Adrian Lane, security analyst and CTO at Securosis, argued in a recent research paper that there is much more involved than the liability shift - much of it very good for merchants - but he said much of the resistance to the change is because, "merchants are being asked to incur significant costs and operational disruption to solve a banking problem rather than a merchant problem."
added that it is much more complicated than, "a straight equipment swap."
warned in his
paper that another flaw, at least so far, in EMV is that it, "does not mandate the use of point-to-point encryption (P2PE), much less full end-to-end encryption.
agrees that better security, not to mention decreased liability for fraud, are good reasons to adopt EMV.
argued in his
paper that they are both secondary to the benefits of the much more major shift that is coming: Mobile payments.
Companies like Starbucks, he
wrote, have, "demonstrated conclusively that consumers will use mobile phones for payment."
believes that, "the move from passive magnetic stripe cards to smart cards is a big jump, but from plastic cards to smartphones will be the payment industry's equivalent of the shift from horses to automobiles."
goes into considerable detail in his
paper, but summarizes what he
called, "a wealth of advantages for merchants (from mobile payments), delivered with minimal to no operational disruption, including: