Google Accidently Revealed As eBay Critic

Xiroth writes "In what could cause an escalation of tensions between the two internet giants, an anonymous critique of eBay's upcoming move to accepting only PayPal as the payment method in Australia has accidently been revealed to have been submitted by Google thanks to PDF meta-tags."

Comments

Heh

[dreamchaser]

I think it's funny that the PDF dissapeared shortly after the discovery, only to be reposted with the incriminating metadata stripped out hours later. That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag.

Did anyone NOT think that Google astroturfs like all the rest? They just got busted at it is all.

Re:Heh

[elnico]

If you pay attention, you'll notice that the "brazen reposting" was done by the ACC, not Google.

And I don't see this as astroturfing. Posting anonymously is different from posting under a fake identity. Not to mention they're both tangential to whether or not Google has a point in their submission.

Re:Heh

[hansraj]

That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag. So did someone finally figure out whether it was dead or alive?

Re:Heh

[Faylone]

maybe.

Re:Heh

[dotancohen]

That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag. So did someone finally figure out whether it was dead or alive? Yes, but she shares Hubble-volume with the cat and therefore cannot contact us.

Re:Heh

[Mr. Bad Example]

> So did someone finally figure out whether it was dead or alive?

Well...yes and no.

Re:Heh

[mwvdlee]

I guess the enemy of my enemy (and eBay is every law-abiding citizens' enemy) is my friend, so in my eyes Google still does no evil.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they figured it out, or maybe it's alive? Or maybe to both?

Re:Heh

[niko9]

That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag. So did someone finally figure out whether it was dead or alive? African or European cat?

Re:Heh

[theeddie55]

That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag. So did someone finally figure out whether it was dead or alive? African or European cat? I don't know thaaaaaaa........

Re:Heh

[chimpo13]

I hope Google just buys eBay and makes them into a good company again. I've been on ebay since 1997 and I remember back when they weren't evil. Way back when if you only owed them a dollar or two in fees and they'd say, "Nah, don't bother paying yet".

Re:Heh

[The_Wilschon]

Maybe they figured it out, or maybe it's alive? Or maybe to both? maybe.

Re:Heh

[ikkonoishi]

We always knew it was dead or alive.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the enemy of my enemy (and eBay is every law-abiding citizens' enemy) is my friend, so in my eyes Google still does no evil.

Why? If you don't like eBay, don't use them. Problem solved.

Re:Heh

[rootpassbird]

Why? If you don't like eBay, don't use them. Problem solved.

Except that eBay has a huge presence.
So in Soviet eBay, Problem solves YOU!!

Re:Heh

[Shatrat]

Astroturf.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
They aren't advertising anonymously.
Google is criticizing an anti-competitive move that will hurt consumers as well as Google and pretty much everyone other than Ebay.
If they want to do so anonymously because they have advertising accounts with ebay, I don't see anything sinister about that.

Re:Heh

[packeteer]

Once the cat is out there is no maybe. It is either alive or dead and this has already happened and been discovered if the bag is open.

Re:Heh

[msuarezalvarez]

And with `logic' like that, you are probably an enemy of common sense...

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not astroturfing. The circumstances are so far from any conception of astroturfing that it's not funny. Claims to the contrary demonstrate ignorance.

It is an official submission to the Australian competition authority (the ACCC). Anonymity is provided where there are legitimate reasons for providing it (for example another company that fears retaliation should their opposition to the proposal become known). Legitimacy is determined by the ACCC. The ACCC knows the identity of the submitter and is the only party that matters in making a decision. The submission is not attempting to influence the public (as with astroturfing) - they are making legal arguments to determine whether or not the ACCC should grant eBay immunity from the Trade Practices Act.

Re:Heh

[waca]

We always knew it was dead or alive. .. or dead and alive. I don't want to be a cat..!

Re:Heh

[cheater512]

Its the ACCC, not ACC. :)

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

Re:Heh

[bit01]

And I don't see this as astroturfing. Posting anonymously is different from posting under a fake identity.

Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud.

Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.

Companies should have no right of anonymity and it's about time the law caught up with them. All communication by corporate entities should be clearly identified as such. Corporations have a privileged legal position and with that privilege comes responsibility. In particular, transparency and accountability.

Think it doesn't matter? It does, or they wouldn't do it.

Corporate tools will claim that readers will not give them a fair hearing if they post under the corporate name. Well hello, guess why. If corporations were trustworthy they wouldn't have a problem.

