Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Businesses Google The Almighty Buck News

Google Announces One Pass Payment System 135

Posted by samzenpus
from the one-pass-to-pay-them-all dept.
eldavojohn writes "Riding the tail of Apple's 30% announcement, Google's Eric Schmidt has announced One Pass, a new method for users to pay for content. The BBC is reporting that Google is taking a 10% cut. One Pass will work on Google sites and on phones and tablets as the announcement notes: 'Readers who purchase from a One Pass publisher can access their content on tablets, smartphones and websites using a single sign-on with an email and password. Importantly, the service helps publishers authenticate existing subscribers so that readers don't have to re-subscribe in order to access their content on new devices.' This is to be handled through Google Checkout."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google Announces One Pass Payment System

Comments Filter:
  • Google Checkout? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @05:25PM (#35225728)

    You mean the payment system that's only available to businesses in about three countries and completely useless to the rest of the world?

    • I guess being next door to US, Canada doesn't count as a worthy place to have Checkout available to merchants but they sure don't tell you that till you sing up and then get shafted.

      • by Reapman (740286)

        Eh? I have a merchant account with Google and I'm in Canada.... Granted I'm talking Android, maybe your refering to something else..

        • by citizenr (871508)

          You can pay, you cant sell

          • by Reapman (740286)

            Well, I sell Apps on the Android Market...

          • by jrumney (197329)
            Actually its the other way around. More countries are able to sell apps on the Android Market than are able to buy them.
            • by jrumney (197329)
              After checking the current status, it has improved somewhat. Paid apps are available now in 32 countries, and can be sold by developers from 29 countries (Czech, India and Poland can buy but can't sell, Argentina, Brazil, Israel, Mexico, Russia, South Korea and Taiwan can only sell Ad-Words supported apps).
    • Google would love it if the whole world is using its payment system. The problem is laws (esp. financial regulation), lack of law enforcement and corruption in a lot of countries, not Google. Some countries are just more trouble than they are worth.

      • by angus77 (1520151)

        ... lack of law enforcement and corruption in a lot of countries, not Google. Some countries are just more trouble than they are worth.

        First they take on corruption in China, now they're taking on corruption in Canada! Thank God for Google!

        • That would be down to the differences in financial regulation. It is smarter for Google to start with US and get the system working within the largest market then add countries one by one, than to try to setup a system to handle every single country in one go. It was same with Paypal, they started with US only and now they handle 100+ countries.

          • It is smarter for Google to start with US and get the system working within the largest market

            "Largest market" has more than one meaning. The People's Republic of China has more population than the USA, as does India. The 27 states of the European Union also have more population than the 50 states of the USA.

            • by Dahamma (304068)

              The difference is for some reason people in the US tend to pay for content these days rather than pirate it, which makes it a hell of a lot more *valuable* market...

      • by ivucica (1001089)
        Oh dear, not that excuse again. Apple solved it without owning a local representative in Croatia. Why can't Google, with a significantly greater local and localized presence? Even worse thing with Microsoft and their XBLA and Phone 7; they actually own a local company Microsoft Hrvatska, yet they not only don't want to sell in Croatia, they also can't process Croatian sales.

        Oh, and despite Checkout being here, Android Market paid apps are unavailable in Croatia.
    • Hey, it beats having the retailer (*cough*Amazon*cough*) decide for me whether or not I can buy something from a foreign vendor with a card issued in the US.

    • That's not true for the mobile/Android Market stuff. They also have 7 countries for publishers for the launch of this service (From the Goog blog link: Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. -- did you read the link? I'm betting not ).

      Anyways, your criticism seems a bit off. I'm sure those 7 will increase as they get the details sorted. So while maybe you can do a worldwide simultaneous launch of a financial transaction system, us mere mortals understand that some things take
    • I love seeing the banks getting cut out of the loop. They should have given us a secure and simple micropayment system a decade ago.

  • by BitZtream (692029) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @05:27PM (#35225752)

    So they have some reason to upgrade old phones. They aren't going to do it with no incentive.

