Slashdot Mirror
Google Just Launched Another Answer To Apple Pay (cnbc.com)
Google launched its latest answer to Apple Pay on Tuesday. It's called Google Pay and replaces Android Pay, a previous solution that let Android users buy goods with their smartphones. From a report: It's also Google's answer to Apple Pay and Apple Pay Cash. Google Pay follows several failed attempts by Google to launch a widespread payment platform. The company launched Google Wallet several years ago before folding it and launching Android Pay. Google Pay combines features from both, including the ability to pay at checkout counters with a smartphone, and even the option to scan into transit systems in cities such as Kiev, London and Portland, initially.
Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
Yes, Apple does get a REALLY small transaction-fee; but otherwise, is COMPLETELY blind to the transaction itself.
I think the transaction fees as simply aggregated into a lump-sum payment to Apple, with absolutely NO per-transaction information divulged to them.
Until Google will accept that model (which I am SURE they will never do), they can go pound sand.
Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User? Why do stores need to support each device separately?
While I ask the question, the answer is relatively simple. Each company wants to be the leader in the area, and wants their technology to win, so they don't need to pay royalties to the other.
Sometimes competition is good, other times it steps on each other and creates problems for the consumers that most just don't want to deal with.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The banks will find ways to charge vendors and customer fees anyways. At least we have payment options (witch so far seem much more secure then the alternatives)
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I wish they don't, because they charge a fee to the banks, and banks end-up passing that fee to the consumers and/or merchants (which pass them to consumers) one way or another.
I also wish banks drop support for Apple Pay for the same reason.
Yeah, Apple is REALLY putting the screws to the banks!
0.15 percent. Wooo....
The banks are REALLY hurtin' now!
https://www.macrumors.com/2014...
...is that you never need to associate a bank account or credit card with it.
And how is that different than the Debit and Visa networks? Thats how merchant services works.
Lame
And how is that different than the Debit and Visa networks? Thats how merchant services works.
You typically tie a credit card to your Android Pay account (not sure how it works with Apple), so now Android AND Visa/Mastercard/Discover/etc take a cut.
Personally, I like the convenience and it does seem more secure than even the chip-on-the-credit-card scheme.
What great options they are, too /sarcasm
Everyone wants microservices payments to be the next get-rich-quick scheme. So long as they can drain your account and charge you a micro-fee, they're happy.
We're ever-so-trained to let organizations do that micro-skim thing. Look at your phone bill for any questions.
And to trust google to both keep things secure, and not push this service from a cliff as so many failed google programs is lunacy.
Get out of banks, get into an S&L or better still, a credit union. Banks suck, and in today's unregulated climate, they're out for any nickel or micro-penny they can steal.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
When Google know who you talk to, what you talk about, who you send mail to, what you write in the mails, where you go, what you do on the internet, and it's still not enough for you -- just let them handle your money for you as well.
Um, the merchant gets charged the fee. The same way that just swiping your card at a retailer cost that retailer about $0.30 before even taking into consideration the cost of the transaction which the retailer takes another hit on. All in all, a $100 transaction is going to cost the retailer about $2.50
How would Google/Apple/Samsung/insert name here Pay behave any differently? There is a fee charged to retailers to process money electronically. Which is odd to begin with, when if they were to only handle cold, hard cash, it costs the bank and the retailer more money (labor) and there is no charge at all to anyone.
Google Wallet, Android Pay, Google Pay, when do we get product confusion by having too many things called the same thing that do slightly different things? Or are we already there?
It depends whether it is a net gain for the banks. Credit card fraud costs the banks some amount of money and Apple/Google Pay reduce this fraud. Does it reduce it enough? Only they really know.
Slashdot, the Verge, and other Apple-fan sites can only view everything through their Apple lens. It is tiresome... just report on the product (it is supposed to be "News for Nerds" after all), ad keep your pre-digested spin to yourself.
This is what? The 5th attempt from Google on the digital payment market?
I love it because apparently Google's strategy on a whole lot of things (messaging for instance) is to keep changing it and promptly abandoning it afterwards to keep the market and potential costumers confused, so that no one knows what to use anymore.
