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."

Comments

Google Checkout?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the payment system that's only available to businesses in about three countries and completely useless to the rest of the world?

Re:Google Checkout?

[clarkkent09]

Google would love it if the whole world is using its payment system. The problem is laws (esp. financial regulation), lack of law enforcement and corruption in a lot of countries, not Google. Some countries are just more trouble than they are worth.

Re:Google Checkout?

[alostpacket]

That's not true for the mobile/Android Market stuff. They also have 7 countries for publishers for the launch of this service (From the Goog blog link: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. -- did you read the link? I'm betting not ).

Anyways, your criticism seems a bit off. I'm sure those 7 will increase as they get the details sorted. So while maybe you can do a worldwide simultaneous launch of a financial transaction system, us mere mortals understand that some things take time to get underway.

Here's the Android Market:

Currently, developers in the below countries may register as Google Checkout merchants and sell paid applications:

http://checkout.google.com/support/sell/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=150324

1. Agentina
2. Australia
3. Austria
4. Belgium
6. Brazil
7. Canada
8. Czech Republic
9. Denmark
10. Finland
11. France
12. Germany
13. HongKong
14. India
15. Ireland
16. Israel
17. Italy
18. Japan
19. Mexico
20. Netherlands
21. New Zeland
22. Norway
23. Poland (Don't forget about Poland!)
24. Portugal
25. Russia
26. Singapore
27. South Korea
28. Spain
29. Sweden
30. Switzerland
31. Taiwan
32. United Kingdom
33. United States



/Poland -- never forget.

Re:Google Checkout?

[ivucica]

Oh dear, not that excuse again. Apple solved it without owning a local representative in Croatia. Why can't Google, with a significantly greater local and localized presence? Even worse thing with Microsoft and their XBLA and Phone 7; they actually own a local company Microsoft Hrvatska, yet they not only don't want to sell in Croatia, they also can't process Croatian sales.

Oh, and despite Checkout being here, Android Market paid apps are unavailable in Croatia.

Awesome, now get cut the OEMs in

[BitZtream]

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.

Who the customer is...

[Space cowboy]

The big difference for me between Apple's and Google's approach isn't the 30% / 10% - that can be changed by either party in either direction at any time. The freakin' huge difference is in the user-privacy settings.

• Apple make the user specifically opt-in on a case-by-case basis for letting the publisher grab hold of your name & zip-code
• Google by default send your name, zip-code, email address to the publisher.

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

Re:Who the customer is...

[MaWeiTao]

While I appreciate the implications of this sort of thing I don't see the problem in this situation.

If I purchased directly from the publisher wouldn't I be providing that information anyway? If I were a publisher I'd definitely like to know who's buying from me so why should I be blocked from getting that info?

Re:Who the customer is...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is entirely false. Read the ToS for Google Checkout. Google don't send anything to the seller that you don't want sent - including email address. They send the seller an anonymized email address for correspondence if necessary.

Re:Who the customer is...

[fidget42]

While I appreciate the implications of this sort of thing I don't see the problem in this situation.

If I purchased directly from the publisher wouldn't I be providing that information anyway? If I were a publisher I'd definitely like to know who's buying from me so why should I be blocked from getting that info?

But if you buy from Amazon, both Amazon and the publisher get your information. If you buy from Google then Google, the publisher and anyone else that Google wants will get your information.

Re:Who the customer is...

[geekoid]

Because I don't want you to know I am reading your publication, for what ever reason. Maybe I don't want people knowing I subscribe to 2600, or high times, or Visual Basic magazine... especially not Visual Basic Magazine.

Just because you sell me something doesn't mean you have the right to my information.

Re:Who the customer is...

[rtb61]

You are subscribing to that publisher. If you got actual hard copy you would supply name, address, postal address, telephone number, postcode, state and credit card details. All apple is doing is hiding your details for it's own benefit to on sell adding a little bonus on top of that thirty percent.

For the publisher it is terrible there just left with a whole bunch of apple subscriptions with no idea if they are doing well in any particular region, if they need to change content to more accurate target their desired audience or if they need to include more content from certain regions, unless of course if they pay more money to apple for that data (rent only, not buy).

So reality is publishers best option, loudly and often shout, Apple sucks, don't buy apple, Apple is overpriced, and the publisher is far better off financially.

Re:Who the customer is...

