I love Square, and they are a classic disruptor. They started slow, at the low end, and created their own blue ocean before starting to chew at the heels of the entrenched incumbents in the payment ecosystem.<p>That being said, the payment ecosystem is a pretty messed up place, even though the ugliness is all pretty much abstracted from the customer. The interchange fees charged to the merchants at times rival their margins on the items they sell. And it got ugly because it was essentially a duopoly and the stakeholders including Acquirers (MC, Visa etc) and the Issuers (Credit Card Issuers) and the POS vendors all had a pretty good reason to keep things the same.<p>When things are messed up because we do not have enough choice, do you think it would be preferable to hand over the keys to this to a single player - in this case Square? If Square controlled both ends, owned the customer as well as the merchant POS, and cut off everyone else in the process (by going directly to your bank account), then how long before Square starts bumping up the fees it charges each merchant? Couple that with the fact that Square will own the customer, and is in control of delivery of targeted merchant offers, and you get a sense of the size of the pie they would like to own. Anyone agree if that is a good thing? I certainly dont.<p>The reality is, the ecosystem will be a lot more fragmented this time around than it currently is. The various mobile wallet initiatives (and there are over 70) will eventually coalesce around a few major players, but we will be using NFC driven mobile wallets (GWallet) and Cloud based mobile wallets (Paypal/Square) and the traditional plastic form factor for a long time to come.<p>Square is a disruptor. And they have created a beautiful customer experience and has spurred the reinvention of the check out process. They inspired several, including me, to see how the status quo was so messed up.