I have something installed called Hands Free! Can I pay with that?
https://www.theverge.com/2017/...
Oh no, this one was discontinued. Oh, can I pay with Wallet then?
That one was merged with Android Pay and became Google Pay.
But isn't this logo here saying Android Pay?
Oh, but Google Pay now works with that too.
Ah, nice then... next time I'll just pay with cash or credit.
At least they are consolidating the Google digital payment graveyard into a single thing, but man, Google never learns, does it? They could have both a consolidated messaging system and a consolidated digital payment system as well as several other services directly competing with major players by now... but the company completely lost the will and the way of simply commiting to something and keep improving it aside from already estabilished systems.
They can't create anything new and keep focus on it to improve things anymore. Most if not all of the more recent ventures are all like that - they give it a new name, "revamp" the thing, launch it, give it a couple of updates, then abandon the whole thing, and start preparing for the next round of renaming, revamping and launching again.
It's just fucking stupid.
So you think adding a middle man such as Apple or Google doesn't increase fees for the users in the end?
What do we say again, I have a bridge to sell you?
We are trying desperately to copy Apple for 3+ years and now we have mastered it. Now you can pay with Google Pay with as much ease as Apple Pay. You also get the benefit that we will associate your payment with your gmail, hangout chat messages, location, search, android phone unique id and others. Eventually, we will be able to create your clone who knows more about you than you and will pass the remote identity test better than you can. Good luck if ever our data is compromised either by internal employees or external hack.
Thankfully there is PC/Mac that you can use with FF in private mode (Safari is even better as every new tab is a private session all by itself) and go to random site and pay using PayPal associated with your credit card and use outlook mail and keep your identity private.
They start with 0.15%, but they will raise fees if they manage to get everyone on board with their payment system.
Also, people had the option to save 0.15% by not using Apple Pay, nobody would be using it. Especially not for big purchases.
And supposedly because of the improved security, this can result in lower fees to the merchant for those who use Apple Pay.
The writing is on the wall that Android will not be with us for much longer. At least not as an officially maintained platform. Android is getting bigger and bigger and becoming harder to maintain. Plus Google has been moving to development in HTML PWA (Progressive Web Applications) and lighter weight Go based applications.
Android is a mess. Its big. Its bulky. Its hard to maintain. And it has fragmented implementations. No phone table run Android the same way even on thier own devices.
The plan as I see it is that Google drops Android and Chromebooks support. and unifies their platforms in the Fuchsia OS that same way Apple did with their products. I would see some part of their OS to start closing off. The core will still be open source. But higher performance sandboxes will be closed off. Also look for low cost but restrictive licences for Fuchsia OS to to unify the platform.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
It depends whether it is a net gain for the banks.
Well, remember that using chips on credit cards weren't considered a net gain for reducing frauds for well over a decade (it's just crazy). I don't see banks doing the math over this, verifying the net gain and absorbing costs. They'll just charge a fee and be done with it.
This is a dumb story. There is no "New Product" It is a rename of their Android Pay platform to make it a more generic name.
The app automatically changes, and there is no functionality different from the current version of Android Pay.
The app is just now called Google Pay. It's a smarter name as they want to emphasize it isn't only on Android.
Glad this is "News for Nerds" but we can't tell the difference between a product rename and a whole new product.
I'm sure Trump has something to do with this. (MMU!)
I dunno....
I still prefer, as much as possible, to use good, old fashioned analog cash for most of my transactions, at least the local ones.
And a simple regular CC i use for online stuff....I don't see the need for this Apple/Google Pay stuff.
I can't imagine wanting to have my financial stuff on my phone which can be stolen and then me left in the lurch if that's my only method of paying shit.
Plus, I still enjoy the anonymity of my purchases when I use cash.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The banks just charge back the merchants, and the merchants eat it or else lose their accounts. The banks are not really losing here.
Do you see the merchants claiming they want more Apple Pay, and stop using other payment methods? No? Then it's probably because the merchants don't think it's worth it.
