­ables, with no new account need­ed.

Both banks signed up to Fidesmo Pay, a sim­i­lar sys­tem to Apple Pay, to facil­i­tate this and Fidesmo’s chief exec­u­tive and co-founder Mat­tias Eld says these schemes are now live, along with a joint-ven­ture in Swe­den and Nor­way with lead­ing part­ner­ship bank SEB.

“Addi­tion­al banks and mar­kets will be launched lat­er this year,” says Mr Eld. “If you want to have a solu­tion based on fin­ger­prints or bio­met­rics, by design you will have a more com­plex and advanced device or wear­able. We fill the space of con­nect­ing any device to the banks, some may include fin­ger­prints and some may not.”

Pay­ment wear­ables vs smart­phone bio­met­rics

Sim­ple near-field com­mu­ni­ca­tion or NFC-enabled wear­ables that allow these con­tact­less card-like pay­ments hold a num­ber of advan­tages over smart­phones with bio­met­ric sen­sors and cam­eras. For one, they’re easy to set up and use with a fair­ly seam­less user expe­ri­ence. As CCS Insight senior ana­lyst, spe­cial­is­ing in wear­ables and vir­tu­al real­i­ty, Leo Geb­bie puts it: “Bio­met­ric pay­ments are sim­ply a less devel­oped offer­ing right now.”

Apple has seen suc­cess with Apple Pay on the huge­ly pop­u­lar Apple Watch series, though with the launch of the Apple Card with Gold­man Sachs, it’s clear­ly explor­ing all avenues. Else­where, Fit­bit just added its rival Fit­bit Pay to the main mod­el of the new Ver­sa 2 smart­watch, not a spe­cial edi­tion as pre­vi­ous­ly.

How­ev­er, Mr Eld believes it’s “impor­tant to offer an ecosys­tem of ser­vices that are inde­pen­dent of the device man­u­fac­tur­er” as this could help open up wear­able pay­ments to new kinds of man­u­fac­tur­ers which are more fash­ion ori­ent­ed.

Accord­ing to CCS Insight’s data, only 26 per cent of smart­watch own­ers cur­rent­ly use their wear­able device to make pay­ments, but Mr Geb­bie expects this to con­tin­ue to rise “as more smart­watch­es add fea­tures such as NFC” and over­all smart­watch ship­ments grow to 80 mil­lion units in 2019.

Beyond Scan­di­navia, there’s a stark con­trast between the UK and China’s approach to bio­met­rics, which may affect trends in pay­ment wear­ables. “The UK has seen some tri­als of bio­met­ric pay­ment cards, but these have been restrict­ed to small-scale tri­als, where­as pay­ing with a smart­phone or smart­watch is increas­ing­ly com­mon­place,” says Mr Geb­bie. “How­ev­er, in mar­kets such as Chi­na, bio­met­ric tech­nolo­gies like face recog­ni­tion are being imple­ment­ed more wide­ly.”

What are the draw­backs of pay­ment wear­ables?

Then there’s the secu­ri­ty angle. “While bio­met­ric pay­ments are designed to increase secu­ri­ty around trans­ac­tions, this doesn’t mean data is entire­ly immune to being com­pro­mised,” says Michael Sawh, edi­tor of wear­able tech site Ware­able. He points out that with pay­ment wear­ables, users aren’t required to hand over any sen­si­tive data, but the two meth­ods could also “work in tan­dem to offer a robust and secure pay­ment set­up”.

So, are there any down­sides to pay­ment wear­ables com­pared with more futur­is­tic face and fin­ger­print-sens­ing authen­ti­ca­tion options? Wear­ables are an extra cost, for one, and aside from long-last­ing devices with swap­pable bat­ter­ies, require dai­ly charg­ing. There’s also the pos­si­ble issue of social eti­quette when using smart­watch­es and wear­ables to pay; the Apple Watch is a reg­u­lar sight on the Lon­don Under­ground, but that is not indica­tive of the UK as a whole.

Arguably, apart from Apple, Fit­bit and Sam­sung, wear­ables and asso­ci­at­ed ser­vices can be unre­li­able. Bar­clay­card merged its bPay and Pin­git pay­ment apps ear­li­er this year and Swedish smart­watch Kro­n­a­by, which part­nered with bPay, filed for bank­rupt­cy in Feb­ru­ary. “Out­side these major play­ers, the wear­ables space is very unpre­dictable,” says Mr Geb­bie. “It is very dif­fi­cult for these small­er play­ers to break through and gen­er­ate mean­ing­ful sales.”

With the world’s biggest tech com­pa­nies seem­ing­ly com­mit­ted to both bio­met­ric and NFC-based prox­im­i­ty pay­ments, it seems safe to pre­dict that it’s not an either-or sce­nario.