    Otherwise you might as well just quit now cause devs will either target the phone with the features they want and have a limited amount of potential customers until everyone has completed the 2 year contract upgrade cycle OR devs will target 1.6 to get the largest audience and well, it won't be worth bothering with Android devices.

    • by LodCrappo (705968)

      From another article:

      "It won't be limited to Android, either. Google says that One pass "offers payments in mobile apps, in instances where the mobile OS terms permit transactions to take place outside of the app market". Not the iPhone then, but it's possible we could see One Pass on BlackBerry OS, WebOS, Windows Mobile or even Symbian."

      Sounds like the payments are done in the apps, not the OS. If so, should work fine on older Android systems, no need for an update from oems.

  • Comparison (Score:2, Interesting)

    It will be interesting to see how these systems (OnePass and Apple's App Store) compare. Does anyone know if Google is hosting the content free of charge on the Google App store, or is this payment system independent of hosting? It seems like the latter from the two articles I read, but they were both vague. In the end I suppose most publishers will use both to target the most eyeballs, but with both mobile powerhouses stepping in, Amazon and B&N and Sony are going to have to step up their game.

    • by Qwavel (733416)

      I think there are more important issues then where the content is hosted.

      The most important so far is the 30% cut Apple is taking versus Google's 10%.

      Apple's system is opt-in for providing publishers with your contact info, whereas Google is opt-out (by default they will provide your contact info, including e-mail address).

      Also important, Apple's system only works on Apple devices and doesn't let you take your content with you if you want to use a non-Apple device.

      Google's system attempts to work everywhere

      • One other big difference is that Apple is requiring that prices for products sold via their system are the same or better as in any outside sales channel the seller may also provide.

      • Being a prog, I can tell you my reason why I would block flash....the worst piece of crap possible with still so many vulnerabilities, you thought 100 monkeys were left in a room with a keyboard and eventually got flash. The problem also but good business sense on adobe's part (dont get me wrong, they are geniuses of business), is that flahs is so popular and free that every machine usually has flash, something like 99% of pcs out there running windows....so that is just another attack vector (*1000) to all

  • by Space cowboy (13680) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @05:59PM (#35226054) Journal
    The big difference for me between Apple's and Google's approach isn't the 30% / 10% - that can be changed by either party in either direction at any time. The freakin' huge difference is in the user-privacy settings.
    • Apple make the user specifically opt-in on a case-by-case basis for letting the publisher grab hold of your name & zip-code
    • Google by default send your name, zip-code, email address to the publisher.

    In Google's eyes, you are the product they are selling to the customer (the publisher). In Apple's eyes, you are the customer. I know which I prefer.

    Simon

    • by MaWeiTao (908546)

      While I appreciate the implications of this sort of thing I don't see the problem in this situation.

      If I purchased directly from the publisher wouldn't I be providing that information anyway? If I were a publisher I'd definitely like to know who's buying from me so why should I be blocked from getting that info?

      • by fidget42 (538823)

        While I appreciate the implications of this sort of thing I don't see the problem in this situation.

        If I purchased directly from the publisher wouldn't I be providing that information anyway? If I were a publisher I'd definitely like to know who's buying from me so why should I be blocked from getting that info?

        But if you buy from Amazon, both Amazon and the publisher get your information. If you buy from Google then Google, the publisher and anyone else that Google wants will get your information.

      • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @07:20PM (#35226894) Homepage Journal

        Because I don't want you to know I am reading your publication, for what ever reason. Maybe I don't want people knowing I subscribe to 2600, or high times, or Visual Basic magazine... especially not Visual Basic Magazine.

        Just because you sell me something doesn't mean you have the right to my information.

        • by SnowZero (92219)

          Just because you sell me something doesn't mean you have the right to my information.

