Slashdot Mirror


Students Embarrass eBay With Firefox Add-On

An anonymous reader sends along a posting from the Grooveking blog on a group of Stanford students who got together to help promote Firefox and ended up releasing a long overdue eBay Toolbar for Firefox before Mozilla and eBay could release their jointly developed extension in Europe. Mozilla's COO said the preemptive release of the eBay Toolbar had ruffled some feathers among European eBay execs. "Besides basic search features, it removes external ads on the site and allows users to see thumbnail pictures on ALL search items, even those sellers didn't pay for. An eBay toolbar has been long overdue... eBay can't be too enthusiastic about this toolbar since it cuts directly into its main sources of revenue: ads and thumbnail fees. But eBay users get a really good deal."

269 comments

  1. Makes sense of this slogan by Southpaw018 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Certainly reinforces the Spread Firefox group's original slogan: Take Back the Web.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    1. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... until Ebay forces viewers to view the ads or the page won't load properly (as do some sites). Here's hoping that doesn't happen..

    2. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      There are plenty of reasons people may post anonymously. It may have nothing to do with being a "coward". Some of us actually don't live on slashdot and come by here now and then only when we have time. Sometimes very interesting comments pop up from the AC's. Refuse to read it, your loss. But I notice the poster above me has already been modded "troll" for pointing out a very obvious fallacy in the parent...

    3. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have plenty of bandwidth. I just don't want to see the ads. Maybe Firefox can load them and display them on my /dev/null monitor.

    4. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by kwanbis · · Score: 0

      so, are you ready to pay for content? cause its either adds that pay, or you pay for content. Someone has to.

    5. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm ready to pay for any site I can't live without. So far that's not a single site.

    6. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by skarphace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      so, are you ready to pay for content? cause its either adds that pay, or you pay for content. Someone has to.
      eBay is a service provider, not a content provider. And believe me, they do get paid for their services.
      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    7. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Trails · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I am perfectly happy to have eBay send ad content to my computer. I'm also perfectly happy to have my computer ignore that content. Their markup interpreted by my computer. Showing me adds never made them any money to begin with, so skipping them doesn't hurt anyone.

    8. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take Back The Web; Take Back the Advertizing

    9. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Columcille · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, the topic was submitted by an anonymous reader. Anonymous cowards are a different breed.

      --
      I love my sig.
    10. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by mollymoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      So, you're saying that you wouldn't have clicked the ads anyway, so eBay don't lose anything. That sounds a lot like the "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" justification for illegally copying music, video and software. I think the DMCA, product activation, Sony rootkits, Vista Content Protection etc. do hurt people. The similar mechanisms which will become part of the web in an effort to enforce ad viewing will hurt people too.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    11. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by StarvingSE · · Score: 4, Informative

      eBay can't be too enthusiastic about this toolbar since it cuts directly into its main sources of revenue: ads and thumbnail fees.

      I'm sorry but TFS is just wrong. Paypal is their main source of revenue. Believe me, double dipping by charging both sellers and buyers a fee to use the service is very lucrative.

      --
      I got nothin'
    12. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been buying things online since 1995. I buy at least 2 things a month and average over $2500USD/year not including used stuff from Ebay/Craigslist and quite a few big ticket items. I have NEVER bought anything directly or indirectly through an ad or from a site that I reached through an ad that was displayed in some graphical form in a browser window. Google ads on the right side of search results? Yes, I have reached sites that way but I am actively looking for products that those ads often times seem relavent for price comparing and for actual purchase. The key here is I was actively looking, I am NEVER going to be browsing CNN and suddenly decide to buy flowers from an ad I see there.

      So yes.. blocking the ads for me is not causing any loss of revenue for an advertiser.

    13. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful


      so, are you ready to pay for content? cause its either adds that pay, or you pay for content. Someone has to.


      Personally, I have no problems with ads as long as they are static and stay at the top of the page. If it's for a product I'm interested I'll even open the referenced link in another browser tab to get more information, and perhaps even buy it. But any ads that blinks, moves, or pops up gets immediately blocked if it somehow gets around NoScript and Adblock. Content providers know that those types of ads are not only irritating but waste users resources and time as well so should not be surprised when they are treated in kind.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    14. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by mollymoo · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I am NEVER going to be browsing CNN and suddenly decide to buy flowers from an ad I see there.

      Not even if you happened to be browing CNN a couple of days before Mothers' Day? If you are as advertising-resistant as you claim (which I doubt - even scattergun advertising hits the mark sometimes), you are highly unusual and thus irrelevant to CNN's advertising strategy. Advertising works; people do buy flowers from companies they see advertised on CNN. As a result florists will pay CNN for advertising space which means CNN can afford to continue to produce the content which took you to the CNN site in the first place. If CNN perceive (rightly or wrongly) that blocking ads significantly hurts their bottom line they will take measures to protect their revenues.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    15. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by sulfur · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, buyers were not charged any fees to use PayPal. They begin to charge you when you "upgrade" your PayPal account to "premium" to be able to accept credit card payments. It's really convenient for buyers to use this service, which is why most sellers support PayPal to make shopping easier for their buyers.

    16. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by laklare · · Score: 1

      This isn't about CNN - it's about eBay, which is paid for its services. Advertising revenue is just a bonus to them. Anyway, I'm someone who doesn't click on ads, thus irrelevant to their advertising strategy. So what's the problem with me customizing my browser so I'm not annoyed by ads I won't click on anyway?

    17. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBay has ads?

    18. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBay has auctions?

    19. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by kwanbis · · Score: 0

      right, so all the ones using adblock to block ebay ... right

    20. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Believe me, double dipping by charging both sellers and buyers a fee to use the service is very lucrative.

      Not only do I not pay, but they also give me interest on my balance.

    21. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Zaph0dB · · Score: 1

      I'm ready to pay for any site I can't live without. So far that's not a single site. It's not a single site, but it's a lot of groups of several sites.
      If all the sites in a group goes "pay-me", I'd find it very hard to continue feeding my news/data addiction.

      I really don't mind someone else paying for me. I hate it when the speakers start burping out loud or when the ad takes over the page or when it takes 100% CPU time to render. However, I accept that for the most sites, the availability of "free" content relies on ads.

      Who do you think pay for everything? Who do you think SHOULD pay for everything?
      --
      When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout [Robert Heinlein]
    22. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Buran · · Score: 1

      I'm curious -- got a few examples?

    23. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is the parent a flame bait... except for the sig.

    24. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by jrockway · · Score: 1

      > will hurt people too

      The content providers, yes.

      --
      My other car is first.
    25. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am perfectly happy to have eBay send ad content to my computer. I'm also perfectly happy to have my computer ignore that content. Their markup interpreted by my computer.

      Which is the way the web is ment to work in the first place. What gets displayed and how it is displayed being entirely down to the browser, all the site can do is ask the browser nicely to render a certain way.

    26. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. It's true that people do, in general, buy whatever is advertised, but there are those of us who do not. I have never in my adult life purchased something because I saw it advertised. When I discover I have an unfulfilled need, I search the market to find out what the available products are. Then I compare the features of the different products. Once I've narrowed down the list I ask friends, compare reviews, and do other research. Once I've made up my mind, I buy the product from the cheapest or most convenient retailer I can, although I do have loyalty to certain retailers and I make sure to check BBB and similar listings for retailers.

      Since I've been using the internet for over ten years and have never clicked a single banner ad in that time, explain to me why it hurts a company more for my computer to simply not display the advertising than it does for my eyes to simply ignore it.

      Personally, I think the internet would be a bit better off if all the idiots out to make a quick buck (by setting up a blog and throwing a bunch of ads on it) would go away. I donate to the sites I enjoy, have several decent websites, and contribute a lot of content. If you think I'm a leech because I refuse to look at stupid advertising for stupid people you belong to one of the groups of people discussed in this sentence.

      I also wouldn't mind if CNN went away. They're one of about 5,000 companies running the exact same stories, and many of them are inaccurate or flat-out lies. I could just pay Reuters $1/month for my daily news headlines and get a little less political spin.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    27. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I just let everyone that doesn't know how to install adblock pay for my content, works for me.

    28. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A site I visit sometimes tried this. It's a simple fix to get around. They simply look for certain text strings. So go into your adblock.jar and change the names.

    29. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by mollymoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's been modded flamebait because some people don't like being reminded that taking something (content) and not giving what is expected (eyeballs on ads) in return is unfair and damaging.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    30. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I do like I stated, go to Google or Yahoo and search for flowers. I use the various results to browse around and find what I want at an acceptable price. This is the internet here, not the grocery store check out line filled with expensive impulse buys. In the real world, it would take me a long time to drive around or call various places to find cheaper flowers or more choices. Online, it takes less then 5 minutes. I doubt I am alone by doing 5 minutes of price searching or research before buying something.

    31. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by jasen666 · · Score: 1

      I guess you never change the channel during commercials, and never skip the previews when you watch your DVD's, right?

    32. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't bypass the bits you can't fast-forward on DVDs, but I don't watch that many DVDs so perhaps that annoyance hasn't got to me yet. I've never had a DVD which made me sit through a whole bunch of previews. I don't feel obliged to watch any optional previews because I paid for the content with cash, not eyeballs on previews. I do sometimes flick around or make a cup of tea during TV ads, but I still see plenty of them. There's a difference between flicking around or not paying attention and ensuring you never see the ads at all.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    33. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 1

      I'm going to guess that you don't have children, yet. Try watching a Disney DVD, or other children's DVD. Those are the worst when it comes to unskippable previews.

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    34. Re:Makes sense of this slogan by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      eBay is not a news website. eBay is making money from people putting items up for sale and from people buying them. And since PayPal is also owned by eBay they're also making money if people use PayPal to list their items/buy their items.

      There shouldn't be any non-eBay-related ads on eBay.

  2. Nice. by silentsentinel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Suck it, Ebay. Stop trying to hamstring your sellers. Your costs were exponentially lower when you were born, making more money doesn't entitle you to start charging more money for no real reason.

    1. Re:Nice. by r_jensen11 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      making more money doesn't entitle you to start charging more money for no real reason.

      No, but throughout the majority of the world (even China is adopting it), supply and demand does. If the demand for ebay's services increases, why shouldn't they be able to match demand with an increase in price?

    2. Re:Nice. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your costs were exponentially lower when you were born, making more money doesn't entitle you to start charging more money for no real reason.
      You're absolutely right, eBay having higher profits doesn't entitle them to charge more for no reason.

      Being a business allows them to charge more for no reason. Don't like it? Don't use them.

      I don't know why people feel that companies have to justify price increases with some rationale of higher costs for them. Companies do that to make purchasers feel better, but the truth of the matter is that companies (regulated industries aside) can charge whatever the hell they feel like for what they provide. EBay is not in business to make $x profit per transaction; they are in business to maximize $x.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:Nice. by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      Suck it, Ebay.

      Stop trying to hamstring your sellers. Your costs were exponentially lower when you were born, making more money doesn't entitle you to start charging more money for no real reason. um yes they have a reason. They want more profits. That is a valid and real reason. They also have every right to raise rates as they like. It is private business.
      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    4. Re:Nice. by maxume · · Score: 1

      Why should they be able to increase prices? Their costs are presumably better than linear(because software pretty much works that way, and their service is basically custom software+a big pile of hardware). If I had something to sell, I wouldn't really care how many bidders their were, as long as there were enough; people in China are not going to bid on my goods.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Nice. by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Is it, or is it just another company designed to aid Microsoft's plan to rule the world?

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    6. Re:Nice. by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're allowed to charge whatever they feel like in much the same way that I'm allowed to be a total asshole. Yeah, it's allowed in a free society, but that doesn't make it good or smart.

      Trying to maximize profits at the detriment of your own customers is common practice, and that's largely why so many things are completely screwed up. The world would be better if people were willing to settle for an honest buck, a modest profit, instead of screwing over everyone as far as they're allowed with no consideration for the ramifications.

