Google Wallet

[ralphewatts]

I would like to use my phone for payments via NFC.  Verizon only offers ISIS, a total bust.  When will Google Wallet be available?

[Heretic1989]

When vzw stops being anti-competitive.

[Tidbits]

As well when Google stops being anticompetitive as well.

[Tidbits]

If you need an explanation. Google blocks the secure element from any company from writing their own code to use it. Google DOES NOT have an exclusive license to do such. Read the white paper of the NFC secure element. Since Google blocks it Isis needs a special sim with a secure element to bypass it. This requires a lot of testing with the FCC and further beta testing as the one in phones have already been tested for years from the USM usage over the past 10 years.

[iproxy]

ok i read it. i would purport that it would be anti-competitive if google blocked access to their "secure element" AND prevented any nfc enabled sim card from functioning. The fact that there is in fact a work around (regardless of how much verizon had to spend to develop it) means that google is still permitting competition in the nfc payment market. You may have a point that google might not have exclusive license to the use of such technology, but there is a distinction between not allowing others to use what they developped vs not allowing others to pursue a mobile payment system as a whole. On the other hand verizon is refusing to allow google wallet to use native technology on the ground that its use of the nfc secure element makes it qualitatively different that other mobile payment apps and somehow compromises the integrity of user data (a tenuous argument at best when all google does is store an id code to associate with information on remote servers). I would argue that Verizon's behavior is more non-competitive than google's. I wont say that google isn't playing their hand to the best of their ability. but they are not outright refusing verizon's right to a mobile payment system and the reverse cannot be said of verizon.

[Tidbits]

There more than just Isis and carriers. What is Square, PayPal, or some other company would want to make a NFC payment. Exactly how would they go about that? Exactly. If carriers didn't have sim cards and didn't disable the secure element within the phones then they'd have nothing. One thing you also forget. Being anti competitive doesn't always stop companies from entering. It can always make it harder for them to enter. See Microsoft Internet Explorer vs other mobile browsers. What did the EU governing bodies do?

[Heretic1989]

Tidbits wrote:

See Microsoft Internet Explorer vs other mobile browsers. What did the EU governing bodies do?

The EU governing bodies did this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

[Tidbits]

Explain what difference is Google doing from what MS did? By them locking out the secure element they are stopping potential competing bodies from entering the market.

snippets from what you linked.

The commission's decision to fine Microsoft was not challenged by the court, saying the company had blocked fair access to its markets.^[24] E.U. competition commissioner, Joaquín Almunia, has said that such fines may not be effective in preventing anti-competitive behavior and that the commission now preferred to seek settlements that restrict businesses' plans instead. As such, 'The New York Times called the Microsoft decision "a decision that could mark the end of an era in antitrust law in which regulators used big fines to bring technology giants to heel."^[24]

In January 2009, the European Commission announced it would investigate the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows operating systems from Microsoft, saying "Microsoft's tying of Internet Explorer to the Windows operating system harms competition between web browsers, undermines product innovation and ultimately reduces consumer choice."^[28][29] In response, Microsoft announced that it would not bundle Internet Explorer with Windows 7 E, the version of Windows 7 to be sold in Europe.^{[30][31][32][33][34][35]}

On 16 December 2009, the European Union agreed to allow competing browsers, with Microsoft providing a "ballot box" screen letting users choose one of twelve popular products listed in random order.^[36] The twelve browsers were Avant, Chrome, Firefox, Flock, GreenBrowser, Internet Explorer, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Opera, Safari, Sleipnir, and Slim^[37] which are accessible viaBrowserChoice.eu.

I willing to bet money the reason why wallet isn't in Europe is because they'll get the same fate as MS did.  If they did they'd have to open up the secure element to allow competition to flourish.

some references that fit in what I was saying about Google blocking the secure element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

[Heretic1989]

"The commission's decision to fine Microsoft was not challenged by the court, saying the company had blocked fair access to its markets."

