advertisement
advertisement

This is page 2 of:

Google Wallet Doesn’t Need Operators’ OK—And That Could Mean A Fight

November 30th, 2011

Google is a different story—or at least the ISIS telcos may think it is. In a simple marketing battle—”whose mobile wallet do you want to use?”—Google will likely roll over the mobile operators, and they know it. That’s part of the reason none of them have come to terms with Google, which says it’s in discussions with all of them. If the ISIS operators already have Google Wallet on their phones, the ISIS mobile wallet would have to be dramatically better to make headway. That seems unlikely.

But what if Google decides to go ahead and offer Google Wallet on the operators’ Android phones anyway—and what if the operators push back? It wouldn’t be hard for mobile operators to offer Android phones without Google Wallet installed, but they would have to take unusual measures to block customers from downloading the app if Google made it available. And if the operators did that, the whole mess would probably end up in court.

In the meantime, retailers who are already facing the possibility of supporting three different mobile payment schemes—and in the stupidest of scenarios, three different mobile payment POS devices on their counters—could be caught in the middle of that fight.

What happens when a customer walks in with a phone whose mobile-wallet app worked fine at another store 20 minutes ago, but doesn’t work now? It’s not ISIS or Google or Apple that customers will blame. It’s the chain that will take the heat.

And explaining to that customer that 20 minutes ago the phone was just mimicking a contactless payment card, but now it’s actually performing as a full Google Wallet, which is being blocked by the carrier—well, do you really want your associates trying to say that to an already irritated customer anyway?

All of that is at least six months away, and all chains can do is wait to see if a real fight breaks out. In the meantime, Apple could enter the mobile wallet field in early 2012 with something that at least uses the same POS devices as Google, which would make it impractical for ISIS to force retailers to accept another on-counter POS device. Or Apple might so completely swamp the market that Google would change its protocols to match Apple’s version, with mostly the same result for retailers.

In the best of all worlds for retailers, all three major U.S. mobile-payments players might decide to use the same POS and protocols. That would make life simplest of all for retailers—but you’ll probably be waiting for that one for a long, long time.


advertisement

4 Comments | Read Google Wallet Doesn’t Need Operators’ OK—And That Could Mean A Fight

  1. Rich Says:

    Frank,

    You guys REALLY need to enable tweets for these articles. They’re great, and people should be able to share them easily!

    I enjoyed reading it, and I tweeted it anyway (manually).

    Best,

    Rich

  2. Evan Schuman Says:

    Editor’s Note: The truth is that we did enable Tweets (and other social media contacts). The app routinely slowed down the page and the stories. Ultimately, to keep the site relatively fast, we had to abandon it.

  3. Jay Gould Says:

    The thing I like the best about Google Wallet is that, unlike many of its competitors, it would allow users to link all of their cards, regardless of brand (Visa, MasterCard, etc.) to their Google Wallet accounts.

    From a consumer’s point of view, the best mobile wallet would store all of our cards, as well as cash and checks. What we would not want to have is a clutter of apps for each individual card type or even each card issuer. So Google is moving in precisely the right direction and I hope the promised future versions will build on that foundation. http://blog.unibulmerchantservices.com/google-wallet-goes-live-more-consumer-friendly-version-to-follow

  4. Brook Says:

    “—an Android phone from Verizon that isn’t supposed to be running Google’s mobile wallet service”

    I never understand the way people see things at times. This phone is not “from Verizon”. The operating system was written by Google. The hardware was manufactured by Samsung. The reason a person might buy such a device is to run Android software. Verizon is just the service provider that links the device to the telephone backbone and the Internet. Verizon has no right to tell users what software they can or cannot run on their devices. And “Google Wallet” or Verizon’s (vaporware so far) competing product should be treated as just what they are: software. The users should be able to download and install their own choice.

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.