    7. Re:Nice. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Trying to maximize profits at the detriment of your own customers is common practice, and that's largely why so many things are completely screwed up. The world would be better if people were willing to settle for an honest buck, a modest profit, instead of screwing over everyone as far as they're allowed with no consideration for the ramifications.
      Well, that's a debate about capitalism. Some would argue that your system is inefficient, and would therefore not make best use of resources, and would therefore result in less for everyone.

      From a personal standpoint, I'd agree with you -- to the extent that customer goodwill has value that I'd equate to whatever profit I'm not getting by charging more.

      As for not considering the ramifications, I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem is that it's impossible to quantify certain ramifications, like customer goodwill, so they are undervalued when large companies do pricing studies.

      To get back to the best use of resources and companies maximising profits -- absent huge barriers to entry and unfair business practices, new companies will step in if there is a profit to be made. That's the incentive to enter an industry; so if eBay is making a killing, then a competitor who charges less should be able to enter the field and compete for our business. That leaves us with two competitors (and therefore likely enhanced service as they comepte on levels other than just price) along with better pricing. If eBay just makes a middling profit, then there is no incetive for a competitor to come in.
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Nice. by justasecond · · Score: 0

      Why should they be able to increase prices? Because they own the damn company?

      Or (Comrade) do you think you have the right to tell ebay what they can charge you?

    9. Re:Nice. by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I take it you don't have a nice job, or if you do, you don't accept higher compensation than anyone else at your company. After all, your costs aren't really related to the quantity or quality of work you do and there's probably somewhere you can cut out to lower your costs even more.

      For instance, you don't need a large house for your family, you could live in a trailer. They're not so bad now, with water and electricity hookups and whatnot. Also, you don't need to eat fresh food every day. A 50 pound bag of rice lasts quite a while and costs very little. Spice it up with whatever is cheapest in the veggie department, and some kind of beans for protein.

      You can cut your electricity by getting rid of your computer, and you'll save on ISP costs too. Thrift stores have all the almost recent styles at a fraction of the price of the department stores, sometimes charging by the pound rather than the item.

      Oh you don't? They why do you begrudge Ebay charging what they're worth?

      Of course, the irony of this rant is that I actually despise Ebay's pricing scheme, and I often consider the question of "What have Ebay done to earn that money." Specifically in regards to their habit of charging per dollar won rather than per page viewed.

      Since the final price of an item has more to do with the item than ebay's efforts on its behalf, It's absurd that they are paid based on the final price. The absurdity however is not that Ebay seeks such ridiculous compensation, but that any competitor which proposes a saner pricing scheme (for instance, bandwidth, page placement, size, etc.) for what is basically a national classified ad-system with fulfillment tracking will need exceptionally deep pockets just to get off the ground due to the nature of the online auction industry and the network effect.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Nice. by nine-times · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, that's a debate about capitalism. Some would argue that your system is inefficient, and would therefore not make best use of resources, and would therefore result in less for everyone.

      That's not the debate about capitalism-- my "system" isn't a system. Capitalism is a system of economic freedom, but "economic freedom" does not require that you adopt ruthless unethical business practices any more than personal freedom requires people to be assholes. It gives you the freedom to do so, but that freedom is not a moral imperative to act viciously.

    11. Re:Nice. by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

      making more money doesn't entitle you to start charging more money for no real reason.

      First, God bless capitalism!

      Second, dude, it's market driven. There are alternatives. If eBay can get away with charging those prices, and still continue to grow, more power to them. That is what business is all about.

      Third, God bless capitalism!

      Oh, and before I forget...

      Forth, the world's biggest horses ass is dead, let's hoist one to God for finally killing Jerry Falwell. Yay, God. Now, God, what can you do about Pat Robertson?

      Fifth, I'll have a fifth and oh, yeah, God bless capitalism!

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    12. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well said, although as a content creator, my main beef with ebay is their total fucking indifference to the vast amount of stolen and pirated software and other material that they happily sell.

    13. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, God bless capitalism!

      Yeah... religion and capitalism... the two most horrid things on this planet, responsible for more death and destruction than any thing else. Yeah, praise them, that's an awesome idea... go greed and ignorance! you rock!

    14. Re:Nice. by maxume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're over reading my comment. I personally don't see their offering as particularly valuable(I've never even actually used it, I think that's a market statement right?). The point isn't that they don't get to raise prices if they damn well please, the point is that I don't think that the market will bear much higher prices, because all they really offer is a slightly higher probability of sale than a smaller auction site, and a crappy and abused reputation system.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    15. Re:Nice. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually there is an interesting nugget in there.

      Business charge prices for profit and to discourage behavior.

      Given very cheap prices, ebay could run into the tragedy of the commons where their bandwidth is overwhelmed in some unplanned, unintended way.

      At the heart of it tho- all businesses take something that was a good deal, and then they turn the profit screws until it actually becomes unpleasant to deal with them because of ads, prices, etc. It's called "yield management" and it amounts to firing or reducing services to your LESS profitable customers and focusing your business on your best customers.

      To give a personal example Contract programmers set their rates higher for new customers than old customers whenever they are fully booked. Then when a new customer offers to pay the higher rate, they drop/don't renew the customer paying the lowest rate (even if that was the one that stood by them). Over time they ratchet up their rates. And clearly- if people will pay them $75 an hour, then they are worth it, even tho "Bob's MiniBlinds" was paying them $33 an hour.

      I think ebay will run into problems when some of it's patents run out and its prices become too high. There are already other auction sites on the web.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    16. Re:Nice. by maxume · · Score: 1

      I didn't do a good job at it, but my point was more "What's so great about ebay?"

      (I have high hopes for some sort of portable reputation system smashing their business, as that, along with lots of eyeballs(which can be solved with aggregative search), is what they bring to the table.)

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    17. Re:Nice. by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, but throughout the majority of the world (even China is adopting it), supply and demand does. If the demand for ebay's services increases, why shouldn't they be able to match demand with an increase in price?

      Excepting of course that the free market is a harsh mistress and in an idealized environment does not tolerate large profit margins. If there are large profit margins it means that a competitor should start up with lower profits. Absent such natural checks and balances capitalism would be a disaster for most people. Unfortunately frequently the checks and balances aren't actually present. The free market isn't ideal: Consumers aren't entirely rational, information is frequently withheld, participants commit fraud, governments meddle, and sometimes natural monopolies form. When the market is distorted in such a way, one can no longer reasonably hold that the prices are necessarily reasonable and should be accepted without question.

      eBay might be such an example. Thanks to the network effect, eBay is enjoying a very natural monopoly. If a seller jumps to another service, they look 90% or more of their potential buyers, dramatically reducing effective demand for their product and lowering their own profits. As a result the sellers generally don't leave. Given so few sellers, buyers have little incentive to jump services, creating a feedback loop.

      Given this overwhelming cost to jumping services, there is no realistic competition. Absent competition, eBay can afford to jack prices and generate large profit margins with no real risk.

      I don't know if eBay really is gouging, if regulation (the typical solution) is needed, and if so what sort of regulation we should enact, but it is definitely within the realm of possibility. You can't simply wave around supply-and-demand like it's a magical wand that magically makes everything good.

    18. Re:Nice. by Gospodin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the problem is that it's impossible to quantify certain ramifications, like customer goodwill, so they are undervalued when large companies do pricing studies.

      If it's truly impossible to quantify them, then how do you know they're undervalued? Maybe they're overvalued. Maybe they're valued exactly correctly. Maybe they're never valued exactly correctly, but on average they're about right (this is what I suspect is closest to the truth).

      Seriously, with a small or even medium-sized business there is a fair amount of room for companies not understanding how these effects work. But big businesses studies how their actions affect their sales constantly. They know much better than you do how valuable "good will" is. I suspect that it isn't as valuable as you think, and that most consumers are more price-conscious than socially-conscious.

      Maybe it would be a better world if that weren't the case - I wouldn't argue with that point.

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    19. Re:Nice. by rs79 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Oh you don't? They why do you begrudge Ebay charging what they're worth?"

      Ah.

      What something is "worth" is what somebody is willing to pay. No more, no less.

      Absent some meaningfull competition, you're paying what ebay demands, not what it's worth.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    20. Re:Nice. by justasecond · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my bad, I did misread your comment. And good point about the market statement.

      I don't know about the "slightly higher probability" though. I'm not sure what's out there, but ebay does seem to be the 800# gorilla.

      You're right in one respect -- Craigslist does booming business, and I think a big reason is the lack of fees.

    21. Re:Nice. by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      you forgot communism and socialism. I dont think anything in human history can compare to the millions killed by the nazis, soviets and chinese

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    22. Re:Nice. by AaxelB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But then I think we get into some convoluted territory, because millions (I think) of people are willing to and do pay what eBay demands. I really don't know what I'm talking about here, (IANAEconomist) but if people pay for an unnecessary service, even if a company virtually has a monopoly on that service, it must be worth at least as much as they pay, right? So, really, you can't pay more for something than it is worth, barring vendor deception or chicanery or customer stupidity, because if you're paying, then it's worth at least that much to you. I don't think eBay is much into the deceitful end of business, so people get what they pay for at a price they're willing to pay.

      Granted, a fair price for one man is a highway robbery to another, so we can still complain heartily.

    23. Re:Nice. by cgenman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but throughout the majority of the world (even China is adopting it), supply and demand does. If the demand for ebay's services increases, why shouldn't they be able to match demand with an increase in price?

      Why, then, should ebay be able to require that people see their advertisements?

      eBay has been very close to violating certain unspoken social contracts, mostly around their listing cuts and near-monopoly status. And if they start treating their users badly but in a legal way, why shouldn't their users treat them in kind?

    24. Re:Nice. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm approaching it from an economic realist standpoint. What happens in your nice little world of people charging just enough to get by is that, in the long run, benefits are reduced for everyone. Since we all feel good about doing business, it seems like a good system... but it does little more than maintain total quality of life, instead of increasing it across the board.

      Also, it is a discussion of the merits of capitalism. If actors are free to act as they will within the capitalist system, and you're not happy with the results, then your problem is with the system, no? Or are you just making wishes that run contrary to the individual optimal actions within the system?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    25. Re:Nice. by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      Just wait 10 years for the euro-muslim population to hit a critical mass. They'll make hitler, stalin, mao, etc look like amateurs.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    26. Re:Nice. by Alef · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is a system of economic freedom, but "economic freedom" does not require that you adopt ruthless unethical business practices
      You seem to suggest that there is a choice involved. Well, there is at the level of single companies, but it doesn't have any significance on a greater scale. Business practices evolve according to what is most efficient (i.e. profitable). If it is more profitable to be ruthless, the ruthless will survive and those who choose to be "ethical" will die out. It's no different from biological evolution, only faster. Nobody controls it.
    27. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What something is "worth" is what somebody is willing to pay. No more, no less.

      Absent some meaningfull competition, you're paying what ebay demands, not what it's worth.


      Well, as you correctly point out in your first sentence, things are worth no more or less than what people are willing to pay for them. So if people are willing to pay what eBay demands, then a priori their service must be worth it.

    28. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world would be better if people were willing to settle for an honest buck, a modest profit, instead of screwing over everyone as far as they're allowed with no consideration for the ramifications.

      This may be true, but behaviour as you describe is in fact illegal for company directors. They have a fiduciary duty to maximise profit for their shareholders. Of course, maximising short-term profits by screwing over your customers is usually harming your long-term profits, but at least for publically traded companies, profits for the next 3 months (the next reporting period) are paramount.

      Besides, who decides what constitutes a 'modest profit'?

    29. Re:Nice. by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      If it is more profitable to be ruthless, the ruthless will survive and those who choose to be "ethical" will die out. It's no different from biological evolution, only faster. Nobody controls it.

      With all the talk about ethics these days (usually in regards to the environment or the worlds poor), I've been wondering if people who choose less ethical lifestyles (for example, people who buy non-local, non-fair-trade produce) are going to fair better in the long term. If the business world is an example, it would seem so.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    30. Re:Nice. by TuringTest · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What happens in your nice little world of people charging just enough to get by is that, in the long run, benefits are reduced for everyone.

      Care to prove that assertion? I've always found that part of the libertarian creed to be baseless.

