Mobile payments have revolutionized the online payment business in the United States and elsewhere in the world. The advantages of convenience and reduced costs stand out as some of the specific dimensions of these innovative payment methods. While other companies have joined the business, Apple and Google have reinforced their dominance in the market through their digital wallets' popularity. A close comparison between the two companies’ services Apple Pay and Google Pay respectively reveal that each has its unique advantages and setbacks that determine its overall strength on the marketinPerceptions on the quality of the products vary according to the users' preferences. The nature of mobile transactions is that they are highly dynamic. While Google Pay might appeal more to the consumers because of its free digital transactions, Apple Pay is bound to attract the category of risk-averse retailers and banks seeking assurance of coverage in case of losses.
The suitability of digital platform payments depends on their level of access to commercialization. According to Kolandaisamy and Subaramaniam (2020), the digital infrastructure used by a particular platform determines its degree of access to commercialization. A close analysis of Apple Pay and Google Pay reveals that they vary in their overall impact on commercialization. At the core of the digital markets' success is the payers and payees' perception concerning the general advantages of the system (Kolandaisamy & Subaramaniam, 2020). A matrix of factors, including the prospects of growth, costs, and risk management, determines particular digital payment platforms' competitive advantage. Subramanian et al. (2019) conjectured that the digital payment platforms' future should depend on the net effect of the forces between demand and supply of the market.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Google Pay has the potential of accessing a vaster market reach compared to Apple Pay. Based on its vaster coverage across the globe and the extensive nature of its usage, Google Pay has exceptionally high chances of attracting many users to its digital wallet. On the other hand, Apple Pay is known for its selectivity in market segmentation (Akdemic & Yenal, 2020). The difference between the two companies lies in the understanding that Google pioneered the digital wallet innovation, having introduced it in 2011. Apple would later follow with its own in 2014. The general impression is that the company may focus on a market category that aligns with its business objectives. Apple's competitive edge stems from its policy of coverage for any losses resulting from fraudulent transactions on its payment platform. The challenge stems from the understanding that digital payments expose users to a broad range of risks.
The growth in the prevalence of online transactions has contributed to the choice of the card-present transactions and the card-not-present transactions. The card-present transactions happen when the card user's information is obtained at the point of sale (Akdemic & Yenal, 2020). Examples of these types of payment include the counter-top card terminals and the point-of-sale systems. On the other hand, the card-not-present payments happen when the transaction is made in such a way that there is no absolute proof of the presence of the card. Examples include online shopping cart and electronic billing. The main concern lies in the need to provide sufficient protection for the cash-not-present system (Akdemic & Yenal, 2020). Critical to the impact of a payment system on the market is the target users’ perception regarding its convenience (Singh & Rana, 2017). Google’s strength stems from the growing scope of its global coverage and the increasing reliance on the modern world on internet connectivity.
Many business operators often seek convenience after incurring the operational challenges associated with the traditional payment systems. Unlike Apple, Google does not charge the banks for using its payment platform. While this might seem like a competitive edge given that Apple charges 0.05% of the transaction amount, the security dimension stands out as digital payment systems, the Apple option may continue to attract more banks and businesses (Kolandaisamy & Subaramaniam, 2020). The charge is partly intended to cover for the risks involved.
As Singh and Rana (2017) pointed out, the future of the digital wallets shall depend on the penetration of mobile telephony in society. This position relates to other views that have pointed to the level of internet access as another critical enabler of digital wallet popularity in the world. Inspired by the widely shared perception that the future generation shall be governed by cashless transactions and innovative approaches to business, many individuals and organizations are committed to an increased reliance on digital wallets for their transactions (Akdemic & Yenal, 2020). With the increasing popularity of e-commerce in the world, many analysts observe that digital wallets shall continue to grow in popularity around the world.
Ultimately, Google's decision to introduce the digital wallet aimed at exploiting the strength and opportunities inherent in its extensive global coverage. Google Pay is likely to maintain a strong presence among consumers, while Apple Pay may continue to show its dominance among corporate clients. Both options offer the clients the advantage of convenience, particularly when compared to the traditional approaches to business. The balance between cost and risks is the major dividing line between Google Pay and Apple Pay. Prospects of growth also depend on a broad range of factors that include perceptions, the degree of innovation, and market preferences.
References
Akdemic, N. & Yenal, S. (2020). Card-Not-Present Fraud Victimization: A Routine Activities Approach to Understand the Risk Factors. Guvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi 9 (1): 243-268. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341314546_CARD-NOT-PRESENT_FRAUD_VICTIMIZATION_A_ROUTINE_ACTIVITIES_APPROACH_TO_UNDERSTAND_THE_RISK_FACTORS
Kolandaisamy, R. & Subaramaniam, K. (2020). The Impact of E-Wallets for Current Generation. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems 12 (1): 751 – 759. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339236716_The_Impact_of_E-Wallets_for_Current_Generation?enrichId=rgreq-85c5e4549a15d31cd37bacf91dd95075-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMzOTIzNjcxNjtBUzo4NjMzMDgwMzkwNzc4ODhAMTU4Mjg0MDA4NDI3MA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
Singh, S. & Rana, R. (2017). Study of Consumer Perception of Digital Payment Mode. Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce 22 (3): 1-14. https://www.icommercecentral.com/open-access/study-of-consumer-perception-of-digital-payment-mode.pdf
Subramanian, M., Geeta, S., D. & Rajendran, S. (2019). Consumer Acuity on Select Digital Wallets. International Journal of Scientific & Technology 8 (12): 3551 – 3556. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338357685_Consumer_Acuity_On_Select_Digital_Wallets
