Google To Devs: Use Our Payment System Or Be Dropped 305
Meshach writes "Google has been pressuring applications and mobile game developers to use its costlier in-house payment service, Google Wallet for quite some time. Now Google warned several developers in recent months that if they continued to use other payment methods — such as PayPal, Zong and Boku — their apps would be removed from Google Play. The move is seen as a way to cut costs for Google by using their own system."
Where voluntary isn't voluntary. (Score:2, Insightful)
While you're free to make an app with any payment system you want, using anything but Google's own results in you being cut off from nearly all of the Android audience.
If there's a clear example of "force by practicality", here is one front and center.
Re:Where voluntary isn't voluntary. (Score:5, Informative)
False. You're cut off from no-one.
I have yet to see an Android phone (in my country anyway) which doesn't feature a simple checkbox that allows you to install apps that didn't come from the market.
I have seen several Android phones out of the box which feature more than one market installed on the system (though admittedly they somewhat suck).
I have seen several alternative markets (Amazon included here) which are incredibly capable as almost a complete replacement of the Google Market, or Play or whatever they've changed it to.
Admittedly practicality here may be the key argument, but hey you are going to a 3rd party to host, advertise, collect feedback, and manage updates for your apps it's not such a hard rule to abide by.
Also as someone who vehemently hates PayPal, anything that works against it gets the thumbs up from me :-)
Re: (Score:3)
False. You're cut off from no-one.
False, you are cut off from a lot of people.
I have yet to see an Android phone (in my country anyway) which doesn't feature a simple checkbox that allows you to install apps that didn't come from the market.
What percentage of owners have this checked by default in their version of Android?
What percentage of owners won't change it?
That's one group you are cut off from. I suspect it's a quite large group. And you can't do anything about it.
Next, unless you submit to every other market place that someone might want to search for your app and submit it, you are cut off from people who use those secondary markets.
While this one you may be able to do "something" about it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes it does, apparently reading and research aren't your strong suits.
Apple charges 30% for all transaction done via an iphone.
Right now google does not.
Google's payment options (Score:5, Interesting)
For all the good that Google is supposedly trying to do, this begs a question I've been wondering for quite a while.
Why don't they implement a Payment API for developers? People could then use all sorts of services, from PayPal to BitCoin to pay to Google, and be paid by them. Google doesn't implement all the extant services out there because if it implemented a few of them, it would be considered responsible for implementing all of them. But it would make sense to enable developers to do so, and customers to use them.
Or so it seemed. They appear to be more interested in restricting payment types in order to increase their margins. If this is so, it will diminish their user-base as this sort of thing comes out. Granted, they've found innovative economies of scale that have allowed them to do things it would be difficult for others to do as cheaply - which appears to be something they're now leveraging to put unfair leverage on the marketplace. A lack of effective competition becomes a monopolization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's such an odd mentality: Refuse to make it easy for people to pay, in an effort to make their services an impulse aisle.
Do the majority of people really think like this? Money just flies out of their pockets because they habitually purchase things they don't actually want? I can get how that would disturb companies like Google, or site owners for that matter, but only if they fear that what they have isn't really of value. Seems to be costing them sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there's always someone buying it right on the margin of considering it worth it and not worth it. Since they've already chosen to buy it giving them a reason to reconsider means they might change their mind.
it also adds to the effort involved in buying it, which might tip the balance to not worth it.
bull.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's just about getting a cut of the sales.
That's the ONLY thing this is about.
it can be wrapped in 7 layers of bullshit, but that's still what this is about in the end.
sure, it's an attack on paypal, on facebook credits etc. but that's only means to an end which is getting a cut of your purchases.
I'm pretty sure they won't extend this to banking apps though!
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't beg a question at all.
Why is that? We have a theory, and we see them deliberately attempting to emulate Apple's [financial] success by locking in their customer base. We may think we know, but for most people it's still an open question.
They might think differently if they knew of Google's close association with In-Q-Tel, the CIA's corporate investment arm. But they don't, and it's more civilized to ask a question than rush to infer someone's intentional guilt.
Re: (Score:2)
Grammar nuance. It raises a question; it doesn't beg a question. http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
Re: (Score:2)
Grammar nuance. It raises a question; it doesn't beg a question. http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info]
I think begging is a perfectly cromulent way of questioning something ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
to me it seems that "begging the question" can just have another interpretation, which is now used as an alternative to raising the question. :p. wrong or not, i could very we
you're right that it's (currently) not correct, but if enough people think it's logical, and keep on using it, it can very well become a new meaning of "begging the question"
So i'm not so sure on this one, i'm not a native english speaker, so it's hard for me too judge, and while it is a wrong usage, it seems logical from where i stand
Re:Google's payment options (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are we talking about happy feelings or cigarettes?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of gay, use the correct term: faggot.