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    31. Re:Nice. by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      sadly i dont think it will take that long. With people like Barak Hussein and Congressman Keith X running the US probably wont help

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    32. Re:Nice. by lupis42 · · Score: 1

      There's also the problem of barrier to entry. All the asynchronous information, irrational consumer decisions, and even government meddling could work for competitors just as easily. competition is what pushes prices, and hence profits, down towards costs. A high barrier to entry means that when profits are high, it takes longer and costs more for competitors to get into the market, which means that an imbalance, leading to high profits, lasts longer. The online auction market requires a critical mass of users, just like the online dating market, making entry an extremely expensive, time consuming process. The lack of competition is what allows eBay to charge whatever they feel will maximize profits, confident that they would have ample warning if another agency was attempting to enter into the market and build up a user network. The only real checks on a company in such a position is the effect of per-unit pricing on volume (50k units at 10$ea makes more gross than 20k units at 20$ea) and the danger that, if they are too visibly profitable, the investment of time and money will begin to look attractive to other agencies with deep pockets,particularly if they already have access to other user networks.

    33. Re:Nice. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Well, first off, I'm not a libertarian, I lean towards socialism. But I believe that actors in a free market will seek to maximize their gain, and wishing it weren't so is a waste of time. This is why we have redistribution of resources via taxation.

      As to a proof of that assertion, how much economics background do you have? Almost every economist agrees that an efficient (and therefore more beneficial due to better economic utility) economy depends on accurate pricing -- and accurate pricing is determined by what buyers are willing to pay in the marketplace. This is independent of libertarianism, though it supports their case when interpreted in conjunction with other libertarian tenets.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    34. Re:Nice. by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm approaching it from an economic realist standpoint. What happens in your nice little world of people charging just enough to get by is that, in the long run, benefits are reduced for everyone.

      I didn't say "enough to get by", but a fair price-- with a modest profit. It's true that only generating enough for sustenance doesn't allow for much progress. On the other hand, being overly-greedy in the short term and abusing your partners, suppliers, and customers-- these things can set us back, damage our society, and leave whole markets ruined. Too often, businesses these days are relying on a "broken window" sort of situation. They abuse their position of power to purposefully force the existence of sub-optimal conditions. They create artificial problems so that they can charge you money for fixing those problems. That doesn't really increase quality of life across the board.

      If actors are free to act as they will within the capitalist system, and you're not happy with the results, then your problem is with the system, no?

      No. Your own sentence here acknowledges another possible source of problems, besides the system: the actors. Good social/economic systems will still fail if the people enacting those systems make bad decisions.

    35. Re:Nice. by martyros · · Score: 1

      I took a business class, and the way we were taught to think about it is, "Who captures the value?"

      eBay's service creates value: connecting people who want to buy with people who want to sell in ways that they couldn't before. That connection creates value for both sellers and buyers, or they wouldn't use it. Now, if eBay were a philanthropic organization whose sole purpose of existence were to make that connection, then they wouldn't charge any fee above their own cost (in terms of servers, bandwidth, staffing, and so on), and the sellers and buyers would capture all of the extra value that eBay had created.

      However, I don't think there is any philanthropic organization set up simply to promote selling and buying. So eBay's founders, and its shareholders, want to capture some of that value for themselves. That's how the vast majority of our economy runs.

      And the fact is, that the vast majority of buyers and sellers on eBay are glad to pay eBay's fees (including looking at ads), because the value they get in return is well worth it.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    36. Re:Nice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not insightful, it's just self-contradictory.

      First you say that what something is worth is exactly what somebody is willing to pay.

      Then you say you're paying what ebay demands, not what it's worth.

      But if you're paying ebay what it demands, then that is what you're willing to pay (implied by the fact that you are paying it), and so that is what it is worth, according to what you said once sentence ago.

  3. And then eBay said.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hello lawsuit.

    1. Re:And then eBay said.... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for them, that won't make the add-on go away though.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:And then eBay said.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Based on ... what exactly?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:And then eBay said.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Based on ... what exactly?

      "I have more money and lawyers than you do"?

    4. Re:And then eBay said.... by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      Well it makes a good sized corporation unhappy and they can claim it costs them revenue somehow...if that's not enough justification, well then someone needs to talk to the RIAA...

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
  4. Embarrass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is this such a big deal? It's a lot easier for a bunch of student programmers like this to release a toolbar than it is for eBay.

    The problem isn't making the plugin. That's relatively easy. I guarentee is doesn't take eBay very long to make a toolbar for their own site, assuming they have programmers that are a least a bit competent.

    No, the problem is testing. If an offical toolbar from eBay causes even the smallest problem, eBay is on the hook. For a bunch of students this isn't a problem.

    1. Re:Embarrass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have an idea: Slap "Beta" on it and let the users test it. I should probably patent that.

    2. Re:Embarrass? by Kasis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounded great to me, I use eBay a lot. I installed it, found that it's completely US-centric with no option to localise. In addition all the extras such as Amazon search and Froogle search are all focused on the US.

      I uninstalled and will begin looking for something similar which supports users outside the US.

      On a side note, has it really taken this long for somebody to realise that an eBay toolbar might be a good idea??

    3. Re:Embarrass? by ohearn · · Score: 1

      "On a side note, has it really taken this long for somebody to realise that an eBay toolbar might be a good idea??"

      No, it probably just took this long for someone to find a way to do it without some small slip up that they could have been sued to death over because of the US's position on IP laws.

    4. Re:Embarrass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or just follow the MS model and call it 1.0 and release it as-is.

    5. Re:Embarrass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't see why people want a search toolbar for every site they visit. I just set up a custom search that works in the main address bar. g searches google, w search wikipedia, imdb searchs imbd. Saves a lot of screen space just having the one bar to type into.

    6. Re:Embarrass? by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Yes, but because you are a person interested in the subject, and Ebay IS the subject in a sense, your suggestion will be ignored even though it is probably the best idea out there. Heck, even if the vast majority of Ebay users said this, they probably wouldn't do that.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    7. Re:Embarrass? by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the thousands of brain cells that might die when reading Google, Wikipedia, and Internet Movie Database.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    8. Re:Embarrass? by Randall_Lind · · Score: 1

      Just like all companies they can make a plugin over night for IE but years if ever for Firefox. So what Ebay upset cause users did something that Ebay has put off for years? I say suck it up not like Ebay was ever going to release a tool bar anyway they just say that now after the fact. What the big deal about ads? Adblocker Plus already kills the ads on ebay for me.

    9. Re:Embarrass? by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or follow the Apple model and call it 1.0, release it as-is, and let your fans berate people for complaining. "Always first generation...", "wait for the next one, they'll get it right", "you have to expect this".

    10. Re:Embarrass? by pimpimpim · · Score: 0, Troll

      >I just set up a custom search that works in the main address bar. g searches google, w search wikipedia, imdb searchs imbd. you mean you just installed Opera?

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    11. Re:Embarrass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that animated US flag and the midi version of "God bless the USA" looping in the background kind of turned me off too. Not to mention the thing constantly accusing me of being a terrorist.

    12. Re:Embarrass? by tghw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apologies, we're currently working on a version that works for all eBay domains. If it's not already there, please add your country to the list.

    13. Re:Embarrass? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me Too!

      However, the easy way round this is to install Greasemonkey, and the scripts from userscripts.org that provide the same functionality as the eBay Toolbar - the thumbnailer, de-highlighter and de-featurer. Job done, in less screen space too.

    14. Re:Embarrass? by Tim_UWA · · Score: 1

      1. Open code in vim
      2. :%s/ebay.com/ebay.com.au/g
      3. :wq

    15. Re:Embarrass? by Kasis · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's support :) No apology necessary!!

    16. Re:Embarrass? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more - I value my screen real-estate, and I'd rather not have 5mm of it taken up by every website I frequent. Give me an extension which creates a custom search IN THE EXISTING BOX or maybe a menu item, and we'll be talking.

      I helped out one of my wife's friends with her computer and was astonished that half of her IE windows was toolbars. I think I did what I could but I wasn't about to spend a week backing up, reimaging, restoring, and spyware-proofing her system. Why somebody would intentionally download more toolbars is beyond me...

  5. Good lord... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone get that little bugger some Tucks. His ass is on fire!

  6. Ebay by jrwr00 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well then they are ether going to have to change there site code or talk to the students to get those ads back or something.... EBay shame on you for not releasing you own toolbar so this didnt happen

    1. Re:Ebay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it has more to do with the fact that there are no project managers and marketing people pushing and pulling on features. Less management overhead means a quicker project delivery.

    2. Re:Ebay by httpdotcom · · Score: 1

      The students didn't make the ads disappear...adding the AdBlock plugin to Firefox did that.

  7. So, how many people by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just installed it and started typing in their personal information, with absolutely no idea what this plugin was doing with it?

    Uh huh. Oh, now you're thinking through the security implications.

    It's probably not a particularly clever piece of phishing, but the next one might be.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:So, how many people by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Well, as long as it doesn't package any binaries in it and doesn't use XPCOM to load them, it's fairely straightforward to open up the XPI (which is a ZIP anyway,) and look at the JS, XUL and RDF content. If there are binaries, then it'll just take a bit more time.

    2. Re:So, how many people by winnabago · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, as long as it doesn't package any binaries in it and doesn't use XPCOM to load them, it's fairely straightforward to open up the XPI (which is a ZIP anyway,) and look at the JS, XUL and RDF content. If there are binaries, then it'll just take a bit more time.

      Great, I'll just tell grandma to follow this simple procedure to make sure the emails she's getting arent phishing attempts. She's going to be so happy now that she can install toolbars. Just open the XPI, make sure you're not using XPCOM, and check the JS, XUL, and, wait....um, the RDF, yeah. Oh, and there is another step for binaries. It's great that she's safe from ebay scams now. The parent had a good point, would YOU trust ebay software on your computer?

      --
      Dammit Otto, you have lupus.
    3. Re:So, how many people by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I am not talking to any grandmothers here I think. You have conveniently forgotten the case of Sony spyware distributed on their CDs. I don't know, it COULD have been a grandmother with enough tech skills, who figured that one out. You are not being fare to grandmothers.

    4. Re:So, how many people by dedazo · · Score: 1

      If there are binaries, then it'll just take a bit more time.

      Yeah, I felt the same way about ActiveX binaries. But just a little bit more time than verifying that it doesn't use XPCOM and look in the XPI (which everyone knows is a ZIP anyway) and look at the JS, ZUL and RDF. Yeah.

      Got any more recommendations I might want to pass on to aunt Tilly and cousin Joe Bob when they ask me about Firefox?

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    5. Re:So, how many people by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Certainly, they should follow the news where those who care talk about such issues and others do analysis for such things.

      How can your aunt Tilly and cousin Joe Bob trust ANY software at all? They probably didn't build it.

    6. Re:So, how many people by zanybrainy941 · · Score: 1

      I'm not installating any Firefox extensions that didn't come from addons.mozilla.org. Themes ... yes. Extensions, no.

      Sure you can open it up and read the code, but what happens the next to the extension updates itself? You gonna read that one too and every update after that?

      Macafee has tools that will virus-scan Firefox extensions but they don't have enough of a track record to say if they're being rigorous or not. One wrong virus will F you up bad.

      AMO or nothing.

    7. Re:So, how many people by dedazo · · Score: 1
      So if we follow that logic then if everyone exercised common sense and kept abreast of security threats then ActiveX wouldn't be such a big problem, would it?

      Furthermore, we can say that that XPI has not become such a problem (since you're vulnerable through it as well) simply because it hasn't reached a large enough segment of the PC user base. Correct?

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    8. Re:So, how many people by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Nope. If you don't want to do the testing yourself, and you still want to use XPIs safely then get them from here. There the extensions are tested for security and other flaws before they are released to the public. Of-course you still have to trust mozilla people not to screw you over. In any case how can you ever trust any code that you didn't write yourself? You can't. You can't even trust code that you wrote yourself but compiled with someone else's compiler. You have to write your own compiler, compile it on hardware you trust (another problem right there,) then compile all of your code with that compiler. This is the only way to be sure.

