Google Just Launched Another Answer To Apple Pay (cnbc.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Just Launched Another Answer To Apple Pay (cnbc.com)

Posted by msmash on Tuesday February 20, 2018 @04:43AM from the another-stab-at-it dept.

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.

138 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 04:49 · Score: -1

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.
1. Re:Will add supported banks? by jellomizer · 2018-02-20 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  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.
2. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  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...
3. Re:Will add supported banks? by tripleevenfall · 2018-02-20 05:01 · Score: -1, Troll
  
  In Soviet Russia, you pays GOOGLE!
4. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:06 · Score: -1
  
  0.15 percent. Wooo....
  The banks are REALLY hurtin' now!
  https://www.macrumors.com/2014...
  It's not a question of 'banks hurting' you retard. Do you honestly think the banks are going to absorb 0.15% and say "no worries--we have plenty of money", or do you think they'll end up ramming that down the throats of their customers? At 0.15% it's not that much, but keep that in mind the next time you 'bounce a check' and you get nailed for $40. Get off my lawn, but I remember when that used to be $5.
5. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  And how is that different than the Debit and Visa networks? Thats how merchant services works.
6. Re: Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:11 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Lame
7. Re:Will add supported banks? by quintus_horatius · 2018-02-20 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
8. Re:Will add supported banks? by postbigbang · 2018-02-20 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  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.
9. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  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.
10. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  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?
11. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
12. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  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?
13. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
14. Re:Will add supported banks? by iotaborg · 2018-02-20 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  And supposedly because of the improved security, this can result in lower fees to the merchant for those who use Apple Pay.
15. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  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.
16. Re: Will add supported banks? by tripleevenfall · 2018-02-20 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure Trump has something to do with this. (MMU!)
17. Re:Will add supported banks? by cayenne8 · 2018-02-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  At least we have payment options (witch so far seem much more secure then the alternatives)
  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.........
18. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  The banks just charge back the merchants, and the merchants eat it or else lose their accounts. The banks are not really losing here.
19. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
20. Re:Will add supported banks? by ceoyoyo · 2018-02-20 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  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.
21. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 06:29 · Score: 2
  
  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.
22. Re:Will add supported banks? by unrtst · 2018-02-20 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  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.
23. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 06:35 · Score: 2
  
  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.
24. Re:Will add supported banks? by Dog-Cow · 2018-02-20 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Cash is digital.
25. Re:Will add supported banks? by Dog-Cow · 2018-02-20 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Do you use different math than the rest of us? That should worry you more than what the GP does.
26. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 06:44 · Score: 0
  
  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.
27. Re:Will add supported banks? by nwf · 2018-02-20 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  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.
28. Re:Will add supported banks? by sexconker · 2018-02-20 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  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.
29. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  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.
30. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  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?...
31. Re: Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  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
32. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  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?
33. Re:Will add supported banks? by tepples · 2018-02-20 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  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?
34. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
35. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  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.
36. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  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.
37. Re:Will add supported banks? by mattack2 · 2018-02-20 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  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...
38. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  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.
39. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  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.
40. Re:Will add supported banks? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  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.
41. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  The .15 is on top of the 2%
42. Re:Will add supported banks? by tepples · 2018-02-20 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  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?
43. Re:Will add supported banks? by fred6666 · 2018-02-20 13:22 · Score: 1
  
  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.
44. Re:Will add supported banks? by ceoyoyo · 2018-02-20 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  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?
45. Re: Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-21 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  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.
46. Re:Will add supported banks? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-22 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  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.
47. Re:Will add supported banks? by mattack2 · 2018-02-22 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  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.
Still trying to Monetize it? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 04:52 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Apple and Google see exactly the same things with every transaction - the place, the time, *and* the exact amount. If you're thinking that Apple wouldn't use this for datamining (where Google would), you're just incredibly naive.
  http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-pay-isnt-magic-and-it-isnt-private/
2. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:14 · Score: -1
  
