

Google Wallet Card - Zaheer
https://www.google.com/wallet/shop-in-stores/index.html#instore-wallet-card

======
footpath
Another discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6770398](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6770398)

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."

~~~
anigbrowl
The P2P has the potential be quite disruptive to Paypal.

~~~
kin
IMO Venmo (which Paypal bought) is an excellent P2P service so Google's P2P is
more of a catch-up than anything disruptive.

~~~
anigbrowl
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.

------
smallegan
It is extremely generous of Google to offer to track all of my purchase
history for free.

~~~
garthdog
So much more evil than what CC companies already do today, amirite?

~~~
bdcravens
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.

~~~
selectout
While true, CC companies sell our data to other aggregators. So it's just
adding in profit to a middleman while google is doing it themselves.

~~~
bnegreve
Is that true? It sounds like a crazy privacy issue, so I would be surprised.
But maybe I am too naive.

------
thecoffman
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...

~~~
moskie
As opposed to options and products provided by other companies, that are
guaranteed to be around forever and ever.

~~~
nivla
>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.

~~~
csallen
There is a long, long history of other companies and products closing down,
too.

~~~
nivla
>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."

~~~
csallen
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.

~~~
nivla
> 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?

~~~
csallen
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?

~~~
nivla
"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.

------
itsravi
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_

~~~
psbp
You have to add it directly from your account. It seems like a pretty sloppy
implementation.

------
iamdann
Meh, just like a Paypal debit card.

~~~
misterparker
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.

------
chadwickthebold
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.

~~~
generalpf
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.

~~~
dotBen
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.

~~~
rohansingh
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.

------
wil421
So its like Coin except Google gets all of my purchasing data and I probably
have to join Google+ at some point.

~~~
jsumrall
Oh no! Google+!! It's not nice of google to force it down my throat just
because I'm using my Google Wallet Card connected to my Nexus 5!

~~~
wil421
Pssh try a Galaxy S4 flashed with the GE ROM. Still has google bloatware
though.

------
potyl
Is this USA only? None of my European devices are eligible through the Play
Store for an install.

~~~
Gurrewe
Sadyly, yes.

"Google Wallet Card is only available to US residents."

~~~
onehp
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.

------
caiob
Like anything that is brand new and cool, it's only available for US
residents. :(

~~~
hadem
My first thought was along the lines of how great a service like this could be
when abroad.

------
swah
Not compatible with Nexus 4?

