The Digital Transformation of Payment: A Glimpse Into the Future of Mobile Payment Systems

Tesis de Máster , 2021 , 188 Páginas , Calificación: 1,0

Economía de las empresas - Investigación de mercados

Mobile payment systems are an innovation that allows people to make contactless payments with a mobile device (such as a smartphone) at the cash register in brick-and-mortar retail outlets without carrying a wallet with credit and debit cards. While other countries have almost entirely adopted and integrated this innovation into their daily lives, adoption rates in Germany remain significantly low. Hence, the objective of this work is to analyze the future of mobile payment systems in Germany with respect to the reasons for adoption or refusal. In particular, the following research question was addressed: Will mobile payment methods replace physical cards in Germany, or will certain factors prevent full adoption?

Table of contents

1 Introduction
1.1 Problem definition and research question
1.2 Terminology: mobile payment systems
1.3 Approach and limitations

2 Theoretical framework payment systems
2.1 Historical perspective on the payment industry
2.2 Technologies enabling mobile payment
2.3 Mobile payment system processes
2.4 Global adoption of mobile payment
2.4.1 Germany
2.4.2 China
2.4.3 India
2.4.4 United States
2.5 Security and safety aspects of mobile payments

3 Influential factors for the successful implementation of mobile payment innovations
3.1 Product analysis
3.2 Market analysis
3.2.1 PESTEL analysis
3.2.2 Competitor analysis
3.3 Customer analysis

4 Scientific approaches to the adoption of innovations
4.1 Adoption depending on the type of innovation
4.1.1 Disruptive innovation
4.1.2 Sustaining innovations
4.2 Diffusion of innovation theory
4.3 Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology
4.4 Pace of substitution model

5 Empirical investigation
5.1 Research methodology
5.2 Conceptualization of the questionnaire
5.3 Data protection measures
5.4 Statistical evaluation of the survey results
5.5 Hypotheses testing
5.6 Discussion

6 Conclusion

7 Appendix
7.1 Basic Information
7.2 Mobile payment innovation analysis
7.3 Mobile payment adoption analysis in Germany
7.4 Analysis empirical investigation
7.4.1 Basis of the empirical investigation
7.4.2 Basis analysis of all participants
7.4.3 Demographic analysis of the research group
7.4.4 Separation question for the research group
7.4.5 Analysis of the non-users of mobile payment systems
7.4.6 Analysis of the users of mobile payment systems
7.4.7 Analysis of the general questions for both parties
7.4.8 Further interconnecting analysis of the research group
7.4.9 Single questionnaire analysis
7.4.10 Hypotheses testing
7.4.11 Validity of the empirical investigation

Bibliography

List of abbreviations

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

List of illustrations

Fig. 1: Equation of the Bass model

Fig. 2: Hypothesis test formula

Fig. 3: Classification of different mobile payment types

Fig. 4: Diners' Club card

Fig. 5: Contactless logo

Fig. 6: Underlying technology of mobile payments and contactless cards

Fig. 7: Classification micro- and macro-payments

Fig. 8: Cardholder payment process

Fig. 9: Mobile payment process

Fig. 10: Financial inclusion rate worldwide

Fig. 11: Disruptive business model map

Fig. 12: Diffusion innovation model with the chasm

Fig. 13: People under 18 in Germany

Fig. 14: Smartphone usage in Germany over 18

Fig. 15: Calculation of the market potential

Fig. 16: Calculated equation for mobile payment in Germany in 2021

Fig. 17: Adoption rate of mobile payment in Germany

Fig. 18: UTAUT model

Fig. 19: Pace of substitution model

Fig. 20: Pace of substitution model applied to the German mobile payment market

Fig. 21: Introduction page of the survey

Fig. 22: Distribution of all participants by age and gender

Fig. 23: Country of origin of all participants

Fig. 24: Average processing time of all participants

Fig. 25: Gender distribution of the research group

Fig. 26: Age distribution of the research group

Fig. 27: Distribution of the research group by age and gender

Fig. 28: Separation question for the research group

Fig. 29: Main reason for non-use of mobile payments

Fig. 30: Reasons for the non-use of mobile payments

Fig. 31: Security concerns with mobile payments

Fig. 32: Probability of using mobile payments in the future

Fig. 33: Usage of contactless bank- or credit cards

Fig. 34: Main advantages of using mobile payments

Fig. 35: Most used mobile payment providers

Fig. 36: Deposited means of payments

Fig. 37: Ranking of the most used payment methods

Fig. 38: Carrying a wallet in case of mobile payment

Fig. 39: Replacement of physical cards through mobile payments

Fig. 40: Most secure mobile payment provider

Fig. 41: Importance of certain security measures for mobile payments

Fig. 42: Amount voluntary question participants

Fig. 43: Not usage due to social influence regarding age and gender

Fig. 44: Security concerns regarding age

Fig. 45: Contactless card usage regarding age and gender

Fig. 46: Bank’s own payment app user regarding gender

Fig. 47: Further mentioned mobile payment providers

Fig. 48: Volksbank debit card and Apple Pay user

Fig. 49: Alipay and WeChatPay user

Fig. 50: Klarna and additional provider user 1

Fig. 51: Klarna and additional provider user 2

Fig. 52: Klarna and additional provider user 3

Fig. 53: One-tailed-right-test areas

Fig. 54: Hypothesis testing 1

Fig. 55: Graphical visualization of the hypothesis test 1

Fig. 56: Hypothesis testing 2

Fig. 57: Graphical visualization of the hypothesis test 2

Fig. 58: Determining sample size

List of tables

Tab. 1: Glossary

Tab. 2: SWOT analysis of mobile payment in Germany

Tab. 3: PESTEL analysis of the German mobile payment market

Tab. 4: Competitor analysis of mobile payment on the German market

Tab. 5: Six dimensions of Hofstede applied to Germany

Tab. 6: Customer hard facts

Tab. 7: Basis of the UTAUT model

Tab. 8: Conceptualization of the questionnaire

Tab. 9: Suggestions for improvement of mobile payment systems

Executive summary

Mobile payment systems: An innovation that allows people to make contactless payments with a mobile device (i.e., smartphone) at the cash register in bricks-and- mortar retail outlets without carrying a wallet with credit and debit cards. While other countries have almost entirely adopted and integrated this innovation into their daily lives, adoption rates in Germany remain significantly low. Hence, the objective of this work is to analyze the future of mobile payment systems in Germany with re­spect to the reasons for adoption or refusal. In particular, the following research question was addressed: Will mobile payment methods replace physical cards in Germany or will certain factors prevent full adoption?

To answer this question, a theoretical foundation is established. This chapter illus­trates the historical development of the payment industry, which shows a slow de­velopment of the means of payment and how adoption of a new form took place if an advantage was seen. Subsequently, the underlying technologies and processes of mobile payment systems are elaborated as well as the current state of different countries. The country comparison shows that countries such as China or India have a high adoption rate, as those countries were rather cash-based before. How­ever, America has a distinct card culture and is still located in the middle field with its adoption rate. Afterward, the security and safety aspects are evaluated. Generally, mobile payment systems need more security measures, as mobile phones are more likely to have issues with malware. Nevertheless, a high amount of various measures exist.

The third chapter focuses on analyzing the factors influencing the successful imple­mentation of mobile payment systems in Germany. The SWOT analysis shows that this innovation has slightly more strengths than weaknesses and that the opportuni­ties exceed the threats. The most prominent strengths are speed, hygiene, conven­ience and usability, while the most noticeable weaknesses are security, image and complexity. Furthermore, the market analysis indicates that mobile payment sys­tems are not subsidized by politics or legislation. Moreover, the market is opaque and complex regarding service choice and compatibility with devices, banks and credit institutions. After that, a customer analysis is presented, which shows that Germany has a long-term oriented, restrained and individualistic culture, with a ten­dency to masculinity and uncertainty avoidance as well as a moderately pronounced power distance.

The following chapter deals with scientific approaches to analyze the adoption of mobile payment in Germany. First, the type of innovation is analyzed to understand the characteristics of this innovation. This subchapter shows that mobile payment systems are a form of sustaining innovations. Notably, the calculated diffusion of innovation shows that Germany is allocated at the early majority with an adoption rate of 26.24 % in 2021. Another analysis, the UTAUT model, illustrates the behav­ioral intention of mobile payment systems’ usage or non-usage, such as pronounced effort expectancy. The last analysis of this chapter deals with the broader ecosystem and the possible transition time from physical payment cards to mobile payment systems. It demonstrates the high challenges of the implementation of mobile pay­ment systems, such as infrastructure, which is not fully installed, and the compatibil­ity of market participants. However, the significant amount of opportunities for physi­cal card payments are visualized; for instance, a comprehensive rollout of contact­less payment cards has not yet occured. Therefore, the current state is robust resili­ence where a low substitution of the innovation happens.

The fifth chapter deals with an empirical investigation where primary material was generated in order to further deepen and validate the research mentioned above. The investigation was conducted via an online survey in the German language and based mostly on closed questions. The questionnaire contains 18 questions, where­by eight are the same for both groups (user and non-user). The collected sample size of the focus group amounts to 490 participants. This chapter tests two hypothe­ses with an upper-tail test, where both null hypotheses were rejected. This means that more than 26 % are using mobile payment systems in Germany, and a large part (more than 35 %) are not using them due to the perceived lack of advantage.

