They are saying you have to walk up to the checkout and say a phrase to start the transaction, which would need your phone to hear your voice.e.
Still think you're misunderstanding it Marvin. AFAICT your phone doesn't need to hear your voice... Well maybe yours will unless/until Apple does something similar. :
"Hands Free. “We wanted to ask ourselves could we create payments schemes that don’t require you to take your phone out,” he said.
Hands Free lets Android phone users pay in stores with spoken commands, such as “I want to pay with Google.” The phone stays in the pocket or handbag and the cashier presses a button on the store terminal to process the payment, according to Google. "
Still think you're misunderstanding it Marvin. AFAICT your phone doesn't need to hear your voice...
Hands Free lets Android phone users pay in stores with spoken commands, such as “I want to pay with Google.” The phone stays in the pocket or handbag and the cashier presses a button on the store terminal to process the payment, according to Google.
If it's in your pocket, bag or purse it sure can't hear you very well if at all. We'll both know more of the details soon enough. It may or may not end up as a payment method depending on results.
So there would have to be a network connected mic on the checkout terminal, which presumably sends a voice sample either to a server or the phone to start the transaction. I wonder how it tells which is the right phone to bill, I take it the voice sample is going to be used as ID in which case recording the person in front and then stealing their phone would work at self-checkouts. At McDonalds, it could start a transaction with someone in the adjacent queue. Maybe they are assuming (based on current numbers) that hardly anyone will use it so there's little chance of an overlap.
So there would have to be a network connected mic on the checkout terminal, which presumably sends a voice sample either to a server or the phone to start the transaction. I wonder how it tells which is the right phone to bill, I take it the voice sample is going to be used as ID in which case recording the person in front and then stealing their phone would work at self-checkouts. At McDonalds, it could start a transaction with someone in the adjacent queue. Maybe they are assuming (based on current numbers) that hardly anyone will use it so there's little chance of an overlap.
All possible guesses. If you're correct then it obviously won't pass muster and it's a waste of time for both McDonald's and Google as anyone can see including two random guys on a forum . For that reason I don't think you're going to be right about the way it will be done That would be a fail before they even started.
EDIT: And your guess would seem to be wrong. It will rely at least in part on facial recognition according to the Google presentation. Square had something similar in mind a couple years back but the timing and needed resources weren't in the cards. Another case of being first not as important as getting it right perhaps. If retailers think it will add to the customer experience and convenience and the system works security-wise then they might be on to something don't you think?
Hands Free lets Android phone users pay in stores with spoken commands, such as “I want to pay with Google.” The phone stays in the pocket or handbag and the cashier presses a button on the store terminal to process the payment, according to Google. "
So this payment method requires retailers to install microphones? And you then say in your next post that it uses facial recognition which means retailers would also need to install cameras. I have a hard time seeing much uptake by retailers if these two things are true.
So this payment method requires retailers to install microphones? And you then say in your next post that it uses facial recognition which means retailers would also need to install cameras. I have a hard time seeing much uptake by retailers if these two things are true.
No idea if either microphones or cameras are required. Personally I don't see a reason they would have to be.
The check-out person should be able to both see and hear of course so they can hear your payment request and see your picture on a terminal screen. Oh yeah and and your smartphone will have to be on your person somewhere to "talk" to the terminal for payment verification. Of course it's possible they'll use cameras and microphones and who knows what else instead just because. Maybe they can make some extra money by requiring some special hardware, a good reason to do so I suppose.
I haven't found any secret or insider information on it that you yourself can't read if you do a simple web query. It should only take you a few minutes if you're still curious about it.
IMO I'd like to see them wait on Project Abacus for identity verification. I see it as a worthwhile effort paying big dividends.if it reliably secures your mobile device.That could be a couple years away tho.
No idea if either microphones or cameras are required. Personally I don't see a reason they would have to be.
The check-out person should be able to both see and hear of course so they can hear your payment request and see your picture on a terminal screen. Oh yeah and and your smartphone will have to be on your person somewhere to "talk" to the terminal for payment verification. Of course it's possible they'll use cameras and microphones and who knows what else instead just because. Maybe they can make some extra money by requiring some special hardware, a good reason to do so I suppose.
I haven't found any secret or insider information on it that you yourself can't read if you do a simple web query. It should only take you a few minutes if you're still curious about it.
IMO I'd like to see them wait on Project Abacus for identity verification. I see it as a worthwhile effort paying big dividends.if it reliably secures your mobile device.That could be a couple years away tho.