    9. Re:So, how many people by zanybrainy941 · · Score: 1

      My above^^ comments may be true but also beside the point, since we're talking about a total Firefox build and not just an extension.

    10. Re:So, how many people by urlnotfound · · Score: 1

      Speaking of phishing and security, any eBay tool bar should highlight words like BOX and PICTURE so that the less experienced or inattentive won't accidentally buy a picture of a Wii, or the box for a Wii.

      --
      The voices in my head don't bother me. It's the voices in yours that do.
    11. Re:So, how many people by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Yeah. If you want to know the best course of action, sell everything you have, cut off all communication with mankind, and go live like a hillbilly in montana.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    12. Re:So, how many people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because most people are going to figure out that the XPI is a zip file, open it up, and then examine the js, xul, and rdf of all the plugins they download, checking for possible vulnerabilities.

      If real people actually did that, Windows and IE wouldn't have their reputation as malware infested pieces of crap.

      I'm a software developer, and even I wouldn't bother doing that if I used Firefox. "Regular" people definitely aren't going to.

      It's no ActiveX, but it seems like quite a vulnerability to me.

    13. Re:So, how many people by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      I thought nuking it from orbit was the only way to be sure.

    14. Re:So, how many people by SEE · · Score: 1
      As Ken Thompson put it, in Reflections on Trusting Trust

      The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. In demonstrating the possibility of this kind of attack, I picked on the C compiler. I could have picked on any program-handling program such as an assembler, a loader, or even hardware microcode.
      As far as assuming eBay is more trustworthy than a random group of Stanford students, you know, I'd have thought Sony was, too, before the rootkit.

      Sure, the next Firefox toolbar might be a particularly clever piece of phishing, but so might microcode in the next Intel processor.
    15. Re:So, how many people by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      I thought nuking it from orbit was the only way to be sure. It all depends on what you want to be sure of.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    16. Re:So, how many people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget the hardware itself. Have you verified every logic gate on your system? Did you personally go to your ISP to do the same to every computer there? Wait, add ebay to that list, and every AS between you and them.

    17. Re:So, how many people by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Sure. Did you?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    18. Re:So, how many people by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      When I decide to use EBay and if I decide to get this toolbar I most definitely will. Now I am busy with my own extensions.
      Cheers.

    19. Re:So, how many people by dedazo · · Score: 1
      So my lesson for the day is that I should write all my own software in assembler and patch it into the CPU core.

      WTF am I saying, I can't trust assembler. I better just use binary.

      Oh wait, I can't trust the BIOS either. Better just use an abacus.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
  8. I don't have any sympathy for eBay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You had your chance.

  9. Money, Money, Money by InfiniteSingularity · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "eBay can't be too enthusiastic about this toolbar since it cuts directly into its main sources of revenue: ads and thumbnail fees."

    That is why Ebay have not finished their own toolbar yet. They were too busy trying to figure out how to code the bar without messing up their revenue streams. Had they have just made the bar functional and user friendly, they might have already finished it. Fortunately for everyone else, the Stanford group was only concerned about a functional, working toolbar.

    1. Re:Money, Money, Money by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Or they just decided to piss off a big coorporation for kicks.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    2. Re:Money, Money, Money by malsdavis · · Score: 1

      I think you've uncovered one of the primary causes of software delays and usability stoppers of today.

      The "free" market isn't completely faultless.

  10. EBay was Late Because... by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Funny

    It was trying to figure out how to load up more ads...?

    1. Re:EBay was Late Because... by multipartmixed · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, I figured eBay was late because she'd been fucking Craig's List.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  11. Toolbar looks cool and all... by should_be_linear · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... but it should be mentioned that they could create it that fast only thanks to breaking 173 Microsoft patents.

    --
    839*929
    1. Re:Toolbar looks cool and all... by Eudial · · Score: 1

      ... but it should be mentioned that they could create it that fast only thanks to breaking 173 Microsoft patents.


      Be careful, rumor has it Microsoft has patented revealing how many Microsoft-patents something violates.
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    2. Re:Toolbar looks cool and all... by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      don't be absurd; IBM has prior art on doing that to SCO.

    3. Re:Toolbar looks cool and all... by john83 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, Euler has prior art on the number 173.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    4. Re:Toolbar looks cool and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really doubt that it violates 137 patents, or even that Microsoft *has* 317 patents in the area of online auction toolbars.

  12. Read the Heartwarming story... by Icarus1919 · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...of a couple of spunky Stanford kids with nothing going for them. And a coach, who believed they had it in them all along...

  13. DMCA notice by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 3, Funny

    in 3.. 2..

    1. Re:DMCA notice by imbaczek · · Score: 1

      somewhat funny but fortunately not possible in Europe :)

    2. Re:DMCA notice by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      And unfortunately DMCA notices ONLY apply to copyrighted material or means to circumvent the access of copyrighted material.

      So I would imagine that the toolbar by NOT displaying some portions of the website is not breaking any laws (its the same as having Adblock Plus on I imagine). Of course the only point of contention could be the 'see preview image regardless if seller payed for it or not' part could be the only portion that is even remotely DMCA-able. In which case they remove that minor bit of functionality and go on their way.

      Just goes to show, Open Source can and will bite the big players in the ass if they are too slow.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    3. Re:DMCA notice by profplump · · Score: 1

      I think one could argue that the page itself is copyrighted content, and that the ads are part of the content protection mechanism. It's not entirely sensible, but I don't see how it's any more unreasonable than most DMCA claims.

    4. Re:DMCA notice by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure any judge in their right mind can see that blocking ads != Content Protection Mechanism. They could make a case for any HTTPS protected pages though since those are by definition protecting people from unauthorized access.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    5. Re:DMCA notice by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      'see preview image regardless if seller payed for it or not'


      Umm... has anyone actually tried this?? I downloaded the toolbar and now I can't see any item preview images in Firefox!! Maybe eBay is blocking it already?
    6. Re:DMCA notice by tokul · · Score: 1

      in 3.. 2..
      Reverse engineering in order to provide interoperability is allowed by DMCA.
  14. *Was* the problem testing? by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or was the problem trying to figure out a way to implement it that increased ad revenues?

    1. Re:*Was* the problem testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said all businesses had to be UNICEF? profit != bad.

    2. Re:*Was* the problem testing? by Al+Dimond · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the point is that profit is bad. The point is that the students can just figure out what they think is most useful to put in their program and write it, while the corporate programmers have to wait for a plan from the business side of things. Not, "What features can we put into this thing that would be cool/good?", which most programmers could figure out pretty quickly, but, "How much will this help our bottom line? How many resources is it worth assigning to this project? What features can we add that would help our profits? Would some features jeopardize our profits? Do we need to build any restrictions in? How does this fit in with our overall strategy?" These are valid questions to ask, and the fact that they're asked and discussed underscores why all the cool stuff people do for projects in college doesn't wind up being used by anyone. But the questions still take time, and sometimes result in a product that's not as useful to its users.

      And then after that there's the issue of making it release-quality, which is more important for a company with a reputation than a bunch of students.

    3. Re:*Was* the problem testing? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      That's the way to hit the nail on the head...with a sledge hammer!

      Ya gotta luv F/OSS!

      This is one of those articles that give me the warm fuzzies.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  15. Prices on Ebay by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1, Funny

    I wonder what when the pictures of these students will somehow mysteriously show up on ebay, with rewards for eliminating these enemies of a global conglomerate.

    --
    To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
  16. Cool. Not surprising, but cool. by Control+Group · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

    A couple guys who want to do something they think is cool turned out to be faster at it than a couple corporations trying to do something to monetize what they perceive as something users want.

    Let me put on my surprised face.

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
  17. And now.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a second GOOD reason to upgrade to Firefox!

    1. Re:And now.... by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      What was the first reason, boycotting Microsoft and Internet Explorer?

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    2. Re:And now.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Maybe boycotting EBays version of "sponsored links"?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Well.... by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

    eBay can't be too enthusiastic about this toolbar since it cuts directly into its main sources of revenue: ads and thumbnail fees.


    True, very true, but if the exec's hadn't been sitting around with their "thumbs up thier as^H^HeBays"
    and released *something*, then they would not have had thier thunder^Wbirds stolen.

    (ok, ok, put the pointy stick down, I'll stop!)
    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  19. Quote source? by vain+gloria · · Score: 2, Informative

    Mozilla's COO said the preemptive release of the eBay Toolbar had ruffled some feathers among European eBay execs.
    Where does the quote in the summary come from? It's not in any of TFAs.
    1. Re:Quote source? by ian13550 · · Score: 1

      Damn good question!!!

    2. Re:Quote source? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Where does the quote in the summary come from? It's not in any of TFAs.

      It's not a quote. It's an anecdote. Do you see it in quotation marks? But it would be nice to know where it came from. Probably the submitter just forgot to insert a link.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. "Ignore" sellers? by Spazmania · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does it let me "ignore" sellers by name, feedback ratio and feedback quantity so I never see their listings? If it does, I'll download it right now. There are half a dozen or so "power sellers" who flood the search terms I regularly look for with auctions I wouldn't bid on in a million years. And then there are all the 98.2% positive feedback guys who I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole (99% is my normal cutoff) and all the obviously re-registered accounts that are too slick to legitimately have only 8 feedbacks.

    I'd very much like an "ignore" option.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    1. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by oo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      98.2% positive feedback? What's wrong with that? You do realize that that's less than 4 negatives for 200 transactions? It's so easy to end up with retaliatory negatives from sellers when you use your account for both buying and selling.

      Don't be a chickenshit. And for fuck's sake don't leave negative retaliatory feedback when I give you a neutral. The ebay feedback system is so broken that people like you think a single negative and fifty positives is a complete disaster. It definitely needs more granularity.

    2. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's so easy to end up with retaliatory negatives from sellers when you use your account for both buying and selling.

      And I give good feedback when the transaction sucked and I'm a buyer because no seller leaves feedback until the buyer does. It's blackmail. I paid you within 30 seconds of the close of the auction. You should give me feedback then, the transaction is done, as far as you are concerned. But no, I don't get any feedback until I've left feedback. If the damn thing takes 6 weeks to get here, I have the choice of telling the world that the transaction sucked (and I get negative retaliatory feedback when I've done nothing wrong), or I give good feedback or no feedback to protect my own feedback ratio.

      eBay purposefully slants such things toward the seller, because those are the people that pay the fees. eBay could come up with all sorts of ways to prevent retaliation. If I'm a buyer, I've paid (verified by my paypal account that eBay saw the payment flow through) then the seller can't give me negative/neutral feedback once I give feedback. If I did something wrong, they'll know it long before the item arrives at my house. To accept my payment and wait to see what I leave for feedback before leaving their own is blackmail and makes the feedback system mostly useless.

    3. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Sparr0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The new feedback system that just went into testing should help eliminate this. The problem is that the transaction is NOT finished when you pay. You could still dispute the credit card charge, or return the package, or file a complaint with the USPS, or any of a hundred other things. The new system *IS* more discrete and categorized, which hopefully means they will let us leave feedback in stages.

      Also, I am in favor of not showing either party the feedback that the other user left until they have both left it. That would almost completely eliminate retaliatory feedback.

      PS: I am a seller, and I actually do leave positive feedback as soon as the (proper) payment arrives.

    4. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      98.2% positive feedback? What's wrong with that?

      If you communicate well, pack well, ship promptly and take responsibility when the item doesn't arrive or arrives damaged, its pretty easy to stay over 99%. Screw up one of those areas and you'll rapidly drop below it.

      eBay isn't Best Buy. I expect better service from the eBay sellers I deal with than I get at Best Buy. By setting my cutoff at 99%, I get that service.

      And anyway, what's your problem? If you're a ninety-eight percenter, I won't buy from you whether I see your auctions or not. Do you feel the need to thrust your ads in front of me anyway? Its exactly that sort of anti-customer attitude that earned you the sub-99% feedback ratio in the first place.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    5. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Xtravar · · Score: 1

      Someone could have multiple accounts and check the feedback the other user left... Or even have a buddy do it?
      The obvious thing to do would be to never leave feedback then if you didn't want negative feedback to affect you.
      Perhaps they should require the "feedback transaction" to complete before the seller puts up any more items, or something similar.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    6. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by oo · · Score: 1

      Actually, all my negative feedback has been from sellers that I left either neutral or negative feedback. I have perfect feedback from my buyers (at least one hundred transactions).

      In fact, I haven't had a single negative feedback in 5 years despite hundreds of transactions. Yet, my overall feedback is under 99% because my account was created in 1999 and leaving neutrals and negatives in the early days wasn't such a big deal. Ebay/Paypal broke the system when they demanded a stupidly high 98% in order to qualify for Paypal protection. They might as well have set it to 100%, because that's what everyone will be demanding soon. I've dealt with sellers with 1000+ feedback, all 100%. I assure you, you're definitely not getting a clear picture of their reputation. These days leaving a negative is like dropping nukes and you're assured of getting a negative in return. There's no point in leaving anything but positive feedback. That's how you get sellers with 100% feedback over thousands of transactions (such things don't happen in the real world). The feedback system at this point fails to measure anything.

      Places like Amazon.com for instance work better. Sellers can have feedback as low as 90% or 85%, but still manage to continue doing brisk business. In fact, I regularly buy from them with no problems.

    7. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by ShinyBrowncoat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does it let me "ignore" sellers by name, feedback ratio and feedback quantity
      I don't know about feedback ratio/quantity, but you can filter out a seller by name just by adding "-SpammySeller" to your eBay search terms, although I think you have to select "search title and description" which might force you to start adding tons of other filters to get down to a decent result set size.
      --

      "They've canceled the show but we're still here. What does that make us?" "Big Damn Junkies, Sir!" "Ain't we just"
    8. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why should be the feedback shown to anyone before both parties have gave feedback? Actually, the obvious reason is that if someone is about to deliberately bullshit other party, he will not leave feedback at all, thus preventing the feedback on himself be shown.

      One scheme to negate this is by using a deadline for feedbacks so that the feedback is not shown before the deadline IF both parties have not given feedback. If only one party has given feedback by the deadline, it is then shown after deadline but the other party cannot give feedback at all because the deadline has been already met. If both sides give feedback before the deadline, then the feedback is shown right away.

    9. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Fastball · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'll counter your argument from a seller's perspective (I've bought and sold on eBay). I have sold items before where I have left positive feedback immediately after payment was received. Shipped said items well-packed day after payment was received. Still, I was left negative feedback for perceived false advertisement of an item. One other occasion, I refunded a ~$150 payment after a used video card I shipped (was working when it shipped out) was returned defective. Did I get positive feedback? No, I was given a blistering feedback that really shook my belief in the eBay experience. Patience, open communication, and reason are important when buying and selling on eBay, but some folks bring a lot of angst. By and large my experience on eBay has been very positive, especially with reputable sellers who have good feedback (99%+). But I pucker anytime I sell something, because you never know who you're going to have to deal with. My feedback stands at 98.9%, and I have to work harder because of that sub-99% blemish (ship same day payment was received, overpack for protection, answer questions within an hour of receiving them, etc.).

      Here's hoping the new feedback system helps everybody.

    10. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      My own account has been open since January 2000 and I've managed a 99.7% feedback: 1 negative and no neutrals in 400 feedbacks (300 unique individuals, 600 transactions). I buy more than I sell, but I do some of both. The single negative was from a seller I paid late. I took the lesson to heart: don't bid on a cashiers' check auction unless you're willing to go to the bank the next day.

      I should qualify that regardless of a seller's rating, I rarely bid before scanning through the feedback. I read the withdrawns and the neutrals. I also get to see the messages like, "Slow shipping but it got here," and "Sent wrong item but made it right." That improves my comfort level. Things go wrong. I like to see someone who does what it takes to fix it.

      I've yet to run in to a bad hundred percenter though if you'd like to share a story I'll be happy to listen. Its damn hard to get to hundreds of feedbacks without running afoul of a newbie who doesn't care about dropping a negative on you if you do him wrong.

      As for the 98 percenters, I read their feedback and its usually the same: 4 weeks and no part! Arrived broken! Sent wrong item! Poor communication! Outrageous shipping! So maybe its only 1 transaction in 50 that goes wrong. More likely its 1 in 10 but not so wrong that the other 4 will risk their ratings by making a negative feedback. So, that 98 percenter probably has 1 transaction in 10 go wrong. I'm spending $100 on an item for work. I expect my employer to reimburse me. I don't want to be the 1 of 10 where the transaction goes wrong.

      I'll rarely have a problem with the 99 percenters. Even if the transaction goes wrong, the strong odds are they'll do what it takes to fix it.

      As for Amazon, I've bought from there exactly 3 times, and then only for items I just couldn't track down elsewhere. I'm not especially afraid of fraud, but the way they spam me afterwards pisses me off. I create and subsequently delete an email box just to deal with them those few times I have to.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    11. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That'll work fine for one of my searches. I want a particular chip part number and there's one irritating seller who insists on including a general inventory list in every single auction.

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    12. Re:"Ignore" sellers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ill come right out and say it, I generally use ebay for Extremely discounted computer parts, and with that in mind
      YES id like to be able to ignore sellers, not so much by feed back etc... but during some searchs the same few retards
      ITEQuipXXXXX will always show up with a completely hillarious price tag. or with flood results so yes an ignore option would be wonderful.

  21. Excellent Work! by FreeKill · · Score: 1

    This is hysterical. I hope Ebay and Mozilla keep dragging their feet long enough for new users to get used to the other toolbar. Once that happens, they'll almost be forced to implement some of the features just to convince people to switch.

    1. Re:Excellent Work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hysterical. I hope Ebay and Mozilla keep dragging their feet long enough for new users to get used to the other toolbar.

      That'll be the eBay Companion for Firefox they released on May 3rd then.

  22. Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's the problem. Intelligent people with decent coding knowledge created a free piece of software that sounds pretty good. Ebay appearantly doesn't want them to use it, and started raising a ruckus. But what happens when hundreds of people with programming skills start doing things like this, especially if computer programming becomes part of high school curriculum? ( http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/15/142 0238 ) One day, the flood will hit, Ebay, Microsoft, Apple, and everything else will collapse, and the Open Source Community will rejoice.

    --
    To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    1. Re:Inevitable problems by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, I assume that the instant OSS development becomes ubiquitous in the teenage demographic that the OSS community is going to pretty much suck.

    2. Re:Inevitable problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean in much the same way that Linux rose up and overthrew Microsoft? Oh wait nm...

      You mean the "hundreds of people with programming skills" who comprise open source community that forks projects at the drop of a hat because they can't check their egos at the door and work to make quality products TOGETHER? Some do, to be sure, but consider examples including the KDE vs GNOME vs every other window manager debate, the Firefox vs Iceweasel crap, and so forth... lots of projects that functionally do the same thing, or perhaps ARE the same thing just rebranded with very minor changes. My point is that they CAN'T rise up to "cast down [ebay/apple/ms/etc]" because they have no cohesive central dictatorial leadership (e.g. Linus, Steve Jobs, etc) to lead the way, so egos are what's driving the bus.

      Please don't get me wrong.... I'd *LOVE* to see these big companies that run roughshod over their users toppled. I think that if all of the people who worked on Linux GUIs had some central leadership and managed to check their egos at the door, they could put together a GUI experience that would rival Apple's. But they're so fragmented that it's just not going to happen. (There are other examples, it's not just the Linux GUI situation that's the problem, but it's an obvious one to illustrate my point.)

      The extreme openness of open software is also its Achilles' heel, because it tends to encourage fragmentation. Availability of source code isn't enough, you need central, dictatorial, visionary leadership as well.

      Consider Linux (the kernel), Firefox, Apache, etc. These are amazingly successful open source projects... what do they have in common? Strong leadership, and internal conflict resolution to keep people willing to help, instead of forking the moment their egos get bruised.

      With that, specific projects can (and have) be clear victories over the MS/etc alternatives. (E.g. Firefox). But in general the open source community needs to deal with this issue before they can start rejoicing.

    3. Re:Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Why, just because they're teenagers? Hell, if a teenager is capable of creating a decent application from scratch, or even by piecing together bits of multiple programs, I believe that they would have the sense to create something that is worthwhile, entertaining, or both. God knows I wouldn't waste the time to program something if it wasn't useful or fun.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    4. Re:Inevitable problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ebay appearantly doesn't want them to use it, and started raising a ruckus

      eBay haven't done or said anything. They probably didn't even know about My eBay Fox until it hit Slashdot. Given that it violates their TOS and infringes on their trademarks, they're probably not going to let it lie for long though.

    5. Re:Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      Thats the problem, isn't it. First off, Linux. Why hasn't it overthrown Microsoft? Talking to several people, I would have to say tech knowledge. It requires some knowledge and technical skill that many have, but don't care to exploit. Though you also argue about programmers never being able to work together, I believe it can be done. Moreover, I KNOW it can be done. Look at wikipedia. An open website, where anyone can contribute information about a subject. Now, looking at your statement about egos at the door, you would think that wikipedia would be overwhelmed by people continually posting what they believe is right, but, lo and behold, it does. Try posting something completely stupid on wikipedia. Before you know it, it has been changed back by an army of people who believe in keeping wikipedia informative, to the point, and just plain good. Will it happen soon? probably not. But as programming skills become more common, the odds for OSS continually grow better.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    6. Re:Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      oh. guess this doesn't bide too well for my reputation as a researcher, huh?

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    7. Re:Inevitable problems by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      Because a teenager lacks scope or experience.

      What is useful or fun to a teenager is not necessarily useful or fun to an adult male in their 40's.

    8. Re:Inevitable problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it you've never learnt to program then? Everything I made in the first year or so was shit. Even my Pong clone was bad. And I'm just talking about user experience here, thinking of the actual code brings shudders to my spine.

    9. Re:Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      No, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth anything. It's a scientific fact that teenage brains work differently than adult brains, other than the fact that they have more brain cells. Teenagers have a different perspective on things that adults might not have, and solve a problem easily that's stumped adults for years. It's all in the thinking. Just because some might act like fools doesn't mean that all will.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    10. Re:Inevitable problems by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about problem solving skills, we're talking about programming skills.

      NO ONE does it right in the beginning. Make programming ubiquitous, by making the development tools low entry, and you get a bunch of crap code and programs. That's the bottom line.

      You're argument is emotional and shows that you yourself are a teenager, or at least not very experienced or mature. This type of thinking, emotions substituting for experience, is what will lead to programming process mistakes.

      While you may or may not fall into this category, I can say with great assurance that if programming becomes a regular thing with teenagers across the board you will see variables named after the seven dwarves or anime characters. You will see spaghetti code that would make a Gordian know look simple, and you will probably see the lack of understanding the concepts relative to user experience. Hell, seasoned engineers make this mistake.

      You fail to recognize what has to happen culturally for programming to become ubiquitous in the teenage demographic. People aren't going to suddenly become hip to how computer programming and logic works. Personality doesn't work that way. In order for teens to start programming en masse you would have to lower the barrier to entry. That's the same thing as saying let people who don't quite understand it jumble it together.

      But lets assume that for some miraculous reason, teens suddenly become attuned to programming logic and logic structures. Lets assume that every teen in grades 9 - 12 in the US now understands how to program.

      They still lack the knowledge in proper design (interface and architecture), algorithmic math, and packaging and distribution options. Learning to program is just scratching the surface. There are parallel disciplines that can only be understood in reference to programming by experience. The education process CAN NOT instill this knowledge.

      So, a large influx of inexperienced programmers using low entry tools will have a negative effect on the quality of work.