Lastly, the results are critically discussed and concluded, showing that the low adop­tion of mobile payment systems in Germany is based on multiple factors. However, above all, the interplay of a perceived low advantage of mobile payment systems and the characteristics of German culture is decisive. Other factors are the socio- structural circumstances, the infrastructural conditions, the high complexity of the product itself and the security concerns. To answer the research question, a re­placement of physical payment cards is not assumed. Rather, the coexistence of physical cards and mobile payments systems will remain.

1 Introduction

1.1 Problem definition and research question

It has become an everyday companion to almost all people, it fulfills multifunctional tasks,¹ it is the first thing seen in the morning and the last thing at night,² and there are more of them in the world than toothbrushes - mobile phones.³ In 2007, Apple Inc. revolutionized the world with its product⁴ and established a cornerstone for to­day’s smartphone success.⁵ The company forced other players to leave the market,⁶ rearranged whole industries and replaced many other devices with its functions, such as alarm clocks, GPS devices and cameras.

Nevertheless, this revolutionary product has not only destroyed existing industries, it has created new ones,⁷ along with other technological developments that have es­tablished tremendous opportunities.⁸ The focus is increasingly on digital technologi­cal innovations⁹ or online intermediaries instead of “bricks-and-mortar” options, in­cluding in the consumer finance market.¹⁰ A current example with increasingly wide­spread use is mobile payment. Hence, the smartphone should not only simultane­ously be a camera, navigation system and music player, but also a wallet.¹¹ In Jan­uary 2020, a Deutsche Bank research group highlighted that physical payment cards will become obsolete, primarily driven by the generation of millenials, even if cash in the form of coins and banknotes will stay on the market.¹² In 2021, the transaction volume in the mobile payment segment amounts to approximately (ap­ prox.) EUR 2,202,018 million and will increase worldwide to EUR 4,116,126 million by 2025, which shows a yearly increase of 16.9 % (CAGR 2021 - 2025).¹³

However, the adoption of mobile payment systems is highly uneven from a global perspective.¹⁴ In an international comparison, Germany is not nearly as reliant on mobile payment systems as other countries such as Asia or some emerging mar­kets. There, a far-reaching transition from physical cards to digital wallets has al­ready taken place.¹⁵ In 2021, China has positioned itself as the global leader¹⁶ and has the worldwide highest amount with EUR 1,167,965 million in transactions,¹⁷ while Germany has only EUR 16.709 million.¹⁸ What is more, in comparison to other European countries, Germany is at the very last place.¹⁹ Regarding a Statista sur­vey, the main reasons for this low adoption rate in Germany are security concerns such as data theft²⁰ or the theft of the mobile device itself.²¹

Nevertheless, different scenarios could happen: On one hand, coexistence could emerge, where mobile payment systems will be used as a supplement to credit and debit cards in the bricks-and-mortar trade,²² which means that mobile payment sys­tems will be another way to access physical payment cards²³. On the other hand, it is also possible that mobile payment systems will completely substitute credit and debit cards.²⁴ Therefore, this thesis analyses the driver of mobile payment adoption and clarifies the following research question: Will mobile payment methods replace physical payment cards in Germany, or will certain factors prevent full adoption?

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

1.2 Terminology: mobile payment systems

Various terminologies are used for the same meaning in this segment but certain concepts also indicate some differences. Hence, all relevant terms are defined and, if needed, differentiated from each other.

First of all, there is no universal definition of mobile payment or abbreviated m- payment.²⁵ According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, mobile payments are all execut­ed via the mobile phone, where neither cash nor physical payment cards are used at the point of sales (PoS).²⁶ Other research papers emphasize that mobile payment systems do not only refer to mobile phones; they refer to all devices that have mo­bile phone capabilities, such as a tablet,²⁷ a smartwatch,²⁸ or other portable devices that have a screen.²⁹ Further definitions make a clear differentiation between the person-to-person systems and the person-to-business systems³⁰ and between re­mote and proximity payments.³¹ Other focus on the description of the process pro­cedure, where the smartphone acts as an initiator linked to a specific bank. Never­theless, mobile payment systems on the market, like M-Pesa, are not connected to the customer’s bank account.³² Some even defined it as the replacement of physical cards, ATMs, and banks, if the consumer executes the transaction with mobile mon­ey.³³ However, most mobile payment definitions agree that those systems are an alternative payment to cash and physical cards.³⁴

Additionally, an oft-used word in this context is the term “mobile wallet”,³⁵ which is defined as a wallet that executes transactions via a mobile device.³⁶ Additionally, the functions often combine credit and debit cards, membership cards, vouchers, cou­pons, transit tickets,³⁷ digital receipts,³⁸ and keys within the system.³⁹ Therefore, mobile wallets can replace the complete contents of a traditional wallet and also contain the mobile payment function at the point of sale (PoS). Typically, companies like Apple Pay are mobile wallet providers;⁴⁰ these might also be called mobile pay­ment services⁴¹ or mobile payment platforms.⁴² Generally speaking, mobile wallets are a part of mobile commerce.⁴³ Mobile commerce (abbreviated to m-commerce) emerged through the combination of e-commerce and the high adoption rate of smartphones.⁴⁴ It includes all mobile devices, such as smartphones, but excludes notebooks, as their characteristics are too similar to personal computers (PCs). The concept focuses on the exchange of goods and services, communication and infor­mation processes via the above-mentioned devices,⁴⁵ whereas proximity payment is limited to the payment function at bricks-and-mortar trade. Therefore, mobile proxim­ity payments (MPP) describes the payment of services and goods via smartphone in physical retail outlets, or rather PoS. MPP technologies can be executed, for in­stance, via near field communication (NFC) or quick response (QR) code solu­tions.⁴⁶ These concrete functions and procedures will be further explained in chapter 2.2. Another synonym for mobile wallet is “digital wallet”.⁴⁷

The last term that needs to be defined is “e-wallet”. Some sources equate e-wallets with mobile wallets, with the ability to replace the traditional physical wallet as di­verse cards and coupons can be stored.⁴⁸ Hence, the e-wallet account is also linked to the users’ banking information, such as debit or credit cards used through a smartphone or a computer.⁴⁹

In the course of this work, it is essential to focus on one precise definition to not fur­ther complicate the research procedure. Regarding the term “mobile payment”, the author considers this to relate to all different payment methods, whether the systems are connected to a traditional bank account, credit card company or similar. Addi­tionally, the author focuses on mobile devices (e.g., smartphone, smartwatch). The clear focus is on systems that can be used in stores respectively at the PoS. This approach includes all MPP and all mobile wallets/digital wallets/e-wallets used at the PoS as well as so-called omni-channel payments, where remote as well as proximity payments are possible. A visualized focus area can be found in the appendix.⁵⁰ Hence, if the author talks about mobile payment during the analysis parts or empiri­cal investigation, the focus area is meant.

1.3 Approach and limitations

The objective of this work is to answer the above-stated research question. There­fore, the thesis focuses on mobile payment systems in bricks-and-mortar retail. At the center of the research is the adoption of mobile payment systems in Germany relating to usage or non-usage. Thus, the focal point is cultural acceptance in the context of the product’s performance. Regulatory and political conditions are, to a large extent, neglected. Moreover, the comparison from a product or innovation per­spective focuses on comparing physical payment cards (e.g., debit cards, credit cards) to mobile payment systems. The research area will not focus on cash, as cash is unlikely to disappear, even if the momentum of cash is decreasing.⁵¹ Fur­thermore, the abolition of cash would be a significant political decision,⁵² which is not at the center of this work. For further clarity, a Glossary was included at the begin­ning of the appendix to explain possible technical terms that could occur in the course of this work.⁵³

The next chapter starts with a theoretical foundation in order to form the knowledge base for the course of investigation. The first subchapter deals with the historical perspective on the payment industry to understand the historical replacement and temporal development of the different means of payment. Afterward, the underlying technologies and processes (e.g., payment flows) will be elaborated to deepen the understanding of the functionality of this innovation. Subsequently, the theoretical foundation explores different countries to find the similarities and differences that have led to different adoption behavior and rates. The markets will be broken down to Germany (Europe), China (Asia), India (emerging market), and the United States (America) to cover a wide range of the world. The current situations in those coun­tries could give indications about how the future of Germany could look like.⁵⁴ Lastly, the security and safety aspects of mobile payment systems will be discussed; as mentioned in chapter 1.2, security is one of the key arguments for the low adoption rate in Germany.

The third chapter focuses on analyzing the factors influencing the successful imple­mentation of mobile payment systems in Germany. Hence, this chapter analyzes the product itself via a SWOT analysis, the market in Germany via PESTEL and com­petitor analysis, as well as the customer in Germany via the six dimensions of cul­ture model from Hofstede.

Different authors have tried to explain the behavior of nations regarding technologi­cal innovations through various models.⁵⁵ Some of them are used in chapter four to understand the current adoption rate in Germany. First, the type of adoption of mo­bile payment systems will be analyzed with the help of classifying sustaining and disruptive innovations. Subsequently, the diffusion of innovation theory is used in order to determine the adoption rate in Germany in 2021. Afterward, the “unified theory of acceptance use of technology” (UTAUT) model elaborates the intensions to start the usage of mobile payment systems. The next innovation model, called the “pace of substitution” illustrates the current situation regarding the ecosystem com­pared to traditional physical payment cards (e.g., debit cards, credit cards).