  Please, in the future refrain from insinuating that Apple products aren't magic, especially for the converted. It doesn't lead anywhere and we end having comments from the same pro-Apple-no-matter-what bozos.
3. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:31 · Score: -1
  
  Yes, Apple does get a REALLY small transaction-fee; but otherwise, is COMPLETELY blind to the transaction itself.
  hahahahahaha
  completely blind
  hahahahahahaha
  oh wow
4. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by spire3661 · 2018-02-20 06:54 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Apple is a hardware company. Google is an advertising company. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one is by default more trustworthy of holding onto data.
  
  --
  Good-bye
5. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  You would have to be a fool to trust apple and the OP is.
6. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  "COMPLETELY blind" sure applies to the author of the comment.
7. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by PhrostyMcByte · 2018-02-20 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is a hardware company. Google is an advertising company. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one is by default more trustworthy of holding onto data.
  I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
8. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by thsths · 2018-02-20 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  > Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
  Maybe, but they are also trying to get a proper mobile payment platform for Android off the ground.
  Android had the host based card emulation API for a long time - allowing any bank to write an app with NFC functionality. Very few banks did so.
  Now that Google has done the work, they want some reward for it. Maybe 0.15% is a bit much, maybe 0.1% or 0.01% would be better, but at least the principle is sound.
9. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 09:45 · Score: 0
  
  Because Steve Jobs is God and his company would never do anything "evil" like Google would. You didn't know Tim Cook is the Pope of the Christ of the Apple?
10. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 09:52 · Score: 0
  
  Google gets somewhere around 60-90% of its entire revenue from advertising.
  Apple gets somewhere about 0% of its revenue from advertising. If you include advertising expenditure, it would be negative. Apple spends much more on advertising than it receives via advertising.
  Any questions?
11. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by ChatHuant · 2018-02-20 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  >I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
  Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference, but here are a few things that may point towards this conclusion:
  - Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you. Google: makes money from selling your information to ad companies; grabbing as much of your data as they can is the core of their business model.
  - Apple: blocks trackers from their browser. Google: blocks other companies' ads in their browser, while expanding their tracking of you.
  - Apple: doesn't track you over multiple web sites, nor does it buy credit card transaction data from banks. Google: does.
  - Apple: has blocked its own ad team from using customer data collected via iTunes. Google: you got to be kidding me
12. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 10:08 · Score: 0
  
  LMGTFY
  http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-google-apple-facebook-amazon-microsoft-make-money-chart-2017-5
  Note that Google makes most of its money from advertising. Note also the Apple doesn’t.
13. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  > Are they still trying to insinuate themselves into each and every transaction, so they can both datamine and line their pockets?
  Maybe, but they are also trying to get a proper mobile payment platform for Android off the ground.
  Android had the host based card emulation API for a long time - allowing any bank to write an app with NFC functionality. Very few banks did so.
  Now that Google has done the work, they want some reward for it. Maybe 0.15% is a bit much, maybe 0.1% or 0.01% would be better, but at least the principle is sound.
  0.15% is what Apple Pay charges the BANK. But then again, they don't insinuate themselves into every transaction, nor do they get any data about the transaction itself.
  Seems to me that Google should PAY the USER (Customer) for the datamining, and for getting in the middle of a financial transaction. After all, that's one of the ways that financial institutions make money. It's called "Overnight Loans", and it explains why a whole BUNCH of financial transactions take DAYS to "process", when in reality, NOTHING these days takes more than 24 hours. If that.
14. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by drinkypoo · 2018-02-20 10:41 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see any indication that Apple is any less likely to mine and sell user data than Google. What gives you that feeling?
  Well, I agree it's rather difficult to perceive the difference,
  There is no difference; both are publicly traded corporations, beholden to their shareholders.
  
  Apple: makes money from selling you hardware; they don't really need your data, since they already made their money off you.
  If they can make money on you again, why wouldn't they? If they didn't want people's personal data, why do they keep creating systems to hold people's data? It's called iCloud now, and it parses your email, knows who your friends are, knows what you're listening to, what you're taking pictures of... sure, it's opt-in. But it's still a way to snoop on users.
  
  - Apple: blocks trackers from their browser. Google: blocks other companies' ads in their browser, while expanding their tracking of you.
  That doesn't mean Apple isn't tracking any of your activity. It just means they aren't doing it through the browser. They control your whole computer.
  
  - Apple: doesn't track you over multiple web sites, nor does it buy credit card transaction data from banks. Google: does.
  Sure they do. Multiple sites they're buying ads on, for example.
  
  - Apple: has blocked its own ad team from using customer data collected via iTunes. Google: you got to be kidding me
  Apple declined to comment for this story.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
15. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by ctime · 2018-02-20 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  One of the key *selling points* of Apple products is that they are designed from the start to protect your data - principally because Apple typically chooses to never be a party to your data what so ever, thus eliminating them directly as a threat to your privacy. In regards to Apple Pay: Apple Pay is also designed to protect your personal information. Apple doesn’t store or have access to the original credit, debit, or prepaid card numbers that you use with Apple Pay. And when you use Apple Pay with credit, debit, or prepaid cards, Apple doesn't retain any transaction information that can be tied back to you—your transactions stay between you, the merchant or developer, and your bank. https://support.apple.com/en-u...
16. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by thegarbz · 2018-02-20 12:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, the advertising company.
  For the hardware company your data is secondary to their core business. They have no real incentive to protect it.
  For the advertising company your data is like the recipe to Classic Coke. Something to be used to make money but something to never be shared with anyway.
  Personally I trust Google a shitload more with my data than most other companies out there. They also have a long standing history of not being hacked, not sharing the data, not doing dodgy things with user information etc. etc.
17. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by mjwx · 2018-02-21 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apple is a hardware company. Google is an advertising company. I'll leave it to you to figure out which one is by default more trustworthy of holding onto data.
  Apple is a marketing company, they don't produce hardware. Samsung, TSCM and Foxconn produce hardware. Apple owns a brand.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
18. Re:Still trying to Monetize it? by Plumpaquatsch · 2018-02-27 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I trust Google a shitload more with my data than most other companies out there. They also have a long standing history of not being hacked, not sharing the data, not doing dodgy things with user information etc. etc.
  Yeah, that's why people like you blame The Fappening on Apple, when most accounts hacked there were from Google. Because you actually have a clue about security. NOT.
  The only reason why you get that impression is because Google the data sharing company don't share that information with Google the search engine.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Too bad they just can't work together. by jellomizer · 2018-02-20 04:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  Subtitled: "Whatever happened to Quadraphonic Records?"
2. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by AmiMoJo · 2018-02-20 05:04 · Score: 2
  
  Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User? Why do stores need to support each device separately?
  Why can't it work world-wide either? Android Pay works fine for me in some parts of Europe, but not in Japan even though there are Android Pay logos on the terminals. It doesn't even get rejected, the phone just doesn't react.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
3. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by tk77 · 2018-02-20 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  Why do stores need to support each device separately?
  It was my understanding that Apple Pay is pretty much EMV over NFC and if the stores' reader supports both of those technologies, then Apply Pay will "just work". Does the Google/Android Pay stuff not work this way? If I recall when Apple Pay went live some stores (ie, CVS) were automatically accepting it but then went and manually disabled support (because they were onboard with that failed CurrentC).
  As for Apple Pay Cash and Google's equivalent, yeah it would be nice if there was a standard that could be used between devices. Bank's can't seem to even agree on a technology as the 3rd party my bank uses for sending money p2p has changed a couple times (and the last time I used it, it was pretty flakey).
4. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:34 · Score: 0
  