VZW, oops! i meant MSFT, blocked fair access to its markets? And they were supposed to get away with that?

Verizon must have better lobbyists, or we must have how shall i say, "unenlightened" governing bodies and/or courts. 

[Tidbits]

Hey like I said you keep pointing to Verizon yet you won't admit Google is doing the same thing.

[cbbartley]

I haven't been here for a while, but this might be the most ridiculous argument tidbits has posted yet. Verizon isn't making an argument against Google Wallet being preinstalled. Verizon has been pushing against Google Wallet being available for download from the Playstore. I could see tidbits point if Google Wallet came preinstalled and uninstallable, but this is not the case.

Also, let's point out the biggest difference between Google and Microsoft as referenced in this argument. Microsoft had a monopoly on Intel based personal computers, but Google does not have a monopoly on any mobile phone chip platform. As a monopoly, Microsoft was also forming restrictive licensing agreements with OEMs while bundling IE with its operating system preventing other browsers from being bundled with PCs. The operative word here is monopoly. Microsoft's Windows isn't an open sourced operating system. It was selling it and the cost of Windows was being driven upwards because of IE. Whereas Android, is open sourced, manufacturers can and have forked away from Google. Also, there are other mobile OS that have market share on the same chip architecture. Google doesn't even have a monopoly on Android. Manufacturers can choose to not install Google Apps and use whatever apps they like. Microsoft had restrictive licensing agreements with all Intel based PC OEMs. Mobile phone OEMs have various licenses with different mobile OS on the same chip based platform.

You can't argue that Google is being anti competitive in this case. They aren't pushing competitors away from the their Playstore, nor are they not allowing the consumers to uninstall and replace Google Wallet, and Google doesn't have a monopoly on any mobile chip architecture. Verizon is using its position to push competing software from its network. This is the reason why the government is looking into Verizon (as it did with tethering) and not Google on the matter of Google Wallet.

[Tidbits]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera) that were slow to download over a modem or had to be purchased at a store. Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers, Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturers(OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct.

Again read this. Especially :

Underlying these disputes were questions over whether Microsoft altered or manipulated its application programming interfaces (APIs) to favor Internet Explorer over third party web browsers,

Google is blocking the secure element in FAVOR of Wallet.  If Square wanted to make a NFC payment.  What recourse do they have?  None.  What about PayPal?  None.  Carriers got lucky that they could put one on a sim card.  If they couldn't then they would be on the same boat as Square, and Paypal.  You would have no choice, and no competition when it comes to NFC payments on mobile devices.  Google is pushing competing entities from even coming into the market which is no different than pushing their competitors out of the playstore.  If they can't enter the market well they can't be in the playstore with those services right?  Exactly.

Also if Wallet does come preinstalled you can't uninstall it without modifying you phone to do so.   I like Android and all, but please stop it with the fanboy coolaid drinking, and call it down the middle. 

[cbbartley]

Again as I've said in my previous post, you can not make the same distinction because Microsoft had a monopoly on the Intel based PCs. Abusing their power as a monopolistic power was the biggest underlying factor in these disputes. It was using this monopoly to influence an advantage in the realm of browsers. This is not the case with Google and Google Wallet. Google does not have a monopoly on the Android operating system since it is open sourced, nor does it have one on the chip based platform or platforms of mobile phones.

Google is not blocking the secure element in favor of Google Wallet. When you have Google Wallet is installed the secure element is blocked. There is a difference.

And your argument about Paypal and Square is ridiculous also, because Paypal and Square have expressed no interests in pursuing NFC as a payment option, and it had nothing to do with Google Wallet.

And wallet has only come preinstalled on one type of device in which it was uninstallable, and that has been Nexus devices which are regarded as developer phones. Please stop calling others fanboys just because your argument has no legs to stand on. And Kool-Aid is spelled with a K. I like various types of phone and obviously, you don't know what calling it down the middle is.

