Google to Test PayPal Rival

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Google is set to introduce a test version of its GBuy online-payment service as early as this week, presaging a shake-up in the online-payments market now dominated by eBay's PayPal, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Here is how the service will work: Consumers who search for items like "shoes" or "strollers" on Google's search site will see text ads with a symbol or icon designating advertisers that accept GBuy payments. Shoppers normally would have clicked on an ad and been linked to that merchant's Web site. Now, while they will still be linked to the merchant's site, they will go through a different checkout process integrated with Google if they choose GBuy for their transaction. Details of the service could still change before Google's official GBuy announcement.'"

Comments

I like google as much as the next /.er,

[tpjunkie]

but seriously, don't you think they've begun to seriously overextend themselves, as well as take on a sort of microsoft-borg-ish nature, assimilating anything and everything it encounters?

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google's mission is to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful."

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[lowrydr310]

Sadly you're right. It seems that for almost everything I search for, all but one or two links on the first page of results are linkspam pages/sites.

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[donutello]

but I want to know if you think that means that Google will go evil, but then see the light and turn themselves around? That's IBM.

IBM is only not-evil to the extent that their business doesn't conflict with your zealotry.

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[drinkypoo]

Well, I realize that I made IBM sound too nice, they're still a publically traded and held corporation. In the end, they're in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Still, they seem like one of those companies that "gets it". They made this amazing turnaround, besides the one I talked about previously, in the area of how they treat employees. AFAIK contractors are still dissed hard, but it seems like a pretty liberal place to work - which is all the more amazing considering their history of blue suits.

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[redkazuo]

It just striked me the parents' conversation reveals the kind of dubious content most of us are searching for. Read porn.

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[Deliveranc3]

The spam sites wouldn't be a problem if you could detect them simply by looking at the results.

What you get are sites that return their own search results + ads.

These sites are hella weak!

Re:I like google as much as the next /.er,

[The Cydonian]

Bad perceptions, it seems, change slower than good perceptions. I admit I found linkfarms irritating for sometime, I don't think there have been a prominent problem. That is to say, while they exist, they don't come in the way of Google becoming dehabilitating, if you will; it is still extremely useable.

This argument of "sticking with pure search and nothing else", though, has some other significant problems that whiners out here don't seem to realize. You see, in the past 2-2.5 years, the web has made some significant progress in organizing itself into something less un-structured than what it was in, say, 2002.

What do I mean by that? As an example, consider this: you have this huuuge adoration for anything to do with, let's say, the movie, Plan 9 from Outer Space. Alarmed by the general lack of information about the movie, you decide to do something about it. If this was 2002, you have one clear choice:- you signup at GeoCities (or get your own hosting), and fill it with trivia, photographs, details on every shot, etc. If you happen to pickup other fans as well on the way, you'd probably put up a GuestBook, or a YahooGroups mailing list. The only way someone could stumble upon your site is if they were linked to from a high-traffic site (like Slashdot), or through a search engine.

Now fast forward to 2006. You're faced with the same dilemma again; you're the world's greatest fan for Plan Neuf d'espace extra-atmosphérique, that po-mo French tribute to the original, which broke new ground in French New Wave cinema, and later inspired an aging French team to win against Spain in an obscure football match. While you can still go through that GeoCities route even now, this time around though, you have much better choices; you can also put it up Wikipedia, if you wish (and actively interact with other fans through edit-wars). You could also put up a site, discussion fora etc. Or you could put up a blog somewhere, write articles and post it up to Technocrati and so on. Whatever way you choose, the bottomline remains this:- Google, or any search engine, need not necessarily be the primary way your users could come. The web has become organized now; with a better public transportation choices, you could plausibly avoid taking that taxi you're used to taking.

Now, I'm not saying Google isn't poking in every possible pie. Some of its projects are, even to my Google-fanboi-mind, rather ridiculous; even if it has all that AJAX-mojo, why in the world should Google come up with a shoddy spreadsheet program, for example, and actually take a beating on its brand? That said, and it's important to understand this, this, and most of Google's projects (specifically things like Google Coop), are actually efforts at tackling the increasing Semanticization, if you will, of the Web. The search engine will exist for a lot more time, but as a concept, it can and will be made extinct at some point in time. It might stumble along, it might pick up a few duds on the way, but essentially, Google is bracing itself for that future.

Again??

[tygerstripes]

I for one welcome my...

Jeez, is there anything these guys won't get there fingers in? Don't get me wrong, I like what they've done so far, but is it possible for a company to expand beyond a certain critical mass and still stick to the operating principle "Don't Be Evil"?

I just hope the Geegees aren't going to turn nasty and suddenly warrant a big anti-monopoly order or somesuch. I just couldn't take the smug look on Bill's face...

Re:Again??

[Atzanteol]

I don't think you really know what 'evil' and 'monopoly' mean. Near as I can tell you seem to think they both mean 'large coporation'...

Re:Again??

[linvir]

The problem is that as Google grows and grows off the back of low-key ads and simplicity, the rest of the industry isn't taking the hint. So Google is pretty much alone in filling this gap in each area of the web.

Don't worry though. If they really start to take over, the bean counters will catch on, and companies might actually start to compete with Google on their terms. I think this might have already happened at Yahoo, but even then most of of that page is taken up by an irrelevant photo.