I doubt it. Say you're putting a $10,000 downpayment on a car. Suppose you could use Apple Pay (I don't think you can) or you can save 0.15% and pay cash.
That Apple Pay transaction costs you $15. It saves you going to a bank, getting a cashier's cheque, then going to the dealer with $10,000 cash in your pocket.
I'd pay it, no problem. The 2% or so that comes with a credit card transaction is more of an issue.
They start with 0.15%, but they will raise fees if they manage to get everyone on board with their payment system.
Also, people had the option to save 0.15% by not using Apple Pay, nobody would be using it. Especially not for big purchases.
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees. And besides, NO ONE will EVER get EVERYONE on board with their payment system; so no worries there!
The fee is not charged to the Merchant nor the Customer. It is charged to the Bank.
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
"Google launches yet another mobile payment service that does not work with your bank, or even exist in your country!"
The company launched Google Wallet several years ago before folding it
Was it bifold or trifold?
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
If you're doing the math, I'm worried.
Do you see the merchants claiming they want more Apple Pay, and stop using other payment methods? No? Then it's probably because the merchants don't think it's worth it.
The Merchant hardly has anything at all to do with it. To them, it's just another cashless transaction. In fact, most Merchants (and even vending machines) that have the capability for NFC payments accept Apple Pay whether they advertise it or not.
Cash is digital.
Do you use different math than the rest of us? That should worry you more than what the GP does.
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
And besides, NO ONE will EVER get EVERYONE on board with their payment system; so no worries there!
It doesn't matter. If gets to the scale of Visa or Mastercard, they will have won. Ever wondered why credit card companies charge 3% fee?
The fee is not charged to the Merchant nor the Customer. It is charged to the Bank.
Yeah, as I said, the bank will pass the fee, one way or another. You think they will just happily forfeit part of their profit?
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
Then let the user choose. No need to force the merchants into not adding an extra fee for credit cards/Apple Pay. And see if it becomes popular.
They start with 0.15%, but they will raise fees if they manage to get everyone on board with their payment system.
Also, people had the option to save 0.15% by not using Apple Pay, nobody would be using it. Especially not for big purchases.
People potentially have the option to save 3% by paying cash and not using a credit card. People don't. Credit cards give you 1% of it back, so it's really 2% net and often get longer warranties, fraud protection and 30 days float.
I use credit card for everything because it's easier to track stuff and I hate change. Plus it's much faster for merchants, or was before the stupid chip cards slowed everything down again. Still faster than cash and checks.
I don't know, but it works for me.
Amazon Kindle alone has enough inertia to fork AOSP. Since Google fled, many Chinese OEMs build Android devices that never had Play and never will.
Google knows very well of the large Android market segment that is beyond their control. Any attempt to kill the platform will see it immediately forked and forever wrested from their control.
That would not be such a bad thing, but I don't think Google is foolish enough to try it.
Banks profit from fraud. Much of it goes unreported, and when it is reported they usually try to pass the cost off to the merchant.
People potentially have the option to save 3% by paying cash and not using a credit card. People don't.
People don't have that option. Merchants are not allowed to charge more for using credit cards in many countries.
So the option is to pay cash, or pay the exact same price using a credit card, plus earn rewards.
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
If you're doing the math, I'm worried.
I admittedly REALLY suck at math.
But isn't 0.15% a "multiplier" of .0015?
If so, 1000 * .0015 = 1.5
Or, IOW, $1.50
The All-Knowing Google seems to agree:
https://www.google.com/search?...
Chips on cards didn't reduce fraud in the US where your banks didn't do chip+pin. Elsewhere in the world fraud rates tumbled.
Cards stolen in the UK are most likely to have cash drained from them via US card terminals
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
There's that "speculating" word again...
And besides, NO ONE will EVER get EVERYONE on board with their payment system; so no worries there!
It doesn't matter. If gets to the scale of Visa or Mastercard, they will have won. Ever wondered why credit card companies charge 3% fee?
And how much howling do you think the BANKS (who are the ones getting charged, NOT YOU) would do if Apple even approached 1%?
The fee is not charged to the Merchant nor the Customer. It is charged to the Bank.
