In reply to Jeff Schultz.

Yes, Chip and PIN is more secure thank chip and signature but it is less convenient.
This is simply a business where the stakeholders need to evaluate the risk and if they take no risk at all, then no product at all to be launched
Typically if the fraud risk is within a reasonable limit, the system would be willing to accept. The best example is look at magstripe, it is the most basic, stable and easiest technology to be used but it is very much prone to fraud because of static data. The payment association and the banks know that for years but they elect to continue to use it and even promote with new products like in the case of the new solution that Samsung is using (MST). It is a matter of calculating the risk and the willingness to pay the price if they are wrong.
The consumer is protected and has zero liability. From a consumer point of view, losing an account number that belongs to a bank is nothing to worry about, if they are using a non-secure method, the bank will eat it. BUT when it comes to personal information that belong to consumer, then Apple, the payment associations and the banks should pay attention as they do not own this data, they are only entrusted with it. If it stolen or not maintained properly then I think that something will need to be done to correct that.
The important thing over here is that with all of this, it is important not to forget that the tokenization component is a great addition to the mix and that part has not been broken and it is at least a step in the right direction. Kudos to Apple for pushing the industry to that direction, it has been long overdue