I was in the business of mobile applications pre-iPhone, the era of phone companies picking winners or trying to do things themselves and the net result was that most mobile functionality beyond the basics was garbage. Not just the devices but the poor choices mediocre people at some high-mid level in the phone companies would make on all kinds of weak decision making criteria led to bad poorly thought out software choices, both on the consumer side and the enterprise side.
Of course carriers thought it was in their best interests and that they could beat market based product discovery. Neither was really true as the explosion of innovation caused by the iPhone and the cadre of early post-iPhone mobile app developers demonstrated.
This kind of move by Verizon is a misguided step back to that world. It's frustrating and stupid and in the long run unlikely to be a win for Verizon, despite any short term gain for some internal project or other built by a second rate team put together to defend someone's budget allocation.
How exactly do they block it? According to the verification instructions, Google Voice calls you and asks you to enter a verification code. How can this be blocked? It would be like any other DTMF service. Also, isn't it illegal to block this?
A lot of Google Voice numbers appear in a number pool marked for prepaid cellphone plans and a number of services will blacklist such numbers for use for identity verification. Sad but true.
You still have your cell phone provider's number and you should just use that to verify.
While there is a certain logic to this system historically, I don't think it makes a lot of sense anymore as prepaid cellular is quite popular and getting more and more so.
Why would they care?
The SE Isis uses is on the SIM, the SE GoogleWallet uses is Embedded on chip. Two different types, chosen primarily around distribution mechanisms each could protect. Google felt if it were embedded, its relationships with OEM's would primarily help its case. Carriers went the SIM route primarily due to them being the only distribution channel that matters in the US for phones.
Google Wallet can potentially work off of a SIM based SE. But this would mean that Google will have to work with in the parameters of Carrier's Isis framework. Isis framework is different in that it has no visibility in to the transaction data. Google will have to opt in to this approach (Banks require it because they fear Google). Google wants data and will never agree. Yada Yada Yada.
Verizon did block Google because of its stake in Isis. And because Banks would have explicitly sought out Carriers to block GoogleWallet on Carrier phones. Google could work with Isis with in its own framework, but it never will. Competing interests, revenue models and goals.
It's especially troublesome when Verizon is creating a competing app, and they are just giving a more or less "reasonable" excuse to completely take out their competitor from the market, much like Apple is doing with the browsers on iOS. The difference here is that these carriers almost completely own the US market, and them joining together like this to stop Google from putting the app on their phones is kind of a cartel movement, isn't it?
At the very least, I think this is worth an investigation from FCC and FTC.
Verizon licensed the C Block in 2008, which come with rules that REQUIRE it to allow any phone to run any app. Unfortunately the FCC has been gutless about enforcing the rule. It took the agency 10 months to force Verizon to allow tethering apps in Google App store. If they'd had any guts, they would have banned Verizon from selling the 4G iPhone which, as a locked down phone, is arguably illegal under the rules.
In fact, Google argued that it would be illegal for Verizon to sell a locked down phone on that spectrum, but then once it started to need Verizon, it refuses to stand by its earlier rules.
And these rules matter a lot, because come spring, a federal court will rule that the FCC's net neutrality rules have no legal basis and the ONLY net neutrality rules left standing will be the ones on Verizon's C Block.
The ability to run the app =/= which default apps are on the device.
And by the way, people should have done it and use a technology that doesn't tie your mobile phone to a service provider: GSM
The last thing I'd want to do is give them more personal info, more of my money, and give them more control. I'm probably the minority though.
How is it done in Asia where this is already much more popular? Who controls the payment platforms the banks? the mobile carriers?
In Japan, Osaifu Keitai is a partnership between the major carriers (NTT DoCoMo, au, and SoftBank) that uses technology developed by Sony.
US-wise: I integrated in-App payments for the flagship preloaded app on behalf of a major Android device vendor who you can probably guess with AT&T and T-Mobile. One of those carriers was completely unable to block consumers calling up and retroactively renegging on payments via their customer service center; ie. fraud issues. Both of them seemed to outsource their internal billing systems to AMDOCS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdocs) who at least partly hosted those systems offsite(!), and are an Israeli, widely thought to be Mossad-backed and intelligence-gathering oriented company. This is something of an open secret in the international mobile carrier space. Smart cookies, those Israelis!
International: Outside of credit and debit card networks, which are basically US owned and operated with the exception of China's emerging YingLian network, SWIFT is the major international payment facilitator. Check this out: http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/intra_european_financial_... .. plus linked FOI requests. All SWIFT transactions have been fed to the US unfiltered since 'at least' 2001 (source: European Data Protection Supervisor), and probably since the founding of their first 'international operations center' in Virginia (~CIA HQ), in 1979. Indeed, to the casual observer, SWIFT appears to be a successful combination American Express/CIA project from that era.
You should totally find a way to reduce carrier to a dumb pipe. Everything carriers (or ISPs) try to add to the service is awful, harmful and anti-market. Make them just provide the connectivity and shut up.
They are sneaky though. The reason they get you to think that is by keeping the plans prices the same, even if you come with your own phone. In Europe, if you use your own phone, the plan is significantly cheaper than when getting it with a phone, especially if it's a pretty high-end phone.
...hosting. AT&T is better than AWS because they have teh cloudz. OH! And programming! AT&T wants to bundle some programmers with our cell phones.
