Slashdot Mirror
BitPass: Micropayment That Seems To Work
Omega1045 writes "I have been following the story of BitPass for some time now. The micropayment solution provider has been featured on Slashdot before. That article focused on Scott McCloud, and his comic The Right Number. Since that story, BitPass has added a number of sites using their service. From this netizen, it looks like the idea is really taking off. Some news sources (NJ.com, SiliconValley.com) have noticed how this micropayment trend has progressed to include well known services like iTunes. I really like the idea of the artist getting a fair cut of the profits at BitPass."
It doesn't fix the fact that most people don't want to pay for internet content in any way, shape or form. Case in point- IGN. Even though that was subscription based, it's complete "collapse" as it were was caused by moving to the pay model. Fileplanet is having the same types of troubles, as their "exclusive" downloads quickly become not so exclusive. People aren't ready to move beyond advertiser supported web content in droves. It's too early.
can be found at www.kopek.net
We initially volunteered for the trial, but didn't bother once we heard of the terms- basically, 15%, same as paypal. Our users would have objected to keeping a balance they couldn't use anywhere else. Worse, we'd loose ANOTHER 15% because they(at the time) only supported PayPal for transferring funds. Worse, they only do the transfer when it gets to a certain size. Micropayments, macrotransfers, mean that not only are they ripping you a new one on the 15% fee, but they're ALSO getting your interest.
Call me silly and slap me stupid, but the point of micropayments was to make small payments economically viable. I don't call "three times a credit card processing fee" viable for what amounts to nothing more than a proxy service.
All Bitpass does is play "mini paypal", and that's neither original nor novel. Next, please. That technology involving random numbers+statistics looked far more promising....
Please help metamoderate.
This is even weaker than Verisign's lower class of SSL certificate. Verisign at least requires a Dun and Bradstreet number.
There are far better seal programs, such as the classic Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. That's an actual warranty. "If a product bearing the Seal proves to be defective within two years of purchase, Good Housekeeping will replace the product or refund the purchase price." "Entrust" doesn't come anywhere near that.
Then there's the question of whether BitPass is a payment service or a reseller. iBill, for example, is a reseller. When you buy something through iBill, the actual "merchant" is iBill, and if you want a refund, you can get it through iBill's customer service operation. Getting it back from the site operator is iBill's problem, which is why they take a big cut and hold back payments for weeks.
BitPass doesn't seem to be set up that way. BitPass is, in a sense, "selling money" That may create problems. Credit card issuers don't allow merchants to "sell money"; that's a loan, which comes under banking laws. Also, the U.S. Government has a monopoly on money. Casinos in Las Vegas used to take each other's chips, but that was ruled to be a "currency" years ago, and they had to stop.
Worse, the BitPass site does not disclose the name and address of the business before asking for a credit card number. They've set things up so it's hard to get a refund. They don't disclose their refund policy. That's a criminal offense in California (B&P code 17538), where BitPass apparently is located. That's good for six months in jail. Here's the law, which is very specific, so sleazy operators can't hide the required info and claim they comply.
(1) Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication, such as e-mail or an on-screen notice, the vendor's return and refund policy, the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted.
(2) If the disclosure of the vendor's legal name and address information required by this subdivision is made by on-screen notice, all of the following shall apply:
(A) The disclosure of the legal name and address information shall appear on any of the following: (i) the first screen displayed when the vendor's electronic site is accessed, (ii) on the screen on which goods or services are first offered, (iii) on the screen on which a buyer may place the order for goods or services, (iv) on the screen on which the buyer may enter payment information, such as a credit card account number, or (v) for nonbrowser-based technologies, in a manner that gives the user a reasonable opportunity to review that information. The communication of that disclosure shall not be structured to be smaller or less legible than the text of the offer of the goods or services.
(3) The complete street address need not be disclosed as required by paragraph (1) if the vendor utilizes
Instead of the micropayment route, I've always preferred the idea of paying one monthly fee then getting unlimited content for that fee. It's like those "adult passes". You pay them a monthly fee, then when you visit a member page, they pay the page for you.
With a pay-per-view thing, I'd always be asking myself "do I REALLY want to see this, or can I live without it?" and end up missing a lot of stuff.
I have to say I agree with him on this. He makes several very good points about micropayments, free content, and how the Internet shifts the balance of power from publishers to consumers.
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
I was surprised that this never got discussed on /., but there is a *very active* campaign going on in Holland to promote pre-paid cards for use on the Internet. It's called wallie, and at least we are interested to use it on our little web sale project.
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
There is a culture of ignorance among regular users that dictates that anything that costs money on the Internet is some sort of scam, so they avoid most of them. Not only that, but many are still very nervous about moving money online.
Among the geeks, however, many still think that actually *buying* things online makes you some sort of sellout. I have been made fun of before for buying shareware - since the person making fun of me had the same software but didn't have to pay $29.99 for it.
Until both groups (standard users and geeks) come to accept that it is quite ok to spend money for something online, we are going to continue to see resistance to these sorts of services.
-danielrm26
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge
Small sites usually do not control their own webservers and are hosted along with other sites.
What BitPass is asking is to install a 'gateway' to allow their service to work. They claim the service will thus work in 30 minutes. In the majority of cases, with small sites, there will however be extra hassle because of the way BitPass has to be installed.
It could even be impossible to install BitPass on cohosted sites, who knows ?
Ofcourse it's still a beta, but they got to do better than that...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
whenever I go to a big shopping mall, I see people making music. They work according to the same model, even though they are not really earning much by it, and even though they use a hat-way instead of a BitPass way to get money. Some people are really interested in the music they make, and throw in some money.
There are people who, however, rather would like that only the stores were there in the mall. These people call in the local mall-security or the law-enforcement people, who make sure they are thrown out.
Now only the big stores are left. Why? Because they pay rent to be there.
You are not paying rent, or can't pay rent of the little money you earn, so you have no right to be there.
I hope that analogy will not have any place in the internet...
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
A short, but interesting read on the:
Logic & Viability of Micropayments
http://www.gammafrog.com/node/view/2
Here in the USA you can get gift cards which are VISA cards, and have only the vendor's name on them. They're prepaid. Simon Properties offers them at several malls in the US. They are the perfect anonymous payment.
I too was convinced after reading Shirky's essay. Then I read Scott McCloud's rebuttal, and I have to say it is quite convincing.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
Paypal is 2.2% + $0.30 USD to 2.9% + $0.30 USD. The higher rate is for foreign transactions.
Unless you have a personal account in which case it's free (but you can't take credit card payments). The only way BitPass beats PayPal is under $2.35 for a transaction. For a $5 transaction I pay about 41 cents to PayPal where I'd be charged 75 cents for BitPass.
I don't like micropayments and although I could save all of 19 cents in fees per $1 account, there's no way I'm going to use two on-line payment companies for my site. Especially since the next tier of my subscription is $4 in which case PayPal is cheaper. I charge for a time period of unlimited access. Not per file or other such garbage that people are attempting to do micropayments for.
I'm with Penny-Arcade on this one. If what you're selling isn't worth paying at least a dollar for, then don't sell it.
I'm not going to pay you a quarter to read your comic but if it's good I might pay you $5 to get access to all the old comics for a year.
A quarter is an annoyance. Five bucks is a real amount of money which people will pay for quality merchandise.
Ben
Work Safe Porn