Others will claim that the message should be evaluated independent of the messenger. Self serving nonsense, context is very important in evaluating the veracity of a message.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Heh

[AmigaMMC]

I've been on ebay since 1997 as well. Yeah I remember those days. I used to sell a bit but I decided to be done with it after the whole bull$hit of the feedback (sellers cannot leave negative or neutral feedback to buyers, only positive, so what's the point? Buyers still can). Fees keep going up, PayPal claim of protection is never a protection toward the seller, they'll block your account for no reason... etc. For all I care ebay can go to hell.

Re:Heh

[Onan]

Your reactions might be appropriate if the intent was to deceive the ACCC or Australians citizens who might be swayed by the critique. But the article implies that Google's goal was to keep the criticism anonymous from eBay, out of concern for possible retaliation.

So while your feelings about the relative merits of corporations and individuals appear to be very strong, they do not seem to be very relevant to this case. The anonymity was about the interactions between two corporations.

(And since you feel very strongly about the idea of disclosure, I will point out that Google is my employer. But my work for them is not connected to this situation, I know nothing about this interaction beyond what I've read in this article, and I'm speaking for myself, not for them.)

Re:Heh

[batkiwi]

You are an idiot who doesn't do research before spouting off.

Google submitted their documentation of protest to the ACCC formally, and with identification. NO astroturfing as their name was on the documentation.

The ACCC had the obligation to publish ALL of the official comments filed. Any company filing protests had the option of asking the ACCC to display them anonymously (and giving reasons). Google's reason was that Google Checkout is NOT officially released in Australia, but their reasons for protesting the ebay-paypal-only change is that they DO plan to roll out to Australia with an official launch.

But I'm sure you knew all that since you spent more than 2 seconds reading the article before posting FUD and bullshit, right?

Re:Heh

[ozmanjusri]

Given your nickname, I'm guessing you're in management?

Re:Heh

[bit01]

Your reactions might be appropriate if the intent was to deceive the ACCC or Australians citizens who might be swayed by the critique. But the article implies that Google's goal was to keep the criticism anonymous from eBay, out of concern for possible retaliation.

Possible retaliation by a competing commercial entity is not a valid reason. Retaliation is another name for competition, something we want to encourage in a free and open market.

I grant you, second order effects, where the company was not anonymous to the ACCC but wanted to be anonymous to the general public including ebay, while the people primarily evaluating the submissions were the ACCC and not the general public, things get murky. On the plus side allowing submissions anonymous to the general public is likely improve objectivity as people/companies otherwise unwilling to make submissions will do so. On the minus side transparency will be lacking (amongst other problems submissions may actively lie with little comeback) and submissions from the public responding will not be as fully informed.

I'm on the fence on that one; in this case ebay is close to a monopoly in their space, it's not a free and open market with multiple equal-powered players and so anonymity may've been appropriate.

So while your feelings about the relative merits of corporations and individuals appear to be very strong, they do not seem to be very relevant to this case. The anonymity was about the interactions between two corporations.

Partly. I was responding mainly to the GP's comment about posting, not the specific circumstances. As other posts have noted GP's comment is not directly relevant to the story and thus my post was not directly relevant either. However the excuse you've given (possible retaliation) in my opinion is not a valid excuse.

(And since you feel very strongly about the idea of disclosure, I will point out that Google is my employer. But my work for them is not connected to this situation, I know nothing about this interaction beyond what I've read in this article, and I'm speaking for myself, not for them.)

Thanks, I appreciate your disclosure. It doesn't belittle your argument and allows all readers to do a more informed evaluation. In the long term this benefits everyone, even yourself and google. On my part I have no connection with Google, EBay or the ACCC, just an interested citizen.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Heh

[Pseudonym]

It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud.

Bullshit. Nobody has accused Google of hiding their identity from the ACCC, who are the ones who have to make the decision. The ACCC just removed Google's identity from the public record.

Moreover, nobody is accusing anyone of lying about who Google's submission came from.

Think it doesn't matter? It does, or they wouldn't do it.

Actually, we know exactly why Google wanted the submission to be anonymous to the public, and it had nothin to do with fraud.

The ACCC inquiry, if you recall, is to determine whether or not eBay should be granted an exemption from Australian trade practices law so that they can require everyone to use PayPal on eBay Australia. Everyone knows that eBay is using Australia as an experiment to see if they can get away with imposing this on the rest of the world, too. Google Checkout is in direct competition with PayPal elsewhere, but not in Australia yet.