    11. Re:Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      "We're not talking about problem solving skills, we're talking about programming skills." To create better programs and software, don't you need to have both? "In order for teens to start programming en masse you would have to lower the barrier to entry. That's the same thing as saying let people who don't quite understand it jumble it together." Or just have them read Programming for dummies. And who said en masse? You don't necessarily need many to come up with a piece of software that would revolutionize the industry. My point is, to become fluent in a programming language today would be much easier than 3 or 4 years ago. Therefore, while you will not have hordes of adolescents trying to crash google with crappy viruses, there will be a few that have taken the time to learn a skill which seems to be extremely valuable in todays job market. "Learning to program is just scratching the surface. There are parallel disciplines that can only be understood in reference to programming by experience. The education process CAN NOT instill this knowledge." Maybe not, but you cannot tell me that no teenager who has learned to program will not attempt to master these skills. "So, a large influx of inexperienced programmers using low entry tools will have a negative effect on the quality of work." Yes, there will be a surge in the quanity of crappy work. But I would bet that for the hundreds of programs that aren't worth anything, one will become famous. Amoung 99 incredibly stupid ideas, there will be one that is simply genius. It's the way humans work, and how we have accomplished all we have as a species.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    12. Re:Inevitable problems by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      I suggest you look up the term ubiquitous, reference the original statement I made, and then reread your last post. You go from defending all teenagers to the invariable one who might make something worth a damn. You're point is invalid in the framework of the argument and your logic is based on justifying your feelings more than making a cohesive point.

      It's obvious that you don't know what you don't know, and that is the most dangerous form of ignorance there is.

    13. Re:Inevitable problems by MM_LONEWOLF · · Score: 1

      But how do you seperate the wheat from the chaff? How do you know what one person's abilities are until they are tested? They might go through life without ever learning that they have a knack for somethihng. Unless we try to educate teenagers in the programming sense, we might not see the enormous potential some of them might have. It is hard, but with teenagers, you can never assume anything. So watch them. Teach them. With time, some will become better at things than all of us are.

      --
      To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were capable of staying awake long enough.
    14. Re:Inevitable problems by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      I see you still don't understand the concept of ubiquitousness. That means almost ALL. Get it.

      I'm not saying some can't do it.

      I'm not saying some can't learn it.

      I never said don't teach it.

      You completely don't comprehend what I'm saying. You keep arguing upon the value of the single entity when the statement was regarding ubiquity. You can't even fathom what that concept means because your view won't let you get past the misperceived slight on teenagers.

      Teenagers lack scope and experience. Since they lack this scope and experience they make mistakes. Get a large chunk of the teen population doing something that REQUIRES experience before you are any good at it and that activity will dramatically drop in its quality.

      Anything teens do en masse usually sucks in quality because they're only channeling raw talent or knack. They don't posses anywhere close to the capabilities required to function on a professional or par level. Here are some examples.

      Teen artists lack the emotional experience or physical control to create masterworks, but a few can create good work. In general teen artists suck donkey balls.

      Teen drama students lack the emotional experience or subject matter comprehension in order to act well. Some can act on a greater level, most teen drama productions suck.

      Teen athletes lack the physical development and the field time in order to play sports well. Some can play well enough to go pro, depending on the sport. Most teen sports teams suck.

      See a pattern. These are widely accepted behaviors for teens to undergo, and are required experiences for these teens to get better at what they want. Notice that in none of these activities are ubiquitous amongst teens. They are present but not common amongst all teens. Not all teens do art, act, or play sports. Ubiquitous, look it up.

      Now, lets take assume that any one of these activities has become ubiquitous. The overall quality of available examples of these activities would drop. Wanna know why? Because teenagers simply cannot function on a high level across the board.

      You want to know what is ubiquitous amongst teenagers?

      There constant ignorance and their complete lack of self recognition. You have no idea that everything you have previously posted not only has absolutely no bearing on my original statement, but also holds a striking resemblance to smart people arguing stupid shit because they are accustomed to being right.

      If you are going to respond to me again, please at least comprehend my statement or you won't be worth even trying to educate, which coincidentally is the least amount of respect and regard I can have for a living thing.

  23. More than embarrassment by Dancindan84 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've done more than embarrass eBay. They both released their plugin first, and done it "better" from a customer standpoint by bypassing ads and including all pictures. eBay cannot simply release their plugin now, as informed users are going to pick the one that has a better UI (one without ads and with more pictures). They also cannot simply change their site functionality to break the student plugin, as they'll alienate customers who are using it. Even if they did that quickly to minimise market penetration it would only be a temporary solution, as any changes will likely be worked around quickly. They'd back to the problem of competing with a plugin that has no ads and better functionality.

    Sounds kind of like DRM CDs vs. digital format music. You don't have to be a lawyer to figure out if the customer prefers better functionality. Let's hope eBay takes a different approach than the recording industry has. I'm not optimistic.

    --
    "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:More than embarrassment by yukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, maybe they can't compete with savvy Firefox users who read slashdot, but for the other 99.99% of the world who don't read ./ but do visit EBay and see the big shiny banner advertising the New, Improved, Official, Guaranteed, and Approved by Martha Stewart version of the Ebay Toolbar for Winners, this is likely to be the one they'll download.

      --
      The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Lily Tomlin
    2. Re:More than embarrassment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eBay cannot simply release their plugin now

      They released it on May 3.

      They also cannot simply change their site functionality to break the student plugin, as they'll alienate customers who are using it.

      Sure they can. They've got no obligation to support third-party extensions. From an eBay user's perspective, the eBay site will continue to work flawlessly but the extension will be broken. Who's the user going to blame?

      You don't have to be a lawyer to figure out if the customer prefers better functionality.

      You don't have to be a lawyer to see that this is an open-and-shut trademark infringement case. Go to the My eBay Fox website. It looks very similar to the official Firefox website. It uses the Firefox and eBay logos. There's a clear possibility that consumers will believe that My eBay Fox is a product of the Mozilla Corporation and eBay. This is exactly the situation trademark law is designed to deal with. If My eBay Fox has a security bug or is just plain crashy, there's a strong possibility it could reflect badly on Mozilla and eBay. Trademarks are all about trust and reputation. The developers of My eBay Fox don't have the right to hijack the goodwill associated with Mozilla and eBay and put it at risk.

      While Firefox is open-source, the name Firefox and the logo are trademarked. If you want to distribute an extension with Firefox and call it Firefox, you have to get permission from the Mozilla Foundation. See the 'Extensions, Themes and Plugins' section of the Mozilla Trademark Policy for details. They'd be on much safer ground if they called it Steamdonkey or something. Of course, eBay are a more traditional company, so their trademark policy will be even stricter.

      Either way, My eBay Fox will not continue to branded and marketed as it is at present for much longer.

  24. Market research by basic0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These students (and probably several posts appearing in this thread) have just given eBay some free, valuable market research. Pay attention:

    1. eBay has great brand awareness. People know about it, and the opinion is generally positive. Hell, it can't be too negative if a bunch of programmer (lazy) students (even lazier) are writing software on their time to access eBay features.

    2. Users LOATHE ads. This should be obvious. Is it just me, or are advertisements starting to have a reverse effect? You see an advertisement or commercial spot, and suddenly you're pissed off at the company in question for ramming advertising down your throat and find yourself not wanting to buy whatever they're selling, even if you need it.

    3. eBay's "gallery" view stuff hurts the overall user experience. I understand they want to make more money, but the fact that one of the first things these programmers bypassed is the gallery exclusion garbage is very telling. People don't want to click through even 1 or 2 things to see a picture of an item. They want to see it immediately, particularly those who haven't the foggiest about web design, image hosting, or listing fees. That group most likely has no idea why there's so much inconsistency between item listings on eBay, and it's a matter of confusion on an already intimidating (to a new user) website.

    It should also tell eBay something about itself. eBay has been around for something like 11 years, Firefox for 5 or 6, and it's been quite popular for the last couple of years (read: other big companies have been producing toolbars for Firefox without much problem). Why did this even have to happen? Get with it eBay...

    1. Re:Market research by Hatta · · Score: 1

      2. Users LOATHE ads. This should be obvious. Is it just me, or are advertisements starting to have a reverse effect? You see an advertisement or commercial spot, and suddenly you're pissed off at the company in question for ramming advertising down your throat and find yourself not wanting to buy whatever they're selling, even if you need it.

      Exactly. If I'm considering two items that are otherwise the same I consider their advertising. If I can remember seeing an ad for one of the products, I buy the other one.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Market research by JonXP · · Score: 1


      2. Users LOATHE ads. This should be obvious. Is it just me, or are advertisements starting to have a reverse effect? You see an advertisement or commercial spot, and suddenly you're pissed off at the company in question for ramming advertising down your throat and find yourself not wanting to buy whatever they're selling, even if you need it.


      Well, I don't actually "loathe" ads unless they get in my way. Otherwise, I'm perfectly fine with them. I don't consider buying a billboard to be any more "ramming it down my throat" than buying a banner ad.

      (Those stupid DHTML pop-up ads can go to hell though. I'll never, ever buy whatever that purple medicine is thanks to those.)

    3. Re:Market research by antron-jedi · · Score: 1

      IMHO eBay should hire these guys, good for them!

  25. Where's the Toolbar? by Inhibit · · Score: 1

    I distinctly read "an e-bay toolbar for FireFox" but what I see on the site is a hacked version *of* FireFox. These are two distinctly different things. Could someone please point out the individual toolbar download? I'm certainly not going to install a second version of FireFox just to get some toolbar included.

    --
    You're reading Slashdot. Of course you like Linux and pc hardware
    1. Re:Where's the Toolbar? by paskal · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Where's the Toolbar? by Chysn · · Score: 1

      You can click the "Get the Ebay Toolbar" link on that page, or just go here: http://myfriendlyfox.com/extensions/ebay-toolbar/

      --
      --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
      -- See?
    3. Re:Where's the Toolbar? by djrickatlanta · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you visit the site with FIREFOX as your browser, it offers to install the toolbar. If you visit the site with EXPLORER as your browser, it offers to install firefox and the toolbar (making the assumption that you don't have firefox already installed.) Just access the plugin site with firefox and you should be okay.

  26. And then Uncle Sam said ... by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

    SLAPP.

    --
    !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  27. damn students by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can't they simply go back to creating Counter Strike maps.
    Oh wait...

  28. 99% cutoff = paranoid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then there are all the 98.2% positive feedback guys who I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole (99% is my normal cutoff)

    Congradulations. You've just ignored all of those sellers who have sold 99 items or less, and have received a single negative feedback, potentially due to an earlier "revenge" feedback. Seriously, blanket cut-offs like this are going to rule out a good number of items. But hey, I guess that just means I won't be competing against your bids.

    1. Re:99% cutoff = paranoid by oo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Um, I think you meant to post this in response to Spazmania, especially since you quoted him, not me.

      But, yeah, I definitely agree with you.

  29. Oh no, we're embarassed by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We're embarassed. All we have is our youth, billions of dollars and our good looks. Whoo hoo, I'm buying a walk in humidor.

    1. Re:Oh no, we're embarassed by kokonut · · Score: 1

      Wow, I just had to reply, because I can't believe anyone else remembers that quote from the Smashing Pumpkins episode of the Simpsons!

    2. Re:Oh no, we're embarassed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you two must be the only people alive that have seen that show!

  30. ToS violation, not DCMA by Pap22 · · Score: 1, Informative

    No encryption or security was bypassed so it is not a DCMA violation. However, it does directly violate the ToS of their website:

    http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement .html

    In other words, you're accessing their content without accessing their site, which is a violation of their ToS. This is theft. They will accordingly code their site to block any access from this new "toolbar".

    1. Re:ToS violation, not DCMA by Poorcku · · Score: 1

      Should this happen, i propose Mozilla to withdraw the support for the official toolbar and remove it from mozilla.org. If ebay likes the offerings of open source programming then they should not have double standards. And Mozilla should have the balls.

      --
      I take my children to see Madonna(..), but I never for once ever thought I was in the same business.Chris Rea.
    2. Re:ToS violation, not DCMA by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      In other words, you're accessing their content without accessing their site, which is a violation of their ToS. This is theft. They will accordingly code their site to block any access from this new "toolbar".

      How did this get modded up? The toolbar modifies the pages, it doesn't show you a different page.

