advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Google And Verizon May Be Fighting Over Hardware, Not Mobile Wallets

December 8th, 2011

And if Verizon hands over control of the SE built into its phone to Google Wallet, it would have to add another SE to run ISIS or its own payments system.

That’s not actually such a big deal. A report earlier this year from ABI Research said that by 2016, almost half (41 percent) of NFC-equipped phones will have more than one SE inside. Some of those will be built into the phones; others will come in the form of SIMs or microSD cards. All the SEs can use the same NFC chip, and (unless someone botches the software) there’s no reason any of them should conflict with the others.

But there’s only one SE in the phone Verizon is about to ship. And Verizon isn’t likely to just hand over the keys to Google.

At the same time, Verizon can’t just refuse to deal with Google. That would open the door to the sort of ugly fight—and probable government scrutiny—that neither Verizon nor Google wants right now. That’s why Verizon also said this week that it’s “continuing our commercial discussions with Google on this issue.” That’s “commercial” as in “money can’t buy happiness, but it can probably buy a second SE.”

Is Google likely to cough up cash for control of a Verizon phone’s SE? It might be. Verizon can actually put an SE on the SIM that goes into the phone, and then use that when ISIS goes live sometime next year. That would free up the phone’s built-in SE for Google. Or Verizon might prefer (or be contractually obligated) to keep the built-in SE available for ISIS, which would mean it would take a lot of Google cash to break the logjam.

(Putting Google Wallet on this Verizon phone would have been a lot simpler for Google if the phone’s designers had built a microSD slot into it, so yet another SE could be easily installed. Unfortunately, the Galaxy Nexus has no microSD slot. Who was responsible for that oversight? This phone was designed by Samsung—and Google.)

In the end, there probably won’t be a big battle over Verizon’s phone and Google Wallet. With enough technology and enough money, there’s plenty of room on these phones for both Google and ISIS. And they’ve both poured enough resources into their mobile wallet efforts that they can’t afford to annoy customers or regulators—or retailers—any more than necessary.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.