Google wanted to submit anonymously to avoid hard questions about whether or not they were planning to roll out Google Checkout in Australia any time soon. To their credit, Google has been very up-front about this since the story broke.

(Disclaimer: I am not connected with Google, but it was a close family member of mine who "discovered" the PDF metadata.)

Re:Heh

[imemyself]

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of PayPal or eBay, but changing the feedback stuff was pretty legitimate. A lot (most?) sellers wouldn't leave feedback for the buyer until the buyer left positive feedback for them. There is *a lot* more risk to the buyer than there is to the seller on eBay. The seller always has either the product or the money (or both); the buyer has to give up their money before they get the product, so they have neither the product or the money for a period of time. It would be much easier to scam a buyer than it would be to scam a seller.

Re:Heh

[IronWilliamCash]

Both and neither at the same time

Re:Heh

[packeteer]

If corporations were trustworthy they wouldn't have a problem.

Of course they are trustworthy. You can trust that they will go after profits as is their responsibility as required by law. The corporation is legally accountable to their stockholders who demand more money. You can trust that they will be after that.

The only thing you cant trust is your law makers. I dont blame corporations for trying to lie within the laws as well as get laws in their favor. That is their explicit responsibility in the world to do so. I blame the politicians who let it all happen. Politicians have a responsibility to look out for the people. They are the ones to blame because they are not living up to their end of the social agreement. They need to reign in corporations a bit.

The struggle between corporations and consumers is natural and right as long as it doesn't get out of hand like it appears to be sometimes.

Re:Heh

[balloonpup]

Zombies! *runs away*

Re:Heh

[bit01]

Bullshit.

(Sigh) Mostly irrelevant. Why didn't you read my peer post?

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Heh

[KDR_11k]

I don't think retaliation is competition, a competitor cannot retaliate as he's already fighting you, an ally (supplier, customer, etc) could retaliate. Creating fights between companies that aren't really competing doesn't get much done.

Re:Heh

[shlashdot]

If you're ebay, it's easier to scam the sellers.

As a seller, it's not so important to me how easy it is to scam a buyer, because I won't do that.

The problem for me, and the reason I don't use ebay, is the quality of the buyers and ebay's inability or unwillingness to deal with that.

Just because there is a problem with scamming of buyers by sellers, doesn't mean there is not also an issue with bad buyers.

Re:Heh

[pclminion]

Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud. Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.

People should be jailed for speaking anonymously? Exactly which Godwin reference were you shooting for?

Re:Heh

[Mr. Slippery]

The struggle between corporations and consumers is natural

As corporations are artificial entities, nothing involving them can be called "natural".

Re:Heh

[bit01]

People should be jailed for speaking anonymously?

Improve your reading comprehension. Not people. Companies and businesses.

Exactly which Godwin reference were you shooting for?

Emotive language intended to distract the reader from valid points.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Re:Heh

[HPUXCowboy]

I notice that for all your ranting about Google requesting anonymity when it (they?) submitted the posting, I find it interesting that your email is not publicly available when I drill down on your Nickname. While My email is ALSO not publicly available, I am not attempting to pass judgment upon Google (or even you, as far as that is concerned).

I'm just noting that if you are going make such a LOUD NOISE about the Evil Google requesting anonymity regarding a posting about eBays request before the ACCC, which from a business standpoint is a valid request, perhaps you should expose your Real Identity as well instead of hiding behind a nondescript Nickname while you post your series of rants against the Evil Empire known as Corporate America.

Just a thought.

Re:Heh

[KFury]

As a recent Google employee, I have a different take: If Google put their name on the opinion it would be read as self-interested propaganda, and whatever points that were raised in it would be tainted by people screaming that it was FUD.

My guess is that by submitting the opinion anonymously Google asked people to consider the arguments in the opinion on their own merits, rather than writing them off as somehow irrelevant.

The idea that only 'average citizens' have opinions in these kinds of matters is as absurd as the opinion that only the opinion of these 'average citizens' matter. If we were better at thinking with our heads rather than our asses we'd be able to listen to contrary views from parties with vested interests without insisting that the only people qualified to give opinions are the ones who don't have anything to gain or lose.

Of course, it could just be someone not related to Google who intentionally left the trail in, intending that it would be found and mistakenly attributed to Google FUD. Anything's possible.

Re:Heh

[pclminion]

Improve your reading comprehension. Not people. Companies and businesses.

