Google Wallet Card(google.com)
google.com
Google Wallet Card
https://www.google.com/wallet/shop-in-stores/index.html#instore-wallet-card
52 comments
The P2P has the potential be quite disruptive to Paypal.
IMO Venmo (which Paypal bought) is an excellent P2P service so Google's P2P is more of a catch-up than anything disruptive.
I don't disagree - I'm thinking og G's marketing muscle and huge synergistic opportunities rather than any technical superiority. Of course, those also come with the risk of antitrust action but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
It is extremely generous of Google to offer to track all of my purchase history for free.
So much more evil than what CC companies already do today, amirite?
Yes. CC companies are their own silo. Google aggregates data across multiple sources, and you can be certain that you'll start seeing ads related to purchases you've already made in meatspace.
Oh nice, so the ads will be for things I'm actually likely to be interested in instead of random things I don't and will never care about?
Yes, considering that CC companies have that information by the nature of the service they provide to you, their customer. On the other hand, Google seems to be expanding into more services to hungrily learn more about you and then provide than information to their real customers, the advertisers.
Edit: I should mention that I know that credit card companies sell data to third parties. But they don't exist only for that purpose, like Google nowadays. Thus, people are understandably less comfortable with Google knowing things.
Edit: I should mention that I know that credit card companies sell data to third parties. But they don't exist only for that purpose, like Google nowadays. Thus, people are understandably less comfortable with Google knowing things.
One could argue that the credit card companies are more entitled to my purchase history as they are the ones providing the line of credit. Google is simply doing a user allowed MITM "attack" in this case.
And how long after I take the time to import all of my loyalty cards into this system before Google decides to go a different direction and shuts this down?
Sigh...
Sigh...
As opposed to options and products provided by other companies, that are guaranteed to be around forever and ever.
>As opposed to options and products provided by other companies...
I think GP is rather trying to make an assessment based off Google's history of closing down services. Similar to I rather trust a stranger than a known con-artist, while realizing the possibility that either could walk away with your money.
I think GP is rather trying to make an assessment based off Google's history of closing down services. Similar to I rather trust a stranger than a known con-artist, while realizing the possibility that either could walk away with your money.
There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down, too.
>There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down, too.
Yes but it also natural for human beings to follow: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
Yes but it also natural for human beings to follow: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."
My point is that we tend to look at the shutting down of companies/products/services as some sort of exceptional and underhanded decision. Rather, we should see it for what it really is: the norm.
Most startups die and most products fail, eventually. It's not some sort of habitual bad behavior that companies selectively choose to participate in. So judging Google as a repeat (and thus untrustworthy) offender is unfair, and unrealistic, too, because you're just as likely to get burned elsewhere.
Most startups die and most products fail, eventually. It's not some sort of habitual bad behavior that companies selectively choose to participate in. So judging Google as a repeat (and thus untrustworthy) offender is unfair, and unrealistic, too, because you're just as likely to get burned elsewhere.
> Rather, we should see it for what it really is: the norm.
I don't know maybe I am an exception but I see companies shutting down products far from the norm. I normally tend to trust bigger companies with stability and invest most of my energy in them. I still have my hotmail/yahoo/aol accounts from the mid 90s working just fine.
Google is an exception. It feels like they are punching themselves when walking forward. Their current goal is to provide a comfortable integrated experience. Even though from a business perspective, it makes sense to shut down unviable products and services, from a consumer point of view it only causes frustration and loss of trust, which ironically is quiet opposite of what they are trying to achieve.
Ask yourself:
Keeping all other variables constant, which would you trust to be around longer:
Google Drive or Dropbox?
Google App Engine or AWS?
Google Wallet or Paypal?
Google+ or Facebook?
I don't know maybe I am an exception but I see companies shutting down products far from the norm. I normally tend to trust bigger companies with stability and invest most of my energy in them. I still have my hotmail/yahoo/aol accounts from the mid 90s working just fine.
Google is an exception. It feels like they are punching themselves when walking forward. Their current goal is to provide a comfortable integrated experience. Even though from a business perspective, it makes sense to shut down unviable products and services, from a consumer point of view it only causes frustration and loss of trust, which ironically is quiet opposite of what they are trying to achieve.
Ask yourself:
Keeping all other variables constant, which would you trust to be around longer:
Google Drive or Dropbox?
Google App Engine or AWS?
Google Wallet or Paypal?
Google+ or Facebook?
I'd choose Dropbox, AWS, Paypal, and Facebook over all of those Google alternatives. But that's not because I believe they are "trustworthy", nor is it because I believe Google has already "fooled" us. Rather, it's because of the economics of the situation.
None of those products are Google's core competency. They're almost all imitation products that are extremely late to the game and that, consequently, have a relatively high chance of failure. On the flip side, AWS, Dropbox, Paypal, and Facebook are all high-revenue market leaders with practically no chance of failing any time soon and owners who can't be enticed to sell out. If you were to replace these products with newer, riskier, less-profitable alternatives from smaller companies, I'd have picked the Google option every time.
Stability, profitability, and market dominance are the primary reasons I trust products to last, not company track record. If Dropbox made a search engine, Amazon made a webmail service, or Facebook made a mobile OS, would you trust any of them to outlast their Google counterparts?
None of those products are Google's core competency. They're almost all imitation products that are extremely late to the game and that, consequently, have a relatively high chance of failure. On the flip side, AWS, Dropbox, Paypal, and Facebook are all high-revenue market leaders with practically no chance of failing any time soon and owners who can't be enticed to sell out. If you were to replace these products with newer, riskier, less-profitable alternatives from smaller companies, I'd have picked the Google option every time.
Stability, profitability, and market dominance are the primary reasons I trust products to last, not company track record. If Dropbox made a search engine, Amazon made a webmail service, or Facebook made a mobile OS, would you trust any of them to outlast their Google counterparts?
"None of those products are Google's core competency." - I agree but so is the product we are discussing.
(+)
The probability of this shutting down given the history of Google shutting down non-core products before.
(+)
The lack of customer support if something were to go wrong.
(=s) (understandably)
The lack of interest and skepticism shown by grandparent poster.
However, other companies, namely Microsoft and Yahoo might only have to deal with one or two of the above and can be said to be given a free pass at skepticism.
(+)
The probability of this shutting down given the history of Google shutting down non-core products before.
(+)
The lack of customer support if something were to go wrong.
(=s) (understandably)
The lack of interest and skepticism shown by grandparent poster.
However, other companies, namely Microsoft and Yahoo might only have to deal with one or two of the above and can be said to be given a free pass at skepticism.
[deleted]
Surely a good (read focused) company should ALWAYS close down more products than it starts?
You mean if a company has started 10 products in its lifetime, it should close down those 10 products and also 2 other company's products?
Come on, you've got to stay current. Google shutting down services is so six months ago. Right now you should be complaining about privacy or Google+.
This is basically the future of Google's business. You think they're developing products like autonomous cars, google now, and glass for kicks?
They want to provide very powerful incentives so they can take a small bit of every transaction.
They want to provide very powerful incentives so they can take a small bit of every transaction.
I wonder why people carry all that plastic around instead of just entering their phone number at the register. The cards are mostly unneccesary
Perhaps to gain new customers who can't (or don't want to) use their phones at the checkout? Isn't the card good for stores that don't have means to use your phone as a means of payment? A more "traditional" way of paying if you will.
[deleted]
I was an avid GW user back when I had the Nexus S but since then, none of my phones have had NFC so I was pretty excited about this announcement. I would use GW, and it would go ahead and charge my credit card, no fees. But if I am understanding correctly, that functionality is no longer there? Must I "add" funds (and incur this fee) to maintain my previous use case?
Adding money to Wallet Balance from credit or debit card 2.9% fee with a $0.30 minimum
Adding money to Wallet Balance from credit or debit card 2.9% fee with a $0.30 minimum
You have to add it directly from your account. It seems like a pretty sloppy implementation.
Meh, just like a Paypal debit card.
It's exactly the same. You have to add money from your other cards/accounts to the wallet balance (aka paypal balance) then you spend it from there.
So how long does it take for your google wallet balance to pull money from your other accounts or transfer the funds?