  Subtitled: "Whatever happened to Quadraphonic Records?"
  Obscure. You probably know what bakelite is, too.
5. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  Subtitled: "Whatever happened to Quadraphonic Records?"
  Obscure. You probably know what bakelite is, too.
  Yes. Yes, I do.
  Is knowledge a bad thing around here now?
6. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  Subtitled: "Whatever happened to Quadraphonic Records?"
  The Shibata needle / demodulator based discreet quadriphonic records got better front - rear separation than the QS Matrix based ones which were cheaper. Then everyone decided sitting in a chair in the middle of a room with speakers in the corners was just stupid.
7. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Typical tech-hating apple-worshiper reply.
8. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by thsths · 2018-02-20 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the technology is the same, but stores can decide not to support certain cards. Both Apply Pay and Google Pay are clearly recognisable.
9. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by swillden · 2018-02-20 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User?
  Because that would require the Android device receiving the payment to be a payment card acceptance device, with a contract with a merchant acquiring bank. There are both technical and contractual limitations in the NFC/EMV world that make this difficult. Same story if you wanted to do this with the phones reversed, or with two Apple devices or two Android devices.
  
  Why do stores need to support each device separately?
  They don't. Both systems use small variants of the standard protocols, and both are well-supported by all major card acceptance devices. If stores accept one and not the other, that's the store's choice. I'm not sure what would motivate them to do that, and I've never seen one that does, but I guess some must do it.
  
  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.
  No, both use the same technology and neither are due any royalties.
  
  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.
  Sometimes, but not in this case.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
10. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by jellomizer · 2018-02-20 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  No, However giving a trivia answer without explanation supports little to adding knowledge to the group.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
11. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, However giving a trivia answer without explanation supports little to adding knowledge to the group.
  Neither does telling someone that they should die horribly in a fire. But I've had those insults hurled at me on this site, JUST for supporting Apple, more times than I care to remember.
  And it wasn't a "Trivia Answer". Anyone older than about 45 or so is likely to remember that "Standards War". Kind of like the "DVD-HD" vs. "BluRay" Standards War, or of course, the VHS vs. Betamax Standards war. Going back a ways (even earlier than me), there was the FM-Stereo Standards War (the shitty Standard won).
  Anyone else care to contribute?
  Ok, well maybe it IS a Trivia Answer, LOL!!!
12. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  "Why can't I use my Apple Device to send Cash to an Android User? "
  Lord know an Android user would need it, and it's not like funds would ever go in the opposite direction
13. Re:Too bad they just can't work together. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 16:20 · Score: 0
  
  Apple won't put their stuff on Android. Google happily puts their stuff on iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-wallet/id575923525?mt=8
  So, you can. You just can't use Apple's ecosystem to do it because they don't love you.
Trump / Putin just launched another attack by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 04:53 · Score: -1

The Trump / Putin treason brigade just launched another attack on America's rule of law and democracy.
The whole reason I have an Android phone... by xxxJonBoyxxx · 2018-02-20 05:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

...is that you never need to associate a bank account or credit card with it.
1. Re:The whole reason I have an Android phone... by bobbied · 2018-02-20 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to do that with an I-phone... It just keeps complaining about it but you can ignore it...
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:The whole reason I have an Android phone... by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  ...is that you never need to associate a bank account or credit card with it.
  You don't have to do that with an iPhone, either.
3. Re:The whole reason I have an Android phone... by DogDude · 2018-02-20 07:11 · Score: 2
  
  Hahahahahahahahaha... You have to associate a Google account with it, which is much, much worse than a credit card. I use a Windows Phone because I don't have to associate any kind of account with it to use it.
  
