Slashdot Mirror
Google Announces One Pass Payment System
eldavojohn writes "Riding the tail of Apple's 30% announcement, Google's Eric Schmidt has announced One Pass, a new method for users to pay for content. The BBC is reporting that Google is taking a 10% cut. One Pass will work on Google sites and on phones and tablets as the announcement notes: 'Readers who purchase from a One Pass publisher can access their content on tablets, smartphones and websites using a single sign-on with an email and password. Importantly, the service helps publishers authenticate existing subscribers so that readers don't have to re-subscribe in order to access their content on new devices.' This is to be handled through Google Checkout."
You mean the payment system that's only available to businesses in about three countries and completely useless to the rest of the world?
So they have some reason to upgrade old phones. They aren't going to do it with no incentive.
Otherwise you might as well just quit now cause devs will either target the phone with the features they want and have a limited amount of potential customers until everyone has completed the 2 year contract upgrade cycle OR devs will target 1.6 to get the largest audience and well, it won't be worth bothering with Android devices.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
It will be interesting to see how these systems (OnePass and Apple's App Store) compare. Does anyone know if Google is hosting the content free of charge on the Google App store, or is this payment system independent of hosting? It seems like the latter from the two articles I read, but they were both vague. In the end I suppose most publishers will use both to target the most eyeballs, but with both mobile powerhouses stepping in, Amazon and B&N and Sony are going to have to step up their game.
But Google is taking 100% of where you are, what you are reading, what you are viewing, what demographic you are in ....
wha'? where am i?
and apple isn't?
Because?
Wrong.
Both companies record what you are reading and your personal info, which is nothing new.
What is new is that Apple, as of iOS v4, is tracking your exact (GPS) location and is selling the data (after making it anonymous) to other companies. That was widely reported last July when it was announced.
On Android that is opt-in. Google is only tracking who decide they are OK with being tracked and Google has never sold user data.
Because paypal has a notoriously bad customer experience if anything ever goes wrong with a purchase.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
In Google's eyes, you are the product they are selling to the customer (the publisher). In Apple's eyes, you are the customer. I know which I prefer.
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Actually apple isn't.
Apple will not disclose what you buy and are reading to publishers. it is why publishers are all pissed off.
Google will not only tell the publishers what you are doing but also sell that to their own ad services, so you find ads for your favorite fetish porn while reading books to your kids.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I guess being next door to US, Canada doesn't count as a worthy place to have Checkout available to merchants but they sure don't tell you that till you sing up and then get shafted.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
If it wasn't for the fetish porn, i wouldn't have kids to begin with.
>>>Google Vs. Apple, FIGHT!
Apple creates Safari.
Google strikes-back with Chrome for with below 50 MB memory usage.
Apple release new iMac for $500!
Google releases PC for $100.
FATALITY.
Google wins.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
Who would have ever thought that the 1-3% service fee that credit cards take from retail & other transactions could be considered small? Kudos to Google & Apple for managing to make Visa & Mastercard look good.
Paypal USED to have a bad experience, until they were sued by the US DOJ and a bunch of states. They've improved a lot - if the package gets lost, or not as advertised, you can get your money back via filing a paypal dispute.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
But search is not going so well. JC Penny hacked Google for months before the NY Times called them on it, and now it is unclear if Google will or can do anything about it. JC Penny did nothing illegal. Given the current state of technology, Google no longer has a relevant search engine. It is too easily hacked. Often the top searches are ad farms that auto generate random phrases to match a search. I am more and more going to known good locations for answers. It reminds me of then the web got too big for Yahoo to hand pick sites or too popular for key words to be a honest proxy for Alta Vista to index. Google can whine that what JC Penny did was unfair, but whining is not going to fix search. Maybe MS will fix search, and Google will see ad revenue drop.
And what is my point? Instead of innovating search, Google is copying what everyone else is doing. Now, Docs might be good enough to allow Google to dominate ads, but I can see the day coming when I am going to turn off the Google cookie. Certainly checkout is not valuable enough to trade personal information. Google should fix search and not just complain that others are doing perfectly reasonable thing to maximize their profile. Link farms are not the evil. Bad Google algorithms are. And as long as Google plays me too, they will not be in the forefront. If we think this cannot happen, look at Nokia.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I really like google, but I don't like the idea of associating SO much with my online google identity. I've still not "linked" my youtube and gmail accounts. I have a Google Checkout account, but only because I trust them more than I other companies like Buy.com and don't want to bother creating a Buy.com account.