[Tidbits]

What options does square and PayPal have if it is blocked. If they had the option would you think they'd still have no interest? I was using them as an example. CyanogenMod wanted to make a nfc mobile payment system but couldn't because they didn't have the API to do as such. There are more companies out there if given the opportunity may try and do it. With Google blocking the secure element there is no opportunity. Android is NOT 100% open source. There is a large difference from ASL and GPL. You should understand the difference.

[cbbartley]

First of all, just to be clear on Google Wallet locking the secure element. Google Wallet has not locked the secure element. The element locking error occurred when the phone was wiped or hacked. Google has since moved the consumers cards to the cloud and put a virtual Master Card on the secure element. This essentially has kept the secure element from locking up because you can wipe Google Wallet remotely. If it was about Google locking the secure element for unfair competition, why would Verizon be pointing to this as a security risk in the beginning instead of unfair competition? In fact, Verizon nor any other company has pointed to Google and unfair competition as far as Google Wallet is concerned. Why would any competing company not use that as a complaint? Please provide a link or documentation on Google actually locking the secure element from other apps.

Secondly, the NFC application of choice for Verizon accesses the secured element of NFC enabled mobile phones. They not only made SIM NFC ships for phones that do not have NFC, but made sure that ISIS had access to the secure element for those that did have NFC chips on board.

Thirdly, Verizon has since stated that in order to be officially granted the privilege of accessing the secure element on mobile phones for its network ISIS had to pass a certification process, so Verizon seemingly won't grant an app official access without undergoing this special process. In it's response to an FCC complaint, Verizon has officially made it clear that if Google Wallet were to behave like the Starbucks, Paypal and Square apps, which do not access to the secure element, then it would be just fine. This however essentially means that Google Wallet would have NFC capabilities stripped. So who's really locking off the secure element here? Google Wallet is not the biggest obstacle to NFC payments for Square or Paypal or any other company/ developer. Verizon is and has been.

Fourthly, CyanogenMod has mention that unless you have a contract with Google and have them (or the TSM they use) distribute your applets to supported devices, there is currently no way to install anything on the embedded secure element. There was currently no publicly released Android SDK API at the time they were trying it. Android doesn't provide a direct interface to its NFC subsystem to user-level apps. Instead, it leverages the OS's intent and intent filter infrastructure to let apps register for a particular NFC event. And by the way, CyanogenMod has implemented SimplyTapp as their NFC payment option. Google Wallet didn't seem to stop them at all even on devices that initially had Google Wallet first.

Google didn't squash competition by locking the secure element when Google Wallet is installed. In fact, do the research. There have been innovative ideas as far as NFC payments are concerned including a software based solution by the banking group Bankinter.

Ultimately, it should come down to which apps consumers decide they want to utlilize on their phones not carriers blocking applications on whimsical claims especially when there is a conflict of interest involved. This is pretty much the same thing Verizon pulled with the tethering scam they had going.

Served!

[Tidbits]

Please post those sources of such agreements has to be made.

FIrst you say "It is open source" then  you say there has to be an agreement to be made to use it.  You can't have it both ways...  If it is open source then anyone can use it which isn't the case, because you need an agreement with Google to use it.  If it was open source CyanogenMod could have used it without an agreement.

So YES Google is blocking the secure element from anyone to use.  Seems like your argument is contradicting itself.

So Google is playing Gate Keeper for anyone who wants to enter the market...  Who knew...  Being gatekeeper sure does sound anti-competitive to me don't you think?  How'd you feel is McDonald's did that to all the other fast food chains?  Auto makers did the same?  Motorola did that when they first introduced cell phones, and didn't hand out FRAND patents and use normal patents and locked everyone out without heavy royalties to enter the market?

[Tidbits]

I can show you various reasons why they wouldn't claim it. 1,000,000+ activations a day reasons.

What you just said works both ways. Pay us and use Wallet or pay us and use your own. Either way it's pay them which the guys on top don't want to do.