Or, the more modern form: "Harley Rider"
Re: (Score:2)
It raises the question. To beg a question is a different thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it does, pedants insistence on a poor translation of a confusing latin phrase notwithstanding. Give up.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Thank you. [wikipedia.org]
Whatever works (Score:2)
As much as it'd be good to have the choice, I've had nothing but trouble using non-Google methods. Paypal's been an absolute bust getting an in app purchase working, 4 purchases, not worked once. At least it's tied together and easier (now) to get refunds from Google if there are problems.
How am I supposed to feel about this? (Score:2)
The lack of editorializing has left me confused on how I'm supposed to feel about this story. If only Timothy had posted this story, with some kind of snarky one-liner that clearly told me whether this was a good thing or bad thing!
Seriously, I've written a few posts critical of Google in the past year, as my own patience with them has waned. I've even been called an anti-Google shill. But I can not understand why I'm supposed to care about the minutiae of the inner workings of the behind-the-scenes oper
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If only Timothy had posted this story, with some kind of snarky one-liner that clearly told me whether this was a good thing or bad thing!
Forget about Tim, I'll do it.
It's official. Google is evil now (they're not even going to try to hide it anymore).
It's part of their new branding strategy.
Re: (Score:3)
It's part of their new branding strategy.
I always spin off evil operations as a subsidiary, so the masses will still think I'm the good guy.
Usually an overseas subsidiary, so I can get evil on the cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
But I can not understand why I'm supposed to care about the minutiae of the inner workings of the behind-the-scenes operations of Google Wallet / Google Play.
You're supposed to care because Google wants Google Wallet to become your wallet.
Choice is good (Score:2)
What about for non-US people? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would have loved to have jumped on board with Googles payment system in place of PayPal... but there was a slight problem... it was "US Only". It would seem that if I look at the dominant players in various fields, they are players that embrace the fact that the internet and more importantly, consumers, exist well beyond the US alone.
Soon as Google lets us buy/sell stuff using their PayPal-replacment across the bulk of the world, I'll be interested.
Re: (Score:2)
huh? since when is googles in app billing system US Only? i live in austria and have used it without any problems..
http://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=150324 [google.com] it doesn't really support all countries, but far from "US only"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Argentina is no in the dropdown box when you try to sign up as a seller, so that lists doesn't prove any point. Only US and UK are listed for me (don't ask me why).
Re:What about for non-US people? (Score:5, Insightful)
They will sue you for infringement of 100+ patents if you're successful with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Cut cost? (Score:2)
How does this cut cost? They have work contacting the developers, extra work for processing payments - in every way costs are bound to go up.
This is a move to increase revenue, not to cut cost.
Really, I wonder whether slashdot is going for the most pathetic, misinterpreted, contentious or plain wrong submission, in order to provoke negative responses. A shadow of its former self.
They should do that only when... (Score:5, Informative)
They should do that only when Wallet is available in all countries. Google Wallet is not available in my country, I cannot receive payments so I HAVE TO rely on Paypal for this.
My app is available on Apple's AppStore, Blackberry's AppWorld, Amazon, Intel AppUp and Samsung's store and they all can send payments. It's just Google who doesn't. Even stranger is that they DO make payments to my country in the AdSense program, I just don't understand why they don't do this for apps on the Chrome Webstore or Google Play.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Google is trying to become like Apple margin-wise. But with all the fragmentation and lack of normalization of their platforms, you can expect a lot more decisions like this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is trying to become like Apple margin-wise. But with all the fragmentation and lack of normalization of their platforms, you can expect a lot more decisions like this one.
You DO realize, of course, that Google and Apple both take the same 30% from Devs, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Google always has an objective and a cover. The objective is to often to control the user or the users data. The cover is search, apps, and other useful services. In this case the cover is wallet, the desire is to close the app store in an effort to protect user from malware. If they actual cl
Re: (Score:3)
> I wish people could see Android for what it is, a mediocre piece of shit ran by an arrogant asshole called Andy Rubin.
It may be mediocre, but it is the only reasonably open mobile environment with a decent market penetration. Sure iOS may be better, but it is a walled garden, and an expensive one. And of course there are options with more freedom, but they all seem to be as good as dead.