The part that strikes conflict in me is having entertainment and education video associated with my google account. That alone is enough to extrapolate any political leanings, sexual preference, likely circle of friends, etc...
Summary of realms I keep separate online:
Gaming
Video Entertainment
Buying Habits
Career/Work
Tech Communities
Humor Communities
I would really prefer to keep all that separate and Google's not making it easy.
well played
Yes, yes, it's obvious that the old-fashioned way was just as egregious. That's not really the point.
Let me try and put it using a different allegory...
In olden-days, in order to subscribe to XYZ weekly, you had to present your backside to the publisher, who took a run-up, and then kicked your arse as hard as he could with his hob-nail boots. You'd go flying through the air to land in the cold, wet slush outside Ye Olde Publisher Shoppe. Dripping wet, soaked to the skin, you'd go home and nurse yourself through the resultant pneumonia whilst reading your periodical.
On Googleworld, this still applies, even for virtual periodicals. You still get the whopping big kick up the arse, and you can then read your periodical.
On Appleworld, you get to choose whether the publisher kicks you up the arse. Some people will choose 'Yes, please. Kick me up the arse', presumably for some suitable trade-off in kind. Most people will not.
Just because it was always thus is no justification for it to remain so. Apple are looking after the customer here; Google are selling the customer out to the publisher in the name of Mammon (as well as using the personal details themselves, of course).
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Google is willing to give away customer data. Apple is not.
As a consumer, I'll take the Apple road.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Actually, the advertiser gets demographic information including the amount of times your advert was viewed. But these are just numbers and aren't associated to anyone specifically. If you saw an ad that I made, I wouldn't be able to tell it was you. You would be one out of millions without even an IP associated to any of it. People are listed only around regions but it's so you can better decide to who you want to advertise to. If you're getting a CTR that yields a higher return in Florida than in Arkansas, then you'll want to focus your money in Florida instead.
Then you have those who actually places the ads on their website. They have access to all the information they need about their current visitors with a general idea on who's coming by so they can properly place advertisements around the site depending strictly on demographics. If your website is about technology gear, then you'll want to target ads for girls if you're in a girl-centric category, same goes for guys. At the end of the day, it benefits both the visitor and the companies involved because without advertising (that works), there wouldn't be many free sites on the net. The lack of -some- privacy, even though it's completely anonymous, is a small price to pay for a generally open internet.
You have no evidence of that, and you use a strawman. SO, in short, you suck.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Great, now I can spend my Continental OnePass miles to buy content.
It is smarter for Google to start with US and get the system working within the largest market
"Largest market" has more than one meaning. The People's Republic of China has more population than the USA, as does India. The 27 states of the European Union also have more population than the 50 states of the USA.
But beware, if you use it The Eye of Sergey will be fixed on you.
Apple steals "KHTML" from KDE and calls it "Safari"
Apple releases their browser code and calls it "WebKit"
Google takes "WebKit" and calls it "Chrome"
Wait what?
I always wondered where this setting was...
Just want to be sure no patents are being infringed here...
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
A day late and a dollar short.
Clearly both Google's and Apple's programs have been in development for a long time, and from a practical standpoint are entering the market simultaneously. It's not clear that either is copying the other.
With regard to your broader point, the goal of any company isn't to "innovate" shiny new things. It's to solve real problems and make peoples' lives better. Every company, Apple and Google included, borrows heavily from others where it makes sense: Google didn't invent the search engine, and Apple didn't invent the GUI or the smartphone or the tablet computer. However both companies deliver products that are useful to me, and that's what I care about.
In this case the two competitors have quite different pricing structures and product visions, so as with iOS vs. Android it will be interesting to see how the marketplace responds.
Ate you deluded? Apple gives back code to the community. How can they steal KHTML?
Jonathanjk.com
The problem is now they seem to usually err on the side of the buyer, leading to sellers getting ripped off.