          You can opt out if you want to:
          When publishers use One Pass, which for now is limited to online newspapers and magazines, Google will also share the customer’s name, ZIP code and e-mail address, unless a user decides to opt out.
          http://venturebeat.com/2011/02/16/google-one-pass/ [venturebeat.com]

          In the paper world subscriber lists have full addresses, which can be used to get masses of data from traditional direct mail databases. So zip+email is already an improvement, especially if you set up a special email account f

        • by radl33t (900691)
          The world is scary. I suggest you stay within that walled garden over there.
    • by F.Ultra (1673484)
      Until Apple changes it's mind or caves in. Anyhow giving your details to the subscriber is what you do today when you subscibe to the paper variant, why is this all of a sudden a privacy violation?
    • by LodCrappo (705968)

      How exactly is Google "selling" your information? It makes for a nice little quip, but I don't see truth here.

      You know, there was a time when publications would not sell you a subscription without your *full mailing address* (the horror). Is a name, email and zip code really that big of a deal?

      • Advertisers want facts to support the venue they are investing in. They want customers of a certain criteria, age group for example, or of related interests.

        Google makes money by selling this data to the advertisers, either directly or indirectly by refining their ad algorithm according to this data.

        In fact the only way Google makes money is by harvesting every bit of data they can find and attaching it to a certain product. It is what marketing and advertisers dream about, as knowledge about your customer
    • by Reapman (740286)

      This is why I vow to only subscribe to paper magazines! This way they'll NEVER figure out my name, zip-code, or email !!!

      • [sigh] (Score:2, Troll)

        by Space cowboy (13680)
        Yes, yes, it's obvious that the old-fashioned way was just as egregious. That's not really the point.

        Let me try and put it using a different allegory...

        In olden-days, in order to subscribe to XYZ weekly, you had to present your backside to the publisher, who took a run-up, and then kicked your arse as hard as he could with his hob-nail boots. You'd go flying through the air to land in the cold, wet slush outside Ye Olde Publisher Shoppe. Dripping wet, soaked to the skin, you'd go home and nurse yourse
        • No, on Appleworld, you get to pick whether Apple kicks you up the arse, or the publisher does. Either way, you get an arse-kicking. Apple just uses immaculately tailored boots instead of the publishers old hobnails.

          • Well, if you're going to bring in the retailer (to somewhat strain the analogy), you get to choose between:

            AppleWorld: Apple kick you up the arse.

            GoogleWorld: Both Google and the publisher kick you up the arse.

            Google's kick is an especially hard one (they've been watching mythbusters, and have a specially-designed hydraulic arse-kicking machine) because of how far and wide they track you.Both Apple and the publisher are relatively small-potatoes compared to the stratosphere-reaching implications of
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is entirely false. Read the ToS for Google Checkout. Google don't send anything to the seller that you don't want sent - including email address. They send the seller an anonymized email address for correspondence if necessary.

      • They send the seller an anonymized email address for correspondence if necessary.

        Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter (using an anonymous email address, of course)

      • Google checkout uses your google email address. How is that anonymized?
    • by Qwavel (733416)

      One is opt-in, one is opt-out.

      You think that is more important then the 20% difference?

      • by Lehk228 (705449)
        it's not a 20% difference, it's a 300% difference, apple charges 3 times as much as google, conversely google charges one third as much as apple.
        • Ultimately for me, what matters is the end price I pay. If I pay $9.99 to buy product x and it is the same price on each platform, then what matters to me is that I paid $9.99. For the publisher, their revenue is $9.99, $8.99 or $6.99 depending on which platform I bought it from.

          A publisher would be insane to prefer the Apple platform, unless they can "make it up in volume" - that Apple would deliver 20% or 30% more customers.

          Objectively though, what rankles is that Apple is declaring that the price on the

    • user "privacy" settings.. about as effective as the 'close door' button on the elevator.. You are not the customer. You are an "ugly bag of money".

    • by geekoid (135745)

      " In Apple's eyes, you are the customer."
      BWAHAHAHAhahahah.. of thats rich.

      You need to stop listening to Apples press rleases. or rather, learn to think properly when reading them.
      Here:
      http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/02/16/2132225/Google-Announces-One-Pass-Payment-System#comments [slashdot.org]

      "Apple says customer privacy will be protected and users will be prompted with an option to share their name, email and zip or postal code with a publisher when they subscribe. When a user shares information, personal info will be

      • Why is that? From my understanding, their system will be delivering the product to a particular user account, generally tied to a particular iOS device. That doesn't entail any exchange of personal details that would be useful in identifying you to a marketing agency.

        Most likely the information will be solicited through promotions and other freebie enticements to get you to exchange a little bit of info for a little bit of a back-rub, or at least the possibility of one.

    • In Apple's eyes you are leasing their property, you don't own your own hardware.
      • by jo_ham (604554)

        Yes you do, you just don't own the App Store or the servers it runs on. They belong to Apple.

        As far as the hardware in your hand, that's yours once you've bought it.

        • No you don't. Subscription content does not go through their servers. It goes through a connection you pay for separately, onto a device you paid for. Apple has absolutely nothing to do with subscription content, only hosting the app itself until it is downloaded onto your phone. It would be more sensible of Apple to charge hosting fees for the Subscription apps, not 30 percent of subscription sales. That is a greedy, dick thing to do and frankly they don't give a shit about their app developers because one
          • by jo_ham (604554)

            Who's talking about subscriptions (that do go through Apple's servers if you buy via the in-app system)? We're talking about the hardware, which you claim "you do not own" because of the way Apple chooses to manage its own servers and storefronts, that your hardware has access to.

            It wouldn't matter if Apple charged for subscription content in magic beans, it would not change the fact that you own the hardware that you purchased. Whether you can access servers that belong to Apple and buy things from them in

            • Subscriptions DO NOT go through Apple servers. The application that downloads subscription content does come from the App store. The subscription content itself is located on the servers of whatever company you subscribe to. For example, a New York Times app downloads the News/Images from New York Times servers via your connection you pay for. Apple is basically trying to get a chunk of subscription sales when they have no part in delivering the data other than the one time you actually download the applica
              • by jo_ham (604554)

                This is changing - apps like that one are now required to offer both options, with the in-app option going via Apple's servers and them taking a cut. Either way, you still own your own hardware.

    • by rtb61 (674572)

      You are subscribing to that publisher. If you got actual hard copy you would supply name, address, postal address, telephone number, postcode, state and credit card details. All apple is doing is hiding your details for it's own benefit to on sell adding a little bonus on top of that thirty percent.

      For the publisher it is terrible there just left with a whole bunch of apple subscriptions with no idea if they are doing well in any particular region, if they need to change content to more accurate target t

      • My heart bleeds for the poor publisher. They could do all that you ask for without my personal details.
    • However, I think the 10% is far more reasonable, and I'm saying this as an iPhone user. 30% for the app and 10% for content doesn't seem that unreasonable. Although the data management and delivery would probably be the same, there's no review process overhead as there is with apps. As a customer of Kindle and Audible, I'm against Apple's current audacious grab of 30%, since it threatens the continued availability of material from those providers.

  • Who would have ever thought that the 1-3% service fee that credit cards take from retail & other transactions could be considered small? Kudos to Google & Apple for managing to make Visa & Mastercard look good.
    • by Aquitaine (102097)

      It's more like 2-4% these days, and that's apples to oranges. You aren't making your purchase because you found something on Visa or Mastercard's web site. Visa and Mastercard didn't build the mall you were shopping in when you found the product. Apple and Google are selling marketplaces - not just handling the financial processing.

      • It's still under 2% for most retailers, other than Amex which charges 3% internationally.

        As to the Mall analogy, I could stomach that logic if the iPad sold at a price below cost, or provided some ongoing service for free. I've already paid Apple for the device; I've already paid my ISP for the internet service over which the content will be downloaded. I may have already paid for the app - why does Apple get a slice of the content price when they're not hosting the content, just providing a one-click gatew

    • by robogun (466062)

      Google and some would argue Apple are providing marketplaces - a single go-to point for files for specific devices.

