Google CEO Confirms Online Payment System

didde writes "Reuters is reporting on statements that Google's CEO Eric Schmidt had made regarding Google's upcoming payment system. Apparently they're not looking to compete with PayPal." From the article: "Schmidt said Google does not intend to offer a 'person-to-person stored-value payments system' like PayPal's, in which money briefly resides in PayPal's control during the transaction, but he did not give details of how the Google system would differ."

Comments

Will they play like a bank

[Anonymous Coward]

and assume resonsibility for financial mistakes, i believe this is where Paypal are the scam, look like a bank but un-regulated and assume nothing

Please compete with paypal.

[BillGodfrey]

Paypal need a competitor.

Re:I wonder ...

[Mr Guy]

If you believe the paypal sucks people, that essentially IS PayPal's system.

Micropayments

[QMO]

I wish we had a few more details.

On the surface it sounds a little like something that could evolve into the micropayment structure that could end spam.

Re:Google

[mister_llah]

There is more than a fair share of people who just don't like PayPal... and there is a lot of brand strength in 'Google'...

To quote nuke satellite monitors, "Confidence is high! Repeat! Confidence is high!" ... (relating to Google) ...

===

Will it kill PayPal? No. Will it bite them a bit? To be sure. No matter what Google will use, as long as it offers a secure means for an online transaction, it will hurt PayPal... but they'll survive...

Refreshing Change

[alvinrod]

From Article:

Schmidt said Google does not intend to offer a "person-to-person stored-value payments system" like PayPal's, in which money briefly resides in PayPal's control during the transaction, but he did not give details of how the Google system would differ.

Even though companies are out to make money and occasionally have to step on the toes of another company if they want to turn a profit, it's nice to see that not all computer business is so cut-throught. Maybe Google has realized that a little healthy competition is good, but more than likely they have slightly different aims or are trying to tie it in more with the rest of their services in a way that paypals method doesn't work.

Companies need to realize that crushing the competition and taking control of the market isn't going to be healthy for the consumer. Look at some of Microsoft's (Not to pick on them, but they're an obvious example) products like Internet Explorer. For a while it was the best browser around to many people, but after it gained control , Microsoft stopped upgrading it and fixing it, making it a rather sub-par product today.

To those of you who say that Google or any other company wouldn't fall into the same trap if they gained market dominance is plain ignorance. Go ahead and root for Google, Apple, Sun, AMD, or any other underdog company, but just remeber that they're as capable as being as evil and ruthless as some people feel that Microsoft, Sony, Intel and other industry leaders are today.

Its coupons silly

[cmdr_beeftaco]

To quote the article "The payment services we are working on are a natural evolution of Google's existing online products and advertising programs, which today connect millions of consumers and advertisers"
So an advertiser can give you 5 bucks off if you buy from them. Or maybe reward points to use in the network.

Another speculation?

[coolsva]

Rather than being a pure paypal replacement, why can we assume google is going towards micro payments. Follow me here, google searches open web pages, but also some closed databases (AP,NYT etc). You get a snippet of the result, to read the complete document, you click the link, google deducts $0.02 from your 'wallet' and shows you the page. Google pays WSJ $0.018 and pockets the rest.

At the end of the day, you are happy because you got to read the article for $0.02, WSJ is happy because they didnt have to bother about managing subscription (which you were unwilling I assume) and still got the $0.018 and google of course, got the $0.002. Everyone comes home ahead. Many have tried micropayments, but if there is anyone who can do it, it is google

What you meant to say was

[mapmaker]

We need a Paypal competitor. Paypal needs a competitor like it needs a hole in the head.

Banks need to wake up.

[el_womble]

This is damning to the banking industry. The age where they can get away with bank charges should be dead and burried. The idea that there are 10s of clerks monitoring each transaction, and therefore incurring a service fee is archaic and false. We are now paying to maintain a computer system, which if it was commisioned properly should have its costs covered by the interest they gain from investments they make with the money the hold for their clients.

In the UK at least, consumers are free to transfer money between accounts for free. But it takes between 3 and 5 days so they can gain interest (what were they doing the previous x days when it was in my account?). Businesses are routinely charged £0.20 a transaction and the transfers still take 3 to 5 days!!! How is this fair?

Banks have enough ways to generate money without charging buisnesses for micropayments.