Google getting into micropayments

[urlwolf]

Google getting into micropayments, If they make it work it could be good news for people who fill the internet with good content and don't believe ads are the solution.

What do you think?

[mouser]

I am generally no fan of google -- I find there need to get their tentacles into everything disconcerting and greedy.

HOWEVER, this is a case where it could be a fantastic thing.

I've written several times about what I perceive as the main impediments to the success of micro-payment/donation systems, and these issues can only be addressed by one of the really big, and trusted, players on the internet stage tackling this issue.  Personally I'd rather see it be amazon, but Google would be an excellent second choice.

If they really did this in a serious way, it could go a long way to mainstreaming the idea of sending money safely to independent developers.

The key is, can they get widescale adoption and make it truly safe and effortless to send money..

[housetier]

not to forget: make it FUN to send monetary values, jsut like we can send messages along with donation credits here on donationcoder.

[zridling]

If they really did this in a serious way, it could go a long way to mainstreaming the idea of sending money safely to independent developers.

Hey, if they can slap an ad on the side of the page, they'll find a way. If history has any say, Google will keep it simple, though not elegant.

[app103]

There was no mention of any plans for this to be a microdonation service, just micropayments intended for purchasing online content.

The goal is for every website to hide their content and charge $0.10 each to read their articles & blog posts, or download their software, with Google taking a 30% cut. And at the same time, they will force adoption of their inferior Google Checkout service, which doesn't allow depositing funds from paypal, nor does it allow anyone to take their money out through paypal. (I understand Paypal is the competition, but if that is where my money currently is, you are not going to get any if you are going to be that stubborn and stupid about it)

I don't see this as a good thing because if I am supposed to force people to pay $0.10 to download my software in order to get money through this program, why would they ever want to donate more? And why would they even want to pay to download & try it when the next guy with a paypal button on his site doesn't charge anything to try his?

And why would I want to give Google 30%!

And let's imagine for a moment that this actually flies and has widespread adoption equal to Adsense...

Every forum post with a link to something cool, unusual, interesting, etc that is made on this forum will be one in which you'll have to pay to see it, when you get to their site. Your RSS feeds will be all reduced to partial content feeds in which you'll have to pay more to finish reading (not referring to this site but to all the feeds in your OPML). You may find yourself being frequently faced with paying for content and getting only a single additional sentence. You may even get to pay for your malware before you are infected.

And Google will get 30%!

[Jammo the OrganizedFellow]

And why would I want to give Google 30%!

All good points app.

I'm most against the fact that:
A. there is no simple transfer of PayPal funds. I've used PayPal for many many years! Using another method of paying is silly. The only thing I use Google Checkout for is when purchasing apps on my G1 (the Google phone, yall!).
B. Why pay to read content! It's as lame as the idea I once heard about the Government wanting to charge for sending emails!

[Lashiec]

B. Why pay to read content! It's as lame as the idea I once heard about the Government wanting to charge for sending emails!

Huh? As if paying to read something was a brand-new idea, even on the Internet.

According to the blog post linked above, and to another article I read yesterday in the newspaper, this is just another cog in Big Content grand plans for getting away from the "free for all" model that rules the Internet nowadays. The general idea is to charge users a fee that allows access to premium features and/or content, although certain jerk company wants to impose a fee for pretty much everything you want to do in their webpages (yup, News Corporation). Which, as long as the premium perks are worth the price, is a fine idea.

As I see it, Google's idea is one of the faulty cogs. As app says, if the scheme gets adopted, you'll end up paying to read anything in any given site, which is downright stupid, so the idea is doomed from the start. Users won't buy that, and they'll end up looking for information elsewhere.

That said, it could be that Google intended its new micropayment system to be used as an alternative to subscriptions, which would make a lot of sense. Keep daily news free (after all, most of the times a headline and a summary is more than enough), but make opinion pieces, interviews or articles available either by purchasing a monthly or yearly subscription, or by charging a small fee for casual readers to access it during a given period of time.

[Jammo the OrganizedFellow]

That said, it could be that Google intended its new micropayment system to be used as an alternative to subscriptions, which would make a lot of sense. Keep daily news free (after all, most of the times a headline and a summary is more than enough), but make opinion pieces, interviews or articles available either by purchasing a monthly or yearly subscription, or by charging a small fee for casual readers to access it during a given period of time.

YES YES, I agree with you there. Now, THAT would be something beneficial to us. Well, to me, at least.

I wouldn't mind paying a nominal fee to read worthy information.
The subscription idea would probably take off just fine. They'd of course get some controversial press, but it would be a nice welcome 'evolution' to the Internet.

[johnmillergo]

Well the competitors around paypal I suspect google checkout will take more time. But Google is Ruling the world.Can easily become No.1 soon.

[app103]

A few more articles about this:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/google-plans-tools-to-help-news-media-charge-for-content/?ref=technology

http://www.seobook.com/micropayments-could-google-make-it-happen

It seems this isn't intended for the little guys but in fact for big news outlets, like the New York Times, and such. This system is to help them make their content inaccessible unless you pay to read it, much like how you can't read the print editions unless you pay.

Even though the print editions are loaded with advertising, it has always been part of their business model to charge readers in addition to charging advertisers. Online that hasn't worked before but this proposal is supposed to be Google's idea on how to change that, since purchase of printed news has declined so much that it threatens the existence of these news companies.

It's not for use by Joe the Blogger to put a little extra cash in his pocket, or for the likes of the small developer trying to earn at least enough to keep his website online.