      Also, they actually DO have a beta release of their toolbar now, so the same objection would apply to their toolbar.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:ToS violation, not DCMA by sharky611aol.com · · Score: 4, Informative
      No, no, wrong, wrong, wrong.

      Violation of ToS =! Theft. Say that over and over again until you get that absurd idea out of your head.

      If they want to block access from the toolbar (probably impossible since the processing is done on the end-user's computer), let them go ahead. But the end user is under no obligation to stop using said toolbar.

    4. Re:ToS violation, not DCMA by Pap22 · · Score: 1

      The same objection would not apply to Ebay's own toolbar. Ebay's own toolbar doesn't violate their own ToS because they have their own permission to do so (as stated in the ToS).

    5. Re:ToS violation, not DCMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I'm reading here, though, by viewing thumbnails you would normally have to pay for you are circumventing their billing system and, therefore, violating their ToS and, I would think, committing theft.

    6. Re:ToS violation, not DCMA by przemekklosowski · · Score: 1

      The eBay Terms of Service simply do not contain the terms you claim. They claim copyright, and prohibit republishing, so you can't data-mine eBay and create your own auction site made out of eBay listings, but here we are talking about shortcuts to relevant information for personal use. You claim theft, which is a pretty serious charge, and quite unwarranted---by your logic, tearing out a classified page out a newspaper would also be theft.

  31. All well and good, but... by 6Yankee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure, Firefox can take back the Web.

    But only Internet Explorer can hold back the Web.

    1. Re:All well and good, but... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...down.

      The last word didn't make it through, so let me add it for you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:All well and good, but... by Inner_Child · · Score: 1

      "...down" was an addition to the title of the post, referring to the fact that the site is (or was) down. Don't try to correct people unless you know what you're saying.

      --
      Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
    3. Re:All well and good, but... by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Silly me. I thought the problem with IE was that it didn't hold the web back, but instead let all those pesky crawlies infest your PC.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    4. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "All well and good, but down?"

      Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.

    5. Re:All well and good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't try to correct people unless you know what you're saying.

      From reading the thread, it seems like you're not following your own advice.

  32. Goes to show by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Commercial" software (which doesn't necessarily mean that you pay for it, only that some corporation is behind its creation) gives you what the company wants you to have.

    Free software gives you what you want to have.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Goes to show by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Nope, free software gives you what you the makers wanted to have themselves.
      Software that you have built to spec gives you what you want to have. Give or take some bugs and design errors.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    2. Re:Goes to show by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me rephrase that: Free software does what at least one person that actually uses it wants. Not just what the guys making it wanted.

      The problem is in today's world that you don't "order" software. Few companies and nearly no privat person can afford that. You buy it off the shelf. And that software, by its very nature, does what its maker wants it to do. This can (and should) of course be what the maker thinks the user could use. Which can be right or wrong.

      In today's world, with vendor lock-in becoming more and more the rule instead of the exception, it's usually though what the maker wants you to have. Or could you think of any reason just why anyone would want DRM crap in their system?

      And please don't offer me the lame argument "so they can play DRM-infected content". If there is nothing that plays DRMified content, the content industry would have no chance to sell it. We don't need content. They need our money.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Goes to show by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me rephrase that: Free software does what at least one person that actually uses it wants. Not just what the guys making it wanted.

      yup. That's why firefox is better - it leads the way with tabs, adblock etc.

      The problem is in today's world that you don't "order" software. Few companies and nearly no privat person can afford that.

      Hm, I've spend the last 15 years making software to order for companies.

      it's usually though what the maker wants you to have. Or could you think of any reason just why anyone would want DRM crap in their system?

      No, I can't. I don't have nay DRM'd music on my music player. When I rip CDs, I rip to .ogg.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    4. Re:Goes to show by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that the developers are typically also the users, and thus the features they want often align well with what the users want (as opposed to what marketing wants, or what business development wants, etc, etc).

    5. Re:Goes to show by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      Except, of course, that the developers are typically also the users,

      Yes. Which is why open source works so well. Except when the developers aren't the users, in which case it doesn't work. Open source has typically been lousy at applications targeted at users who are not very good with computers already.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

  33. PFffffffffft by multipartmixed · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Wanna know what's probably happening at eBay right now?

    Hello? Dev team? When will the toolbar be ready? Really? Six weeks? I think not. Ship in 3 or you're fired. Click.

    Hello? Systems D00ds / Web Devs? Put the security enhancements on hold. You have three weeks to figure out how to break the Stanford tool bar; the sooner the better. And then roll out the changes with some new eye-candy so we don't look like asses.

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    1. Re:PFffffffffft by GTMoogle · · Score: 1

      Oh, you are so full of shit.

      Like anyone here would believe security enhancements were a priority.

      Jeez. :)

  34. Two letters come to mind when reading .. by madsheep · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..and one of them repeats: L O L

  35. Suspension by phorm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Because they were suspended for making them based on their schools?

  36. That's what you get when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eBay can't be too enthusiastic about this toolbar since it cuts directly into its main sources of revenue: ads and thumbnail fees.

    Well, that's what you get when your business model involves BEING ANNOYING!! In other words selling ad space, the poison that is slowly eroding the entire Net... Businesses that can only make money on ad space piss me off, and I think this is ultimately a doomed business model as we all find more and more ways to block these annoying ads!!

    Suck it, Ebay. Stop trying to hamstring your sellers. Your costs were exponentially lower when you were born, making more money doesn't entitle you to start charging more money for no real reason.

    Right! They have become real fee whores over the years...

    Get your act together eBay! You are loosing your core customer base with your fee whoring, poor service as of late, and not doing enough about fraud and dead beat bidders!!

  37. Mozilla not embarrassed? by dedazo · · Score: 1
    After all, this was a joint project between Mozilla and eBay, wasn't it? I'm surprised that implication didn't make it to the summary.

    Oh wait, I'm not.

    --
    Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    1. Re:Mozilla not embarrassed? by Ambidisastrous · · Score: 1

      Well, I doubt Mozilla was the one dragging their feet about implementing the toolbar. I imagine the scene was a few Moz developers sitting in meeting with a few of eBay's PHBs for a few weeks, explaining what a Firefox add-on is while eBay's folks asked how they can embed more ads in the toolbar and maybe make it report user browsing information back to eBay.

      I imagine the Moz devs felt a bit embarrassed for themselves, having wasted those weeks in meetings with nothing to show for it, but I don't think anyone doubts that Mozilla developers can code.

  38. you forgot something by nanosquid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That should be: "Don't like it? Don't use them, tell others not to use them, and explain why you don't like them."

    I don't know why people feel that companies have to justify price increases with some rationale of higher costs for them.

    Because price and cost carries information about a company. If a company charges substantially more than cost, you know that you can probably find a better deal elsewhere. If you can't, then there may be a monopoly involved.

  39. All very well, but a long way from home! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hmmm... There's no way to tell this toolbar that you don't live in the USA and that you'd like to use a local ebay site. So much for ebay users in Australia, India, Canada, the UK, Spain, Italy, France, Ireland, etc.
    But wait, that's only about 6 users, isn't it? (Pity I'm one of them.)

  40. Selling ad space by zaphod_es · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On /. a lot of generalities are stated in the limited context of the internet or computers generally. In fact intrusive advertising is all over the interweb which is no different from the real world.

    I am not opposed to advertising and accept that a service has to be paid for one way or another. Whether the content provider is a TV station, free newspaper or an internet service the game is pretty well the same thing. On the other hand I am becoming increasingly pissed off by advertising covering every inch of space. Buses, bus stops, bus tickets, phone booths, serviettes, gas stations, walls buildings, parking meters, toilets ... the internet ...the list is endless.

    Of course the solution is in our own hands. If we don't like what eBay does we can stop going there; they will soon react if enough customers vote with their feet. I have almost stopped watching TV as the ads have become so intrusive that the programs are no longer worth watching. Heck, I have even stopped using porn sites for the same reasons!

    Plugins like the one under discussion are a short term solution. In the longer term eBay will find a way of blocking them, no doubt motivating someone to try something else. The real solution lies with us, the consumers, and until we stop behaving like sheep we will have to learn to live with in your face ads.

    1. Re:Selling ad space by dobestpossible · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Off topic of eBay and the plug-in for Firefox I just installed, I wish to comment on advertisements.
        Just as zaphod_es (613312) has stopped watching television, I too had quit and sold my tv in 1997 when I was a teenager because of the lousy sitcoms and excessive number of minutes spent on ads compared to entertainment. People should be able to avoid the ugliness of these ads, if the product was worth a damn, people will get word of it. Everyone knows McDonald's exists, yet they bombard us daily with their latest (and very retarded) slogans and pictures of food that look nothing like the real product (which also lacks good taste).
        I have found that Ad-Block Plus and Flash Block add-ins for FireFox makes browsing the web MUCH more enjoyable and pages load faster. If developers did not make software that limits the ads, I would be a very pissed off internet user. I replaced my tv with computer, but have no alternative to replace computer.

  41. Besides basic search features, it removes ads by pair-a-noyd · · Score: 1

    Too bad. I go to ebay to search for and find bargains on second hand stuff.
    I'm there to SAVE MONEY. I don't want to see ads, I'm not interested in ads, I find them annoying as hell.
    I don't buy anything new, ever. Well, I buy some cheap shoes, jeans and T-shirts new about once every 5 years at a local dept. store but that's all I ever buy new. I save a lot of money by buying used stuff and even more by finding used/broken stuff on the curb. I shop ebay for parts to repair the stuff I find.

    I don't want to see any ads anywhere, not online, not on TV, not on billboards.
    I block ads at my firewall with Smoothwall & Adzapper.
    I mute TV commercials so fast your head would spin.

    So to ebay, too bad for you. We the people are really sick and tired of ads and commercials and we're fighting back. You already make an obscene amount of money from auction fees, paypal fees, skype fees and god knows what else. If some people want to find bargains and not be assaulted with annoying ads you're just going to have to suck it up and live with it. You can TRY to force all the ads you want down my throat by my firewall just says "NO." to your annoying crap. You might put a stop to the new firefox tool but you will NOT push ads past my firewall, try all you want, I encourage you.

    1. Re:Besides basic search features, it removes ads by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      > We the people are really sick and tired of ads and commercials and we're fighting back.

      I honestly laugh when I read stuff like that. Virtually every study, whether ad industry, anti-ad industry or third party neutral has found that the average consumer has no problem what-so-ever with ads and commercials. In fact, they love them. What's more, many are excited about new technologies which pitch them products that they actually want.

      Feel free to enjoy your Ad Busters subscription but the rest of the world doesn't share your attitude.

      I do, by the way.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
    2. Re:Besides basic search features, it removes ads by Mandrel · · Score: 1

      Virtually every study, whether ad industry, anti-ad industry or third party neutral has found that the average consumer has no problem what-so-ever with ads and commercials. In fact, they love them.

      I'd be interested to see a link to such a study.

    3. Re:Besides basic search features, it removes ads by gordgekko · · Score: 1

      Ummm, why don't you just ask the people in your every day life and get a sense of it? Ask them if they want advertising targeted to them for things they specifically want. Ask your new parent friends, for example, if they'd want coupons for free samples of Pampers. A guy about to buy a car getting information about models that he actually is interested in buying. A woman at increased risk for breast cancer getting information about and samples of drugs like Arimidex or Femara. Every person receiving advertising geared *only to them* and providing something tangible (be it information or a discount) in exchange for their eyeballs.

      People would eat that stuff up. Now it's not about guys getting pummeled with ads for yeast infection cures or women suffering through breast infested beer commercials (unless they want to be that is), but specifically targeted ads about stuff they actually want to know about.

      Look, advertising is advertising and I have have an instinctive dislike for people trying to sell me stuff but you're fooling yourself if you think the wider population wouldn't love being near individually serviced by advertisers and sponsors. The industry is absolutely horny for this and realize themselves that the days of bombardment advertising is dying. If you *really* need to read the studies produced on the subject I'll provide you with some places to look. Most of this stuff isn't available online.