You're talking in circles. If they are going to do facial recognition it will require a camera at each register which the retailer would need to install. The alternative would be to use your phone's camera for the facial recognition but then you'd need to have your phone in-hand which defeats the purpose.
Or are you suggesting that you take a pic of your face when registering with Google. I'm sure some would have no problem with this but I sure as hell wouldn't be providing anyone else my pic.
Or are you suggesting that you take a pic of your face when registering with Google. I'm sure some would have no problem with this but I sure as hell wouldn't be providing anyone else my pic
Yup, exactly. Otherwise use Android Pay (or Apple pay) and skip the hands-free payments if you're uncomfortable with pictures.
I get that too. Very few people have my picture as I hate having it taken. Most seem to have no problem with it tho, especially younger folks. They post em all over Facebook and get tagged even in friends pictures, including location and time. I think they have different ideas on privacy than you and I might.
And to be clear I'm not saying it will work as simply as that, only that I don't see any obvious reason it couldn't but perhaps with a couple of additional safeguards. The details should be known soon I would think.
I can't believe that when Apple comes up with a name like Apple Pay, that they don't automatically register the inevitable Android Pay and Samsung Pay, at the same time. They'll always be able to do this because no one knows what Apple are going to name something, and it's only then that they use the same name with Apple replaced with their name. Then they'll have to work out their own service name. Instead of leeching of Apple's expertise in naming, and also leaching the uniqueness of Apple's product name.
Because Apple doesn't own the trademark for "Android" or "Samsung". They would be sued and swiftly lose, just as any other cybersquatter would.
Surely though they can trademark the word "Pay" in the specific context of using it as branding for a pay by phone service when the word Pay, is followed by the brand name as a single unit? Saying Apple Pay, is not the same thing as using the word 'pay'. So it should be trademarked so that Samsung could say, 'you can pay with your samsung phone' but not be able to say, 'we have a new service called Samesung Pay.
Surely though they can trademark the word "Pay" in the specific context of using it as branding for a pay by phone service when the word Pay, is followed by the brand name as a single unit? Saying Apple Pay, is not the same thing as using the word 'pay'. So it should be trademarked so that Samsung could say, 'you can pay with your samsung phone' but not be able to say, 'we have a new service called Samesung Pay.
Trademarks don't work that way; they're very specific. Apple could (and did) trademark "Apple Pay", but that doesn't protect them from other brands using that naming pattern. They could *try* to trademark the word "Pay" but I'm sure that wouldn't fly because it's too generic and already commonly used for the process of exchanging currency for goods and services. (A company can actually even lose an existing trademark if the term becomes too commonly and generically used.) What Apple definitely cannot do is trademark "[brand] Pay". You can't put wildcards in trademarks.
The test is consumer confusion and generic use, not originality. Are consumers likely to be confused by Apple trademarking the word "Pay"? Yes. Are consumers likely to confuse Apple Pay with Samsung Pay? No, so that's fine, even if the latter is, subjectively, an uninspired ripoff.
Comments
Still think you're misunderstanding it Marvin. AFAICT your phone doesn't need to hear your voice... Well maybe yours will unless/until Apple does something similar.
"Hands Free. “We wanted to ask ourselves could we create payments schemes that don’t require you to take your phone out,” he said.
Hands Free lets Android phone users pay in stores with spoken commands, such as “I want to pay with Google.” The phone stays in the pocket or handbag and the cashier presses a button on the store terminal to process the payment, according to Google. "
If it's in your pocket, bag or purse it sure can't hear you very well if at all. We'll both know more of the details soon enough. It may or may not end up as a payment method depending on results.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/05/29/googles-other-mobile-payments-service-hands-free-at-mcdonalds/
EDIT:
When asked whether this was another Google project, possibly named Pay with Baby, a company spokeswoman said no.
So there would have to be a network connected mic on the checkout terminal, which presumably sends a voice sample either to a server or the phone to start the transaction. I wonder how it tells which is the right phone to bill, I take it the voice sample is going to be used as ID in which case recording the person in front and then stealing their phone would work at self-checkouts. At McDonalds, it could start a transaction with someone in the adjacent queue. Maybe they are assuming (based on current numbers) that hardly anyone will use it so there's little chance of an overlap.
EDIT: And your guess would seem to be wrong. It will rely at least in part on facial recognition according to the Google presentation. Square had something similar in mind a couple years back but the timing and needed resources weren't in the cards. Another case of being first not as important as getting it right perhaps. If retailers think it will add to the customer experience and convenience and the system works security-wise then they might be on to something don't you think?
