To Revive Wallet, Google Tries to Wrangle Unruly Partners | Hacker News Reader

To Revive Wallet, Google Tries to Wrangle Unruly Partners

wsj.com

26 pointsmaverick235 comments

Google is in dire need for a marketing unit, that educates regular consumers about the possibilities of the applications and products Google has. Otherwise Google always ends up with low traction for a lot of its products. And sometimes these products are killed.

It seems Google wants to do consumer tech only to get money to be able to do high tech. But otherwise it has no real interest in consumer tech.

Yeah I've said that for years. Google have a serious tendency to just announce products, push them out the door and then forget they ever existed.

Then 3 years later we hear about them being closed down (due to lack of traction) and they get a whole load of bad press from all the people who actually did use it.

Any new product, even at a large company, should be thought of like a startup - in constant need of marketing.

True, May be Google is still stuck in old ways of Internet. When early adopters drove the adaption. But Internet, specially Web has become too mainstream and there is a lot of noise. So being dependent on just early adopters might not cut it. It needs to have a Growth-Hacker type mindset.

If only they had some sort of advertising channel.

To revive Wallet, Google needs to make it usable. I'm not exactly unsaavy to the ways of a phone, but on the last phone I had with NFC there was no explanation of how to get it to work at POS (and how to set it up it all isn't very clear). Does the phone need to be awake? Do I need to run an app? I tried it once, didn't work, never touched it again. Mobile payment is something I'm just not going to put a lot of effort into.

Contrast to Apple Pay. Held the phone up, prompted for fingerprint, done.

There's a little how to use Wallet introduction at the beginning when you first setup Wallet on the phone. And it says it needs to be awake.

Hmm, must have missed that. I mean, despite my reference to Apple, I want stuff like this to work no matter makes it. So I'm confident, despite a stated desire to put minimal effort in, I did at least a little due diligence before wandering off to my nearest NFC reader. But when I'm standing in line with people behind me, stuff like this gets one shot. I'd have abandoned Apple Pay just as quickly had it not worked the way the videos claim, or better yet how I hoped it would work.

Actually, Google Wallet works almost exactly the same as ApplePay (my spouse has an iPhone 6, I have a Moto X 2014); I've seen and used both.

Just tap the phone on the NFC device and that's it (the PIN pad at the retail may then prompt you to hit credit or debit, if you choose debit, you just enter your wallet pin again). If Google Wallet needs to be unlocked first, it will prompt you for the wallet pin.

In fairness, it used to be far more cumbersome. They fixed most of the user interface problems with the release of Android 5.0.

But unfortunately most devices don't (and can't) run Android 5.0, so they're stuck with the old, cumbersome Wallet (or, worse, tried it, gave up on it because it was a terrible experience, will never try it again).

True, but in the same vein, most iPhones out there don't have NFC built in. (Was added in the iPhone 6)

I could've sworn it worked the same when I was running 4.whatever on my old Nexus 5 prior to the 5.0 update. From an end user perspective I haven't noticed much of a change in at least a couple of years (aside from some vendors disabling support in favor of their own tap to pay).

The difference I believe came with the ability for the app to automatically be run in the background and for control over which one was used for Tap and Pay, which given today's announcement from Google makes sense.

Maybe this was fixed in Android 4.4, but I would swear the experience changed for me sometime right at or after 4.4.

Notably, I didn't have to make sure the app was open and wallet unlocked first, whereas with Android 5.0 it "just works".

To be fair, the updated design (Material Design) is mostly back-ported all the way to 2.3. The user experience is practically the same on 5.0 as pre-5.0.

I still don't really understand if Google Wallet is available in the UK or what that means. They've apparently launched a way to pay people through Gmail in the UK this month - and it sounds like it's basically Wallet, but I don't think I can actually use it to buy stuff with my phone in person yet.

I've been using a contactless card for a while now and they're accepted in loads of places, but Google just don't seem interested in supporting it in the UK. Even the London oyster system works contactless now - I wouldn't be surprised if Apple Pay works flawlessly with that too.

I've never had any issues at all when it was supported. If anything, lack of motivation to update POS terminals has been the only thing keeping me from using it at more than the handful of stores I regularly visit where it's available.

Just tap, type PIN, receipt scrolls up the screen of my phone when it goes through and I get an email copy.

Interestingly enough, it was actually supported at more of the places I visited until the Apple version came out and brought increased attention to the concept...prompting many vendors to block it and try to push their own inferior solution.

I really wish that crap would stop. There's already a fairly compatible standard option that is working with both Apple and Google offerings (who would have thought!?) and offers the added convenience and security these setups provide. And rather than make a better app or gizmo that also works with the existing setup and competes on features or usefulness, they just block the competition before customers have a chance to start expecting them to work.

I have been using Google Wallet with zero problems since the beginning of 2012. Google doesn't need to make it more usable because it's incredibly easy to use. They need to market it better. Not many people know about it.

All Google/Apple articles (which used to be MSFT/Apple 20 years ago) Things are easier for Apple because they control everything in their domain. This however creates powerful enemies who are locked out and threatened. This creates a real opportunity for Google. However everything is much harder for Google to do because it doesn't control the entire ecosystem like Apple.

Rinse and repeat

In fairness, a number of partners have stated that Google is the biggest threat to their business in their 10Q's :-). But what is interesting from a game theory point of view is always do Google and Apple think the other is a threat to their business? And what does interdependencies means for things like the consumer? There is an interesting rock/paper/scissors sort of relationship with search, phone OS, app stores, applications, and market sizes. Its during periods where the interdependencies are tend to favor a single player that we see fairly large scale attacks against that entity.

10Q's are very strange docs though as they're mostly written with lawsuit mitigation in mind. So you name nearly everyone and everything as a potential competitor just in case one of them actually does become one one day.

But you raise a good point. I think the insecurity starts with Google and Apple responds. (and I'm an Android user so no fanboi assumptions!) Google relies on a very open web to leverage all the data to optimize search to drive ad monetization. I think Apple was very happy with optimized Google services running on iPhones making the whole experience richer (they want to sell hardware not profit from search/ads) Once Google realized just what mobile would become and how big a chunk of that Apple would control they panicked at the thought of being locked out. Again, due to their basic premise they're always going to be more insecure.

You basically described what Google did with Android. Phone manufacturers were locket out of the IPhone. Google offered them Android but G doesn't really control much of the ecosystem that it caused fragmentation.

I'm wondering if Google can replicate what they did with Android and apply it in payments.

Paywall bypass

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

Just as a side note if you have already clicked the link the google trick does not work.

Or at least that was the case for me.

For paywalled articles on WSJ and elsewhere, I always just triple-click the Headline. Then right-click and use Chrome's "Search Google for" feature. It's always the first link and always lets you view it. Works every time.

If it's like the other News Corp sites just delete the cookies/local storage for that site.

I still remember the Google IO where I lost my ticket because Google Wallet error'ed out. The JavaScript was really amateur and just left the user sitting at a progress screen forever in the case of an error. I don't really consider it a serious API considering it can't handle load. They should just outsource to PayPal or someone who can do payments right.

TL;DR: Google trying to work with banks to get some sort of deal going on. Google trying to wrangle it's phone partners like Samsung who are trying to implement their own payment platform.

WTL;DR: Apple is superior because they have complete control over their ecosystem (WSJ's opinion, not my own)

Non paywall link:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

If the new new new (how many times has it been relaunched so far?) Google Wallet doesn't support the same kind of tokenization as Apple Pay, but instead continues to sell tracking data to merchants and banks and whatnot, then Wallet remains dead to me.

Please remove this link, it is paywalled and therefore useless for most people

Paywalled for me.

And then follows the "search the title on google", and so on and so on.

It's from the Wall Street Journal, of course it's paywalled. Can we just have a macro that auto-pastes the same conversation thread for each wsj.com article, and save us all a lot of typing?

>And then follows the "search the title on google", and so on and so on.

>It's from the Wall Street Journal, of course it's paywalled. Can we just have a macro that auto-pastes the same conversation thread for each wsj.com article, and save us all a lot of typing?

Is that attitude directed at me? I'm sorry if I was supposed to know that the WSJ is always paywalled.

Not that I can immediately think of any instances where I've read the WSJ recently.

If I have read it recently, it was probably using someone else's bypass that I was unaware of.

If you could make more plain exactly where you're directing that... exasperation... that'd be fantastic. As right now, it looks directed at me and frankly, I don't think it's deserved.

Just a general observation of a long and oft repeating pattern. I'm dead serious about the macro, though.

Auto replacing with the Google link that bypasses the paywall would be even better and just avoid the problem entirely.

Text of article:

Google Inc. is reaching for its Wallet to keep pace with Apple Pay, but differences in the two companies’ mobile businesses mean it won’t be easy.

The Internet-search giant is trying to marshal an unruly coalition of device makers, wireless carriers, banks and payment networks to shape a new version of its Google Wallet payment service, in some cases by offering them more revenue. Google hopes to unveil the new service at its developer conference in late May, said people familiar with the matter.

Google, however, exerts less control over the smartphones that use its Android mobile operating system than Apple Inc. does over its iPhones. Smartphone makers and wireless operators offer many flavors of Android devices, with different preloaded apps. Each player has its own priorities, and changes made on behalf of one player can inconvenience the rest.

Further complicating Google’s task is that some of its “partners” have plans for their own payment services. Samsung Electronics Co. , the biggest maker of Android phones by number of units, plans to unveil its own payment service next month using technology from LoopPay Inc., a payments startup Samsung acquired this week. A person familiar with the Samsung-LoopPay deal said big smartphone makers envision few benefits from cooperating with Google Wallet.

By contrast, Apple controls the iPhone’s hardware and software, giving it a big advantage. Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook said last week that Apple Pay was only possible because of this control. “Imagine trying to do this with several different companies,” Mr. Cook told an investment conference. “You’d be pulling your hair out.”

Persuading Android partners and financial-service companies to support its payment service requires Google to “herd the many cats involved,” wrote Tim Sloane, a payments analyst at Mercator Advisory Group, in a January research report. “It’s a mess,” he added in an interview.

Still, Google has to aim for success, because Apple Pay could become a draw for people to buy iPhones, instead of Android phones. Mr. Cook said last month that Apple Pay accounted for $2 of every $3 spent using contact-less payments on the largest payment networks.

Apple Pay “has changed the dynamics” of mobile payments, said Marc Freed-Finnegan, a former Google Wallet executive who is chief executive of retail-technology startup Index Inc. “If payments become a standard feature of phones, Google has to have a service on a par with Apple or better.”

A Google spokeswoman declined to comment. Omid Kordestani, Google’s chief business officer, told investors last month that Google is working on a “fully functional payment system” that goes “beyond just tap and pay.”

Google launched Wallet in 2011, allowing owners of some Android phones to pay by tapping on retail checkout terminals equipped with a wireless technology known as near-field communication. But most large U.S. carriers refused to preload the Wallet app on their Android phones. They also blocked the service from accessing a chip that stored credit-card information, because they were working on their own payment service.

In 2010, AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and T-Mobile US Inc. formed Isis, later renaming it Softcard. The service failed to gain much traction, and Google is now in exclusive talks to acquire it as a key component of the revived Google Wallet, people familiar with the matter have said.

The three wireless carriers are more willing to work with Google these days, because they get no revenue from Apple Pay, the people familiar with the matter say. Mr. Freed-Finnegan said that’s created an incentive for Google and the carriers to cooperate. “Certainly Apple isn’t working with the carriers,” he said.

The three carriers and Softcard declined to comment.

In talks with the carriers, Google is offering to pay them to feature Wallet prominently on their Android phones and is dangling the promise of more revenue from advertising tied to Google searches made on the phones, according to the people familiar with the matter.

For Google, one big benefit of having a popular Wallet app would be the data it could collect on consumer purchases, which would give the company something besides website clicks to demonstrate the effectiveness of its ads. That could drive up ad prices, and carriers would share in the gains.

Banks are playing their own waiting game, to see how many carriers and device makers cooperate. Hundreds of banks are participating in Apple Pay, but most are interested in reaching Android users too. Android smartphones accounted for 47.6% of U.S. smartphone sales in December, a fraction less than Apple devices, according to Kantar Worldpanel ComTech.

Banks pay Apple a small fee for each transaction because Apple’s security measures reduce their fraud-prevention costs. Apple Pay users’ credit-card information is encrypted and stored on the phone, so merchants never see it.

Google is talking to banks and payment networks, including Visa Inc. and MasterCard Inc., hoping for a similar deal, according to people familiar with the situation.

Google’s situation is more complicated. In 2013, it eliminated a requirement that payment information for Wallet be stored in hardware, because the carriers had prevented Wallet from accessing the data that way. Its alternative, a software-based approach known as Host Card Emulation, may require banks to upgrade their antifraud systems. Mr. Sloane, the Mercator analyst, said the associated costs and disruption may make banks less willing to share fees with Google.

—Daisuke Wakabayashi contributed to this article.

Write to Alistair Barr at alistair.barr@wsj.com

Reply on news.ycombinator.com