  --
  I don't respond to AC's.
4. Re:The whole reason I have an Android phone... by dhawton · 2018-02-20 07:23 · Score: 2
  
  No you don't. There is a skip button and it never pesters you again about it.
5. Re:The whole reason I have an Android phone... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 21:07 · Score: 0
  
  You CAN create a disposable account with any crazy name on it. Try do it with a credit card. I suppose it's even illegal.
6. Re:The whole reason I have an Android phone... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-21 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  I use a Windows Phone.
  Poor thing. There, there. You can cry on my shoulder.
Not satisfied with just being tracked? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:20 · Score: 0

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.
1. Re:Not satisfied with just being tracked? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:10 · Score: 0
  
  They do this without google pay / wallet / coinpurse whatever this one is called. Did you know AdWords can track conversions at retail? Like you see an ad, then go to the store and buy something. How would they be tracking that?
  They're buying as much credit card data as they can get their hands on. I'd suggest you google it, but then they'd know you're on to them.
  Unless you are 100% cash they already know your spending habits.
Keep the spin out by Nexus7 · 2018-02-20 05:40 · Score: 1

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.
1. Re:Keep the spin out by TheFakeTimCook · 2018-02-20 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  The same might be said of you, too...
2. Re:Keep the spin out by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  Says the master apple shill.
Love it by XSportSeeker · 2018-02-20 05:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Love it by Solandri · 2018-02-20 07:33 · Score: 2
  
  I dunno about the Wallet -> Android Pay transition. But this Android Pay -> Google Pay transition is pretty obvious and expected. Google is putting the finishing touches on Chrome OS. Genericizing their pay system so it's not Android-centric is completely logical and to be expected.
  
  BTW, there's probably going to be another consolidation transition in the future. Their online shopping/payment system is under Google Express. These probably started as different projects ("pay for stuff online" versus "pay with your phone"), but are growing to where their convergence makes a lot of sense. Like cell phones and PDAs.
2. Re:Love it by swillden · 2018-02-20 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is what? The 5th attempt from Google on the digital payment market?
  Not really. There's really only been one attempt, that has been rebranded twice (Google Wallet -> Android Pay -> Google Pay) and changed the underlying technology twice -- the first time because they were using an embedded secure element which the carriers wanted to control, and the second time because network tokenization was finally ready (Apple waited until it was before launching).
  However, there is a lot of confusion because Google Wallet included a bunch of other stuff under the same name, and that set of stuff has changed several times. But the tap-and-pay story has been pretty consistent and with only minor variations in user experience since it launched seven years ago.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Copying Apple for 3+ years by u19925 · 2018-02-20 05:50 · Score: 1, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Forgot to mention to use VPN as well. For every transaction which needs me to log in, I open a new tab in Safari, login and when I logout, I close the browser tab. If there are any links I need to click, I prefer to open that in a separate private tab as well (which gets its own session), so unless they are encoding tracking id in url, there is no easy way to track me.
2. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by Nexus7 · 2018-02-20 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was using Google (or Android, or whatever it was called at the time) before Apple Pay was introduced. I been using it since through its various incarnations. It's always been easy - sure the underlying transaction mechanisms have changed - but it's been reasonably transparent to me.
3. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  Man... it all seems so very worth it. I mean, now nobody will know I just bought Mentos in the grocery store. Mwhahahahaha. Kiss my arse suckers!!!
4. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by tlhIngan · 2018-02-20 06:52 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  Funny, but Google's been doing the payment thing far longer than Apple - Google Wallet's been around since Android's been around and Google's been doing NFC payments before NFC hit the iPhone (at least for years before).
  The only thing is, Apple Pay is based on standards - EMV. It's really at the very bottom an implementation (ignoring extra Apple pay frilly things for now). That's why It Just Worked at a lot of merchants - if they supported tap (NFC), they implicitly supported Apple Pay as well. The only hard part was getting banks enrolled, but that was more of an Apple and bank thing.
  Google Wallet was based on a debit card - you paid, Google was told about the transaction and Google then charged you. This double-billing meant it was easy to get funding sources (Google even ate the transaction fees), but it required retailer support.
  Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
  The only thing that's going wierdly is all the frilly stuff, like Apple pay being used to outdo paypal by offering person-to-person funding transfers as well. Those things aren't likely to take off.
5. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  Its amazing how tech ignorant apple cultists are.
6. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by swillden · 2018-02-20 09:28 · Score: 1
  