This would be innovative, if you could spend money on it, then choose from which account you want it to be deducted ex post facto, and if you don't choose within 24 hours then it gets deducted from your default account. While this might be cool, google would be assuming a large amount of risk.
So how long does it take for your google wallet balance to pull money from your other accounts or transfer the funds?
This would be innovative, if you could spend money on it, then choose from which account you want it to be deducted ex post facto, and if you don't choose within 24 hours then it gets deducted from your default account. While this might be cool, google would be assuming a large amount of risk.
Huh. Could someone point out how this is different from Coin? On first flush it seems like it will have an easier roll out time, but I can see how privacy conscious people will be wary of it.
Edit- and I mean different from Coin in a use case kind of way. I realize that Coin does stuff with the magnetic strip directly whereas this is just another card that is linked on the net to all of your other cards.
Edit- and I mean different from Coin in a use case kind of way. I realize that Coin does stuff with the magnetic strip directly whereas this is just another card that is linked on the net to all of your other cards.
This one doesn't seem to be linked to your other cards, just your Google Wallet balance, which can possibly deduct money from a linked card?
In any case, big whoop.
In any case, big whoop.
UPDATE: Apparently folks are saying this is NOT how it works, although I read a write up that indicated this was how it works.
I'm leaving the original below anyway...
I believe it is linked. The idea is that you'll tell the app you want to pay with your Amex. You hand the Google Wallet Card to the retailer/waiter/etc and when they run the card it will be piggy-back-charged to your Amex by Google.
The difference to Coin is the switching to your "real" card is done in the datacenter not on the card itself via the mag strip.
And when the world evolves to contactless payments as the norm, you've already been trained to use the Google Wallet App (which supports that), whereas Coin will be obsolete.
Google is playing the long game.
I'm leaving the original below anyway...
I believe it is linked. The idea is that you'll tell the app you want to pay with your Amex. You hand the Google Wallet Card to the retailer/waiter/etc and when they run the card it will be piggy-back-charged to your Amex by Google.
The difference to Coin is the switching to your "real" card is done in the datacenter not on the card itself via the mag strip.
And when the world evolves to contactless payments as the norm, you've already been trained to use the Google Wallet App (which supports that), whereas Coin will be obsolete.
Google is playing the long game.
That's not the case. Read the documentation on the site:
> The Google Wallet Card is funded by your Wallet Balance. Money is added to your Wallet Balance either by someone sending you money via Wallet or Gmail or by adding it yourself from a linked bank account or from a credit or debit card. The card has no fees to order and activate. There are no annual or monthly fees for the Google Wallet Card.
> The Google Wallet Card is funded by your Wallet Balance. Money is added to your Wallet Balance either by someone sending you money via Wallet or Gmail or by adding it yourself from a linked bank account or from a credit or debit card. The card has no fees to order and activate. There are no annual or monthly fees for the Google Wallet Card.
I don't understand how that could be worth it for Google, though. Amex processing charges are higher than Mastercard (AFAIK) so if I pair my Amex to my Google Wallet card, aren't they going to end up paying processing charges the store would normally pay?
edit: rohansingh posted the FAQ entry before me
its free
So its like Coin except Google gets all of my purchasing data and I probably have to join Google+ at some point.
Is this USA only? None of my European devices are eligible through the Play Store for an install.
Sadyly, yes.
"Google Wallet Card is only available to US residents."
"Google Wallet Card is only available to US residents."
It's getting pretty infuriating the direction they seem to be taking on this. I would gladly be using the wallet app without a card, KitKat on my Nexus 5 has it baked into the settings even, but Google seem to have no desire to put it out in the UK.
Not compatible with Nexus 4?
From the top of the other thread:
"Let's clarify some things here, before the comment threads take off too much:
- This is a prepaid card. It does not proxy other cards, unlike previous rumored versions of a Wallet card.
- It only draws from Wallet balance. Funds can be added to wallet balance via various means (bank account [free], receiving a GMail P2P payment [free], credit cards [2.9% fee]), but this does not happen automatically.
As such, it does not appear to be trying to achieve the same "card replacement" that e.g. Coin is. No, it is simply providing another way to get at Wallet balance that doesn't involve transfer to a bank account or NFC payment. Could be useful for people who make use of GMail P2P payments."