2.7% transaction fee? FAIL!

And let's see Denis: Square charges 2.75 percent + 15 cents for swiped transactions, and 3.5 percent + 15 cents for keyed-in transactions, as shared from the most recent Gizmag Square-related article. PayPal's offering is lower, even if slightly. If one of them wants to dominate, go 2.3 percent.

@Lumen. What makes you think 2.3% is the winning rate?

This idea is clearly stolen from Square. I hope Square had a patent, sues and wins. (Small innovators deserve to prosper.)
Its sad that the only way to connect to an iPhone is thru the ANALOG headphone jack! Of course, this is an ugly hack. The ultra-closed architecture of the iPhone really is sad. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple replaces analog jacks with something proprietary and digital - says its better...buy your iDigitalBuds at apple.com for only $65.
Can't they support printing via Bluetooth to a local printer at the muffin stand?

Stolen? There's no patents for credit card payment methods. Just need a company to commit the resources and risk of starting up... some will survive, others won't due to costs, customer service or security concerns.
Heaven help if they were American Express... the total fees may add up to over 5% for transactions. Ever wonder why many businesses don't accept American Express? That's why. 2.7% is not terrible...just the cost of doing business and being convenient for your customers (who might not return otherwise!)

Square has one massive advantage: it's not PayPal. See here for one example: http://conferencesburnedbypaypal.tumblr.com/
iWonder seems to be from some other planet where iPhones don't have a well documented and very capable dock connector. That said, I see no problem using the headphone jack since a card reader is just a very simple analogue tape player, and using another mechanism would have added to the costs of design and production.
It's a bit disappointing that it doesn't seem to have a chip reader since not much of Europe uses (or accepts) swipe readers any more.

From Rocky: @Lumen. What makes you think 2.3% is the winning rate?
Psychology, sir. The two and the three are closer together, lending greater appeal than two and seven, which are further apart. Also 2.3 percent is phonetically easier to say, plus being one syllable shorter than 2.7 percent, both attributes lending greater appeal to word-of-mouth marketing... the best kind.
Additionally, people want to be with a familiar winner that apppeals to the Genesis of their learning. If people conclude in their mind that "They're number one because they're 2.3 percent," the sequential familiarity of the numbers in that thought will increase the desire to be associated with both the company and product, irrespective of whether the person is presently associated or not. The result of this appeal will increase both customer retention and new customers.

Appeal will start when transction fee is less than .5% up to a maximum of $4 per trans. Pay Pal is plain greedy. Imagine if road tolls were based on the value of the car you drive.

This also strikes me as being a bit old-fashioned. There are far better mobile payment mechanisms appearing now, in particular gocardless.com and Barclays pingit. Both charge much lower rates than paypal (1%), and cut out the paypal 'middle man'. Some limitations at present (you need a smartphone), but they're definitely leading the way.

I have been using PayAnywhere for my business for a while. They have proven to be reliable, as I always receive my funds on time. Their app is very easy to use and had made credit card processing a breeze. I definitely won’t be switching.