Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Shuts Down Their PayPal Competitor
LostCluster writes "MSNBC and ZDnet are both reporting that Yahoo and HSBC have announced a shutdown plan for their PayDirect service which was their rival to PayPal. Since CitiBank abandoned their c2it service last year, PayPal now seems to be a monopoly by default." There are other players in this field, though, like bidpay and worldpay.
...the American public cry out that the Dollar is a monopoly, and that Pounds and Yen should be allowed as well.
--Muzz
A consortium of Canadian banks (BMO, CIBC, RBC, ScotiaBank, and TD) offer "email money transfers" through CertaPay. My wife and I use it for almost everything we used to do through PayPal because -- unlike PayPal -- it's free for both the sender and receiver (as long as you have a banking plan that gives you a number of free transactions per month).
How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
Paypal is a hell of lot faster and easier than using credit cards. Also, as someone who sells things on eBay on a regular basis, it allows me to accept payments both from paypal people and from people with credit cards, which I wouldn't have otherwise been able to do. Also, I can dump money directly from paypal into my bank account, which I cannot do with my credit card.
So there you go.
--
RumorsDaily
He corrected the submitter by naming several competitors. He could've gone further by removing the submitter's comment entirely, though.
The advantage to me as a consumer is that I don't have to give my CC# to a complete stranger. The burden of proof is on the vendor but it is still a hassle to get everything fixed if your card number is stolen.
From the e-tailer point of view, we added PayPal for the convenience of our customers. And a substantial percentage of our total orders are settled that way - even though we *do* take credit cards.
;)
*WHY* people use PayPal? Well, there are those who don't have credit cards, to start. (I had a bank account _long_ before I got my first credit card, many years ago though that was.) Beyond that, there have always been people who, for whatever reason, prefer to e.g. write checks, or use their debit card. PayPal is/can be the on-line equivalent. Not to mention literally thousands of reasons of which I haven't thought.
http://www.theboyz.biz/Your source for computers, parts, electronics, small applicances and more!
If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
However, this is also an area where a monopoly is least desireable. This is shown by the abuses PayPal has done with their shoddy customer service, and the ripoffs they've done against many people. What it comes down to now is that you either use PayPal or you don't ... and a lot of people don't. If a seller is able to take my credit card directly, fine. If not, maybe I'll send them a money order or cashier's check. But I'm not risking my money in PayPal.
I do have an alternative system idea in mind, and I am preparing a document on how it would work. It involves a new exchange system between banks that parallels their existing money exchange systems. An auction seller or shopping site would generate an "open transaction" through their bank (or equivalent service provider). The transaction code is given to the buyer, who then can submit it to their bank for payment. The security is a function of buyer's arrangement with their own bank. Once the bank has determined they are truly dealing with their own account holder who has approved payment on the transaction, payment is sent through a central clearinghouse. It should take under a minute to go through to the seller. Responsibility for fraud would be at the sending bank. The system would also send no private information on the transaction; it would be a blind, and non-reversible, payment. Seller would not know where the payment came from, but would know it cannot be reversed within the system. If the sending bank made a mistake, such as letting an unauthorized person access the buyer's account, that's the responsibility of the sending bank, and buyer's would choose their bank on the basis of how well they deal with security. Both parties would never have to deal with entities other than the one they chose to be their bank.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I bought a laptop from someone who ended up sending me a piece of shit. I tried to get them to take it back, and they gave me further crap about no returns, condition as advertised, etc. I then e-mailed paypal and they sent me a response in UNDER two hours with their insurance information, how they were investigating, and what my recourse options were. About two days later they wrote back saying they had gotten the vendor to cooperate and that all I needed to do was send the laptop back and have receipt confirmed by the shipper (not necessary to have it confirmed by the asshole vendor) and they'd refund my money. I did and they did. Couldn't be more pleased. I used to work at MBNA, which is about the highest-service CC company out there, and their claims were nowhere near that quick.
Moreover, the other advantage to you as a buyer is that you can easily and conveniently do business with a HUGE range of people you could not previously do business with. That increases merchant competition and keeps prices lower.
Read jack phelps dot net
I bought $82 worth of magazines from a seller in Colorado. Seller never shipped the item. I issued a chargeback request with PayPal, who then said it would take 60 days to 'investigate.'
After about 60 days (right after my chargeback privilege with my issuer expired), they sent me an email stating, "We have found in your favor. However, the seller has a zero balance in their bank account, so we cannot give you your money."
The seller continues to do business through PayPal through the same account, with no further attempts by PayPal to hold the money or withdraw it. I've issued further complaints to PayPal, which have been ignored. Needless to say, I will be claiming my money back through the class action lawsuit already in progress.
In Estonia, my native country, banks created a cross-payment system in 1993 (over ten years ago!). Since then it has been possible for anyone with bank account in any Estonian bank to pay anyone else with a bank account. Shortly after that most banks made the system available over the Internet.
It became quite common for me to go out to lunch with my colleagues so that someone would pay the bill, and later everyone else would transfer some money instantaneously to his bank account. When I moved to the US in 1999, I was most puzzled by people having to mess with personal checks for such things, and the inconvenience they had to go through whenever they needed to make payments to anyone (e.g. utility bills).
Things like PayPal, various (paid!) bill payment systems and other things like that are simply hacks built on top of an antiquated banking system and would not be necessary if we had a decent cross-payment system between the banks. So can anyone please enlighten me and tell why we still don't have one??
When men used to be men
I bet if paypal had to pay credit-card interest (through legislation) on locked accounts, you would see many if all of the problems go away.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"