All of the content mentioned above and the analytical results are the basis for chap­ter five, the empirical investigation. In this chapter, the author conducts an online survey to validate the results of the theoretical foundation and analyses, as well as to generate additional primary material. Accordingly, all relevant topics such as the research methodology, the conceptualization of the questionnaire, the data protec­tion measures and the statistical evaluation of the results are covered. Additionally, the author performs two hypothesis tests to validate the assumptions made in the previous chapters and discusses the validity and findings of the investigation. Lastly, a conclusion is drawn.

2 Theoretical framework payment systems

2.1 Historical perspective on the payment industry

“Money is a central part of everybody’s life and every society and has been more important for humanity than the wheel, the printing press, the steam engine, and the Internet.”⁵⁶ Nonetheless, money has developed in different forms over the centuries and has changed through various innovations.⁵⁷

Before money was introduced, people traded goods and services with other goods and services, known as bartering.⁵⁸ Those transactions were highly time-consuming, as trading partners needed to find a common acceptance.⁵⁹ If, for instance, a herder wanted to exchange a sheep with a tailor for some clothes, both parties needed to agree.⁶⁰ To avoid this inconvenience, particular divisible and portable goods were determined.⁶¹ Those goods were mainly cattle or grain,⁶² but shells, tea, tulips,⁶³ stone disks, or whale teeth also won recognition.⁶⁴

For the sake of social functionality, money was introduced.⁶⁵ The first metal objects as a means of payment were used 5.000 before Christ (BC)⁶⁶ and were made in Lydia, in the territory of Turkey.⁶⁷ Since then, the means of payments have continu­ously developed.⁶⁸ After the Roman Empire broke apart, several different coins emerged in Europe in the early Middle Ages, such as “Heller”, “Gulden”, “Groschen”, “Schilling”, “Taler” and “Kreuzer”.⁶⁹ Around 2.000 BC, Asia started the use of metal money. Here, gold and silver were highly used.⁷⁰ In spite of that, other materials were also used across the globe such as copper and brass, along with substitute alloys like aluminium and nickel. The selection of the material depended on the economy and metallurgical factors.⁷¹ Italy thereby developed into a hub between Northern Europe and the Middle East. Nevertheless, it was precarious to transport large amounts of coins over those considerable distances. Thus, in the course of the commercial revolution, the need arose for a form of credit to make coin transport unnecessary. Additionally, the different types of materials, which made up the coins also made it difficult to determine the value,⁷² and the manufacturing costs were significantly high.⁷³

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

After a long development process, paper money came into play. Unlike coins, paper money could be produced in any quantity without great expense and difficulty.⁷⁴ Ba­sically, paper money evolved through receipts and promissory bills. The receipt was issued for deposited metal money and developed in the course of time into the banknote. The promissory bill gave rise to government paper money, which was based on a state’s credit.⁷⁵ China was the first country to use paper money;⁷⁶ Spain introduced paper money in 1500 and Germany in 1876.⁷⁷ For instance, the paper money issued in Spain was introduced due to the scarcity of coins.⁷⁸ After the intro­duction of paper money in Spain and China, cheques were introduced in England⁷⁹ as a development of modern banking.⁸⁰ The paper money evolved to become the main currency used,⁸¹ as trading cheques for currencies was highly time­consuming^{82 83}. However, the careless use of the printing press led to extreme inflation in some parts of the world. For instance, during the Weimar Republic in Germany in 1923, cash became almost worthless, as it rose by a factor of trillions. Past the Second World War (1945), the currency of the time (Reichsmark) became almost worthless again, as Hitler had printed endless amounts of money to finance the war. This resulted in hyperinflation.⁸⁴

Almost simultaneously to paper money, book money, or “giro money” was formed in major trading cities such as Italy or Amsterdam. Merchants could open accounts at "giro banks" and then transfer funds from one account to another. At the same time, banks began to provide their customers with additional book money via loans.⁸⁵ Nevertheless, the assumption that banks are as old as money is not entirely correct. In approximately the 13th century, modern banks were formed by our economic sys­tem⁸⁶ and were a family matter. Here, the beginning took place in Italy, more specifi­cally in Florence.⁸⁷ The first business was the cash exchange, as every state had other currencies.⁸⁸

In modern times, besides physical money also high-tech money like credit cards came into play.⁸⁹ This innovation additionally took away the remaining check pay­ments.⁹⁰ This shift took place around 1950.⁹¹ Some sources claim that the American Frank McNamara introduced the first credit card in 1950.⁹² Other sources title this card as a charge card⁹³ and name the American Express credit card from 1958 as the first.⁹⁴ Nonetheless, the Diners’ Club card and the American Express credit cards had different pricing policies⁹⁵ and different processes. For instance, the Din­ers’ Club card did not charge interest, instead, the company charged yearly fees. Furthermore, Diners’ Club members could not postpone their payments, which was possible with the American Express version.⁹⁶ During this time, “shopper cards” were introduced that were typically held by housewives to pay at a partner retail store.⁹⁷ In 2007, Germany renamed debit cards to “girocards”.⁹⁸

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Some years earlier, around 1977, the first contactless payment method came to the market in the form of a speed pass for gas stations.⁹⁹ The user could swipe a key fob over a sensor placed close by to pay for the fuel.¹⁰⁰ After some time, this tech­nology was used by the Americans to replace the magnetic-stripe cards with con­tactless versions.¹⁰¹ For a long time, only contactless credit cards existed in Germa­ny¹⁰² as cards, mobile phones or smartwatches needed to be enabled through a microchip to execute transactions via radio frequency identification (RFID) or NFC.¹⁰³ It was not until sometime later that banks followed and established contact­less girocards. If the card and the specific merchant are enabled for contactless use, this can be seen on a small WLAN icon.¹⁰⁴

In the same year, in 1997, the first mobile payment system came to the market in the form of an SMS-based service. Coca-Cola provided this opportunity to their cus­tomers in order to buy beverages from a vending machine. After that, in 1999, movie tickets could also be bought over a mobile phone.¹⁰⁵ Although the first mobile pay­ment system was introduced at this early stage, its use was highly limited.¹⁰⁶ The first mobile phones were introduced in the 1970s, even if the current devices no longer have much to do with the former ones, as earlier models of mobile phones could not fulfill various tasks such as installing additional programs.¹⁰⁷ Since the arrival of smartphones, mobile payment systems have become more accessible and easier.¹⁰⁸ Moreover, in 2014, the average penetration rate of mobile phones world­wide was 70 % and has triggered a profound digital transformation in that field.¹⁰⁹ That same year, Apple Pay was launched in Europe and other parts of the world,¹¹⁰ and was followed by Samsung Pay in 2015.¹¹¹ However, Apple Pay was not launched in Germany until 2018.¹¹²

Around the 1990s, traditional institutions started to offer internet banking services, modernized the platforms and created apps.¹¹³ However, innovative financial com­panies have also presented ideas and opportunities to the banking world,¹¹⁴ and since the financial crisis, the way for digital methods have been rooted.¹¹⁵ As a re­sult, a lot of “fintech companies” have emerged.¹¹⁶ Mainly since 2010, many fintechs have been built that try to cover specific customer needs through various innova­tions.¹¹⁷ Hence, the banking landscape started a drastic change. For instance, a newspaper has reported the widespread closure of bank branches.¹¹⁸

Around the same time, in 2008, an unknown person released a publication about a new peer-to-peer (P2P) cash system, which works electronically through a decen­tralized network. The first bitcoin, also known as cryptocurrency, was created in 2009.¹¹⁹ In 2010, a Canadian company named “Coinkite” established one of the first bitcoin wallets, called “coldcard”, that had the function to store the owner’s bitcoins.¹²⁰ Nevertheless, the bitcoin system has many unanswered questions.¹²¹ The processing latency and the storage cost make it difficult for cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin to be used for payment.¹²² In short, innovations and the advent of the internet have changed the way of payments and this will continue to change.¹²³

2.2 Technologies enabling mobile payment

As already mentioned in chapter 1.3, various different classifications of mobile pay­ment systems exist. Typically, mobile payments are classified through:

- Location
- Technology
- Transaction size
- Funding mechanism

In terms of location, the systems are distinguished between proximity payments and remote systems.¹²⁴ Remote systems are the version where customers can conduct a transaction by accessing the back-end of the payment through mobile communica­tion networks. Compared to MPP, the customer also uses a mobile device but con­ducts the transaction through short-range communication technology.¹²⁵ This means remote transactions can be conducted regardless of distance, while in proximity payments the transaction needs to be performed close-up, as the underlying tech­nologies are contactless methods like RFID.¹²⁶ However, some technologies, such as the person-to-person or the QR code variant, are often both: remote as well as proximity systems.¹²⁷ Generally, for QR code payments, an internet connection is needed.¹²⁸ Companies like Apple Pay or Android Pay offer remote as well as prox­imity payment options in their service.¹²⁹ A classic remote technology is the short message service (SMS).¹³⁰ In the field of proximity payments, NFC is the predomi­nant technology,¹³¹ which brings it to the subdivision into technologies.