  Google Wallet was based on a debit card - you paid, Google was told about the transaction and Google then charged you. This double-billing meant it was easy to get funding sources (Google even ate the transaction fees), but it required retailer support.
  Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
  Google didn't want to insert themselves; it was the only technically feasible option at the time that wasn't impossible to scale.
  The debit card thing was the second implementation of Google Wallet, not the first. Being involved in every transaction that way cost Google money, because they were doing a "card present" (low fee) transaction with the merchant and a "card not present" (high fee) transaction with the backing credit card. So on every transaction Google collected a small fee from the merchant and paid a larger fee to the backing credit card issuer.
  Why did Google do that? Could they not do the math and realize that losing money on every transaction was a bad idea? No, they knew that perfectly well, and budgeted for it, because it seemed to be what was necessary to drive adoption.
  The problem with the very first implementation of Google Wallet (before the debit card workaround) was that it was a direct implementation of the EMV specifications, which required that the transaction be performed by an embedded secure element chip (eSE) in the phone, and that the credit card issuer have systems in place to provision the card data into the secure element. This meant that in order to use Google Wallet you had to have the right phone (Nexus S or Galaxy Nexus), the right credit card (IIRC, Citibank was the only bank that was set up for it) and you had to find a retailer with a terminal that could do it.
  That worked great for prototyping and small scale testing, but it clearly was never going to scale quickly. Google worked with various retailers to get them set up for NFC payment, but the other two parts of the problem -- getting eSEs in a wide variety of phones and getting permission to install the necessary code on them, plus getting all of the banks set up to deal with NFC provisioning, those were harder.
  The solution to the first problem was to abandon the eSE and create a new approach called "Host Card Emulation". The idea was to move the crucial cryptographic secrets out of the phone entirely and keep them in a Google server (secured in a data center, etc.). That enabled Google Wallet to work on any Android device, not just devices with an eSE. In addition Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile had been fighting for ownership and control of the eSE, and ultimately launched their own competitor to Google Wallet, originally called ISIS and later renamed SoftCard (after the name acquired unpleasant connotations). Abandoning the eSE solved that problem, too.
  The solution to the second problem was the debit card thing. With that setup, any credit card or debit card could be used, and the issuing bank didn't have to lift a finger. In fact, even better, they made more money because Google way paying them higher fees, *and* Google was taking all of the fraud risk.
  Note that there was another solution waiting in the wings, which had been in development for some time: Network tokenization. That allowed the networks to provision payment credentials into devices, so only a small number of systems had to be NFC-enabled, not every single bank in the world (as had been envisioned in the original EMV design). The networks were dragging their feet on that and it wasn't clear when it would actually be implemented, and Google didn't want to wait.
  Apple waited for tokenization, and when it was ready launched with typical Apple marketing flair. Shortly afterwards, Google completed its own transition to network tokenization, and at the same time as the technology change was launched, also rebranded the tap-and-pay part of Google Wallet as Android Pay.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
7. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by ChatHuant · 2018-02-20 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Google wanted to insert themselves into every transaction. Apple Pay was a more secure credit card.
  Google didn't want to insert themselves; it was the only technically feasible option at the time that wasn't impossible to scale.
  Yeah, right. They so much don't want to insert themselves that they're actively buying offline credit card transaction data from third parties.
  On the contrary, I think Google salivates at the idea of inserting themselves into your wallet, and the deeper the better. They have a very strong motivation for collecting all your data and tracking all you buy - they can then use your purchases to show ad companies how efficient the ad buy is.
8. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by swillden · 2018-02-20 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read the rest of the post?
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
9. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by ChatHuant · 2018-02-20 12:02 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read the rest of the post?
  Yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. You're describing some technical aspects of the payment process, and some history. This is irrelevant to the thread's subject, which is Google's tracking of your offline purchases.
  I took OP's complaint about Google "inserting" itself into the transaction as a criticism of Google's finding yet another way to get your data, and not as commiseration for the poor Google programmers who had to find a technical solution to implement it. Your message ignores the substance of the thread, but talks about implementation, trying to imply that Google, while not interested in inserting themselves in the transaction, simply had no other possible technical solution. That's not nice: it's an attempt to confuse the issue. In reality, Google wants the data, as proven by the fact they will buy it from third parties when they can't grab it from Google pay. The motivation for inserting themselves into customer's transactions is not technical; it's Google's business model.
10. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by thegarbz · 2018-02-20 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  but it required retailer support.
  Hogwash. Google wallet worked on every generic NFC machine long before Apple pay even came to the market. Apple pay, open? I remember it as that thing that needed negotiation between Apple and the bank to support and that was rolled out initially to a limited set of banks precisely because it DIDN'T follow standard processes. i.e. it didn't look like a card to the debit machine.
  In the mean time I was using Google Wallet several years before Apple even considered coming to the market, in a country in which it was not even officially supported. Yes then Google got wind of it and started clamping down on it so I had to register my card with a fake American address (in Beverly Hills 90210 no less since it's the only post code foreigners know) to continue using it. But eventually they clamped down on that too.
  It's like Google wanted it to fail.
11. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by swillden · 2018-02-20 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Did you even read the rest of the post?
  Yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. You're describing some technical aspects of the payment process, and some history. This is irrelevant to the thread's subject, which is Google's tracking of your offline purchases.
  Okay, after reading it, also engage your brain. Note that if you're purchasing stuff using Google's app (or Apple's) they don't need to actually be part of the financial transaction to track your purchase. It would be silly for Google to spend money just to get data they can already get.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
12. Re:Copying Apple for 3+ years by mjwx · 2018-02-21 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, but Google's been doing the payment thing far longer than Apple - Google Wallet's been around since Android's been around and Google's been doing NFC payments before NFC hit the iPhone (at least for years before).
  This... The problem that both google and Apple have is that it's a solution to a problem no-one has.
  