Android is the mainstream, Android is good enough for almost anything.
Good luck with that developers (Score:4, Funny)
I tried to pay for conference registration using google payment... after going through too many badly designed data collection screens, I eventually reached an error page that claimed I could resolve it by going to the page I was on...
I gave up and sent a check.
Google like Ebay and Paypal? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what? Ebay also did this with Paypal. Before Ebay ruined itself, you could have a choice of payment processor including the one they most liked you to use - but was NOT compulsory to use their payment processor (which was NOT Paypal).
Then one day, Ebay decides to make it compulsory to have Paypay as a payment option. Around about that time I gave two fingers to Ebay. You WILL NOT force me to use a 100% unethical bent company to sell my no longer needed stuff, and have not used Ebay since.
And so Google are going the same way. Oh well.
Mod parent up (Score:2)
I agree 100%
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And so Google are going the same way. Oh well.
They didn't "just decide", it was a requirement for ages.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's own sovereign currency: Quatloos! (Score:2)
Google should just issue its own sovereign currency, called Quatloos, and mandate that as the only currency for any of their or their partners business. Google can not be forced to accept USD as a form of payment, as long as, according to US law "no debt has incurred." Quatloos can be exchanged for USD through licensed Google Quatloo Dealers . . . who are owned by Google. The exchange rate will be set . . . by Google. Google employees will be paid in . . . Google Quatloos.
Students of US history might r
And Bill Gates is more and more a hero (Score:5, Interesting)
The Bill Gates/MS icon on Slashdot (is/was) that of a borg version of the Dorky One... the idea being that MS wanted to assimilate you into the collective. Turns out it was a hippy collective indeed with about as many rules as Fight Club with no enforcement.
It has often been remarked that MS dominance was obtained not so much through the success of MS but through the failure of everyone else. Read Apple, IBM and the various home computer makers whose names are lost in the mists of time only remembered by the senile elders.
And through their failure, we gained the Wintel platform which now turns out to have been insanely open. Imagine MS telling Windows developers how to collect payment, if at all. Does MS tell Blizzard how to collect its pound of flesh of the enslaved? How shareware should be payed for?
Does MS dictate which version of MS you should run on Dell hardware? Does Dell stop you from upgrading the OS?
It is not as if MS never tried but it failed so often nobody took them to serious and so the evil that might have happened, never happened. It is like a brutal dictator whose brutality ends up as a kind of cute outburst with throwing chairs instead of the millions dead with efficient dictators. A dictator who fails at being terrible sounds a lot better then a dictator who succeeds... and Apple and Google are certainly trying hard enough.
It is kinda sad that companies keep trying to get total control when the PC did so well without it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And through their failure, we gained the Wintel platform which now turns out to have been insanely open.
You don't seem to have a clue what an "open" platform is. Windows is *definitely* not an open platform. On an open platform the following scenario wouldn't happen:
1. You look up in Microsoft documentation for the best way to import data directly from a document into SQL Server 2005. It says to use ADO.NET.
2. You try using ADO.NET and get an obscure error.
3. You search for a couple hours on the internet and find out that the error means ADO.NET is not installed.
4. You go to try and install ADO.NET, only to f
I can see upsides to this (Score:4, Interesting)
For one, any in-app purchases made will be tied to your account now. I've seen people lose out on DLC-type purchases they'd made because they switched to a new phone, and the developer of the program used a different payment service. Hopefully this will keep that from happening in the future.
Don't be evil (Score:2)
... Be greedy!
Anti Trust Suit (Score:5, Insightful)
It's OK (Score:2)
They'll be dropped in an open way.
Don't be e... (Score:2)
Google is EVIL! (Score:2)
http://i.imgur.com/5to2k.jpg [imgur.com]
Some Clarifications (Score:5, Insightful)
According to this article: http://www.i-programmer.info/news/81-web-general/3895-google-insists-on-google-wallet.html [i-programmer.info]
1. Developers outside the US are exempted
2. Google Wallet charges a float 5%, Paypal charges $0.30 + 2.9%. Google Wallet is only more expensive if your app costs > $14.28. Considering the prices of most Android apps, I'd say calling Google Wallet "costlier" is a downright lie.
Where are the Jobs, Page, & Brin Borg icons? (Score:2)
Seriously, these guys are making Microsoft look... well, soft.
Is anyone actually affected by this? (Score:2)
I have bought about 20 or 30 apps for android over the years as I hate losing some screen space to the adverts. I cannot think of a single one that did not use Google Wallet to process my payment.
I would love to know what percentage of android app developers use other methods to take payments, if it is less than about 5% than I am not in the least bit surprised about this.
Makes users more valuable? (Score:2)
From TFA: "Although this move by Google might seem high-handed, it reduces the friction for purchases inside Android apps and therefore makes users more valuable,"
Makes users more valuable? In English please?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If Google says it's the right way to go, it's gotta be the best.
Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:5, Insightful)
I've used both Google Wallet and I've used PayPal
And I've used other online payment services
I find Google Wallet a little bit more "friendly" to the user. PayPal, which I've used for years and years, has become more and more, how should I say - arrogant
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I find Google Wallet a little bit more "friendly" to the user. PayPal, which I've used for years and years, has become more and more, how should I say - arrogant
Yes--arrogant in exactly the same way as Google is being right now.
Google is evil.
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:5, Informative)
I find Google Wallet a little bit more "friendly" to the user. PayPal, which I've used for years and years, has become more and more, how should I say - arrogant
Yes--arrogant in exactly the same way as Google is being right now
First of all, let me state it here that I do not work for Google
In the case that we are talking about, Google is basically telling the devs that if they want to remain listed on Google Play they should at least accept Google Wallet as one of the payment options
While I do find it kinda arrogant, I do understand where Google is coming from - after all, Google, being the host, ought to have a chance to get something out of hosting all those apps
In other words, Google's arrogance is still within the acceptable range
On the other hand, PayPal has, on more than one occasion, being extremely arrogant, to the extent to being, shall I say, rude
There have been cases where PayPal shuts down accounts of entities that they do not agree with
If those entities engaged in illegal activities, such as supporting terrorist organizations, or selling cocaine to the minor, then I would have no qualm for PayPal shutting down their accounts
But there are other cases where PayPal shutting down the accounts belong to groups which do not see eye to eye with the government of America - such as WikiLeaks
I am not saying that WikiLeaks is an angle or something - but PayPal's shut down of WikiLeaks account mean that they are not allowing PayPal users like me to contribute ***OUR OWN MONEY*** to organizations that we think are doing a good job
That, my friend, is TRUE arrogance
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:5, Interesting)
That isn't' what the article is saying. According to the TFA, they are banning accounts which refuse to use wallet as it's billing option. They are not requiring you to list it as an option, but rather requiring you to use it as well or face suspension.
From TFA:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry. but this is the internet. If there is just 1 thing we should have learned is that you can't trust single sources.
I would like to see that email telling them to ""They told people that if they used other payment services they would be breaking the terms of use,""
So, grain of salt.
Oh wait, here is some clarification:
http://venturebeat.com/2012/03/09/google-wallet-android-in-app-payments/ [venturebeat.com]
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:5, Insightful)
PayPal shut down an account of someone collecting donations from the Something Awful forums for the New Orleans flood victims. The result wasn't a simple misunderstanding. It was weeks of fight and frustrations which ended up with all money being refunded and none forwarded to the charity.
To say PayPal is "rude" is to say someone who walks in and for no reason punches your kid is "rude". PayPal in my personal opinion ranks as one of the worst organisations on the planet.
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:5, Insightful)
But increasingly, they are closing the openness.
I'm not really sure what you're talking about. The only thing that springs to mind is that they didn't immediately release the source for Ice Cream Sandwich, and then everybody was harping about how Android was going to be closed from now on... even though Google said they would release it when it was finished... and then they did release it, and most of those people shut up because they were wrong.
Paypal is paypal. We know what they are and what drives their motives.
Yeah, um... misanthropy?
It's pretty obvious why Google is doing this. Payment services have strong network effects. If all the users have Paypal accounts, all the sellers will accept Paypal. If the sellers only accept Paypal, new users will only sign up for Paypal accounts. Which allows Paypal to steal your money and kill your dog while making you thank them for it.
The only way to unseat them is for a big player (like Google) to say enough is enough and discontinue doing business with a company with such abusive practices. And of course, then they need an alternative to replace it with, so they created one.
I mean what's the worst that could happen, Google Wallet starts behaving like Paypal? Seems unlikely. And even then, how is that any worse than the status quo?
Re: (Score:3)
The only way to unseat them is for a big player (like Google) to say enough is enough and discontinue doing business with a company with such abusive practices. And of course, then they need an alternative to replace it with, so they created one.
Umm ... Google is doing this for profit. Not to unseat PayPal because they somehow deserve a comeuppance, but because truckloads of money flow through this system. There's no underlying noble effort to unseat the bad guys, there's no punishment being meted out for abusing the developers in Google Marketplace.
I'm sure Google likes it when people rationalize their behavior into somehow "not doing evil," because that makes them seem like they have the high ground, but this is a completely amoral decision. I
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure Google likes it when people rationalize their behavior into somehow "not doing evil," because that makes them seem like they have the high ground, but this is a completely amoral decision. It's driven by profit, profit, and more profit.
Because profit is bad, am I right? Anyone who manages to do something beneficial to humanity, like unseating the abusive and widely-loathed Paypal, must automatically be an evildoer as soon as they find a way to turn a profit doing it?
You understand that what you're engaging in is the corollary to corporate CEOs refusing to consider any course of action unless it converts the greatest volume of live baby kittens into refined, processed baby kitten apparel. By ascribing ulterior motives to any course of acti
Re: (Score:3)
What I'm saying is that Google is only doing (2) . They don't give a crap about (1). If you think it's about (1), they may be happy because you like them better, but it's not true and has nothing to do with (1). They don't care if they're refining kittens into sawdust paste, or saving cute baby chipmunks from a big scary leaf. They're only skimming vigorish off of transactions and sticking it in their banks, and nothing else.
I certainly didn't say Google was being evil, or that they were or were not doi
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:4, Interesting)
PayPal is in the middle of their third class-action lawsuit for making it easy to start using their service, then freezing your account, demanding all sorts of identifying info they'd never said up-front they'd need (a utility bill that "must be in your name"? I don't get one.) and demanding that you justify to them all the transactions you've been involved with. Meanwhile, they're earning interest off of all the funds that have been frozen.
A California court ruled ages ago that they cannot include the term in their EULA stipulating that customers agree not to have access to a real court, and must instead seek resolution through an internal Dispute Resolution Team comprised of PayPal's employees, whose word is "final". The term remains in their EULA despite the court decision that it would mislead customers into thinking they didn't have access to a real court anymore.
Google has major connections with In-Q-Tel, the CIA's corporate investment arm. When the CIA wants to market technologies it has developed with taxpayer money, it puts them on the private market through In-Q-Tel. The CIA's Keyhole technology became known to us as... Google Earth. Facebook also has serious In-Q-Tel connections. There appears to be a lot of these companies working with the Information Awareness Office, who openly states its efforts to compile online information online on citizens in a centralized government database. Note that Google has placed itself as the free information service leader. Put your contacts list, your spreadsheets, and anything else you've got on Google's various free services. How convenient.
Google's "Don't be evil." slogan hearkens back to the Bohemian Grove's ("Weaving spiders come not here") as well as a rich, ancient tradition of invoking evil and other dark, malevolent symbols by attaching the concept of "not" to them and calling it good. This has been done for centuries in magickal lore and storytelling, using charms against various nasty things as a means of invoking that specific thing in a socially-acceptable way. Magickally, you call upon something by invoking the concept - and specifying "not [this]" is as much an invocation as saying "[this]". Among those who use this convention, it becomes a subtle form of calling card and social identifier to one another. It's been used for centuries.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This concept is also used in hypnosis. It's called embedded commands. For example:
When you are ready, you can relax fully now that you know it is time to go deeper inside.
Embedded commands in that statement:
you are ready, relax fully now, go deeper inside
It is based on the knowledge that there is a vast difference between how we interpret things consciously and unconsciously. Think about the difference between saying "Don't be evil (embedded command: be evil) and "Always be nice". The former focuses you
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get why you're somehow trying to pass off this fact as a negative, the OTS - CIA's technical division, known by a number of other initialisms in the past, and their Sciences and technology division have been a driving force in the field of electronics and communications for a long, long time.
No argument on that point, and there have been phenomenal boons from it. But it's usurpation.
Consider: It's been a taxpayer-funded driving force. The industry, in other words, has been getting the leavings of publicly-funded covert research. Industry takes whatever's left over.
Market demand is supposed to drive industry. What people actually want, rather than what's been vacuumed out of their back pockets by their government, and what their government then decides it feels inclined to declassify.
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:4, Informative)
Yet, regrettably, when trying to sign up as a seller on google wallet, only "US" and "UK" are listed for me for some reason.
I live in Argentina, so GW is a no-go for me.
Re:Google Wallet vs PayPal (Score:4, Informative)
I don't like the new "terms of use" that google recently slapped on its wallet. Among other things, it gives them free permission to run credit checks on you whenever they please.
I don't use it for that reason.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.
With the subject "Open" no less. Honestly, your post contributed absolutely nothing of value to the conversation, and one can only surmise that you're trolling for points for mods who are suffering from chronic sleep deprivation. I sincerely hope any mods viewing this will mod the OP into oblivion.
Re:Open (Score:5, Informative)
Android is open. Google Play (formerly Android Market) isn't, and never was. But no one is forced to use their market to provide and install apps.
Re:Open (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the market you use has anything to do with whether Android is open or not, as long as you're not locked to that market. I mean, is Debian not open because I can't force them to put applications that don't comply with the DFSG on the main repository?
Re: (Score:2)
No. You can use the openness and still use non-open components. You can use cyanogenmod and still use Android Market. You can use other appstores and use Market. You can install apps directly from a file.
On a similar note, Linux is open even though you can install closed, Binary Blob drivers.
Re: (Score:2)
No. You can use the openness and still use non-open components. You can use cyanogenmod and still use Android Market. You can use other appstores and use Market. You can install apps directly from a file. On a similar note, Linux is open even though you can install closed, Binary Blob drivers.
So, by that analysis, OS X was "open" so long as Apple published the Source to Darwin. (Which only stopped after the move to Intel).
Boy, do a LOT of Slashdotters have about 7 years worth of Apple Hater posts to take back...
CAPTCHA: Dispu
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing will. This has been the case forever it seems.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/8/2855744/google-play-in-app-payments-wallet [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The alternative was already there.
If the alternative were better, you'd have already known this.
Re: (Score:2)
If something is better, eventually you would already know this.
People in Marketing can explain this better then me.
Re:Open (Score:4, Informative)
The main reason I use Paypal , is because it that allows bank transfers. I don't have a credit card.
All the other systems I've seen ( including Google Wallet from what I've seen ) require a credit card.
Re:Open (Score:5, Informative)
You gave these idiots access to your bank account?
Both Visa and MasterCard offer debit cards linked to your bank account. They act like credit cards and they usually have a clearing time just like credit cards allowing you some leeway to complain to your bank if a transaction doesn't go your way. I'm not sure what it's like where you live but the banks in Australia offer these free (free as in no yearly cost, no interest, no transaction fee etc) to pretty much any customer with an account that allows debit transactions. Actually I don't think I've seen a debit card in the last few years that hasn't had the Visa or MasterCard logo on it.
I highly suggest you investigate this possible option. In Australia our banks are pretty good with dispute resolution, in fact in my experience they have been incredibly painless even when a card is stolen. But if you give someone debit access to your account you have pretty much no recourse with the bank.
Secondary checking, no overdraft (Score:3)
I worry less about PayPal screwing me over than I do about someone hijacking my credentials somewhere even though I'm pretty cautious about them.
In my case, if my account is hacked (or PayPal decides to freeze it, etc.) then I'm without access to the US$4-5
Re: (Score:2)
No, the concept doesn't exist in every country actually.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah? Well I don't have a computer!
Re:Not everyone can use it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies, I forgot about the "doesn't work in Poland" part. It does seem silly to force them to switch to a payment system that they can't use, but I still doubt it would be considered ant-competitive. It's basically telling developers from some countries that we don't want or need your software in our store. Common, and perhaps stupid, but not anti-competitive.
Mod up (Score:2)
Insightful
All the market is waiting for right now is a company to come along with something better than Android (which isn't hard), and they will sweep up the "open" phone segment.
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful
All the market is waiting for right now is a company to come along with something better than Android (which isn't hard), and they will sweep up the "open" phone segment.
Wait no more! It's called iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
What stunts? They provide you with a place to host your apps and communicate with your audience. All they ask is that you don't cut them out of the loop if you DO use their market that, by the way, no one forces you to.
True that there are countries that can't use it yet, and that is said, but I was under the impression this was for those trying to avoid paying google its fair share.
Here's what (Score:2)
Like our politicians with the Constitution, they wiped their asses with it when the scent of money wafted through.
Re: (Score:2)
Like our politicians with the Constitution, they wiped their asses with it when the scent of money wafted through.
Obligatory Robert Schmeigel Constitution Gone Mad [milkandcookies.com] Reference.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like it would violate antitrust tying [answers.com] laws.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds like it would violate antitrust tying [answers.com] laws.
Since you Fandroids are always pointing out that no one HAS to use the Google Marketplace/Play, I think that neatly defeats your "tying" argument.
Idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
A thinking person would dispute the charges with the CC company.