Oh google? You mean mean the Google Wallet that isn't available in large parts of the world? They need to deploy terminals? That's a fail right there.
Apple Pay will be able to use Google Wallet / ISIS (SoftCard) terminals, and vice versa. They all use the same protocols and base technology.
Apple Pay will be successful, and Apple will garner much praise for that success from people like you who don't know the industry, but what's really going to make it successful isn't anything Apple is doing or has done, but what Visa and MasterCard did two years ago, when they announced that the liability shift will be imposed in the US in October 2015. That policy change by the card networks will give merchants huge financial incentive to get all of the necessary terminals deployed, which is why many of them are now (and have been for some time) gearing up to integrate and deploy chip-capable point-of-sale terminals.
And, if you want to look at the causes for Visa and MasterCard's decision... the biggest single factor was almost certainly the deployment of Google Wallet, which moved NFC payment in the US from a "someday" possibility to "people are using it now". At the end of the day, Apple Pay will owe most of it's success to Google.
I don't want to disparage Apple too much here, though, because they have been able to do one thing of huge significance, and it is their market position and clout with the mobile network operators (MNOs) that made it possible: They helped push through the deployment of network-level tokenization. This is a somewhat abstruse technical detail, but it's pretty important.
Right now Apple Pay, SoftPay and Google Wallet all use different approaches to how they push the transaction through the networks. Google Wallet uses a "proxy card". When you pay with Google Wallet you're actually paying with a Google-issues MasterCard debit card. That's what the merchant sees. Then Google turns around and charges whatever backing instrument you've specified (Wallet balance, bank account, debit card or credit card). This approach offers maximum flexibilty; if someone dreams up some payment mechanism and Google integrates it, you can get your payments directed to it. The downsides are that (1) it's the same credit card number every time, which means that if it gets stolen and used fraudulently (which is far harder than for a magstripe card) then Google has to take on the fraud liability; (2) the point-of-sale transaction is "card present" while Google's transaction with your payment instrument on the back end is "card not present", which means if the backing instrument is a credit card Google has to eat the difference between the front and back-end transaction fees; and (3) all transactions pass through Google, which means Google sees how much you spend through Wallet and where (which has some upsides as well; I like the payment notifications it enables and the ability to look up my payment history on any device as well as the level of control it offers me). Note that Google can't see what you bought, but obviously a lot can be inferred from location.
SoftPay (nee ISIS) uses "issuer tokenization". You can only pay with credit cards from a certain (and still fairly small -- AMEX, Chase and Wells Fargo) set of issuing banks. The banks issue "tokens" which look like credit card numbers but are only good for a single use. These are stored in the secure element on your phone and transmitted to the merchant when you pay. Security is arguably better than with Google Wallet, and there are some corner cases that are less problematic. SoftPay doesn't get involved in your transactions, although there are some indications that the app may deliver information about them to SoftPay and to your carrier, though they don't provide that information back to you as a convenient transaction log like Google does. The reason the list of cards you can use is small is because each individual issuer has to get their systems set up to support token issuance. That's actually not quite as limiting as it sounds, because the majority of credit card issuing banks in the US outsource their operations to one of a couple of service companies, so as soon as those companies (First Data and Total Systems Solutions) get set up, the card options will grow dramatically.
Apple Pay uses "network tokenization". You can pay with credit cards from any integrated card network, which right now means Visa and MasterCard. The tokens are generated by the network, not by the issuer, so issuers don't have to change anything. Apple isn't involved in the transactions, and they say they don't receive any information about them. They're obviously trying to use privacy as a way to differentiate from Google Wallet, and maybe from SoftPay as well. Note that the reason I said Apple used their clout with the MNOs to make this happen is because the MNOs have been fighting to retain control of the secure element chip needed to make it work. SoftPay didn't have a problem because the MNOs are part of SoftPay. Google Wallet ultimately had to find a way to avoid using the SE, instead falling back on something called "Host Card Emulation", where the security-sensitive stuff happens on a server (though you don't need a data connection at the point of sale; it still works offline). Apple of course, tells the MNOs how it's going to be and, beyond that, since Apple manufactures all the iPhones itself with no MNO participation, Apple will have the secret keys that provide access to their secure elements and the MNOs will not, so from a technical perspective the MNOs will have zero ability to try to block or influence what Apple is doing, even if they dared. Which they don't.
Now that network tokenization is available, it seems pretty likely that SoftPay and Google Wallet will switch to it, at least for credit card-backed transactions. I expect Google Wallet will continue to support an expanding array of backend payment options, and the proxy card approach will still be required for non-CC backing instruments. So Apple did make a major technical contribution and actually helped Google solve one of the problems that Wallet has.
Still, Apple's technical achievements are incremental at best, and really Apple didn't design or build the network tokenization infrastructure, they just used their clout to get others to do it. That's worthwhile, but not nearly as groundbreaking as what Google did with the first version of Wallet.