Regarding certain technological distinction: NFC systems and SMS applications are to be distinguished.¹³² As mentioned above, NFC is a classic proximity payment and is the most popular one.¹³³ The technology was created by a partnership project between Sony and Phillips and with additional support from Nokia. It emerged through RFID,¹³⁴ which is a superior basic process in contrast to other supporting technologies.¹³⁵ NFC enables bi-directional communication and a wireless function­ality that can be seen as a combination of interconnecting technologies and contact­less identification.¹³⁶ Still, the system works through a mobile device that is chip- equipped or, rather, NFC-enabled, and is then used near an NFC reader module to execute a payment transaction.¹³⁷ As a rule, the NFC technology does not require an internet connection.138 The suggestion is to use it at close range, approximately less than four centimeters,¹³⁸ for a faultless function and a secure data transmis­sion.¹³⁹ The data transmission works through radiofrequency waves of 13.56 MHz,¹⁴⁰ and up to 424 Kbits per second.¹⁴¹ Therefore, the basis for this procedure is not only the functionality of smartphones - it is a well established PoS infrastructure. In terms of smartphones, they have already had several communication options, of which the NFC technology has made good use.¹⁴² However, the NFC infrastructure underlies the same basis for contactless credit or debit cards¹⁴³ and is much faster than a traditional PIN code transaction.¹⁴⁴

Secondly, SMS technology is the classic remote payment version¹⁴⁵ and the oldest form of the mobile payment system.¹⁴⁶ The SMS-based payment works in the follow­ing way: The user requests payment through a short message service. The out­standing invoice is added to the telephone bill,¹⁴⁷ or the amount is debited from a connected account such as a debit or credit card.¹⁴⁸ Furthermore, the system does not include proximity features and makes use of the mobile subscription for identifi­cation. Hence, the SIM card of the respective smartphone is used as the trusted element.¹⁴⁹ This technology is often used for the purchase of ringtones or music.¹⁵⁰ Another typical use-case example is the purchase of parking tickets.¹⁵¹ An ad­vantage of this technology is that it is highly accessible, as only the widespread use of smartphones is needed. Furthermore, this invention is fast, easy, cheap, secure and no connection to the internet is needed.¹⁵² As a matter of fact, this is often used in unbanked countries and is often the only method used.¹⁵³ The most successful system in this area, with the largest scale, is the company M-Pesa, established by Vodafone and Safaricom.^{154 155}

However, P2P and QR code technologies exist which can make remote as well as proximity payments. In the event of P2P payments, a third-party vendor is imple­mented which can be used to send money to other accounts.¹⁵⁶ The respective app is connected to the bank account, credit account or prepaid account of the users, and by entering an email address or phone number, money can be sent out.¹⁵⁷ Ex­amples of highly popular P2P accounts are PayPal¹⁵⁸ or M-Pesa.¹⁵⁹ In the case of the QR code, a visualization of data components is created. Afterward, this can be scanned via a smartphone’s camera.¹⁶⁰ Here, data encryption and decryption tech­nology are used¹⁶¹ that enables a transfer of money via the generated code.¹⁶² Gen­erally, two different procedures exist. On the one hand, the QR code can be dis­played at the checkout terminal of the merchant, and the customer has to scan the code to execute the payment with the bank account information stored on the phone.¹⁶³ Thereby, the merchant is identified, and the customer can add the respec­tive amount and execute the transaction.¹⁶⁴ On the other hand, the code can be generated by the customer and scanned at the terminal for the transaction.¹⁶⁵ Then the amount can be deducted from the respective wallet.¹⁶⁶ A significant advantage is the flexibility. QR codes can be used in various forms, whether on paper, screen or at the PoS. Furthermore, processing a QR code is possible on more mobile phones than the NFC technology. However, it is still only usable with higher-quality devices such as an iPhone or Android.¹⁶⁷

The third variant of distinction is the transaction size. In this term, micro- and macro­payments can be distinguished.¹⁶⁸ Micro-payments are generally below USD one,¹⁶⁹ and define transactions that are made quickly, such as buying a ringtone.¹⁷⁰ In con­trast, macro-payments are payments that are above USD ten.¹⁷¹ Moreover, regard­ing NFC payments, macro-payments are retail purchases, while micro-payments include parking or vending payments. In the case of SMS technology, P2P remit­tance could be both, depending on the amount of money,^{172 173} while songs and ring­tones are mostly micro-remote-payments and online shopping is made up of macroremote-payments.

The last variant is the funding mechanism. Within this classification, various different types exist; for instance, the distinction between pre-paid, real-time or post-paid.¹⁷⁴ In the event of a pre-paid transaction, the account is linked to the user’s savings account, which needs to have a positive balance in advance. This makes sure that the party is able to pay. Nevertheless, in real-time transactions, the user pays direct­ly during the purchase via a bank-account-based system. In terms of the post-paid transaction, the referring party will receive an invoice at a later date, for instance, through a phone bill.¹⁷⁵

2.3 Mobile payment system processes

In order to create a basis of understanding, the traditional cardholder process is here first explained first. The traditional process at the PoS of a merchant looks as follows: Five players are involved, such as the card company (e.g., Mastercard), the cardholder, the issuing bank, the merchant, and the merchant bank. The user of the card makes a payment at a retailer.¹⁷⁶ The retailer has an account at the acquirer,¹⁷⁷ where the transaction data is sent. Afterward, the acquiring bank sends the information further through the card company to the issuing bank of the user,¹⁷⁸ as the issuer is responsible for the payment made by customers to the retailer.¹⁷⁹

However, in the case of mobile payment systems, the process is more complex,¹⁸⁰ also due to the various billing processes that are possible. On the one side, there is the possibility of linking the mobile payment system with the bank account and the credit card. On the other side, there is also the option of using mobile operator­based systems. With bank-account-based mobile payment systems, the user must have a traditional bank account.¹⁸¹ These are primarily used to pay higher amounts (macro payments), similar to credit-card-based systems.¹⁸² In mobile payment sys­tems based on mobile network operator, the mobile user’s network operator account is debited. The transactions are settled with the monthly telephone bill or via prepaid. 183 accounts.¹⁸³

Generally, two new parties are added to the mobile payment system process: the mobile payments service itself and the associated mobile network operator.¹⁸⁴ First, the mobile phone user needs to register for a certain mobile payment system. Sub­sequently, the person is able to initiate a payment transaction.¹⁸⁵ Then, the mobile payment system is used as an intermediary between the cardholder and the mer­chant, as the system is used for the payment process at the PoS. Now the service provider does the handling of the procedure, and the mobile network operator does the direct billing.¹⁸⁶ This means that the mobile network operator offers the technical infrastructure and can also be responsible for the billing.¹⁸⁷ Such cases are the charges on a monthly telephone bill¹⁸⁸ or a prepaid account.¹⁸⁹ However, the mobile payment system provider must authorize the payment and initiate the billing with the billing system, such as a bank account. Finally, the money transfer is confirmed by the mobile payment systems to the retailer, and the customer receives the goods.¹⁹⁰

2.4 Global adoption of mobile payment

2.4.1 Germany

As a part of Europe, Germany is generally surrounded by a comparatively low adop­tion of contactless payment methods¹⁹¹ and mobile payment systems due to struc­tural circumstances.¹⁹² Nonetheless, some countries within Europe exist that have presentable use. A study conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers compared six Eu­ropean countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Turkey, Switzerland, the Nether­lands). The result was that contactless payment methods and mobile payment sys­tems are the highest in Turkey and the Netherlands. In comparison, Germany has the lowest usage rates.¹⁹³ According to a Statista survey from 2019, Denmark and Sweden have the highest penetration of proximity mobile payment with approxi­mately 40 % in Europe. Once again, Germany is last place with 12.5 %.¹⁹⁴

In spite of that, the ownership of an EC-card in Germany is almost wholly cov- ered,¹⁹⁵ while credit cards are only slightly represented in Germany.¹⁹⁶ Furthermore, a comprehensive rollout of contactless cards has not taken place, as not even half have cards with that function.¹⁹⁷

In a worldwide reference, Germany has a high smartphone penetration rate of ap­proximately 78 %,¹⁹⁸ resulting in over 60 million users.¹⁹⁹ Due to the covid-19 crisis, the equipment of cards with the contactless payment function, as well as terminals, has accelerated. Also, the contactless payment providers have decided to raise the purchase limit from EUR 25 to EUR 50 per transaction.²⁰⁰ From a future perspective, over 25 % of the Germans are thinking about using mobile payment systems due to the pandemic.²⁰¹ Those systems help reduce contact,²⁰² and retailers have proac­tively requested the usage.²⁰³ Germany’s most used system providers are PayPal, Google Pay and Apple Pay,²⁰⁴ even if Germans prefer a payment method from their own traditional bank,²⁰⁵ as where their trust is the highest.²⁰⁶ Mobile payment users in Germany are mostly male, between 25 - 34 or 35 - 44 years old, and have a high income.²⁰⁷