      A better comparo might be Ebay, which rapes its sellers for an average of 25%, once listing fees, closing fees, monthly Store subscriptions, and mandatory Paypal fees are accounted for.

  • Google did a good search engine. Even more important Google understood that it had to provide good service so that people who knew better would allow Google to set a cookie on the computer for the ad side of the business. The ad side of Google is about as ethical of 2o7, so without the search the ad business would be worth much less.

    But search is not going so well. JC Penny hacked Google [google.com] for months before the NY Times called them on it, and now it is unclear if Google will or can do anything about it.

    • I think that you offended a google fan with mod point...

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Yeah, except with almost everything Google was the leader, or they did it better.

      This search thing with JCPenny? it has been fixed..

      And link farms are wrong. However why you even begin to think Google wont' fix it is beyond me. They have had issues like this before, and fixed them. There history is very solid,. Could that change? certainly, but there is no evidence of that happening at this time.

  • by eepok (545733) on Wednesday February 16, 2011 @06:24PM (#35226322) Homepage

    I really like google, but I don't like the idea of associating SO much with my online google identity. I've still not "linked" my youtube and gmail accounts. I have a Google Checkout account, but only because I trust them more than I other companies like Buy.com and don't want to bother creating a Buy.com account.

    The part that strikes conflict in me is having entertainment and education video associated with my google account. That alone is enough to extrapolate any political leanings, sexual preference, likely circle of friends, etc...

    Summary of realms I keep separate online:
    Gaming
    Video Entertainment
    Buying Habits
    Career/Work
    Tech Communities
    Humor Communities

    I would really prefer to keep all that separate and Google's not making it easy.

    • by Qwavel (733416)

      Personally I like having so much of my data with a single company - it makes it easier to keep an eye on.

      With Google, I know that they will use it to advertise to me, but they won't sell it or leak it. If that changes I will hear about it.

      If that data were spread amongst ten companies there would be no way I could keep track of it and feel comfortable that it wasn't be sold or spilled.

      • by vlueboy (1799360)

        I'm not so sure about choosing to defy a single huge bully rather than many wimpy ones. At least with each little advertiser, one has your name, but not your birthday, or location, or preference in pr0n search terms. Google* being your "single point of failure" is very dangerous dangerous when the failure involves ALL your data at once.

        Big bully means "Google" or Apple, or even our wife --all are bad but well-informed single points of failure. The point is that anyone that has enough confidential informatio

    • by geekoid (135745)

      It doesn't matter.

      If you are going to do something online, then use Google.
      The difference between something being 'easy' for them and 'hard' is about 2 minutes

      All you shit can be link together be experts. So why make it hard on yourself?

      The only way there are truly separate is you only do each one from a different computer, in a different location and never use the same data. like CC, or paypal.
      So, it's not really practical.

      • If you are going to do something online, then use Google.
        The difference between something being 'easy' for them and 'hard' is about 2 minutes

        All you shit can be link together be experts. So why make it hard on yourself?

        You are thinking about it in the wrong direction. The risk isn't to any specific individual, it is to society in general. Sure, anyone can target an individual that they have already decided to investigate. But what they can't do - without the aid of centralised databases - is trawl for people who fit a certain criteria.

        For example, look at Sony's attempt to subpoena youtube's records of everybody who merely watched a PS3 cracking video. If Sony gets that subpoena, then they will get lots of information

    • by gox (1595435)

      +1

      Having my e-mail account linked to some video sharing web-site or even social networking is not a big deal. I can create unlinked new accounts anytime I like and inform whomever I need to keep in touch with. I change my accounts all the time when I feel uncomfortable with the provider or the identity itself. But having some personal property associated with my on-line identity is like an anchor. I hope that they implement it in a way that you can disassociate identities, at least the data linked to those

  • Great, now I can spend my Continental OnePass miles [continental.com] to buy content.

  • But beware, if you use it The Eye of Sergey will be fixed on you.
  • Just want to be sure no patents are being infringed here...

6 Curses = 1 Hexahex

Working...