That's what ISPs were until the Clinton era, when they made some sweeping regulatory changes that led to the situation we have today.
By the same token, is there any data provider model that (a) customers want and (b) works the same way? The idea that buying a phone from Verizon makes it "their" phone, which they can then control in whatever way benefits them the most is just anathema. It's like an ISP saying you can't use your Mac because they have a deal with Microsoft, and if you want to get online, you need to buy Windows 8. On a machine bought from them.
Virtually EVERYBODY wants a dumb pipe delivering commodified data. People will pay for bandwidth (high or low) and latency (short or long). The market can price each according to demand and the constraints of available technology. And providers, being utilities, should be able to count on a low but rock solid margin of profit.
And if you're in the data access business, you should absolutely barred from any other line of commerce on the grounds that it will represent a conflict of interest. To the extent that data service (esp. wireless) depends on a public resource (spectrum), there should be no question here.
I mean, data is a utility. Like water, like gas, like electricity. Just add a meter, deliver the goods, and get the hell out of the way.
True on the logical level, false on the human level.
If carriers became just & only that, providing dumb pipe service for a flat monthly rate, things might well be better overall.
Unfortunately it's hard to lobby the public on a coherent dream. Sure, many people who think much about the market may agree, but all the staff at all the carrier phone shops, and their families, will campaign against you. As will all the bribery dollars of the telecoms companies.
You'd be shot down in flames for trying to regulate this. Congressman in narrow districts would get warned off by angry potential voters, the mass public would be advertised into uncertainty, etc.
Verizon won't let phones access their network if Google Wallet can be installed. That is significantly different from every other network.
Well I think this is the general thinking that is stopping adoption moving forward. Its one of those things that doesn't provide a small incremental value, but in the overall big picture is a huge convenience. When you look at countries like Japan and Korea that has widely adopted NFC for just about everything, its a convenience that you carry around a lot less and everything is integrated in one spot. Google Wallet is just the beginning
For some people with multiple cards to be used in different stores for example Costco only accepts american express and thats the only store I will use it at, a system like Google wallet simplifies the management of having multiple cards.
I don't actually have a NFC phone until xmas, so I don't know if it does all of that already anyway.
For reference, square gives me the heebie-jeebies. Oh sure, swipe my card into the freaking audio jack your cell phone running who-knows-what software you've got on there and let me smear my finger to make some sort of unintelligible mark on your screen that counts as a "signature". So basically all you need is an audio chirp played over 3.5mm and some indistinct finger dragging to make a purchase. Right. Sign me up...
Google Wallet has a PIN code on open.
That's not true. I use a sideloaded Google Wallet on a Verizon Galaxy Nexus just fine.
How difficult would it be to disrupt the cell phone market? I used AT&T for a few years and now I have been using Verizon for 2 years, in my dealings with these companies I have found them to be much more scummier than almost any other industry out there. They have the most complicated policies where even if you try to do everything right, you will still get dinged with fees every now and then.
Are these companies really scummy or is it just the nature of the business? I know certain industries are very difficult to operate due to specific issues like scammers and online payments (I believe PayPal were the first ones to get it right and they are one of the most hated companies).
Is it possible for a company, let's say Google, to provide an unlimited data/calling plan for a reasonable cost without all of the hidden fees and charges?
Well, to start you'd have to do is build a couple of hundred thousand cellphone towers, at a couple of hundred thousand dollars apiece.
It's possible in the sense that Google could become an MVNO (virtual network operator) and piggy-back off an existing network.
Except that network would have to allow them. And charge them a large price for it. So in effect, no, it isn't possible.
Apparently there are lots of pre-paid plans that do what you want using the big networks, not to mention T-mobile and Sprint with their smaller networks.
Google pushed hard for adoption from terminal providers and retailers while Isis have done very little to develop a real platform until very recently. The result, frankly, is that you aren't likely to need to tap your phone to conduct business, instead you'll press a button on your phone. And no consumer will care.
So Verizon ultimately loses out on a massive transaction market by trying to fight Google.
Application Examples for TrustZone:
• Secured PIN entry for enhanced user authentication in mobile payments & banking
• Anti-malware that is protected from software attack
• Digital Right Management
• Software license management
• Loyalty-based applications
• Access control of cloud-based documents
• e-Ticketing Mobile TV
"Featuring a NFC radio controller and an embedded Secure Element, the PN65N is also fully validated and integrated on the latest release of Android™ 4.0."
This is a slightly sore subject as I worked for a startup that is now a zombie, having attempted to wait out the fight over who would control NFC payments (telco vs. credit card company).
Look at the just announced chip from Broadcom which supports "multiple secure elements to ensure all payment business models are supported for today's market.":
When I first got this phone, before rooting it, I had found a "sideloaded" apk of the app which worked for awhile, but I was unable to upgrade to newer versions of the app easily.
I'm assuming you were running a pre-release build; Google Play/Google Wallet payments have always had a spotty track record on non-stable releases of CM. I was able to run Google Wallet just fine when I was running an older version of CM (rooted).
But you don't need to root to sideload it, either, even if you're on Verizon.
I wish that it wasn't do risky and capital heavy to get into the payments game...
May be something like internet/infrastructure regulation similar to Israel could help to solve this problem. http://www.iasps.org/bezekisp.htm