2.4.2 China

Homeless people in China beg for money with printed-out QR codes instead of cash containers.²⁰⁸ This is mainly the case due to the historical payment development of China,²⁰⁹ but also due to innovative companies, consumer acceptance and out­standing technology infrastructure.²¹⁰ As far as payment methods are concerned, Asia has searched for technical innovations and applications in the payment sec- tor.²¹¹ In 1977, the first contactless card was introduced in Hong Kong. The basis for this innovation was the FeliCa technology of Sony that was established in several Asian markets.²¹² More specifically, FeliCa is a contactless proximity smart card system²¹³ that can also be used for mobile payment applications. The technology has quickly gained acceptance through large companies, on the demand as well as the supply side.²¹⁴ Hence, China has been highly active in digital payments and has developed the world-leading infrastructures for that field.²¹⁵ Nonetheless, the Chi­nese have used cash or checks for a long time, as credit cards were not introduced until the ‘90s.²¹⁶ China was rather cash-based before mobile payments, as credit and debit cards were not so ubiquitous as they were in the United States, for in­stance.²¹⁷ As a result, China directly jumped from a cash-based economy to a digital payment economy. In spite of that, another important factor is that the Chinese gov­ernment actively supports the digital banking infrastructure and facilitates the estab­lishment of companies.²¹⁸

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Moreover, Asians are often attributed with a certain degree of technical affinity and as having a technological culture, which subsequently has a positive impact on the adoption of new technologies.²¹⁹ ”In 2021, China had more smartphone users than any country in the world at almost 912 million”²²⁰ and the adoption rate of MPP is over 80 %.²²¹ Approximately 50 % of in-store purchases are executed through digital wallets.²²² Over half of these adopters are male and between 25 - 34 years old, with a medium-high income.²²³ Approximately 55 % of the Chinese population uses Alipay, although Tenpay has a great market share as well (approx. 40 %).²²⁴

2.4.3 India

India, as a part of Asia, is considered a developing economy²²⁵ and is a role model for digital services in those economies, as well as in the payment sector.²²⁶ Howev­er, access to traditional banking services is hardly limited. Despite that, India comes second place after China in mobile payment system usage.²²⁷ Generally, the ac­ceptance of mobile payment services is higher in developing markets than in devel- oped,²²⁸ as the only requirement for access is a phone with internet.²²⁹ Hence, the adoption of mobile wallets had a huge impact on financial inclusion within India,²³⁰ as bank branches or ATMs are often not in the vicinity.²³¹ The transition to mobile payment systems took place very quickly because many of the inhabitants in emerg­ing markets do not even have payment cards.²³² In addition, the mobile phone pene­tration in India is around 90 %.²³³ Moreover, the internet infrastructure is moderate, as mobile data is extremely cheap and the readiness to use is decent, while the speed and availability are worthy of concealment.²³⁴ In 2017, 52.9 million people already used mobile payment proximity methods, with a rising tendency.²³⁵ In 2020, mobile payments had significantly more transactions than card payments. Since 2018, the increase of mobile payment systems is significantly higher than for card payments.²³⁶

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Despite the demand-pull factor, the regulatory regime and government additionally drive the adoption.²³⁷ For instance, the Prime Minister has committed to engage in India’s financial inclusion,²³⁸ and the Reserve Bank of India has implemented a guideline and framework for mobile payment versions.²³⁹ Furthermore, the National Payments Corporation of India has developed several mobile payments such as Unified Payment Interface, Immediate Payments Service, and Bharat Bill Payment System, as well as advocated to facilitate retail e-payments.²⁴⁰ For instance, the payment app Bharat still has outdated debit card payments from 2018.²⁴¹ From the retailer’s perspective, the adoption was mainly driven by QR-code-based versions that are cheap to implement.²⁴²

However, while developing markets like Kenya focus on remote payment systems, India is highly focused on mobile wallets or, rather, mobile payments at the PoS, as NFC technologies are highly prominent.²⁴³ Moreover, India has the youngest popula­tion around the globe,²⁴⁴ as almost 70 % of the total population is between 15 - 64 years old,²⁴⁵ which results in a median age of 31.²⁴⁶ In 2021, the total population is over 1.3 billion²⁴⁷ and is expected to surpass China.²⁴⁸ China and India together have one third of the total world population.²⁴⁹ The country has diverse religions, ethnic groups, and languages.²⁵⁰ Additionally, Indians are known as the “mobile- only” group, as Indians do not necessarily have laptops or other devices.²⁵¹

2.4.4 United States

As mentioned in chapter 2.4.2, China directly jumped from a cash-based economy to a digital one. Nevertheless, using credit cards and having a legacy system is more pronounced in the United States or Europe.²⁵² Hence, the growth of mobile payment systems in the United States has been mainly disturbed by the high credit and debit card usage.²⁵³ In addition, Americans prefer physical cards instead of mo­bile wallets as they have a strong culture of cash-backs and rewards, and most digi­tal methods do not offer such services.²⁵⁴ As a matter of fact, the mass market has not yet been reached,²⁵⁵ even if the United States is the birthplace of many success­ful technology companies (e.g., Google Pay, Apple Pay).²⁵⁶

However, mobile payment systems are gaining momentum in the United States, although the beginning was sluggish.²⁵⁷ Approximately 87 % of Americans in 2017 had a mobile phone,²⁵⁸ which made America in 2019 the third country with the high­est penetration (after China and India).²⁵⁹ From 2020 to 2025, digital payments in the United States should grow by approximately 15 %.²⁶⁰ In 2020, almost half of the American citizens used Apple Pay, while 37 % used Google Pay and 19 % Samsung Pay.²⁶¹ More than half of those users are men between 25 - 34 years old. Fur­thermore, most of them have a high income.²⁶² In addition, further growth in the up­coming years is expected. In 2026, 59 % of the citizens in the United States will be digital natives (millennial, generation Z) that are naturally more open to mobile pay­ment systems.²⁶³ Generally, the average age of the population, together with China, is far lower than in Germany, whereby India has the lowest average age.²⁶⁴ Hence, the United States is far behind China and India but is located in the middle field with its adoption rate.²⁶⁵ The country is positioned in sixth place in a worldwide compari­son for proximity mobile payments.²⁶⁶

2.5 Security and safety aspects of mobile payments

The terms security and safety have overlaps. However, they have some main differ­ences. One of the main differences is that safety is about the protection of life through unintentional incidents, while security mostly deals with external parties²⁶⁷ or intended attacks.²⁶⁸ Those aspects are the number one issue for almost all users.²⁶⁹

First, the safety measures: confidentiality. Confidentiality is an important factor, as private data should not be made available to unauthorized participants.²⁷⁰ In 2004, studies have shown that the confidential handling of personal data is the most criti­cal success factor for mobile payment systems.²⁷¹ Nevertheless, almost all providers share personal data with third parties. The only companies that do not share the data are Google and Apple. In spite of that, mobile payment systems collect much more information than in traditional banking transactions.²⁷² The data is predomi­nantly used for marketing purposes.²⁷³ However, it is not only about the disclosure of information but generally about its collection. In this case, Apple claims that the data is only stored on the devices used, while Google Pay collects all registration and payment information.²⁷⁴

Second, the security aspects. Even if, in passwords, strong characters like numbers and uppercase as well as lowercase are included, it can still be insecure²⁷⁵ and is only applicable for one-way authentication.²⁷⁶ Therefore, the two-factor- authentication (2FA) can help to use systems in a more secure manner. 2FA is a method where the user has to identify themselves twice to prove they are the person they claims to be. For instance, the user needs to log in via a password and then confirm the identity via an SMS-based mechanism. Only then is access is grant- ed.²⁷⁷ Some mobile payment providers such (e.g., Apple Pay) offer this mecha- nism.²⁷⁸ Additionally, companies like Apple Pay or Samsung Pay have the possibility to use authorization via fingerprint.²⁷⁹ An absence of this 2FA could lead to a risk of fraudulent transactions,²⁸⁰ as someone could have unwanted access to an ac­count.²⁸¹

In addition to that, mobile phones are more likely to develop issues with malware than other devices such as a PC, as the operating systems are vulnerable and do not have regular security updates.²⁸² Moreover, a lot of mobile payment systems rely on what is known as a “secure sockets layer” (SSL) or on a “transport layer security” (TLS) to protect the collected data,²⁸³ although SSL is the most common. Basically, the SSL system tries to encode the respective information in order to guarantee safe communication.²⁸⁴ Nevertheless, these systems can become a victim of malware. In addition to these, the PoS can be affected with malware and steal the information through the card reader transaction.²⁸⁵

Regarding the contactless payment from the mobile phone to the PoS, a risk of identity theft as well as information disclosure exists. However, this could be pro­tected through secure protocols, a specific type of encryption or trusted platform modules.²⁸⁶ For instance, tokenization is a good opportunity to replace sensitive private data with non-sensitive ones, for instance, a token.²⁸⁷ Hence, Apple Pay has been declared the most secure,²⁸⁸ as the company provides more safety measures than traditional credit card companies. For instance, Apple uses tokenization, where instead of transaction details, no credit card information are transferred, the token is used as a surrogate.²⁸⁹ In this case, not even the cashier sees the card number.²⁹⁰ Generally, wireless networks are more open to attack and data is always more criti­cal when it comes to financial information.²⁹¹