[cbbartley]

As usual, you don't read very well. I said that Android is open source making this situation different than that of Microsoft which you brought up. Google doesn't have a monopoly on Android. It puts the time and effort into developing new versions of Android. Android is open source which means the source code is open to the public. That does not mean that any developers can have access to any parts on any mobile platform. You clearly do not know what open source encompasses so I'll move on.

When I referred to contracts with Google, I meant as a developer who accepted the licensing agreement and have them distribute your applet (basically through the Play Store) on supported devices, or you would have to have an agreement in order to get early access to code they were developing before releasing it into the public arena. You see this happen with Nexus devices. The partner OEM has early access to the new version of Android by Google.

As I said, Google doesn't lock down the secure element with Google Wallet as you've put it. You mentioned that CyanogenMod didn't have the API, but the SDK API hadn't been release at the time CyanogenMod was working its NFC mobile payments. Currently, CyanogenMod they have a NFC mobile app. Kind of puts holes in your theory.

Card emulation, and consequently, internal APIs for accessing the embedded SE were introduced in Android 2.3.4, and that is the version Google Wallet launched on. Those APIs were, and remain, hidden from SDK applications. Additionally using them required system-level permissions (WRITE_SECURE_SETTINGS or NFCEE_ADMIN) in 2.3.4 and subsequent Gingerbread releases, as well as in the initial Ice Cream Sandwich release (4.0, API Level 14). What this means is that only Google (for Nexus) devices, and mobile vendors (for everything else) could distribute apps that use the SE, because they need to either be part of the core OS, or be signed with the platform keys, controlled by the respective vendor. Since the only app that made use of the SE was Google Wallet, which ran only on Nexus S (and initially on a single carrier), this was good enough. However, it made it impossible to develop and distribute an SE app without having it signed by the platform vendor. Android 4.0.4 (API Level 15) changed that by replacing the system-level permission requirement with signing certificate (aka, 'signature' in Android framework terms) whitelisting at the OS level. While this still requires modifying core OS files, and thus vendor cooperation, there is no need to sign SE applications with the vendor key, which greatly simplifies distribution. Additionally, since the whiltelist is maintained in a file, it can easily be updated using an OTA to add support for more SE applications.

And what are you talking about as far as McDonalds franchises. You have no clue there either. First of all McDonalds doesn't develop anything for the other fast food chains. This analogy makes no sense at all.

A better example would have been relating corporate McDonalds to franchisee McDonalds stores. Franchises for McDonalds have to operate under certain guidelines set by the corporation. If they don't do things a certain way, the owners can lose their franchises. If manufacturers who use Android by Google don't operate under certain guidelines then Google can refuse to develop code for their platform and use of the Playstore.

Google is the gatekeeper for such phones that Samsung, HTC, Sony, etc...agreed to use an OS based on Android by Google. They can leave the agreement they have with Google at anytime and develop their own OS and app store. Amazon has done that.

And again, another ridiculous analogy involving Motorola this time. Google Wallet never asked for heavy royalties to use. Google Wallet is a free app.

[Heretic1989]

Tidbits wrote:

As well when Google stops being anticompetitive as well.

Just for a goof. I went to Google play to check something out. Lo and behold i found that i can download Isis Mobile Wallet, and not just any Isis Mobile Wallet, but VZW's own Isis Mobile Wallet.

Who knew!?

[Tidbits]

We are talking about the secure element.  Not just the application here.

It doesn't work on your S3 does it?  Without a special sim card that has a secure element within it.

Google intentionally blocks the secure element for themselves to use it.

[Heretic1989]

From Google's own Play Store; "This app (Isis Mobile Wallet by VZW) is compatible with your Droid Incredible 4G LTE" And i'm sure it's compatible with a lot more smartphones.

The S3? The sim card can be be replaced.

VZW = anti-competitive.

Google = competitive