PayPal vs Google (Buy)

pc-facile.com writes "While Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt confirmed in press accounts that the company was building a payment service, Mr. Schmidt also denied it would directly compete with PayPal. Mr. Schmidt said Google didn't intend to offer a "person-to-person, stored-value payments system," which many people consider a description of PayPal's service. Mr. Jordan (PayPal chief) says he and his team immediately "dissected the wording" of Google's statements. He says he doesn't believe Mr. Schmidt..." There's also a more in depth WSJ article about the service.

Comments

Writes != Copies and Pastes

[richdun]

pc-facile.com writes

Right. It's bad enough with submitters copy and paste from AP or Reuters reports, since that's mostly what the big news sites do anyway, but when you copy and paste someone's blog entry, we're just asking for speculative posts.

That said, I really wonder if there is much to this. With the Google-Skype deal, you'd think Google and eBay would be getting along better than to have Google launch a service directly competing with another eBay company. But then again, this is Google - how long until you can get "it" on GBay?

I _need_ an alternative to Paypal

[RenHoek]

Look, after the various horrendous stories about Paypal (http://www.paypalsucks.com/) could we FINALLY get a worldwide viable alternative to Paypal?

I cancelled my account with Paypal after they decided to freeze the money people were donating for hurrican Katrina on somethingawful.com.

However I still cannot pay everywhere with a creditcard and to be honest, I'd rather not use my credit card everywhere.

PLEASE come with an alternative service Google, and one that I can use with my bank in the Netherlands please, since you have worldwide offices anyway.

Thanks.

Paypal vs Google= Users win

[cr0m0]

Good news for the Internet services users. The more companies competing in the same area, the best prices for the users.

Paypal = Ebay

[JDSalinger]

Unless Google can compete with eBay, it is going to massively lag behind PayPal, on account on PayPal's inertia from Ebay business and current use (eBay Paypal ties). The sites that Google links to typically accept Credit Card payments. PayPal, of course, allows such, but is necessary specifically for normal everyday people to accept credit cards (the eBay process). How does Google fit into this?

Nothing wrong with healthy competition

[steinnes]

Google is providing good services in most of the areas they've ventured into, PayPal has a rocky history, and most PayPal users have at some point been frustrated by their service. However due to the nature of financial transactions they require a lot of security, and security and service don't always mix well -- at the very least we can say it takes skill to combine the two well. Maybe it's not PayPal's fault that we've been frustrated?

Hopefully Google's foray into this market will bring us some innovations like micropayments, which we've been awaiting for years -- and although we can only speculate on that, we can all be sure their involvement with payment systems will result in better products for us, whether it be from them, or competitors that are forced to enhance their services. I'm excited.

Yet more targeting

[mccalli]

Why waste time guessing which ads your readers clicked on and turned into a sale? Now you can measure it directly, as the ad provider is also the point of sale.

On the other side of the transaction - Google can tell what I've searched for, seen which of those searches actually turned into cash, and push yet more ads at me geared towards exactly what I pay for.

I hate the idea personally. You'd feel like you were in a shop all of the time you're looking for things on the net - a problem I already feel to some extent. I can see why both the placer of and the seller of an advert would love it however.

Cheers,
Ian

A bit out of date

[brunes69]

Most of those stories come before eBay bought Paypal. I use paypal extensively, and also did before the buyout, and I find eBay really cleaned up their act.

As for the Katrina thing, it was perfectly valid and the right thing to do. Somehtingawful was not a registered charity and thus paypal had no way to differentiate what it was doing with the hundreds of scams going on at the time to defraud people. I actually applaud them for their pro-active approach in dealing with it - they *could* have just done nothing and let the fraudsters get away with it.

Re:A bit out of date

[thrillseeker]

it was perfectly valid and the right thing to do. Somehtingawful was not a registered charity

I see - so you'd like to say "thank you Paypal for not letting me decide how to spend my own money"?

Being a "registered charity" doesn't necessarily mean much charity gets done.

Re:Why Bite the Hand that Feeds?

[roderickm]

One thing Paypal does not do well is micropayments, or payments under $1, but it's something Google does very well. Consider the millions of virtual pennies they daily count for AdSense. (or is it AdCents?!)

The virtual wallet metaphor has been tried many times with no success, but Google has the clout and expertise to do it. There are thousands of web publishers that want to charge 2c to read a page (NYTimes?) but have no effective means to do so. A micropayment system might even be a necessary prerequisite to a hosted applications model -- some prognosticators are convinced Google will begin selling PCs with a Linux-based OS, hosting applications on a subscription or pay-per-use model. Would you pay 1c every time you opened Google's continuall-improved word processor?

