Verizon refusing to support Google Wallet - report

Verizon refusing to support Google Wallet - report

Verizon Wireless has demanded that Google disable its mobile wallet app in the forthcoming release of the latest Galaxy Nexus smartphone from Samsung.

Verizon - the number one carrier in the US - is a member of the Isis consortium, which is planning to launch its own mobile wallet service next year.

Verizon's refusal to distribute the rival Google app was confirmed by a Google spokesperson who told Reuters: "Verizon asked us not to include this functionality in the product."

Verizon cites nebulous security concerns as its principal objection to the Google application, with the clear subtext that carrier wants to retain control of the secure element in the NFC chip - and therefore the customer.

So far Sprint - a non-Isis consortium member - is the only US carrier to support Google on Nexus smartphones.

It remains to be seen if the other members of the Isis triumvirate, AT&T and T-Mobile, decide to follow Verizon's lead. Such a course of action may be risky, invoking anti-trust concerns.

Comments: (2)

A Finextra member
A Finextra member 07 December, 2011, 16:19Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

If a verizon customers want a google wallet that much, surely they can just port their number to Sprint and get one there? Thats the risk Verizon takes surely?  If Google/Sprint think the wallet is a major asset they should be welcoming the opportunity to grab market share

Google may have a case for anti trust or restrictive trade practices - but Verizon are not a monopoly last time I looked?  

Ketharaman Swaminathan
Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune 08 December, 2011, 12:20Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 likes

If banks have to take the permission of Apple and Google to get mobile banking apps on to their own customers' smartphones, it's only fair that Google should face a similar situation with Verizon and other MNOs with its Google Wallet app. Either both practices invoke antitrust concerns or neither does.