With regards to a mobile payment study from PricewaterhouseCoopers, the aspect of security is highly crucial as consumers are mainly concerned about theft.²⁹² Also, other sources claim that the fear of theft or loss of the mobile phone is especially in the foreground.²⁹³ The fear of getting a smartphone stolen with an installed mobile payment system is significantly higher than getting the wallet stolen with all its cards.²⁹⁴ Nonetheless, almost all mobile payment systems have a passcode lock to prevent others from accessing it. Biometrics locks, like fingerprints, or facial recogni­tion, can also help to protect the app.²⁹⁵ In the event of Apple Pay, users have the opportunity to block or permanently remove the pay function once the mobile phone is stolen or lost.²⁹⁶ However, financial information is stored on the device when using a mobile payment system and could be misused.²⁹⁷

Still, mobile payment systems have considerable challenges in the field of data se­curity and privacy due to the underlying technology²⁹⁸ and are more vulnerable than electronic payments.²⁹⁹ In spite of that, studies have shown that many companies have reasonable protections.³⁰⁰ Many security concerns are due to general uncer­tainty about new technologies and a lack of technical understanding.³⁰¹ To the det­riment of mobile payment systems, a common perception exists that mobile pay­ment systems are insecure.³⁰² Hence, due to the lack of knowledge, people who cannot control the process tend to have an unsafe feeling about paying with an app.³⁰³

3 Influential factors for the successful implementation of mobile payment innovations

3.1 Product analysis

In this chapter, a customer-centric perspective on mobile payment is taken. A SWOT analysis is used to show the strengths (S) and weaknesses (W) of mobile payment systems as well as the opportunities (O) and threats (T). Thus, the SWOT shows externals as well as internal influential factors.³⁰⁴ The comprehensive analy­sis with all points and sources can be found in the appendix.³⁰⁵ In the following, only an outline of the results is given.

The analysis shows that mobile payment systems have various strengths and weaknesses, while the opportunities exceed the threats. The most present strengths of mobile payment systems are speed, hygiene and convenience, as well as usabil­ity. Mobile payment systems are highly usable, as money in- and outflows can be directly tracked and, in some cases, the deposit of several cards is possible. Fur­thermore, through contactless execution, it is a hygienic type of payment process. Hence, the use of mobile payment systems can diminish the waiting time in queues and correlate with an increase in comfort. Notwithstanding, in most cases, a PIN must be entered for purchases over EUR 25, which drags out the payment process. Despite that, the factor of convenience is of great importance as people do not have to carry around several items, the mobile phone is sufficient. Then again, some sources claim that the system tempts one to spend more. The aspect of security must also be viewed from two perspectives. On the one hand, mobile payment sys­tems have reasonable protections, such as good authentication measures. For in­stance, Apple Pay provides more protective measures than a traditional credit card company. On the other hand, mobile phones are likely to develop issues with mal­ware and wireless networks are vulnerable. Besides the hard facts, a common per­ception exists that mobile payment systems are insecure. Other criteria that diminish the value of mobile payment systems are the complexity. Some people perceive the registration process as non-intuitive and have no understanding of the underlying technology.

From an external perspective, mobile payment systems have significantly more op­portunities than threats. To increase their adoption, mobile payment providers could reduce safety concerns by revising security offerings (i.e., introducing tokenization) and communicating the benefits of the used measures to the end-customer. Fur­thermore, market standards would help to get a full understanding and transparen­cy. Moreover, providers could not only work on the security aspect, but they could also work on the awareness of the offerings and build up knowledge about the sys­tem with the end-user, as people tend to have an unsafe feeling about technologies they do not understand. In spite of that, various threats also exist. For instance, comprehensive transformation can only be reached if several stakeholders are con­vinced, such as the retailers.

3.2 Market analysis

3.2.1 PESTEL analysis

Besides the product, the environment plays an important role. This means that the environment around the product needs to be scanned.³⁰⁶ PESTEL analysis evalu­ates the macro-environmental aspects of a certain business,³⁰⁷ to assess any influ­ences,³⁰⁸ and to indicate the failure or success of a business model.³⁰⁹ The word “PESTEL” contains the first letters of the factors “political, economic, social, techno­logical, environmental, legal”.³¹⁰ All those factors were analyzed and stored in the appendix.³¹¹

From a political perspective, the political stability, regulations, policies, and the level of corruption need to be considered.³¹² In the case of Germany, political stability is guaranteed, as the people live in a democracy that functions under a “Grundgesetz” which stands above all legal norms. Germany is not highly affected by corruption and is ranked ninth globally. Regarding the mobile payment market, many regula­tions exist, mainly since the financial crisis. However, in 2019, the “European Mobile Payment Association” was established, committed to introducing European-wide standards for mobile payment systems. Likewise, the “Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik” recommends several rules for the handling of mobile pay­ment systems. For instance, the institution recommends disabling additional func­tions, regular updates of new software and the like.

In terms of the economic factors, the analysis deals with aspects such as the unem­ployment rate, the national income or monetary policy.³¹³ The German gross domes­tic product (GDP) is at EUR 853 billion in 2021. However, due to the covid-19 pan­demic, the GDP has dropped by approximately five percent. Also, the unemploy­ment rate increased due to covid-19, up to approximately six percent. Lately, the interest rates as well as the inflation rate have remained low. The mobile payment sector in Germany altogether comes to EUR 16.709 million in transactions in 2020, which is, mentioned in chapter 1.1, comparatively low.

From a socio-cultural point of view, the national culture, demographic structure or similar is considered.³¹⁴ Germany has 83.1 million inhabitants consisting of 41 mil­lion are men and 42.1 million women. The largest part of the population is between 50 and 72 years old, while the age structure is continuously shifting upwards, which means that Germany is aging. The decline in the working age will result in a signifi­cant reduction of the force potential. Regarding the mobile payment market, the analysis has shown that Germans are naturally skeptical and many have huge secu­rity concerns about the innovations in the mobile payment market. The population generally still prefers cash and show more industrial thinking rather than being inno­vative. Nonetheless, chapter 3.3 will analyze this fact in more detail.

The fourth criterion that is analyzed by the PESTEL analysis is technology. At this point, the existence of technologies with the corresponding infrastructure as well as the level of technological innovation and motivation is evaluated.³¹⁵ Germany is in fifth place among the top countries with technological expertise and wants to expand its infrastructure further. In the case of payments, NFC technology is the most known variant for contactless payment, also in the mobile payment sector. Never­theless, in some cases the mobile payment systems’ functionality depends on the reliability of the internet connection. As a matter of fact, in an international compari­son, Germany is one of the laggards when it comes to fast internet access.

The environmental point of view deals with the impact on the ecological system in terms of environmental protection regulations, resource availability, sustainability and the like.³¹⁶ Generally, Germany is a poor commodity country and is highly de­pendent on other nations. In 2019, a framework was created to reduce national emissions for the sectors of energy, building, transport, industry, waste management and agriculture. Furthermore, cashless payments are good for the environment, as the production of banknotes requires immense high-power consumption. However, the provision of the terminals is not climate neutral.

Last but not least: legal perspective. Here, the judicial system, the rights and the laws of the consumer or the competition are evaluated.³¹⁷ The structure of the legal system in Germany is determined by the principle of separation and follows detailed written laws. From a legal perspective, mobile banking is not the same as mobile payment, as a mobile payment provider constitutes an intermediate position be­tween financial regulations, technology and telecommunication regulations. The “European Competition Authority” is increasingly taking digital business models un­der scrutiny,³¹⁸ as completely different design options characterize those services compared to traditional ones. For instance, mobile payment systems must comply with the current data protection laws. Various regulations for mobile payment sys­tems exist, although not all are clear yet.

3.2.2 Competitor analysis

Based on a competitor analysis, the chances of success and the contents of the specific companies can be identified.³¹⁹ Due to the specific research question of this thesis, only mobile payment systems available in Germany are considered, which are differentiated according to their type or rather classification (remote, proximity, omni-channel or mobile wallet). A more in-depth view about proximity payments, omni-channel or mobile wallets is given, as those can be used in stores and has the availability to replace physical payment cards.

[...]

---

¹ Cf. Waldmann 2014, p. 6.

² Cf. Leswing 2019.

³ Cf. Kreyenhagen 2018.

⁴ Cf. Leswing 2019.

⁵ Cf. Waldmann 2014, p. 6.

⁶ Cf. N.a. 2017.

⁷ Cf. Leswing 2019.

⁸ Cf. Opati/Gachukia 2020, p. 253.

⁹ Cf. Nylén/Holmström 2015, p. 57.

¹⁰ Cf. Buchak et al. 2018, p. 2.

¹¹ Cf. Luckerson 2014.

¹² Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 2 f.

¹³ Cf. Statista 2021a.

¹⁴ Cf. Au/Zafar 2008, p. 1.

¹⁵ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 8.

¹⁶ Cf. De Best 2021.

¹⁷ Cf. Statista 2021a.

¹⁸ Cf. Statista 2021b.

¹⁹ Cf. Fisher 2020.

²⁰ Cf. Statista 2017.

²¹ Cf. Statista 2020c.

²² Cf. Bosch 2021.

²³ Cf. Olsen/Hedman/Vatrapu 2011, p. 3.

²⁴ Cf. Bosch 2021.

²⁵ Cf. De Sena Abrahao/Moriguchi/Andrade 2016, p. 222.