      --
      You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  42. What a joke: eBay working on FF toolbar by dobster · · Score: 1

    Not all the eBay site even works with Firefox, e.g. the "Sales feature" for eBay shops. eBay is just doing propaganda, not surprising for a late capitalistic criminal organisation. Someone said that they would not piss off customers by disabling the third party toolbar, gosh is he in for a surprise.

  43. What is all this hysteria about? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some Mozilla guy said that some eBay exec said they were pissed. Who cares?

    Also, what ads are everyone talking about? I don't see any ads for anything other than eBay properties (Paypal, Skype, and eBay auctions).

    Finally, if they're so incompetent, what is this? http://pages.ebay.com/ebay_toolbar/

  44. fees? What does that have to do with the Toolbar? by dhinge · · Score: 2, Informative

    No surprise that a post about eBay brings out unrelated complaints about fees. The Toolbar never had ad banners, and in fact you can fill up about the whole thing with the various search buttons (just like the Google toolbar). I did customer service for the Toolbar, and it was free, didn't spam you, didn't spy on you, and really wasn't a gauranteed source of profit. It was just a nice thing to give members who wanted it. Not many people used it, and I'm suprised they didn't can the whole thing. The only reason they didn't build it for Firefox was the same reason they didn't program Enhanced Image Services for Macintosh; there just wasn't enough incentive. Believe me, they wanted to, but I think more directly profitable innovations are going to take a little higher priority. If you want to complain about fees, go to powersellersunite or post on eBay's boards like everybody else.

  45. No, I don't begrudge them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont' mind ebay charging whatever they want for their service.

    I hope they don't mind my completely legal way to get around their charges.

    I mean, if ebay is free to use the market and technology to set their prices, then I can do them same thing.

    Surely, you agree with that, correct?

    If ebay's charge, their obligation is to "maximize shareholder return", then I am under the same obligation to "minimize salary outlay. Really, I think you're right, but you only seem to give ebay the benefit of the free market, not me.

    1. Re:No, I don't begrudge them by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I was responding to the specific assertion that eBay's renumeration should be proportional to their costs. That's a rather Bolshevistic interpretation, and is, ironically, the kind of logic that makes us think that diamond encrusted laptops are any more valuable than their diamond-free counterparts.

      eBay should charge what they can, but I personally think that some of the things they charge for are unrelated to their value, and more importantly, could be cut out entirely by a competitor and still be profitable.. IF the competitor has the resources to winnow enough people away from eBay in the first place. eBay's real value isn't the service they provide, but the eyes. People buy through ebay because that's where millions all the stuff is. People sell through ebay because there are so many buyers, they can get the best price.

      If anything, Craigslist proves that the eBay model is siphoning off too much money from its hosts. All we need is for some enterprising company (with deep enough pockets to advertise for months before turning a profit) to come in with a cleaned up, national version of Craigslist. and eBay will be unseated from the throne. Craigs might do it themselves, but they're taking way too long for my taste.

      Let me be clear: I think eBay's shortcomings are a huge opportunity for a newcomer. Not something to regulate. I don't really know about the images thing, I suppose it depends on who owns the copyright.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  46. Capitalism requires regulation by Rix · · Score: 1

    Especially with regard to monopolies, or near monopolies. Ebay has no serious competition, because it controls the marketplace. Thus, it is not subject to the normal rules of capitalism and should be subject to regulation.

    1. Re:Capitalism requires regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, but thank you for playing anyway.

  47. Re:Nice? "Exponentially" nice! by sleep_oh_sleep · · Score: 1
    Over the last few years, I've seen an increasing number of people writing things like "costs are now exponentially lower than a year ago," not to mention the similar example in silentsentinel's post.

    If we have two numbers a and b, what is "a is exponentially bigger than b" supposed to mean? I certainly cannot think of a mathematically reasonable or valid answer.

    I fear that "exponentially bigger" simply means "a lot bigger" or "substantially bigger." If this is all people mean - and I cannot imagine how they could mean more, while remaining accurate - then why not just say so?

  48. I dont get it by rtphokie · · Score: 1

    this toolbar doesn't give me anything I cant get with the bookmarks toolbar.

  49. Yeah, but... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    ... adding a small number of ads to their pages doesn't make Ebay an asshole.

    Well, certainly not an asshole like those who'd pursue those ad-blocking/ad-dodging extensions.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  50. When will companies wake up? by houghi · · Score: 1

    We do not want to see pages full of advertisement. Especially not when they move around. This was already clear with the tag.

    I even hate it when movies I want to see start playing before I pressed start.

    I myself use several different methods to avoid seeing spam.
    1) http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm (Update the hosts file once per month with a cron job)
    2) Adblock
    3) http://www.privoxy.org/
    4) Adblock

    and for some sites that I want to see without the stoopid ads all over or where I do not like the standard layout (like slashdot or Toms hardware) I use http://userstyles.org/

    OK, perhaps I am overactive, but I am now unable to watch the internet on an other computer, because of all the ads that are trown to me.

    All this should be a hint to companies that people do niot want this. Ebay should look at who its base customers are and serve them. Ignore the extra money you can make. It pisses people off.

    But as it is a company, the management will be only there for three years, or so, so as long as they can milk it, who cares, right?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  51. It works only with ebay.com by Gax · · Score: 1

    I've downloaded and installed it. However, anyone wishing to use it should be aware that it only works with ebay.com at the moment. It isn't much use for those of us in the rest of the world.

  52. Capitalism by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    You're thinking of free markets. The free market is a system of economic freedom.

    Capitalism is the philosophy that we SHOULD adopt ruthless, unethical business practices, because that is what is Good. It's the philosophy that when everyone seeks to maximize profit, the economy will be strong and we'll all be rich -- except for the poor, who are Bad people anyway and are only poor because they are lazy and deserve their lot.

    For contrast, free markets disallow government intervention, while capitalism encourages government intervention when it can be used to increase profits -- say, by starting a war, or providing a monopoly on some service. Also, free markets disallow the use of force, while capitalism encourages it when it can be used to increase profits -- say, by murdering/imprisoning union leaders, or suing small competitors into oblivion.

    1. Re:Capitalism by nine-times · · Score: 1

      If Capitalism is the philosophic theory you're suggesting, can you tell me when this theory was formulated and by whom? What great thinker put together the system whereby unethical business practices bring about the "Good" result? I'd be interested to read that.

      Though I've gotten the impression that people think capitalism is a moral philosophy which advocates any and all measures which provide short-term profits, I've never been able to discover the roots of this. I've read people like Adam Smith and Karl Marx, and it seems neither the capitalists nor the communists have any notion of that moral philosophy. As far as I can tell, this moral philosophy of "capitalism" appeared spontaneously in the minds of morons all over the place, with no support for their theories, but wishing to justify their own immoral behavior.

      When I talk about capitalism, I'm referring to the economic system of private ownership and economic freedom.

    2. Re:Capitalism by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      You may be CALLING it capitalism, but you're thinking of the free market. Capitalism is right there in the name -- it's a philosophy that values capital over all else, much like socialism values society over all else.

    3. Re:Capitalism by nine-times · · Score: 1

      hmmm... let's see what some other people have to say about capitalism.

      Answers.com:

      An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

      Wikipedia:

      Capitalism generally refers to an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a free market. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as "legal persons" or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

      Additionally, in my reading of Smith (often thought to be the father of capitalism), there's no notion like what you're talking about. In fact, Smith implies that a smart capitalist (which is what is desired for the good of society) will deal fairly with others.

      So, yeah, I just don't get what you're talking about. Please point me in the direction of some philosophic thinking who has described this system and how it's supposed to work.

    4. Re:Capitalism by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
      You really couldn't be bothered to look any further than answers.com? Sad, is what it is. Just sad.

      * Noam Chomsky, who equates capitalism with slavery, suggesting that wage slavery and conventional slavery are distinguishable only in the fact that wage slaves MAY have some choice in the form of labour that they must perform.

      * Vladimir Lenin, who argued that capitalism inevitably leads to the use of military force in the defence of capitalist interest.

      * Marcel van der Linden, whose work notes that capitalism condones slavery and indentured servitude.

      I could go on and on.

      Clearly, many philosophers DO believe that capitalism is about profit above all else.

    5. Re:Capitalism by nine-times · · Score: 1

      That sort of "slavery" that these people are talking about exists in any "free market" where workers work for wages. This is not the same as a moral philosophy which endorses unethical behaviors; it's people arguing that paying others for work is inherently a form of exploitation. How old are you? Have you ever read any philosophy regarding these topics?

    6. Re:Capitalism by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Auh, quoting people like Lenin on the nature of capitalism is like quoting George Bush on the nature of people who aren't in 100% agreement with US policy.

      If you want a good impartial definition of communism would you ask McCarthy?

      Capitalism and the free market are essentially synonymous in common use.

    7. Re:Capitalism by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1

      In "common use", capitalism is also synonymous with the acquisition of wealth using any means, ethical or otherwise. That's where the whole thread got started -- the fact that most people associate the word "capitalism" with the most destructive and evil aspects of market economies. If we're going to start talking about the common usage, then we have to acknowledge things like the usage of capitalism to mean economic exploitation, or communism refering to Soviet-style state-controlled economics rather than Marx's vision of a completely decentralized economy based on the value of labour rather than the value of goods. Or for that matter, socialism referring to welfare states, rather than to whatever it was that Marx called "socialism" (or oddities like "National socialism", and we all know how THAT turned out). Capitalism, like most terms, has a common usage that is rather different than the technical usage. You referred to Adam Smith and other philosophers, so I assumed that you wanted to use the political science definition.

  53. Big Companies by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 1
    It's strange that people assume that large companies would behave "rationally". I'm sure they do analyze their sales constantly, in much the same way that the Pentagon analyzes its strategy in Iraq constantly. But, like the Pentagon, all that sales information is useless when top-level decisions are made by under-educated sociopaths who make decisions based how much they like the other guy's haircut and how cranky they are about missing their breakfast-martini.

    Corporations, like any other organization, are ultimately in the hands of a handful of irrational, stupid, greedy Human beings who only care about their own interests and who make decisions based on instincts whose purpose is to enable survival in a radically different environment where killing small furry animals was the principal means of sustaining oneself and evading baboons and boars was a serious concern.

    People running corporations have no idea how valuable good will is beyond the potential for their secretary's good will to result in a blowjob before the day's first martini break. Decisions made by the kind of people that get to the top of the corporate ladder are NOT based on reason -- they're based on instinct. Instinct is great for understanding how to manipulate others (ie: management); but it's absolutely shitty for understanding a marketing study or a sales report. It's even worse for being willing to listen to others. The kind of people that understand data almost never make it into positions of any kind of authority whatsoever, and those who listen to others are perceived as weak and are lucky to even make it into a corporate setting as something other than a technician or a janitor.

  54. ebay can do better.... by Daniel+Starin · · Score: 1

    If ebay focused more of their attention on becoming an open platform that people can flexibly use for barter and exchange - and if they opened up paypal peppercoin style or something - then they would be working in the right direction. Right now they seem a bit closed off to me, not to mention making random acquisitions like skype which make them look like that media company which aquired aol, and that, in the end, is going to lose them revenue.

  55. Don't forget this one by aws910 · · Score: 1

    AMEN to that one. FlashBlock is another good one - wherever there is a flash animation, it will show a "play button". To run the flash, you just click the button. You can whitelist sites too, for when you come across a site that is "too cool for html".

    1. Re:Don't forget this one by aliquis · · Score: 1

      You mean those sites which can't be easily navigated, doesn't let you open images instantly and in the way you want, download the video clips and show them later, has sound and takes forever to load? Yeah, those are great...

      Fuck flash.

  56. Re:Nice? "Exponentially" nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we have two numbers a and b, what is "a is exponentially bigger than b" supposed to mean? I certainly cannot think of a mathematically reasonable or valid answer.

    I agree, it doesn't make sense for numbers. For functions (say from the positive integers to the reals) it is reasonable to say "f is exponentially bigger than g" if f is in Omega(c^g(n)) for some constant c (in this sense).

    It annoys me too. Yes, language evolves - but as you say, this usage doesn't really add any meaning over "a lot bigger" and adds confusion with the above exactly defined meaning.