Re:I wonder if they will be less shady than PayPal

[WilliamSChips]

GBuy *will* be less evil. It's hard to be more evil than PayPal, and we're talking about a company who believes in not evil.

Re:I wonder if they will be less shady than PayPal

[Duncan3]

Considering the insane rates they charge for ads, I'm sure their fees will be just as "evil" as PayPals. And that's all merchants _should_ really care about.

Oh, and the fact that if you DON'T pay Google, you'll get zero visitors. Becasue of course, ads and fake sites are the first 3 pages.

All hail our search Mafia overlords.

Re:Good

[voice_of_all_reason]

Hit the nail right on the head. Everyone uses paypal because there's no alternative and the potential for profit is worth the risk. If Google can equal them merely in fees, the acceptance will follow. And even with all the Google "sometimes do evil" stories, they're still infinitely more trustworthy than paypal.

Backend Security Software...

[__aaclcg7560]

The only nice thing to say about Google is that the backend security software should be "beta". Unlike a lot of real financial service providers who backend sercurity is "non-sxistent" (i.e., unencrypted backup hard drives lost in transit).

Just great... Now Google will track purchases.

[fahrbot-bot]

Google already tracks our searching and email, now they'll track our spending habits and how much we pay for various items. Paranoid? Maybe, but how long will it be until we find that Google is maintaining a database of this sort of thing?

On the earth, all your lives belong to Google...

So how will it rival Paypal?

[tlhIngan]

Considering that eBay more or less has Paypal integrated into it? And where I suspect a large majority of Paypal transactions take place is to satisfy eBay transactions? While I've done a few non-eBay-related Paypal transactions, they are very few. I've used more online stores that took my credit card directly than Paypal (and a few of those stores offered Paypal - I paid Visa).

GBuy sounds like it'll be a rival for Amazon zShops and other style system, except less centralized.

ah bollocks

[Colin Smith]

look, competition is good. Who else is going to go up against ebay and paypal, and it isn't as if you can't use a different search engine/webmail/whatever. You never know, someone may come up with a search engine which classifies and ranks results for the individual by some other bayesian/statistical/AI algorithm which turns out to be way better than Google.

Re:God for bid it be regulated

[TykeClone]

The FDIC insurance is not the reason that they don't want to be a bank. They don't want to abide by any of the Federal and State banking regulations (Reg E in particular) that real banks are bound to.

Re:I wonder if they will be less shady than PayPal

[Onan]

As far as I know, the ad prices are determined entirely by what advertisers bid for them, rather than being rates that Google sets.

Even if you do accept the ad prices as being "evil", it's still not something over which Google has any control, so it seems problematic to use that as an predictor of future evilness.

Re:I wonder if they will be less shady than PayPal

[Dannon]

The "evil-ness" of PayPal is mostly in terms of eBay and PayPal turning a blind eye to the fraud others have committed using their web site. On the one hand, they say that they're just "establishing a marketplace", and what goes on in that marketplace is up to the merchants and customers.

On the other hand, let's say I set up a flea market on my land. I need to lay down at least some basic rules, both to protect the customers and the merchants, and above all my own reputation. Even if the owner isn't doing any fraud himself, who wants to visit a flea market that's ridden with pickpockets?

The major factor that switched me over to online bill-pay from checks-and-stamps was learning that my bill-pay service would agree to go to bat for me in case of any issues. Just having someone agree in a contract to stand in my corner is a powerful incentive to trust.

Right now, you've got to jump through way too many hoops with eBay to convince them that a fraud has actually happened before they'll even consider opening up an investigation. If GBuy takes a more customer-oriented approach, I see two results:
1) Success for GBuy, as the demand for a safe online marketplace shifts their way
2) Fiscal pressure for eBay to actually deal with the issue, or lose their customer base. In its own way, I'd say this is probably better pressure than any lawsuit threats, or outcries from consumer protection experts.

If they're more concerned with covering their own butts than covering their customers, it'll be just the same old same old. If, on the other hand, they put time and energy into protecting their customers, they'll find themselves pretty well protected.

Re:competition is good!

[mypalmike]

How is failed delivery PayPal's responsibility? The buyer and seller appear to have held up their end of the agreement, which is where PayPal's responsibility ends. What on Earth do you expect them to do, call the Post Office for you and hound them until they find your book? Give you your money back on an item that was shipped uninsured? It sucks to lose stuff in the mail, but you take that risk whenever you ship without insurance.

Any shareholder owned company will become evil.

[neo]

Since shareholders care only for profits and increased share value, companies as entities must continue to do whatever it takes, including evil acts, in order to provide those increases. Eventually no matter how well intentioned a company starts off, the pressure to profit will force someone in the corporate structure to act to protect their job and will do something evil to survive within the company. Once others see that this tactic works, the obvious action is to copy the evil doer in order to also survive inside the company. Eventually the company becomes evil from the inside out, through what insiders see as a natural protection of the company as an entity and their jobs specifically.

Re:Any shareholder owned company will become evil.

[SumoRoach]

In my naive and idealized view, the truly sustainable company would not do evil because it simply cannot last with that mindset. In reality, it is a balance between being competitive without killing your own sustainability.

Re:I wonder if they will be less shady than PayPal

[niXcamiC]

Anyone who thinks PayPal is evil has never tryed to use one of the alternatives. (Western Union, Some sort of bank transfer)