Re: Strategy (the past) Re: Google payment plans

On 2014-04-11 16:22, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 01:14 AM, Anders Rundgren wrote:
>> On 2014-04-11 01:44, Pindar Wong wrote:
>>> and 'running code' ;)
>>
>> ... in browsers supporting some new and for the purpose (payments) 
>> necessary features.
> 
> No, browser implementation should never be a requirement for the Web
> Payments work. We can build a solid Web payment system today without any
> browser upgrades. The solutions that this community creates
> shouldn't depend on browser manufacturers implementing particular features.

Doesn't this also depend on what you want to achieve?

Personally, I can't see the *traditional* payment industry jumping on
a bandwagon that essentially only does what they already do.  That
their solutions aren't universal, standardized, based on JSON-LD, or
even uses HTML5 is not something they are terribly concerned about
as long as it doesn't interfere with their business.


Google OTOH won't let limitations in Firefox or MSIE affect their
payments plans for a simple reason: They don't have to.

Google have even updated Chrome's HTTP implementation with something
called SPDY which is used when connected to Google servers.  This will
later be one of the corner stones in HTTP 2.0.

Google will most likely continue to "implement/experiment, standardize later".
I believe this is the right approach, at least if you have people in the
loop that continuously verifies the technology's suitability from a
standardization perspective.

Apple is not entirely inactive either...their "Security Enclave" co-processor
http://images.apple.com/ipad/business/docs/iOS_Security_Feb14.pdf
together with suitable hacks in Safari will be an excellent platform for payments.
Unfortunately (for Web Payments) it run circles around W3C's SE API.

This is my world, for good or for worse...

It is worth noting that SDOs, Consultants, Individual innovators, and
Software/Service vendors do not necessarily have identical agendas and
objectives.  My hope is that there *will* be common goals but at this
stage things look somewhat scattered.

Best
Anders


> 
> More on this in a later email, but tying success to the implementation
> of particular features in a browser is a losing proposition. That said,
> if new security or interaction mechanisms (like TrustedUI, U2F,
> WebCrypto) become available natively in the browsers, then the whole
> payment ecosystem improves. We shouldn't put browser manufacturers in
> the critical path.
> 
> -- manu
>

Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 15:55:10 UTC