Hands Free lets Android phone users pay in stores with spoken commands, such as “I want to pay with Google.” The phone stays in the pocket or handbag and the cashier presses a button on the store terminal to process the payment, according to Google. "
So this payment method requires retailers to install microphones? And you then say in your next post that it uses facial recognition which means retailers would also need to install cameras. I have a hard time seeing much uptake by retailers if these two things are true.
The check-out person should be able to both see and hear of course so they can hear your payment request and see your picture on a terminal screen. Oh yeah and and your smartphone will have to be on your person somewhere to "talk" to the terminal for payment verification. Of course it's possible they'll use cameras and microphones and who knows what else instead just because. Maybe they can make some extra money by requiring some special hardware, a good reason to do so I suppose.
I haven't found any secret or insider information on it that you yourself can't read if you do a simple web query. It should only take you a few minutes if you're still curious about it.
IMO I'd like to see them wait on Project Abacus for identity verification. I see it as a worthwhile effort paying big dividends.if it reliably secures your mobile device.That could be a couple years away tho.
No idea if either microphones or cameras are required. Personally I don't see a reason they would have to be.
The check-out person should be able to both see and hear of course so they can hear your payment request and see your picture on a terminal screen. Oh yeah and and your smartphone will have to be on your person somewhere to "talk" to the terminal for payment verification. Of course it's possible they'll use cameras and microphones and who knows what else instead just because. Maybe they can make some extra money by requiring some special hardware, a good reason to do so I suppose.
I haven't found any secret or insider information on it that you yourself can't read if you do a simple web query. It should only take you a few minutes if you're still curious about it.
IMO I'd like to see them wait on Project Abacus for identity verification. I see it as a worthwhile effort paying big dividends.if it reliably secures your mobile device.That could be a couple years away tho.
You're talking in circles. If they are going to do facial recognition it will require a camera at each register which the retailer would need to install. The alternative would be to use your phone's camera for the facial recognition but then you'd need to have your phone in-hand which defeats the purpose.
Or are you suggesting that you take a pic of your face when registering with Google. I'm sure some would have no problem with this but I sure as hell wouldn't be providing anyone else my pic.
All the above seem like non-starters to me.
Yup, exactly. Otherwise use Android Pay (or Apple pay) and skip the hands-free payments if you're uncomfortable with pictures.
I get that too. Very few people have my picture as I hate having it taken. Most seem to have no problem with it tho, especially younger folks. They post em all over Facebook and get tagged even in friends pictures, including location and time. I think they have different ideas on privacy than you and I might.
And to be clear I'm not saying it will work as simply as that, only that I don't see any obvious reason it couldn't but perhaps with a couple of additional safeguards. The details should be known soon I would think.
I can't believe that when Apple comes up with a name like Apple Pay, that they don't automatically register the inevitable Android Pay and Samsung Pay, at the same time. They'll always be able to do this because no one knows what Apple are going to name something, and it's only then that they use the same name with Apple replaced with their name. Then they'll have to work out their own service name. Instead of leeching of Apple's expertise in naming, and also leaching the uniqueness of Apple's product name.
Because Apple doesn't own the trademark for "Android" or "Samsung". They would be sued and swiftly lose, just as any other cybersquatter would.
Surely though they can trademark the word "Pay" in the specific context of using it as branding for a pay by phone service when the word Pay, is followed by the brand name as a single unit? Saying Apple Pay, is not the same thing as using the word 'pay'. So it should be trademarked so that Samsung could say, 'you can pay with your samsung phone' but not be able to say, 'we have a new service called Samesung Pay.
Surely though they can trademark the word "Pay" in the specific context of using it as branding for a pay by phone service when the word Pay, is followed by the brand name as a single unit? Saying Apple Pay, is not the same thing as using the word 'pay'. So it should be trademarked so that Samsung could say, 'you can pay with your samsung phone' but not be able to say, 'we have a new service called Samesung Pay.
Trademarks don't work that way; they're very specific. Apple could (and did) trademark "Apple Pay", but that doesn't protect them from other brands using that naming pattern. They could *try* to trademark the word "Pay" but I'm sure that wouldn't fly because it's too generic and already commonly used for the process of exchanging currency for goods and services. (A company can actually even lose an existing trademark if the term becomes too commonly and generically used.) What Apple definitely cannot do is trademark "[brand] Pay". You can't put wildcards in trademarks.
The test is consumer confusion and generic use, not originality. Are consumers likely to be confused by Apple trademarking the word "Pay"? Yes. Are consumers likely to confuse Apple Pay with Samsung Pay? No, so that's fine, even if the latter is, subjectively, an uninspired ripoff.