²⁶ Cf. Beutin et al. 2014, p. 10.

²⁷ Cf. Karnouskos 2004, p. 44.

²⁸ Cf. Brandt 2017a.

²⁹ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 298.

³⁰ Cf. Waldmann 2014, p. 17.

³¹ Cf. Bosch 2021.

³² Cf. Hughes/Lonie 2007, p. 63.

³³ Cf. Raina 2014, p. 187.

³⁴ Cf. Aydin/Burnaz 2016, p. 75.

³⁵ Cf. Statista 2021a.

³⁶ Cf. Amoroso/Magnier-Watanabe 2011, p. 96.

³⁷ Cf. Sieger 2015, p. 3.

³⁸ Cf. Bezhovski 2016, p. 129.

³⁹ Cf. Sieger 2015, p. 3.

⁴⁰ Cf. De Best 2020.

⁴¹ Cf. Chee 2019.

⁴² Cf. Burge 2016, p. 1494.

⁴³ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 8.

⁴⁴ Cf. Aydin/Burnaz 2016, p. 73.

⁴⁵ Cf. Heinemann 2012, p. 3.

⁴⁶ Cf. Waldmann 2014, p. 7 – 28.

⁴⁷ Cf. Benson/Clotteau 2017, p. 12.

⁴⁸ Cf. Olsen/Hedman/Vatrapu 2011, p. 2.

⁴⁹ Cf. N.a. 2021a.

⁵⁰ See appendix: Figure 3, p. 72.

⁵¹ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p.7.

⁵² Cf. Deutsche Bundesbank 2018.

⁵³ See appendix: Table 1, p. 70 f.

⁵⁴ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. V.

⁵⁵ Cf. De Sena Abrahao/Moriguchi/Andrade 2016, p. 222.

⁵⁶ Arvidsson 2019, p. 1.

⁵⁷ Cf. König 2001, p. 18.

⁵⁸ Cf. Kerr 2006, p. 97.

⁵⁹ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 1.

⁶⁰ Cf. Kerr 2006, p. 97.

⁶¹ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 1.

⁶² Cf. Kerr 2006, p. 97.

⁶³ Cf. Targobank 2016.

⁶⁴ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 1.

⁶⁵ Cf. Téllez/Zeadally 2017, p. 1.

⁶⁶ Cf. Alt/Puschmann 2016, p. 8.

⁶⁷ Cf. Targobank 2016.

⁶⁸ Cf. Alt/Puschmann 2016, p. 8.

⁶⁹ Cf. Targobank 2016.

⁷⁰ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 1.

⁷¹ Cf. Sardana/Pikle 1989, p. 263 f.

⁷² Cf. Traub 2009.

⁷³ Cf. Targobank 2016.

⁷⁴ Cf. Deutsche Bundesbank 1970, p. IX – XII.

⁷⁵ Cf. Traub 2009.

⁷⁶ Cf. Deutsche Bundesbank 1970, p. IX.

⁷⁷ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 2.

⁷⁸ Cf. Targobank 2016.

⁷⁹ Cf. Lerner 2013a, p. 4.

⁸⁰ Cf. König 2001, p. 11.

⁸¹ Cf. Chande 2019.

⁸² Cf. König 2001, p. 12.

⁸³ Cf. Targobank 2016.

⁸⁴ Cf. Österreicher 2018.

⁸⁵ Cf. Deutsche Bundesbank 2019, p. 16.

⁸⁶ Cf. Löffelholz 1952, p. 1.

⁸⁷ Cf. Zeilmann 2015.

⁸⁸ Cf. Löffelholz 1952, p. 2.

⁸⁹ Cf. König 2001, p. 3.

⁹⁰ Cf. Burge 2016, p. 1504.

⁹¹ Cf. Chande 2019.

⁹² Cf. N.a. 2015b; See appendix: Figure 4, p. 72.

⁹³ Cf. Kossman 2021.

⁹⁴ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 2.

⁹⁵ Cf. Evans/Schmalensee 2005, p. 59.

⁹⁶ Cf. Swartz 2014, p. 138.

⁹⁷ Cf. Evans/Schmalensee 2005, p. 55.

⁹⁸ Cf. Korella/Li 2018, p. 256.

⁹⁹ Cf. Chande 2019.

¹⁰⁰ Cf. Bradford 2005, p. 2.

¹⁰¹ Cf. Tepper 2020.

¹⁰² Cf. Lietzau 2018.

¹⁰³ Cf. Terri 2005, p. 1 f.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. Lietzau 2018; See appendix: Figure 5, p. 73.

¹⁰⁵ Cf. Chande 2019.

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Kongaut/Lis 2017, p. 3.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. Téllez/Zeadally 2017, p. 19.

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Kongaut/Lis 2017, p. 18.

¹⁰⁹ Cf. Cuesta et al. 2015, p. 2.

¹¹⁰ Cf. Chee 2109.

¹¹¹ Cf. Burge 2016, p 1524.

¹¹² Cf. Fröhlich 2019.

¹¹³ Cf. Cuesta et. al 2015, p. 5.

¹¹⁴ Cf. Gould 2015.

¹¹⁵ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 4.

¹¹⁶ Cf. Zavolokina/Dolata/Schwabe 2016, p. 1.

¹¹⁷ Cf. Alt/Puschmann 2016, p. 94 f.

¹¹⁸ Cf. N.a. 2021b.

¹¹⁹ Cf. Chuen 2015, p. 11 – 24.

¹²⁰ Cf. Koffman 2020.

¹²¹ Cf. Chuen 2015, p. xxii.

¹²² Cf. Xu et al. 2020, p. 26.

¹²³ Cf. Burge 2016, p. 1495.

¹²⁴ Cf. Raina 2014, p. 189.

¹²⁵ Cf. Isaac/Zeadally 2014, p. 37.

¹²⁶ Cf. Pukkasenung/Chokngamwong 2015, p. 12.

¹²⁷ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 3.

¹²⁸ Cf. Poddar 2021.

¹²⁹ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 9.

¹³⁰ Cf. Agarwal et al. 2007, p. 144.

¹³¹ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 14.

¹³² Cf. Raina 2014, p. 189.

¹³³ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 8.

¹³⁴ Cf. Borowski-Beszta/Jakubowska 2019, p. 5 – 7.

¹³⁵ Cf. Dai et al. 2011, p. 950.

¹³⁶ Cf. Coskun/Ok/Ozdenizei 2013, p. 11.

¹³⁷ Cf. Amoroso/Magnier-Watanabe 2011, p. 96.

¹³⁸ Cf. Poddar 2021.

¹³⁹ Cf. Anusha et al. 2015, p. 133.

¹⁴⁰ Cf. Coskun/Ok/Ozdenizei 2013, p. 11.

¹⁴¹ Cf. Borowski-Beszta/Jakubowska 2019, p. 8.

¹⁴² Cf. Anusha et al. 2015, p. 133 f.

¹⁴³ Cf. Coskun/Ok/Ozdenizei 2013, p. 10.

¹⁴⁴ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 3; See appendix: Figure 6, p. 73.

¹⁴⁵ Cf. Borowski-Beszta/Jakubowska 2019, p. 9.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. Dai et al. 2011, p. 950.

¹⁴⁷ Cf. Chande 2019.

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Amoroso/Magnier-Watanabe 2011, p. 96.

¹⁴⁹ Cf. Soni 2010, p. 904.

¹⁵⁰ Cf. Markendahl/Smith/Andersson 2010, p. 4 – 9.

¹⁵¹ Cf. Amoroso/Magnier-Watanabe 2011, p. 96.

¹⁵² Cf. Markendahl/Smith/Andersson 2010, p. 10.

¹⁵³ Cf. Hichri et al. 2006, p. 1.

¹⁵⁴ Cf. Markendahl/Smith/Andersson 2010, p. 4.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. Graham 2010.

¹⁵⁶ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 3.

¹⁵⁷ Cf. Windh 2011, p. 13 – 20.

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Groenfeldt 2019.

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 8.

¹⁶⁰ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 150.

¹⁶¹ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 22.

¹⁶² Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 3.

¹⁶³ Cf. N.a. 2014a.

¹⁶⁴ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 3.

¹⁶⁵ Cf. N.a. 2014a.

¹⁶⁶ Cf. Pellegrino/Zompetti 2016, p. 3.

¹⁶⁷ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 150.

¹⁶⁸ Cf. Raina 2014, p. 189.

¹⁶⁹ Cf. Pukkasenung/Chokngamwong 2015, p. 12.

¹⁷⁰ Cf. Téllez/Zeadally 2017, p. 35

¹⁷¹ Cf. Fun/Beng/Razali 2013, p. 323.

¹⁷² Cf. Raina 2014, p. 196.

¹⁷³ Cf. Kaymaz 2011, p. 25; See appendix: Figure 7, p. 73.

¹⁷⁴ Cf. Raina 2014, p. 189.

¹⁷⁵ Cf. Kaymaz 2011, p. 23 f.

¹⁷⁶ Cf. Wang/Hahn/Sutrave 2016, p. 1 f.

¹⁷⁷ Cf. Sieger 2015, p. 17.

¹⁷⁸ Cf. Wang/Hahn/Sutrave 2016, p. 2; See appendix: Figure 8, p. 74.

¹⁷⁹ Cf. Sieger 2015, p. 17.