[Celarent Darii]

Advertisers want facts to support the venue they are investing in. They want customers of a certain criteria, age group for example, or of related interests.

Google makes money by selling this data to the advertisers, either directly or indirectly by refining their ad algorithm according to this data.

In fact the only way Google makes money is by harvesting every bit of data they can find and attaching it to a certain product. It is what marketing and advertisers dream about, as knowledge about your customer is directly proportional to sales and profits.

If you think about it, the only true product that Google has is information about you, the person who uses their services. That is why everything is pretty much free as the only thing that has value to them is the information. Apple on the other hand is a completely different beast, it actually makes physical things that need to be produced and manufactured.

Re:Fight!

[peragrin]

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.

Re:Fight!

[dingo8baby]

If it wasn't for the fetish porn, i wouldn't have kids to begin with.

Re:Comparison

[Qwavel]

I think there are more important issues then where the content is hosted.

The most important so far is the 30% cut Apple is taking versus Google's 10%.

Apple's system is opt-in for providing publishers with your contact info, whereas Google is opt-out (by default they will provide your contact info, including e-mail address).

Also important, Apple's system only works on Apple devices and doesn't let you take your content with you if you want to use a non-Apple device.

Google's system attempts to work everywhere (it has a browser version). If the browser version of Google's service uses Flash (for the DRM) it won't work on Apple devices and Apple would block it from their App Store, so it might not be available on Apple devices.

I've often wondered whether that is one of the main reasons why Apple blocked Flash - it gives companies a way to deliver protected content to Apple users without Apple tax and approval? Doing DRM in javascript is possible but very difficult and probably less effective.

Re:Amen

[Reapman]

Eh? I have a merchant account with Google and I'm in Canada.... Granted I'm talking Android, maybe your refering to something else..

Too much stuff associated with one identity...

[eepok]

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.

Re:Too much stuff associated with one identity...

[gox]

+1

Having my e-mail account linked to some video sharing web-site or even social networking is not a big deal. I can create unlinked new accounts anytime I like and inform whomever I need to keep in touch with. I change my accounts all the time when I feel uncomfortable with the provider or the identity itself. But having some personal property associated with my on-line identity is like an anchor. I hope that they implement it in a way that you can disassociate identities, at least the data linked to those identities if need be. I like being able to redirect my main e-mail address to a GMail account and using it as a data store. Yes it's easy to trace but I at least know that I can opt-out without suffering much. This new thing looks as if I would have to close all my "other" Google accounts if I really need to distance myself from one of the associated identities.

Re:Too much stuff associated with one identity...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you are going to do something online, then use Google.
The difference between something being 'easy' for them and 'hard' is about 2 minutes

All you shit can be link together be experts. So why make it hard on yourself?

You are thinking about it in the wrong direction. The risk isn't to any specific individual, it is to society in general. Sure, anyone can target an individual that they have already decided to investigate. But what they can't do - without the aid of centralised databases - is trawl for people who fit a certain criteria.

For example, look at Sony's attempt to subpoena youtube's records of everybody who merely watched a PS3 cracking video. If Sony gets that subpoena, then they will get lots of information about people who have handed over all of their data to google. But for everyone else, at worst Sony is going to get an IP address and a timestamp. Fucking with the first group of people will be significantly easier for Sony than fucking with the second group of people. Not impossible, obviously, but significantly more effort per individual than the first group.

Re:Fight!

[thestudio_bob]

Google is willing to give away customer data. Apple is not.

As a consumer, I'll take the Apple road.

Re:[sigh]

[Space cowboy]

Well, if you're going to bring in the retailer (to somewhat strain the analogy), you get to choose between:

AppleWorld: Apple kick you up the arse.

GoogleWorld: Both Google and the publisher kick you up the arse.

Google's kick is an especially hard one (they've been watching mythbusters, and have a specially-designed hydraulic arse-kicking machine) because of how far and wide they track you.Both Apple and the publisher are relatively small-potatoes compared to the stratosphere-reaching implications of being kicked up the arse by Google.

Simon.

Re:Fight!

[pasamio]

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?

Re:Amen

[Lehk228]

links in slashdot comments don't help page rank, fool. also nobody wants your chinese made garbage

Re:Amen

[jrumney]

Actually its the other way around. More countries are able to sell apps on the Android Market than are able to buy them.