I'm seeing a lot of investigation into mobile banking. That's interesting - using a ubiquitous technology to attempt to solve problems to an ancient institution. Sounds like a natural evolution of banking. But if you think about this, I'm not convinced mobile banking solves problems. What would be the use cases where I need to bank by phone? Do I really need to check a balance or transfer money instantaneously? Seems like in all use cases I can wait until I am in front of a computer, ATM, or teller and conduct my business in a less rushed manner. Not to mention I really don't want another reason for Seattle drivers to be on their phones while on I-90.
I'm also convinced its time for an innovative bank to step up and change the banking game. Why do we have separate checking and savings accounts? Why is online banking still so primitive? Why isn't Quicken better integrated with online banking solutions? Why is ING Direct able to give me terrific rates and Washington Mutual can't compete? Why in late 2007 we still don't have online bill presentment integrated with banking while leaving control to the consumer (credit card companies are the only ones that have mastered this).
There is so much inefficiency in banking (and payments while I am at it, since I think of the two as two sides of the same coin).
A note to the banking industry: don't chase technology. Build better products.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment