Google Just Launched Another Answer To Apple Pay (cnbc.com) 138
Google launched its latest answer to Apple Pay on Tuesday. It's called Google Pay and replaces Android Pay, a previous solution that let Android users buy goods with their smartphones. From a report: It's also Google's answer to Apple Pay and Apple Pay Cash. Google Pay follows several failed attempts by Google to launch a widespread payment platform. The company launched Google Wallet several years ago before folding it and launching Android Pay. Google Pay combines features from both, including the ability to pay at checkout counters with a smartphone, and even the option to scan into transit systems in cities such as Kiev, London and Portland, initially.
Re: (Score:2)
The banks will find ways to charge vendors and customer fees anyways. At least we have payment options (witch so far seem much more secure then the alternatives)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure Trump has something to do with this. (MMU!)
Re: (Score:2)
What great options they are, too /sarcasm
Everyone wants microservices payments to be the next get-rich-quick scheme. So long as they can drain your account and charge you a micro-fee, they're happy.
We're ever-so-trained to let organizations do that micro-skim thing. Look at your phone bill for any questions.
And to trust google to both keep things secure, and not push this service from a cliff as so many failed google programs is lunacy.
Get out of banks, get into an S&L or better still, a credit union. B
Re: (Score:3)
So you think adding a middle man such as Apple or Google doesn't increase fees for the users in the end?
What do we say again, I have a bridge to sell you?
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno....
I still prefer, as much as possible, to use good, old fashioned analog cash for most of my transactions, at least the local ones.
And a simple regular CC i use for online stuff....I don't see the need for this Apple/Google Pay stuff.
I can't imagine wanting to have my financial stuff on my phone which can be stolen and then me left in the lurch if that's my only method of paying shit.
Plus, I still enjoy
Re: (Score:2)
Cash is digital.
Big reason to use Apple Pay is for online (Score:2)
I still prefer, as much as possible, to use good, old fashioned analog cash for most of my transactions, at least the local ones.
I do still for a lot of small local transactions, but especially tips - that way the servers get to choose how much to report they earn.
And a simple regular CC i use for online stuff....I don't see the need for this Apple/Google Pay stuff.
That is where you are really going wrong. Online is where ApplePay really shines, because it's giving the company a token that cannot be used f
Re: (Score:2)
If you are paying online with a CC the number is going to be hacked eventually; sure you can get the charges reversed but it is a pain to have to get a new number and deal with the annoyance of having to get a new card.
There are credit cards (for example from Citibank) who let you generate an unique new number, good for a single transaction (and up to a certain limit you can also set). That's what I use for online purchases, if I haven't dealt with the seller before.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are also good, but sadly it seems like the set of cards that let you generate numbers and the set of cards with good rewards does not have a large overlap. ApplePay is also more convenient than having to generate a single use number - but on the gripping hand, you can use that single use CC number anywhere and not everyone supports ApplePay on the web (though it's spreading well).
Amazon Way also works, which a number of online vendors support - but then of course you have to trust Amazon enough to le
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting...
I"ve never seen a website that took Apple Pay online?
Maybe its there and I've not noticed it, but I don't recall seeing that as an option, usually just CC, and sometimes PayPall and Amazon Pay I'm seeing commonly online.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish they don't, because they charge a fee to the banks, and banks end-up passing that fee to the consumers and/or merchants (which pass them to consumers) one way or another.
I also wish banks drop support for Apple Pay for the same reason.
Yeah, Apple is REALLY putting the screws to the banks!
0.15 percent. Wooo....
The banks are REALLY hurtin' now!
https://www.macrumors.com/2014... [macrumors.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They start with 0.15%, but they will raise fees if they manage to get everyone on board with their payment system.
Also, people had the option to save 0.15% by not using Apple Pay, nobody would be using it. Especially not for big purchases.
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it. Say you're putting a $10,000 downpayment on a car. Suppose you could use Apple Pay (I don't think you can) or you can save 0.15% and pay cash.
That Apple Pay transaction costs you $15. It saves you going to a bank, getting a cashier's cheque, then going to the dealer with $10,000 cash in your pocket.
I'd pay it, no problem. The 2% or so that comes with a credit card transaction is more of an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
The 2% or so that comes with a credit card transaction is more of an issue.
Apple is going for it. 0.15% is the beginning. As long as more banks and users join Apple Pay, they'll be in a position to raise that fee.
The bank will have two options (absorbing the hit isn't one): increase the fee from 2 to 3 or 4%, or reduce the rewards and benefits associated to credit cards.
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, I hope they'll go for reducing the rewards and benefits. Those programs should be flat out illegal.
They won't of course. But then, it's really not as much of a slippery slope as you seem to think. The fees get too high, and people switch to some new system. At least, they do here, but YMMV.
To me, Apple provides a service that is well worth 0.15%. The bank is pushing it pretty hard with their 2% + 20% interest + abusive tactics to get people into permadebt. I'm kind of curious though... Apple edged
Re: (Score:3)
They start with 0.15%, but they will raise fees if they manage to get everyone on board with their payment system.
Also, people had the option to save 0.15% by not using Apple Pay, nobody would be using it. Especially not for big purchases.
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees. And besides, NO ONE will EVER get EVERYONE on board with their payment system; so no worries there!
The fee is not charged to the Merchant nor the Customer. It is charged to the Bank.
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
If you're doing the math, I'm worried.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you use different math than the rest of us? That should worry you more than what the GP does.
Re: (Score:2)
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
If you're doing the math, I'm worried.
I admittedly REALLY suck at math.
But isn't 0.15% a "multiplier" of .0015?
If so, 1000 * .0015 = 1.5
Or, IOW, $1.50
The All-Knowing Google seems to agree:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
And besides, NO ONE will EVER get EVERYONE on board with their payment system; so no worries there!
It doesn't matter. If gets to the scale of Visa or Mastercard, they will have won. Ever wondered why credit card companies charge 3% fee?
The fee is not charged to the Merchant nor the Customer. It is charged to the Bank.
Yeah, as I said, the bank will pass the fee, one way or another. You think they will just happily forfeit part of their profit?
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
Then let the user choose. No need to force the merchants into not adding an extra fee for credit cards/Apple Pay. And see if it becomes popular.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
There's that "speculating" word again...
And besides, NO ONE will EVER get EVERYONE on board with their payment system; so no worries there!
It doesn't matter. If gets to the scale of Visa or Mastercard, they will have won. Ever wondered why credit card companies charge 3% fee?
And how much howling do you think the BANKS (who are the ones getting charged, NOT YOU) would do if Apple even approached 1%?
The fee is not charged to the Merchant nor the Customer. It is charged to the Bank.
Yeah, as I said, the bank will pass the fee, one way or another. You think they will just happily forfeit part of their profit?
That much? Yes. Yes I do. We're talking about a Bank charging more to every customer because the price they pay for toilet paper went up 50 cents per roll. Not EVERY cost gets directly (or even indirectly) "passed-on".
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
Then let the user choose. No need to force the merchants into not adding an extra fee for credit cards/Apple Pay. And see if it becomes popular.
WTF, over? The MERCHANTS aren't charged ANYTHING. Neither is the CUSTOMER. Only the BANK gets hit for 0.15%. How many times do I
Re: (Score:2)
The MERCHANTS aren't charged ANYTHING. Neither is the CUSTOMER. Only the BANK gets hit for 0.15%. How many times do I have to explain that?
To whom does the BANK pass on this hit?
Re: (Score:2)
The MERCHANTS aren't charged ANYTHING. Neither is the CUSTOMER. Only the BANK gets hit for 0.15%. How many times do I have to explain that?
To whom does the BANK pass on this hit?
No one. No more than they pass-on the "hit" when someone leaves their office lights on over the weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of choice is that the merchant isn't allowed by the credit card to charge more to users of credits cards (including Apple Pay).
The lack of choice is also the bank isn't allowed by Apple to charge more to merchants when Apple Pay is used.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of choice is that the merchant isn't allowed by the credit card to charge more to users of credits cards (including Apple Pay).
The lack of choice is also the bank isn't allowed by Apple to charge more to merchants when Apple Pay is used.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The lack of choice is that the merchant isn't allowed by the credit card to charge more to users of credits cards (including Apple Pay).
To whom does the merchant pass on the cost of handling cash?
Re: (Score:2)
The consumers. But there is an other option, far cheaper. Debit. It's the preferred option for merchants since it's quick and there is no 3% fee.
Card not present (Score:2)
EFTPOS (aka Debit) works when the card is present. But I haven't seen any application of EFTPOS for card not present transactions, such as buying things online. What am I missing?
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the conversation, we were talking about cash. You can't use cash online either.
Re: (Score:2)
EFTPOS (aka Debit) works when the card is present. But I haven't seen any application of EFTPOS for card not present transactions, such as buying things online. What am I missing?
Actually, Apple Pay does that.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Apple Pay works for CNP purchases, for what fraction of the online shopping user base is it practical to buy a Mac, iPhone, or iPad just to continue to transact online, in addition to the non-Apple desktop, laptop, tablet, or pocket computer you already own? Or has Apple announced plans to expand Apple Pay to competitors' operating systems?
Re: (Score:2)
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
There's that "speculating" word again...
You clearly don't get sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
There's that "speculating" word again...
You clearly don't get sarcasm.
Yes I do. I just didn't detect any.
Re: (Score:2)
They start with 0.15%, but they will raise fees if they manage to get everyone on board with their payment system.
Also, people had the option to save 0.15% by not using Apple Pay, nobody would be using it. Especially not for big purchases.
People potentially have the option to save 3% by paying cash and not using a credit card. People don't. Credit cards give you 1% of it back, so it's really 2% net and often get longer warranties, fraud protection and 30 days float.
I use credit card for everything because it's easier to track stuff and I hate change. Plus it's much faster for merchants, or was before the stupid chip cards slowed everything down again. Still faster than cash and checks.
Re: (Score:2)
People potentially have the option to save 3% by paying cash and not using a credit card. People don't.
People don't have that option. Merchants are not allowed to charge more for using credit cards in many countries.
So the option is to pay cash, or pay the exact same price using a credit card, plus earn rewards.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's very easy to get 2% back on all purchases (I do).
Also, I'm not sure if this is a federal law or state law, but at least in some parts of the USA (unless it's federal), generally merchants can't charge a fee for using a credit card. They CAN give a cash discount, but the only place I ever saw that routinely used was gas stations, and even then, if I counted the cash back I would get, I still paid the same price the vast vast vast vast majority of the time (maybe a handful of times I paid a ce
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, of course, for some things like that, especially involving the government, are the exceptions. Note I did say "merchants".
You wouldn't want the government taking in less tax money (because of the credit card fees(*))?
(*) In my original message, I didn't specifically mention that, but yes I realize merchants (and thus consumers) "pay" for the credit cards.. But at each individual purchase, my price is the same (with the gas exception), so as a good consumer, it's cheaper/more convenient to ME to
Re: (Score:1)
And supposedly because of the improved security, this can result in lower fees to the merchant for those who use Apple Pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see the merchants claiming they want more Apple Pay, and stop using other payment methods? No? Then it's probably because the merchants don't think it's worth it.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you see the merchants claiming they want more Apple Pay, and stop using other payment methods? No? Then it's probably because the merchants don't think it's worth it.
The Merchant hardly has anything at all to do with it. To them, it's just another cashless transaction. In fact, most Merchants (and even vending machines) that have the capability for NFC payments accept Apple Pay whether they advertise it or not.
Re: (Score:1)
It depends whether it is a net gain for the banks. Credit card fraud costs the banks some amount of money and Apple/Google Pay reduce this fraud. Does it reduce it enough? Only they really know.
Re: (Score:2)
Banks profit from fraud. Much of it goes unreported, and when it is reported they usually try to pass the cost off to the merchant.
Re: (Score:1)
And how is that different than the Debit and Visa networks? Thats how merchant services works.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is that different than the Debit and Visa networks? Thats how merchant services works.
You typically tie a credit card to your Android Pay account (not sure how it works with Apple), so now Android AND Visa/Mastercard/Discover/etc take a cut.
Personally, I like the convenience and it does seem more secure than even the chip-on-the-credit-card scheme.
Still trying to Monetize it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
Yes, Apple does get a REALLY small transaction-fee; but otherwise, is COMPLETELY blind to the transaction itself.
I think the transaction fees as simply aggregated into a lump-sum payment to Apple, with absolutely NO per-transaction information divulged to them.
Until Google will accept that model (which I am SURE they will never do), they can go pound sand.
Re: (Score:2)
> Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
Maybe, but they are also trying to get a proper mobile payment platform for Android off the ground.
Android had the host based card emulation API for a long time - allowing any bank to write an app with NFC functionality. Very few banks did so.
Now that Google has done the work, they want some reward for it. Maybe 0.15% is a bit much, maybe 0.1% or 0.01% would be better, but at
Re: (Score:2)
> Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
Maybe, but they are also trying to get a proper mobile payment platform for Android off the ground.
Android had the host based card emulation API for a long time - allowing any bank to write an app with NFC functionality. Very few banks did so.
Now that Google has done the work, they want some reward for it. Maybe 0.15% is a bit much, maybe 0.1% or 0.01% would be better, but at least the principle is sound.
0.15% is what Apple Pay charges the BANK. But then again, they don't insinuate themselves into every transaction, nor do they get any data about the transaction itself.
Seems to me that Google should PAY the USER (Customer) for the datamining, and for getting in the middle of a financial transaction. After all, that's one of the ways that financial institutions make money. It's called "Overnight Loans", and it explains why a whole BUNCH of financial transactions take DAYS to "process", when in reality, NOTHI
Re:Still trying to Monetize it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a hardware company. Google is an advertising company. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one is by default more trustworthy of holding onto data.
I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
Re: (Score:2)
>I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference, but here are a few things that may point towards this conclusion:
- Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you. Google: makes money from selling your information to ad companies; grabbing as much of your data as they can is the core of the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference,
There is no difference; both are publicly traded corporations, beholden to their shareholders.
Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you.
If they can make money on you again, why wouldn't they? If they didn't want people's personal data, why do they keep creating systems to hold people's data? It's called iCloud now, and it parses your email, knows who your friends are, knows what you're listening to, what you're taking pictures of... sure, it's opt-in. But it's still a way to snoop on users.
- Apple: blocks trackers from their browser. Google: blocks other companies' ads in their browser, while expanding their tracking of you.
That doesn't mean Apple isn't tracking any of your activity
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the advertising company.
For the hardware company your data is secondary to their core business. They have no real incentive to protect it.
For the advertising company your data is like the recipe to Classic Coke. Something to be used to make money but something to never be shared with anyway.
Personally I trust Google a shitload more with my data than most other companies out there. They also have a long standing history of not being hacked, not sharing the data, not doing dodgy things with user informat
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I trust Google a shitload more with my data than most other companies out there. They also have a long standing history of not being hacked, not sharing the data, not doing dodgy things with user information etc. etc.
Yeah, that's why people like you blame The Fappening on Apple, when most accounts hacked there were from Google. Because you actually have a clue about security. NOT.
The only reason why you get that impression is because Google the data sharing company don't share that information with Google the search engine.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a hardware company. Google is an advertising company. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one is by default more trustworthy of holding onto data.
Apple is a marketing company, they don't produce hardware. Samsung, TSCM and Foxconn produce hardware. Apple owns a brand.
Too bad they just can't work together. (Score:3, Interesting)
Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User? Why do stores need to support each device separately?
While I ask the question, the answer is relatively simple. Each company wants to be the leader in the area, and wants their technology to win, so they don't need to pay royalties to the other.
Sometimes competition is good, other times it steps on each other and creates problems for the consumers that most just don't want to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User? Why do stores need to support each device separately?
While I ask the question, the answer is relatively simple. Each company wants to be the leader in the area, and wants their technology to win, so they don't need to pay royalties to the other.
Sometimes competition is good, other times it steps on each other and creates problems for the consumers that most just don't want to deal with.
Subtitled: "Whatever happened to Quadraphonic Records?"
Re: (Score:3)
Subtitled: "Whatever happened to Quadraphonic Records?"
Obscure. You probably know what bakelite is, too.
Yes. Yes, I do.
Is knowledge a bad thing around here now?
Re: (Score:2)
No, However giving a trivia answer without explanation supports little to adding knowledge to the group.
Re: (Score:2)
No, However giving a trivia answer without explanation supports little to adding knowledge to the group.
Neither does telling someone that they should die horribly in a fire. But I've had those insults hurled at me on this site, JUST for supporting Apple, more times than I care to remember.
And it wasn't a "Trivia Answer". Anyone older than about 45 or so is likely to remember that "Standards War". Kind of like the "DVD-HD" vs. "BluRay" Standards War, or of course, the VHS vs. Betamax Standards war. Going back a ways (even earlier than me), there was the FM-Stereo Standards War (the shitty Standard won).
Anyone
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User? Why do stores need to support each device separately?
Why can't it work world-wide either? Android Pay works fine for me in some parts of Europe, but not in Japan even though there are Android Pay logos on the terminals. It doesn't even get rejected, the phone just doesn't react.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do stores need to support each device separately?
It was my understanding that Apple Pay is pretty much EMV over NFC and if the stores' reader supports both of those technologies, then Apply Pay will "just work". Does the Google/Android Pay stuff not work this way? If I recall when Apple Pay went live some stores (ie, CVS) were automatically accepting it but then went and manually disabled support (because they were onboard with that failed CurrentC).
As for Apple Pay Cash and Google's equivalent, yeah it would be nice if there was a standard that could b
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the technology is the same, but stores can decide not to support certain cards. Both Apply Pay and Google Pay are clearly recognisable.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User?
Because that would require the Android device receiving the payment to be a payment card acceptance device, with a contract with a merchant acquiring bank. There are both technical and contractual limitations in the NFC/EMV world that make this difficult. Same story if you wanted to do this with the phones reversed, or with two Apple devices or two Android devices.
Why do stores need to support each device separately?
They don't. Both systems use small variants of the standard protocols, and both are well-supported by all major card acceptance devices. If store
The whole reason I have an Android phone... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to do that with an I-phone... It just keeps complaining about it but you can ignore it...
Re: (Score:2)
...is that you never need to associate a bank account or credit card with it.
You don't have to do that with an iPhone, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Keep the spin out (Score:2)
Slashdot, the Verge, and other Apple-fan sites can only view everything through their Apple lens. It is tiresome... just report on the product (it is supposed to be "News for Nerds" after all), ad keep your pre-digested spin to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot, the Verge, and other Apple-fan sites can only view everything through their Apple lens. It is tiresome... just report on the product (it is supposed to be "News for Nerds" after all), ad keep your pre-digested spin to yourself.
The same might be said of you, too...
Love it (Score:2, Insightful)
This is what? The 5th attempt from Google on the digital payment market?
I love it because apparently Google's strategy on a whole lot of things (messaging for instance) is to keep changing it and promptly abandoning it afterwards to keep the market and potential costumers confused, so that no one knows what to use anymore.
I have something installed called Hands Free! Can I pay with that?
https://www.theverge.com/2017/... [theverge.com]
Oh no, this one was discontinued. Oh, can I pay with Wallet then?
That one was merged with
Re: (Score:3)
BTW, there's probably going to be another consolidation transition in the future. Their online shopping/payment system is under Google Express. These probably started as different projects ("pay for stuff online" ve
Re: (Score:2)
This is what? The 5th attempt from Google on the digital payment market?
Not really. There's really only been one attempt, that has been rebranded twice (Google Wallet -> Android Pay -> Google Pay) and changed the underlying technology twice -- the first time because they were using an embedded secure element which the carriers wanted to control, and the second time because network tokenization was finally ready (Apple waited until it was before launching).
However, there is a lot of confusion because Google Wallet included a bunch of other stuff under the same name, and
Copying Apple for 3+ years (Score:2, Insightful)
We are trying desperately to copy Apple for 3+ years and now we have mastered it. Now you can pay with Google Pay with as much ease as Apple Pay. You also get the benefit that we will associate your payment with your gmail, hangout chat messages, location, search, android phone unique id and others. Eventually, we will be able to create your clone who knows more about you than you and will pass the remote identity test better than you can. Good luck if ever our data is compromised either by internal employe
Re: (Score:2)
I was using Google (or Android, or whatever it was called at the time) before Apple Pay was introduced. I been using it since through its various incarnations. It's always been easy - sure the underlying transaction mechanisms have changed - but it's been reasonably transparent to me.
Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny, but Google's been doing the payment thing far longer than Apple - Google Wallet's been around since Android's been around and Google's been doing NFC payments before NFC hit the iPhone (at least for years before).
The only thing is, Apple Pay is based on standards - EMV. It's really at the very bottom an implementation (ignoring extra Apple pay frilly things for now). That's why It Just Worked at a lot of merchants - if they supported tap (NFC), they implicitly supported Apple Pay as well. The only hard part was getting banks enrolled, but that was more of an Apple and bank thing.
Google Wallet was based on a debit card - you paid, Google was told about the transaction and Google then charged you. This double-billing meant it was easy to get funding sources (Google even ate the transaction fees), but it required retailer support.
Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
The only thing that's going wierdly is all the frilly stuff, like Apple pay being used to outdo paypal by offering person-to-person funding transfers as well. Those things aren't likely to take off.
Re: (Score:2)
Google Wallet was based on a debit card - you paid, Google was told about the transaction and Google then charged you. This double-billing meant it was easy to get funding sources (Google even ate the transaction fees), but it required retailer support.
Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
Google didn't want to insert themselves; it was the only technically feasible option at the time that wasn't impossible to scale.
The debit card thing was the second implementation of Google Wallet, not the first. Being involved in every transaction that way cost Google money, because they were doing a "card present" (low fee) transaction with the merchant and a "card not present" (high fee) transaction with the backing credit card. So on every transaction Google collected a small fee from the merchant and
Re: (Score:2)
Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
Google didn't want to insert themselves; it was the only technically feasible option at the time that wasn't impossible to scale.
Yeah, right. They so much don't want to insert themselves that they're actively buying [technologyreview.com] offline credit card transaction data from third parties.
On the contrary, I think Google salivates at the idea of inserting themselves into your wallet, and the deeper the better. They have a very strong motivation for collecting all your data and tracking all you buy - they can then use your purchases to show ad companies how efficient the ad buy is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the rest of the post?
Yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. You're describing some technical aspects of the payment process, and some history. This is irrelevant to the thread's subject, which is Google's tracking of your offline purchases.
I took OP's complaint about Google "inserting" itself into the transaction as a criticism of Google's finding yet another way to get your data, and not as commiseration for the poor Google programmers who had to find a technical solution to implement it. Your message ignor
Re: (Score:2)
Did you even read the rest of the post?
Yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. You're describing some technical aspects of the payment process, and some history. This is irrelevant to the thread's subject, which is Google's tracking of your offline purchases.
Okay, after reading it, also engage your brain. Note that if you're purchasing stuff using Google's app (or Apple's) they don't need to actually be part of the financial transaction to track your purchase. It would be silly for Google to spend money just to get data they can already get.
Re: (Score:2)
but it required retailer support.
Hogwash. Google wallet worked on every generic NFC machine long before Apple pay even came to the market. Apple pay, open? I remember it as that thing that needed negotiation between Apple and the bank to support and that was rolled out initially to a limited set of banks precisely because it DIDN'T follow standard processes. i.e. it didn't look like a card to the debit machine.
In the mean time I was using Google Wallet several years before Apple even considered coming to the market, in a country in which i
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, but Google's been doing the payment thing far longer than Apple - Google Wallet's been around since Android's been around and Google's been doing NFC payments before NFC hit the iPhone (at least for years before).
This... The problem that both google and Apple have is that it's a solution to a problem no-one has.
Both Google and Apple are doing this the lazy way. In order to avoid being called a bank and having to comply with the myriad of banking regulations the world over, both "products" are just wrappers for another financial service provider's product (its just a wrapper for a credit card from a bank).
Neither service offers any features that a credit card doesn't have but introduces additional risk and comp
Makes sense since Android is going away... (Score:2)
The writing is on the wall that Android will not be with us for much longer. At least not as an officially maintained platform. Android is getting bigger and bigger and becoming harder to maintain. Plus Google has been moving to development in HTML PWA (Progressive Web Applications) and lighter weight Go based applications.
Android is a mess. Its big. Its bulky. Its hard to maintain. And it has fragmented implementations. No phone table run Android the same way even on thier own devices.
The plan as I se
It will never happen. (Score:2)
Amazon Kindle alone has enough inertia to fork AOSP. Since Google fled, many Chinese OEMs build Android devices that never had Play and never will.
Google knows very well of the large Android market segment that is beyond their control. Any attempt to kill the platform will see it immediately forked and forever wrested from their control.
That would not be such a bad thing, but I don't think Google is foolish enough to try it.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
I develop on iOS and Android. They both are bloated and fragmented, granted iOS less so. I think it's actually easier to write Android apps that work on most all phones than writing iOS apps that look good on all iOS devices.
I'll bet Android will be around for a long time. I can see Google moving more features under the "Google" brand since Android is becoming a generic term, but web-based OSes are crap and pretty much always will be.
Re: (Score:2)
It only takes one decent WASM platform to make web OS compelling. If developers can take their web development knowledge and build native apps with it, which also double as web apps with little effort, that's a very compelling proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
The writing is on the wall that Android
Indeed. Windows ME was a disaster. 2001 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
17 years later, we're still seeing silly predictions.
It's just a rename! (Score:1)
This is a dumb story. There is no "New Product" It is a rename of their Android Pay platform to make it a more generic name.
The app automatically changes, and there is no functionality different from the current version of Android Pay.
The app is just now called Google Pay. It's a smarter name as they want to emphasize it isn't only on Android.
Glad this is "News for Nerds" but we can't tell the difference between a product rename and a whole new product.
Adding ability to pay at a checkout with my phone? (Score:2)
I already do that with Android Pay. Have done for a few years now.
I can (and do) use my phone at any NFC terminal.
Does Google still get to see all my transactions? (Score:2)
If so, then still no sale.
Google has not abused my trust with search data... yet, that I know of.
They will still be a one-stop shop for government snoopers, via the third-party doctrine. I see no reason to make hoovering up everything I do with my money easy for them.
Apple has gone out of its way to be a we-don't-want-to-know middleman in contactless payments, which makes them easier to trust.
I have an answer too (Score:2)
It's called cash.
Ugh (Score:2)
Google Pay combines features from both, including the ability to pay at checkout counters with a smartphone, and even the option to scan into transit systems in cities such as Kiev, London and Portland, initially.
Great, just great. Most of the time when I get stuck behind some numpty at the barriers it's because they're pratting aronud with their iPhone rather than simply waving a credit card or oyster card over the card reader. I doubt android will improve things.
Plus, this is a bit of a non-feature: the L
Google Just Launched (Score:1)
Google Just Launched Jizz On Another Answer To Apple Gay
Google is ahead in number of payment systems (Score:2)
Failed? It's been working fine since 2011 or so. (Score:2)
Nothing more than rebranding (Score:1)