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Kreyer/Pousttchi/Turowski 2002, p. 13.

¹⁸¹ Cf. Kaymaz 2011, p. 25 f.

¹⁸² Cf. Lammer 2004, p. 110.

¹⁸³ Cf. Kaymaz 2011, p. 27 f.

¹⁸⁴ Cf. Wang/Hahn/Sutrave 2016, p. 2.

¹⁸⁵ Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 112.

¹⁸⁶ Cf. Wang/Hahn/Sutrave 2016, p. 2.

¹⁸⁷ Cf. Kreyer/Pousttchi/Turowski 2002, p. 13 f.

¹⁸⁸ Cf. Wang/Hahn/Sutrave 2016, p. 3.

¹⁸⁹ Cf. Ondrus/Pigneur 2005, p. 3.

¹⁹⁰ Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 112; See appendix: Figure 9, p. 74.

¹⁹¹ Cf. Beutin/Harmsen 2019, p. 7.

¹⁹² Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 92.

¹⁹³ Cf. Beutin/Harmsen 2019, p. 7.

¹⁹⁴ Cf. Fisher 2020.

¹⁹⁵ Cf. Sixt 2017, p. 72.

¹⁹⁶ Cf. Keese 2018.

¹⁹⁷ Cf. Deutsche Bundesbank 2020b.

¹⁹⁸ Cf. O’Dea 2021b.

¹⁹⁹ Cf. Koptyug 2021a.

²⁰⁰ Cf. Mai 2020, p. 4.

²⁰¹ Cf. Statista 2020a.

²⁰² Cf. Liébana-Cabanillas et al. 2020, p. 9.

²⁰³ Cf. Mai 2020, p. 1.

²⁰⁴ Cf. Kunst 2021.

²⁰⁵ Cf. Ahrens 2021.

²⁰⁶ Cf. Statista 2019.

²⁰⁷ Cf. Statista 2021c, p. 18.

²⁰⁸ Cf. Meyer 2019.

²⁰⁹ Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 92.

²¹⁰ Cf. Jain 2019, p. 11.

²¹¹ Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 92.

²¹² Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 139.

²¹³ Cf. Coskun/Ok/Ozdenizei 2013, p. 70.

²¹⁴ Cf. Magnier-Watanabe 2014, p. 1046 – 1048.

²¹⁵ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 2.

²¹⁶ Cf. Leyer 2019.

²¹⁷ Cf. Kohan 2020.

²¹⁸ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 10 f.

²¹⁹ Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 92.

²²⁰ O’Dea 2021a.

²²¹ Cf. Liébana-Cabanillas et al. 2020, p. 9.

²²² Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 2.

²²³ Cf. Statista 2021c, p. 16.

²²⁴ Cf. Statista 2020d.

²²⁵ Cf. Khan et al. 2016, p. 7.

²²⁶ Cf. Mohr 2018, p. 12 f.

²²⁷ Cf. Buckle 2018.

²²⁸ Cf. Lerner 2013b, p. 6.

²²⁹ Cf. Xu et al. 2020, p. 26.

²³⁰ Cf. Khan et al. 2016, p. 16.

²³¹ Cf. Mohr 2018, p. 12; See appendix: Figure 10, p. 75.

²³² Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 2.

²³³ Cf. Khan et al. 2016, p. 11.

²³⁴ Cf. Easwaran 2019. p. 22.

²³⁵ Cf. Kats 2018.

²³⁶ Cf. Nariyanuri 2020, p. 3.

²³⁷ Cf. Jain 2019, p. 12 f.

²³⁸ Cf. Khan et al. 2016, p. 20.

²³⁹ Cf. Jain 2019, p. 13.

²⁴⁰ Cf. Khan et al. 2016, p. 22.

²⁴¹ Cf. Statista 2021d.

²⁴² Cf. Jain 2019, p. 6.

²⁴³ Cf. Khan et. al. 2016, p. 9 – 18.

²⁴⁴ Cf. Banco Santander 2020.

²⁴⁵ Cf. N.a. 2021c, p. 3.

²⁴⁶ Cf. Easwaran 2019, p. 23.

²⁴⁷ Cf. O’Neill 2021.

²⁴⁸ Cf. Banco Santander 2020.

²⁴⁹ Cf. Khan et al. 2016, p. 4.

²⁵⁰ Cf. Richter 2006, p. 5.

²⁵¹ Cf. Easwaran 2019, p. 20.

²⁵² Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 11.

²⁵³ Cf. Kohan 2020.

²⁵⁴ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 8.

²⁵⁵ Cf. Ginner 2016, p. 91.

²⁵⁶ Cf. Deutsche Bank Research 2020, p. 8.

²⁵⁷ Cf. Kohan 2020.

²⁵⁸ Cf. Bailey et al. 2017, p. 1.

²⁵⁹ Cf. O’Dea 2021a.

²⁶⁰ Cf. Statista 2021c, p. 7.

²⁶¹ Cf. Kunst 2020.

²⁶² Cf. Statista 2021c, p. 15.

²⁶³ Cf. Kohan 2020.

²⁶⁴ Cf. Urmersbach 2021.

²⁶⁵ Cf. Rooney 2019.

²⁶⁶ Cf. Wurmser 2019.

²⁶⁷ Cf. Line et al. 2006, p. 7.

²⁶⁸ Cf. Lammer 2004, p. 99.

²⁶⁹ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 181.

²⁷⁰ Cf. Pukkasenung/Chokngamwong 2015, p. 4.

²⁷¹ Cf. Lammer 2004, p. 157.

²⁷² Cf. Opati/Gachukia 2020, p. 256 f.

²⁷³ Cf. Klosowski 2020.

²⁷⁴ Cf. Baumgartner 2019.

²⁷⁵ Cf. Sung et al. 2015, p. 51.

²⁷⁶ Cf. Kou 2003, p. 33.

²⁷⁷ Cf. Aloul/Zahidi/El-Hajj 2009, p. 641.

²⁷⁸ Cf. Klosowski 2020.

²⁷⁹ Cf. Wang/Hahn/Sutrave 2016, p. 3.

²⁸⁰ Cf. Isaac/Zeadally 2014, p. 40.

²⁸¹ Cf. Klosowski 2020.

²⁸² Cf. Sung et al. 2015, p. 52.

²⁸³ Cf. Bosamia/Patel 2019, p. 813.

²⁸⁴ Cf. Bezhovski 2016, p. 129.

²⁸⁵ Cf. Bosamia/Patel 2019, p. 813.

²⁸⁶ Cf. Isaac/Zeadally 2014, p. 40.

²⁸⁷ Cf. Vishwakarma/Tripathy/Vemuru 2019, p. 2314.

²⁸⁸ Cf. Pinchot et al. 2016, p. 22.

²⁸⁹ Cf. Santus 2014.

²⁹⁰ Cf. Pinchot et al. 2016, p. 22.

²⁹¹ Cf. Bezhovski 2016, p. 127.

²⁹² Cf. Beutin/Harmsen 2019, p. 10.

²⁹³ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 181.

²⁹⁴ Cf. Beutin/Harmsen 2019, p. 10.

²⁹⁵ Cf. Klosowksi 2020.

²⁹⁶ Cf. Apple Inc. 2021a.

²⁹⁷ Cf. Opati/Gachukia 2020, p. 256.

²⁹⁸ Cf. Nambiar/Lu/Liang 2004, p. 475.

²⁹⁹ Cf. Opati/Gachukia 2020, p. 255.

³⁰⁰ Cf. Klosowski 2020.

³⁰¹ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 181.

³⁰² Cf. Pinchot et al. 2016, p. 22.

³⁰³ Cf. Hierl 2017, p. 182.

³⁰⁴ Cf. Romppel 2006, p. 195.

³⁰⁵ See appendix: Table 2, p. 75 – 81.

³⁰⁶ Cf. Nylén/Holmström 2015, p. 61.

³⁰⁷ Cf. Pan/Chen/Zhan 2019, p. 7.

³⁰⁸ Cf. Janet 2013, p. 806.

³⁰⁹ Cf. Matovic 2020, p. 96.

³¹⁰ Pan/Chen/Zhan 2019, p. 1.

³¹¹ See appendix: Table 3, p. 81 – 92.

³¹² Cf. Janet 2013, p. 806 f.

³¹³ Cf. Yüksel 2012, p. 56.

³¹⁴ Cf. Matovic 2020, p. 97.

³¹⁵ Cf. Matovic 2020, p. 97.

³¹⁶ Cf. Deltl 2011, p. 69.

³¹⁷ Cf. Yüksel 2012, p. 57.

³¹⁸ Cf. Lendermann 2020, p. 1.

³¹⁹ Cf. Porter 2008, p. 86.

• Universidad: accadis Hochschule Bad Homburg
• Calificación: 1,0
• Autor: Tamara Knecht (Autor)
• Año de publicación: 2021
• Páginas: 188
• No. de catálogo: V1297113
• ISBN (PDF): 9783346763419
• ISBN (Libro): 9783346763426
• Idioma: Inglés
• Etiqueta: Finance, Mobile Payment System, Appel Pay, Samsung pay, future, Digitalisation, Digitization, Transformation, disruptive business model, payment industry, global adoption, global comparison, pestel analysis, competitor analysis, empirical investigation, survey