Re: [projectvrm] Is Google Wallet VRM?

[Doc Searls < >]

On May 27, 2011, at 9:02 AM, Rex Hammock wrote:

> There's are lots of "quacks" and "waddles" like VRM in there. Or, at
> least for what the potential of something like this could turn into.
> 
> But as noted on this thread (and with the coverage now of how PayPal
> is suing due to, well, whatever big companies sue each other over),
> there's something about this announcement / product / initiative that
> seems designed to disrupt or muddle other developments in this space
> -- as much as it is a product unveiling.
> 
> Everything from "Square" to the startups like those we are discussing
> in the thread about All My Purchases, Buyosphere, etc., will be
> impacted (or challenged?) if (when?) a sizable market develops of
> individuals using a comprehensive mobile "wallet" to make purchases.
> 
> In other words, I think Google's objective here is two-fold.
> 
> 1. Disrupt other attempts to "own" this space by offering to champion
> and defend an "open" alternative

I agree. This is what Google does. It commodifies things, as Jeff Jarvis 
explained in "What Would Google Do?"

We've needed a digital wallet all along. But we needed one that isn't owned 
by anybody — or is owned by ourselves, just like our real-world wallets. Just 
like our phones. That's why Microsoft failed. That's why Apple isn't in this 
game. That's why Nokia, Sony, and all the other players making electronic 
things you can put in your pocket aren't here. They can't own it, so they 
don't play. 

But, Google says, people need one. So they invent it, and don't try to get a 
piece of the sales action, as Microsoft threatened to, way back when. 
Brilliant. 

> 2. Analyze the aggregated purchasing data flowing through its dominant
> share of that "open" pipeline so that it will have real-time
> information about every SKU -- or, put another way, the Google
> algorithm will have access to "the internet of things" being purchased
> offline, everywhere.

That may be part of it. Certainly they have to be looking at this. I think 
the bigger play here is an enterprise one, and it has to do with loyalty 
programs. Google can build the back end that analyzes data for retailers. 
They can combine data from purchases by customers at multiple stores, rather 
than just from the ones covered by each retailer's loyalty program. They can, 
in a permitted way, follow us around through "location services," and serve 
up ads. Or, better yet, help with personal RFPs. Think of the possibilities.

> If it's truly open, I don't see why VRM standards, protocols, modules,
> plug-ins, extensions or options couldn't be a incorporated into it or
> built on top of it.

Exactly. We need to get in front of this, right away. 

> While I don't believe their "do no evil" claims, I think with Google
> behind it, the chances of VRM considerations being a part of its
> development are more likely than if it were being conceived by others
> with different business-model motives (the Mastercard/Visa duopoly,
> for example).

Yes.

Specifically, now is the time to talk about who controls the data, and how, 
and what the leverage is *for the customer* -- and why customer control is 
better for these big businesses than whatever back-end crunching they do for 
us with data they think they own exclusively.

They need to adopt Personal.com's "Summary of Important Terms & Rights for 
Owners" here : <http://www.personal.com/personal/owner-data-agreement>. The 
next VRM challenge here: a mechanism whereby each of us can assert those same 
terms in the first person singular voice, to any second, third or fourth 
party -- and have a fourth party (which Google has an opportunity to be here) 
voice them for us to second and third parties.

In any case, I think this is huge. It won't look too huge in the short term, 
because it only works with one phone on one carrier with one credit card, and 
appears to be a promo play for all three of those. But this is just a trial 
run. The real play is with any phone, any carrier (or none, if you're on 
wi-fi), and any card -- including both credit and loyalty cards. Between now 
and the real play, we have a window to get VRM involved.

Doc

> Rex
> 
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 5:35 AM, Doc Searls
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> http://www.google.com/wallet/
>> 
>> As a service is it user driven? As in...
>> 
>> http://blog.joeandrieu.com/2009/04/26/introducing-user-driven-services/
>> 
>> http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/vrm/2008/04/28/vrm-is-user-driven/
>> 
>> Is it a substitutable service?
>> 
>> Does it make us all go Moo? That's what it sounds like here:
>> 
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZGoXvzW4WU>
>> 
>> For more on Moo, visit Craig Burton's latest:
>> 
>> <http://www.craigburton.com/?p=3221>
>> 
>> Google's "vision" looks broader than that, though:
>> 
>> <http://www.google.com/wallet/vision.html>
>> 
>> As for VRM, how is this...
>> 
>>> Payments, offers, loyalty, and so much more
>>> Google Wallet has been designed for an open commerce ecosystem. It will 
>>> eventually hold many if not all of the cards you keep in your leather 
>>> wallet today. And because Google Wallet is a mobile app, it will be able 
>>> to do more than a regular wallet ever could, like storing thousands of 
>>> payment cards and Google Offers but without the bulk. Eventually your 
>>> loyalty cards, gift cards, receipts, boarding passes, tickets, even your 
>>> keys will be seamlessly synced to your Google Wallet. And every offer and 
>>> loyalty point will be redeemed automatically with a single tap via NFC.
>> 
>> ... not a personal data store/locker/vault/whatever ?
>> 
>> To Brian's question yesterday about a simple standard for receipts, does 
>> Google have one in here somewhere? Can we leverage it elsewhere?
>> 
>> Can our personal data stores work together with Google on this thing, so 
>> the commercial corner of our stores is exposed in the Wallet?
>> 
>> Many years ago Microsoft wanted to get into this game (also using the 
>> wallet metaphor) but they also wanted a piece of the action, so the banks 
>> freaked and it didn't work. (Looking for sources on this. If anybody has 
>> them, please send them ASAP. I just have today to get this in the book, if 
>> it fits somewhere.)
>> 
>> Amazing market hack: Google doesn't want a piece of the retail action. 
>> They want to open log-jams in shopping and checkout. Reduce friction.
>> 
>> See the FAQ:
>> 
>> <http://www.google.com/wallet/faq.html>
>> 
>> But, again, is it substitutable? Can it be duplicated, reverse engineered 
>> by others? Is enough of the base code available for somebody to do that? 
>> Why would they try, if they don't get a piece of the action?
>> 
>> That's Google's amazing hack. There is no action to get a piece of. Just 
>> like there's no action in Android. It's free for the taking, a non-tragic 
>> commons.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Doc
>> 
>>