Also, Google enjoys loads more user trust than Paypal. I've moved over $10,000 through Paypal, but they wouldn't lift a finger to help me when I was the victim of a $500 fraud. There are many stories of unduly locked/suspended accounts and a severe lack of investigatory dur diligence on Paypal's part. If Google brings a "Do No Evil" alternative payment system, you better believe I'll switch.

Finally, eBay might not like Google developing a competitor to Paypal (assuming it actually will be... RTFA), but eBay's bread and butter is listing and final value fees, not Paypal transaction charges. I'd bet eBay is much more concerned about Google Base than about a payment system. Of course, the combined threat (of Google Base and a Google Payments) is massive.

roderickm

Re:Why Bite the Hand that Feeds?

[thrillseeker]

so Google starts a payment service. Would eBay (who owns PayPal) have to allow sellers / buyers to use it?

They definitely would have to let 'em use it - or face sudden competition from all the ebay-wannabes that were suddenly more attractive because of their acceptance of gPay.

Who Said Anything About a Payments Business

[magixman]

Is it possible Eric Schmidt is telling the truth? Maybe they are actually going to only be in the business of securley storing and transmitting credit card info. Maybe going as far as being in the gateway business. Being a merchant of record as is Paypal is a huge step and is most unpleasant. Do they really want to be in the business of chasing down fraudsters and dealing with angry customers over chargebacks? Becoming a bank simply does not fit the mission statement in my view.

Re:Yes, please.

[thrillseeker]

Google aids in the censoring of the Chinese populace for profit

Anytime you buy a product that is made is China you have aided the government of China in thier domination of the Chinese people. Are you going to quit buying anything made in China? - good luck with that endeavor.

While (mostly) all of us would like to see the Chinese people free, it's not gonna happen overnight or simply by us wishing upon a star. It will either happen quickly with war (damn unpleasant affair) or much more slowly with (ever growing) free markets. Every little thing that causes the Chinese people to improve their own standard of living will pressure their government to get more of it - the Chinese government likes being in power because that is where the wealth is in that country. Create a generally higher level of wealth and the country will become a better place, because the people there are far bigger than their government.

Nothing to back our own?

[snowwrestler]

All perceptions of value are ultimately backed up by violence. Even gold has no value to you if you cannot keep others from taking it. Saying that there is nothing backing U.S. currency strikes me as very naive.

perhaps

[way2trivial]

and just perhaps, the relevant bit is "payments from user to user"

if they have been trial running it with merchants who sell stuff, perhaps they will only take payments from people and to businesses, not multiple individual to individual payments.

or something akin to microsofts original idea for 'microsoft wallet' where google keeps your cc info private to them, and authorizes payments to individual merchants in aggregate..

or micropayments tracked by google, billed to you every X days, (or paid in advance) in lump sum amounts that then make the cc discounts surviveable to the merchant charging (google finance)

there are more niche needs for financial transactions, than just paying for ebay items.

Re:Why Bite the Hand that Feeds?

[rockwood]

I hear what you are saying as I feel that I am in the same boat. I have a website where my wife an I sell primitive countr crafts. We're averaging $2000.00 to $3000.00 in gross profits per month, netting about half of that. We are currently using paypal as well, though out largest problem is refunding. Items become out of stock and with the current paypal system the customer is charged immediately upon checkout. That leaves us with estimating S&H and providing refunds when only partial shipments can fulfilled. I feel that this leaves a unprofessional after-taste in the consumers mouth (and wallet). Some previous businesses we've had were good, other not so good, and with previously being divorced, our credit is not stellar. This poor credit holds us back from obtaining a virtual terminal; which would allow us to process CC's after the sale when we know the exact correct amount charge. Out efforts to provide our custoemr with more accurate (and sometimes lower rates) are shot down by our credit. So as it stands the consumer is the one that hurts the most, and becomes a mere inconvenience for us.

A non-interactive virtual terminal would suit the industry much more. Example: Paypal system current use their (PayPal's) trustworthiness and not the business, since it hides the consumers CC from us. A virtual terminal would need to be approved based on such things as credit ratings to avoid shady business from over-charging or errounously charging customers CC's because with a Virtual terminal we (the business) have the CC # in order to process this.

What would be more beneficial would be to have a combination of the two - allowing the customer to check-out, provide their personal information and CC information. Then when we've determined tha exact amount to charge, we'd access the limited virtual terminal. Enter the amount to be charged, the customer receives a confirmation email asking them to accept or deny the charges. They accept and we get paid.

I'm sure this has potential holes in it yet, but the foundation of what it could pave in regards to new doors opening for lower level new businesses, and home based businesses that have concepts that are working, but do not have the credit history to back it up with conventional means.

For the professionalism alone I'd pay .25 extra per transaction. The demand is there, it's just time until someone with the large bank account can deploy it. Hopefully this will be Google.