  Both Google and Apple are doing this the lazy way. In order to avoid being called a bank and having to comply with the myriad of banking regulations the world over, both "products" are just wrappers for another financial service provider's product (its just a wrapper for a credit card from a bank).
  
  Neither service offers any features that a credit card doesn't have but introduces additional risk and complexity.
  
  In order to offer a benefit over simply using my credit card or cash, Apple or Google would need to either store my money or offer me a line of credit and at that point in most countries, they become a bank and subject to all the rules and regulations that come with it. This is also why banks can dictate a maximum transaction limit... because ultimately they control the transaction.
  
  As I said, it's a solution without a problem. Google will eventually just give up on it as they've got an issue with throwing good money after bad, Apple will keep offering a service no-one uses.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Makes sense since Android is going away... by randomErr · 2018-02-20 05:56 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:Makes sense since Android is going away... by nwf · 2018-02-20 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  I develop on iOS and Android. They both are bloated and fragmented, granted iOS less so. I think it's actually easier to write Android apps that work on most all phones than writing iOS apps that look good on all iOS devices.
  I'll bet Android will be around for a long time. I can see Google moving more features under the "Google" brand since Android is becoming a generic term, but web-based OSes are crap and pretty much always will be.
  
  --
  I don't know, but it works for me.
2. Re:Makes sense since Android is going away... by TuringTest · 2018-02-20 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  It only takes one decent WASM platform to make web OS compelling. If developers can take their web development knowledge and build native apps with it, which also double as web apps with little effort, that's a very compelling proposition.
  