Yeah, as I said, the bank will pass the fee, one way or another. You think they will just happily forfeit part of their profit?
That much? Yes. Yes I do. We're talking about a Bank charging more to every customer because the price they pay for toilet paper went up 50 cents per roll. Not EVERY cost gets directly (or even indirectly) "passed-on".
And do you know what 0.15% of 1000 dollars is?
$1.50
So, I don't think anyone is too worried.
Then let the user choose. No need to force the merchants into not adding an extra fee for credit cards/Apple Pay. And see if it becomes popular.
WTF, over? The MERCHANTS aren't charged ANYTHING. Neither is the CUSTOMER. Only the BANK gets hit for 0.15%. How many times do I have to explain that?
Besides, the user DOES choose to enroll in Apple Pay, and DOES choose to use it (or not) every single time they make a payment where there is an NFC input device. For example, I have used Apple Pay exactly ONCE (just to see how it worked) in the two-plus years I have been "enrolled". And the BANK chooses whether to participate at all.
So, where exactly is that lack of choice?
I already do that with Android Pay. Have done for a few years now.
I can (and do) use my phone at any NFC terminal.
If so, then still no sale.
Google has not abused my trust with search data... yet, that I know of.
They will still be a one-stop shop for government snoopers, via the third-party doctrine. I see no reason to make hoovering up everything I do with my money easy for them.
Apple has gone out of its way to be a we-don't-want-to-know middleman in contactless payments, which makes them easier to trust.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
I still prefer, as much as possible, to use good, old fashioned analog cash for most of my transactions, at least the local ones.
I do still for a lot of small local transactions, but especially tips - that way the servers get to choose how much to report they earn.
And a simple regular CC i use for online stuff....I don't see the need for this Apple/Google Pay stuff.
That is where you are really going wrong. Online is where ApplePay really shines, because it's giving the company a token that cannot be used for other purchases. If you are paying online with a CC the number is going to be hacked eventually; sure you can get the charges reversed but it is a pain to have to get a new number and deal with the annoyance of having to get a new card.
I can't imagine wanting to have my financial stuff on my phone
It's not really because it cannot be taken off the phone.
which can be stolen and then me left in the lurch if that's my only method of paying shit
I still carry a wallet. And a few times I've forgotten my wallet but was still able to stop at a store thanks to ApplePay.
In fact if that is your argument why is it not a problem that your wallet can be stolen too? At least this way if just one goes missing I can still pay for things.
Plus, I still enjoy the anonymity of my purchases when I use cash.
Same is true with Apple Pay form at least one side - the merchant does not know who you are if you do not tell them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The MERCHANTS aren't charged ANYTHING. Neither is the CUSTOMER. Only the BANK gets hit for 0.15%. How many times do I have to explain that?
To whom does the BANK pass on this hit?
No thanks. I don't trust Google/Facebook. It's just a matter of time (if it isn't already done) before they pick out the things that they find politically objectionable (guns, porn, etc) and ban the use of their service.
The lack of choice is that the merchant isn't allowed by the credit card to charge more to users of credits cards (including Apple Pay).
The lack of choice is also the bank isn't allowed by Apple to charge more to merchants when Apple Pay is used.
The 2% or so that comes with a credit card transaction is more of an issue.
Apple is going for it. 0.15% is the beginning. As long as more banks and users join Apple Pay, they'll be in a position to raise that fee.
The bank will have two options (absorbing the hit isn't one): increase the fee from 2 to 3 or 4%, or reduce the rewards and benefits associated to credit cards.
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
There's that "speculating" word again...
You clearly don't get sarcasm.
Actually, it's very easy to get 2% back on all purchases (I do).
Also, I'm not sure if this is a federal law or state law, but at least in some parts of the USA (unless it's federal), generally merchants can't charge a fee for using a credit card. They CAN give a cash discount, but the only place I ever saw that routinely used was gas stations, and even then, if I counted the cash back I would get, I still paid the same price the vast vast vast vast majority of the time (maybe a handful of times I paid a cent extra a gallon, ever), with more convenience, with credit card, compared to a "lower priced" Arco that didn't accept credit cards at all.. (and it was basically next door)
Also, paying via credit card (esp with these mobile payments) is more convenient than cash (including faster), you don't have to go to the ATM, and safer (even with a physical card since you're legally liable for only $50, usually waived).
