Google to Test PayPal Rival 268
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Google is set to introduce a test version of its GBuy online-payment service as early as this week, presaging a shake-up in the online-payments market now dominated by eBay's PayPal, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'Here is how the service will work: Consumers who search for items like "shoes" or "strollers" on Google's search site will see text ads with a symbol or icon designating advertisers that accept GBuy payments. Shoppers normally would have clicked on an ad and been linked to that merchant's Web site. Now, while they will still be linked to the merchant's site, they will go through a different checkout process integrated with Google if they choose GBuy for their transaction. Details of the service could still change before Google's official GBuy announcement.'"
Re:God for bid it be regulated (Score:5, Informative)
PayPal doesn't WANT to be a bank, and unless they apply to become one, they won't be held to the same standards as one. They WANT to be an "online payment processing service", which exempts them from FDIC (in the current unlikely chance they fold, you lose any money stored there rather than getting up to $100k back like a bank) and from lots of rules and oversight that they don't want to do, because this way they can go on shafting those who use the service. As long as they're the only game in town, you get to play by their rules.
There's a reason I no longer take PayPal on Ebay: see http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/2006/3/6/8326
Re:free as in beer (Score:3, Informative)
No, there will still be fees. Now, if google can figure out how to reduce/eliminate the fixed fee portion and/or enable micropayments, paypal is going to have to make some moves to keep thier userbase. Of course, if google could wheedle their way out of the "perks" in your CC, (you know - 3% back at company stores, 1% everywhere else except gpay, no benes for gpay payments), in exchange for a
The article DOES tell about pricing. (Score:3, Informative)
"Google plans to charge merchants a 2.2% commission on a sale, plus 30 cents per transaction using its payment service...That is higher than Pay-Pal's lowest published rate of a 1.9% commission plus 30 cents per transaction.
"Google's rate doesn't include the discount pricing that the company will give to merchants participating in its AdWords advertising program...Merchants who spend money on Google's ad program could get the cost of payment processing through Google dropped to nothing...
"To attract consumers, Google plans to offer an unspecified rebate to people who complete online purchases using GBuy."
Re:I wonder if they will be less shady than PayPal (Score:1, Informative)
Not the first paypal rival (Score:3, Informative)
Ok so plimus is a complete software registration service, not just a payment provider, but there has been massive consolidation in this area, with RegNow buying up everyone except Plimus one by one. The last thing we need is for someone like Google to come swallow up the small companies in that area.
I give it maybe a year before you cannot use adwords or adsense if your website sells through a different payment provider. Regnow already do this, they wont give you the good commission rate unless you use them exclusively. I kinda thought that was anti-competitive and maybe not even legal, but apparently not
Anyway, I digress.
I like a free and open market with good competition. Google are welcome as a competitor, not a monopoly.
Re:Again?? (Score:3, Informative)
There's two things you need to realise. The first is that "Don't be evil" was coined as a short way to sum up stuff like "don't fuck the interns" and "don't file fraudulent accounts", it doesn't mean "work in the best interest of the customer". You can find a commentary on how it came to exist here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Be_Evil [wikipedia.org].
The second is that it stopped being anything more than a marketing label at the point when they made the IPO.
It has never meant "don't do something that is bad for the customer because it makes more money". Google sometimes will and sometimes won't do this; they tend to take a longer-term view and not explicitly screw the customer in a way that will piss them off, but they are not above causing you inconvinience if it would be costly for them to do otherwise (hence the continuing click fraud issues).
In short, nothing in their code of conduct [google.com] says that they cannot obtain a monopoly position and use it to squeeze the market for money. They just can't do it by shooting puppies. "Don't be evil" doesn't mean "be good".
Re:Again?? (Score:3, Informative)
Monopolistic practices require that you leverage your pricing power in one market, where you have a monopoly, to compete unfairly in another market. It's perfectly legal to have a monopoly in a market, as long as you don't use that to abuse a different market.
Many companies aren't monopolistic, because they believe they have the best product and don't need to cheat.