  --
  Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
3. Re:Makes sense since Android is going away... by thegarbz · 2018-02-20 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  The writing is on the wall that Android
  Indeed. Windows ME was a disaster. 2001 will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
  17 years later, we're still seeing silly predictions.
It's just a rename! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:12 · Score: 1

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.
Translation ... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:29 · Score: 0

"Google launches yet another mobile payment service that does not work with your bank, or even exist in your country!"
The real question! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 06:31 · Score: 0

The company launched Google Wallet several years ago before folding it
Was it bifold or trifold?
It will never happen. by emil · 2018-02-20 06:47 · Score: 1

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.
Adding ability to pay at a checkout with my phone? by viperidaenz · 2018-02-20 07:44 · Score: 1

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.
Does Google still get to see all my transactions? by alispguru · 2018-02-20 07:50 · Score: 1

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.
Big reason to use Apple Pay is for online by SuperKendall · 2018-02-20 07:54 · Score: 1

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
1. Re:Big reason to use Apple Pay is for online by ChatHuant · 2018-02-20 10:13 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  There are credit cards (for example from Citibank) who let you generate an unique new number, good for a single transaction (and up to a certain limit you can also set). That's what I use for online purchases, if I haven't dealt with the seller before.
2. Re:Big reason to use Apple Pay is for online by SuperKendall · 2018-02-20 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  Those are also good, but sadly it seems like the set of cards that let you generate numbers and the set of cards with good rewards does not have a large overlap. ApplePay is also more convenient than having to generate a single use number - but on the gripping hand, you can use that single use CC number anywhere and not everyone supports ApplePay on the web (though it's spreading well).
  Amazon Way also works, which a number of online vendors support - but then of course you have to trust Amazon enough to leave a number with them.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
3. Re:Big reason to use Apple Pay is for online by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  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.
  If your wallet is stolen then you're going to cancel your cards in which case Apple Pay doesn't work.
  
  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.
  No but Apple does. They know who you are and where you're shopping.
4. Re:Big reason to use Apple Pay is for online by cayenne8 · 2018-02-21 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  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.
  
  Interesting...
  I"ve never seen a website that took Apple Pay online?
  Maybe its there and I've not noticed it, but I don't recall seeing that as an option, usually just CC, and sometimes PayPall and Amazon Pay I'm seeing commonly online.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Do you want them to choose what you are allowed by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 08:03 · Score: 0

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.
I have an answer too by WillAffleckUW · 2018-02-20 09:23 · Score: 2

It's called cash.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:I have an answer too by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 15:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's called cash.
  "I'm sorry sir, we don't accept cash."
Ugh by serviscope_minor · 2018-02-20 09:26 · Score: 1

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.
Re:Does Google still get to see all my transaction by Anonymous Coward · 2018-02-20 10:05 · Score: 0

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/
Google Just Launched by sproketboy · 2018-02-20 14:33 · Score: 0

Google Just Launched Jizz On Another Answer To Apple Gay
Card not present by tepples · 2018-02-20 15:51 · Score: 1

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?
1. Re:Card not present by fred6666 · 2018-02-21 04:40 · Score: 1
  
  If you read the conversation, we were talking about cash. You can't use cash online either.
2. Re:Card not present by Plumpaquatsch · 2018-02-27 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  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?
  Actually, Apple Pay does that.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
3. Re:Card not present by tepples · 2018-02-27 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Even if Apple Pay works for CNP purchases, for what fraction of the online shopping user base is it practical to buy a Mac, iPhone, or iPad just to continue to transact online, in addition to the non-Apple desktop, laptop, tablet, or pocket computer you already own? Or has Apple announced plans to expand Apple Pay to competitors' operating systems?
Google is ahead in number of payment systems by Plumpaquatsch · 2018-02-20 22:51 · Score: 1

Yeah!

--
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Failed? It's been working fine since 2011 or so. by technomom · 2018-02-21 05:16 · Score: 1

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.
Nothing more than rebranding by frogmaw · 2018-02-21 08:21 · Score: 1

>> 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.