PLUS, I'm paying 2% less than you are, at every transaction...
It's called cash.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Google Pay combines features from both, including the ability to pay at checkout counters with a smartphone, and even the option to scan into transit systems in cities such as Kiev, London and Portland, initially.
Great, just great. Most of the time when I get stuck behind some numpty at the barriers it's because they're pratting aronud with their iPhone rather than simply waving a credit card or oyster card over the card reader. I doubt android will improve things.
Plus, this is a bit of a non-feature: the London Undergronud uses a bog standard contactless payment system, so anything that looks like a credit card will work perfectly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
They use the same tech, and both can see the exact same level of detail on transactions.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-pay-isnt-magic-and-it-isnt-private/
The MERCHANTS aren't charged ANYTHING. Neither is the CUSTOMER. Only the BANK gets hit for 0.15%. How many times do I have to explain that?
To whom does the BANK pass on this hit?
No one. No more than they pass-on the "hit" when someone leaves their office lights on over the weekend.
The lack of choice is that the merchant isn't allowed by the credit card to charge more to users of credits cards (including Apple Pay).
The lack of choice is also the bank isn't allowed by Apple to charge more to merchants when Apple Pay is used.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
You're just speculating that Apple would raise their fees.
I am speculating that a corporation wants to make as much money as possible.
There's that "speculating" word again...
You clearly don't get sarcasm.
Yes I do. I just didn't detect any.
The .15 is on top of the 2%
The lack of choice is that the merchant isn't allowed by the credit card to charge more to users of credits cards (including Apple Pay).
To whom does the merchant pass on the cost of handling cash?
The consumers. But there is an other option, far cheaper. Debit. It's the preferred option for merchants since it's quick and there is no 3% fee.
Google Just Launched Jizz On Another Answer To Apple Gay
Ooh, I hope they'll go for reducing the rewards and benefits. Those programs should be flat out illegal.
They won't of course. But then, it's really not as much of a slippery slope as you seem to think. The fees get too high, and people switch to some new system. At least, they do here, but YMMV.
To me, Apple provides a service that is well worth 0.15%. The bank is pushing it pretty hard with their 2% + 20% interest + abusive tactics to get people into permadebt. I'm kind of curious though... Apple edged their way into the music business, got a bit of leverage, and used it to bully the music industry into being a bit more reasonable. Can they do that with banks too?
EFTPOS (aka Debit) works when the card is present. But I haven't seen any application of EFTPOS for card not present transactions, such as buying things online. What am I missing?
Yeah!
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Not sure why they are calling previous attempts failures. I've been using it continuously on my phones since about 2011, since it was the original Google Wallet. I still have all the cards I put there originally on my Samsung S3. It worked long before long before Apple Pay came around. Thank God AP did come though as that just expanded the number of places I use it.
Google's per-transaction fees will likely be lower than the competitors' because having a list of everything you buy saves them having to purchase that information from your credit card company.
>> Google Pay combines features from both Oh, you mean like what they *originally* had with Google Wallet, before splitting in Wallet and Android Pay? So they are just RE-combining then. Whatever the market dynamics -- and I am not sure why people don't agree on what those are -- nothing Google is doing here will change the situation.
That is what I thought too, but as an interesting note - in my state (Connecticut) if you pay your state taxes online - and use a credit card - they charge an extra credit card processing fee.
Well, yeah, of course, for some things like that, especially involving the government, are the exceptions. Note I did say "merchants".
You wouldn't want the government taking in less tax money (because of the credit card fees(*))?
(*) In my original message, I didn't specifically mention that, but yes I realize merchants (and thus consumers) "pay" for the credit cards.. But at each individual purchase, my price is the same (with the gas exception), so as a good consumer, it's cheaper/more convenient to ME to use a credit card.