Slashdot Mirror
The March Towards Micropayments
MattW writes "It's been well over a year since Ron Rivest's company Peppercoin was introduced on Slashdot. Now, the AP is reporting that Peppercoin 2.0 is here. Peppercoin's website indicates that version 2.0 pays merchants exactly what they charged, instead of with cryptographically signed tokens which may or may not sum out to exactly the expected charges. This looks like the technology that will enable credit card acceptance in vending machines and video games, but may not solve the need for truly "micro" payments, like paying $.005 for a page view."
The acceptance, or maturity, of a technology can not occur without there being a desire or perceived need for it by the consumer. If there is no need, infinite supply (as is theoretically possible with such a thing as digital services) is meaningless, as people will still not use it.
.01 or so for every slashdot article which someone gets before the rush/premium members.
That said: what's the desire, or demand, for micropayments in general? I can see how they would appeal for use in vending machines or game payments, but for per-view payments online?
The largest, and potentially only, source of income I can see for such a product would be through the porn industry. That way they might be able to more easily be able to meter out their 'service' in a commodity type fashion: "You 'used' X megs, so we charged you for that much" - as opposed to the blank service fee model, where the customer might frequently cancel the $5/month subscription, as "they didn't use it" *cough* and there'd be little/no incentive to pay for it.
Personally, I would stop going to most sites I currently visit if I had to pay for them. I already pay for internet access; why would I want to, or should I have to, pay for something which is currently free? "Premium" service on sites, however, might benefit - it would be easier to do a per-view billing model, again. For instance, on slashdot: charge $
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Micropayment, macropayment, blah, blah, blah. Some things are worth paying for, others are not. Until and unless MC and Visa get into the act, these things are unlikely to bear much fruit. Some, yes. Enough to get all giddy about? Hardly.
What is the problem this is trying to solve? Why not group together (as a somewhat poor example) all of the OSDN content sites. You then pay, say, $5 for a certain number of page views across the entire spectrum. Each view is tallied and attributed to the appropriate site. Similarly, you can have organizations of news publications, technical publications (I'm thinking game and/or computer mags), entertainment of various sorts.
Look, as always, the porn industry is ahead of the game. Get one of those memberships to twenty different sites. They don't bill you by the page view, they let you hit all the sites. Look, if porn ain't looking at it, it's not going to work.
Finally, who the hell wants to type in a 16 digit credit card number, 4+ digit expiration, name, address, etc, etc, to view a web comic?
Oh, you can just buy 'points' and redeem them at various sites? What's flooz.com up to these days?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Ah, which ignores the two biggest obstacles to using micropayments:
a)People HATE getting nickled and dimed- hence the very origin of the term!
b)For websites and the like, people will simply seek out free content which is available in quantity. Bob starts charging micropayments for his webcomic. Bob witnesses most of his readers disappearing into the woodwork. Jane, Sally, and Joe notice little bumps in their traffic logs.
People just can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that some stuff just isn't considered by the public worth paying for, at any price.
Oh, not to mention, the micropayment guys seem to like charging as much or more than the credit card companies, the money is not very accessible, and so on.
Please help metamoderate.
Clay Shirky makes a strong case why micropayments haven't taken off, and probably won't in the forseeable future. In short, the difference between "free" and "only $0.005" is much larger than only half a cent - it's a change in the mindset of the reader. The article also references more academic papers describing the weaknesses of micropayments.
Ubi dubium ibi libertas: Where there is doubt, there is freedom.
Do we really want to go towards a cashless society. I agree this micropayment system is far from it but this system will lead to the owners of VISA to have an awesome amount of power. Imagine , what would happen in a cahsless society where Visa get a percent of every transaction taking place.
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
The problem with micropayments is the "micro". Payments are payments.
I consult for an organization with a billing system that sends out bills for as little as $0.01 and as much as $5-6 million for a quarter. If the app supported it, they could probaly bill to the tenth of a penny if need be. The system doesn't care.
The only difference between MasterCard and a micropayment system is scale and profit. Given a scalable global system, an transaction is a transaction. Each transaction has a distinct cost associated with it, which is really not relevant to the value of the transaction. The cost of a $15,000 transaction is nearly the same as a $0.015 transaction.
And therein lies the problem. In order to make micropayments affordable, you need to drop highly profitable fees on small transactions... plus your customers will start to question your high fees on larger transactions.
The banking system makes far too much on "macropayments" to scuttle the whole thing to accomodate small payments.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Paying doesn't necessarily mean "transfer of money", it can also mean giving some content back. YMMV.
Then I wouldn't feel the need to be jewish with what I'm doing . . .
You're a huge dick. I can't believe tripe like this gets modded up, especially when there are 20 other posts that say the same thing, but aren't racist.
There is always the issue that something can go wrong in between you and the merchant that can make that 1 view paid for content just disapear never to be seen again, eating your credit and not getting your content. I'm trying to strike up the similarity of like, putting your money into a vending machine and not getting what your paid for when the chocolate bar gets stuck.
Its hardly a wallet breaking scenario, but it is annoying and reduces a persons confidence in using such a system. If people are willing to use such a system with those risks its fine, but I hope that there is going to be additional effort in ensuring that these small transactions are done reliably.
"The cost reduction is possible, he said, because of a patent-pending method of lumping together individual transactions into one transaction to reduce the cost to the merchant."
How in the world is that patentable? Apple has been doing that with iTunes since the beginning. Google also doesn't handout checks for AdSense until you have $100.00 or more accumulated.
People have also mentioned Wal-Mart dropping a charge from their credit card because it was such a small amount that lingered for too long.
This company is patenting something companies have done for a very long time and then calling their product 2.0. Pretending this is going to translate from video games (anyone who's worked or played in an arcade knows how fast quarters fly completely obvlivious to how much has been spent) to the web is just ignorant. Nobody is going to be sitting on a web-site dropping "quarters" for hours. There's not enough "excitement" to distract visitors from how much they're spending.
It's a whole different paradigm from playing games at an arcade.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
If the idea of selling ringtones had been posted here on Slashdot, I am pretty sure we would hear the same arguments : "won't work, no one will pay money for something like this"
Selling ringtones has turned into a multi-million dollar market.
The Internet as most of us have come to know it, is constantly changing (big news). So do our consuming habbits (really now?). After all, we are creatures subjected to evolution.
While the aeroplan was being invented, the common person had the same argumentation: who will want to fly?
Or befor cable was introduced, many of the common folk suggested, it would be impossible to get consumers to pay for something, they are already getting for free.
I am not willing to subscribe to a site, though I would be willing to pay to view certain articles/content. Now not every article will be worth while to pay for, and this is the point where a business plan comes in. Enough said....
FOr micropayment to gain wide acceptance, there needs to be an integration within the browsers. I researched that for a while because my website has some value but not enough to warrant pulling a CC out. Imagine if you get to a site and you have a little icon on your task bar that start flashing a bit for attention. You pass your mouse above and it asks: "do you agree to pay 0.005$ per page while you visit this site ?" With an optional cgi being called back on the site in case you aswer yes. And somewhere within the browser options lie the CC reference (or paypal or whatever). It would make it convenient to use, which is the main things missing from all current micropayment choices. The time it takes to enter registation, value, references, etc... is not worth 0.005$.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
No its pretty unreasonable. The reason people first bought Atari systems was because they didn't have to put in a quarter for each play. Then people realized that computers could play the same games, but also get lots of other important things done.
So why should anyone expect a person owning a PC to pay for each play of a video game. We optimized that out long ago.
And I have not found too many places where you can actually buy music online. most allow you to rent it in their custom formats. Just a fancy DIVX without a timeout.