Sorry, not buying it. "Companies and businesses" are nothing but collectives of individuals. On the one hand, you want to hold the component members of business responsible on a personal level for the activities of their businesses. On the other hand, you want to punish these same people (jail time for speech?) in ways that I'm sure you would find reprehensible if they were applied to anyone else.

In other words, you're a hypocrite. Which way is it? Are companies nothing but collections of individuals (in which case each of those individuals has the same rights as anyone else, including the right to anonymous speech), or are they something above and beyond just a collection of people (in which case this special status can be used as a shield to behave unethically)?

Re:Heh

[toiletsalmon]

As a google employee, I'd ask how "self interested" are you? I'm sure you know what side your bread is buttered on. All for-profit corporations are created to MAKE MONEY. That's their primary purpose. How can anything said by a mega corporation be seen as anything but "self interested propoganda"? Or is google a not-for-profit now? As for your assertions that google has just as much of a right to an opinion on public matters, I call "BS". If google gets into deep, major, legal trouble, all "google" has to do is shuffle their assets around, disolve the company, and start over again as "groogle" or "hoogle" or some other nonsense. If I get into deep legal trouble, I can look forward to spending my golden years in a state/federal penitentariary. Because corps get many of the legal benefits of citizenship without most of the hard, real disadvantages of being a "real citizen" (prison, capital punishment, etc), I think google, and any other big corporation should keep their mouth shut. Quite frankly. And that doesn't even get into the whole "Yeah, we know we're helping keep Chinese people oppressed by their government, but we're doing it in a nice way!" circus. More bullshit! Don't get me wrong, I'm not singling out google really. I just disagree with your assertion that somehow, google is any different from any other MULTI BILLION DOLLAR corporation.

Re:Heh

[mwvdlee]

I develop software.
eBay hosts people selling cracked copies of it (along with hundreds of other cracked software on the same CD).
I've notified eBay, used their Vero system, eBay does nothing.

I'm not using eBay, eBay is using me.

And for that reason I hope eBay dies, along with all it's employees responsible.

Re:Heh

[KFury]

Sorry my words were unspecific: When I said 'recent Google employee' I should have said 'I was recently a Google employee'. I worked there for 4.5 years, but left about 5 months ago.

That said, your reply proves my point. Because you perceived me as someone who has a financial interest, you dismiss the points I make rather than letting them stand on their own merits.

Re:Heh

[toiletsalmon]

I don't think my reply proves anything other than that I disagree with your assertion that the actions taken by a mega corporation can ever stand on their own merit. I believe that to be a fundamentally unnatural behavior for a mega-corp.

I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[poeidon1]

so does it really prove that the document came from Google? Of course, they might be the one but who knows...

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[dreamchaser]

Sure, anyone could created a similar incriminating document. Heck even Ebay could have. However, I'm pretty sure Google astroturfs along with the rest of it's competetion, so I tend to think it was just a slip up on their part, especially since it was reposted with metadata stripped out later on.

I guess it could be a clever setup to make Google look bad, but my instincts tell me it's not. YMMV.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[morgan_greywolf]

Is Google really direct competition for eBay, though? Google Checkout is really more competition for Yahoo stores than anything else, and even then it's not direct competition. Google just isn't in the online auction business.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[dotancohen]

Why do you people on slashdot keep on repeating the same sentences, are you Bor You must be new here.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Televiper2000]

It's also possible that it was written by someone within the ranks of Google who isn't officially representing his corporate masters. I'm wondering of Google hasn't already submitted something similar officially. They have both the interest and credentials to do so.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

...profit?

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Fjandr]

Google Checkout is competition for PayPal, which is owned by eBay. So yes, they are in competition.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Torvaun]

It's not about eBay's online auctions, it's about how you pay for the things you buy in one of the largest online markets. Google Checkout -is- in direct competition with PayPal, and the new policy for PayPal only could be trouble.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[LaughingCoder]

Maybe Dan Rather produced it.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[PIBM]

Did you actually RTFA ? Google provided the governement with a document (original form is unknown, as the governement can save it as a doc, if you'd have seen the title you'd understand) and the 'watchdogs' made a pdf out of that document, which used the original government provided filename as the title.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Merusdraconis]

You can, but getting on a government website is the trick, isn't it, especially when they ask you to prove who you work for. (The government department did the anonymising, poorly.)

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Worthless_Comments]

Uhm... Natalie Portman?

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[tonycheese]

If this was the case, Google could and probably would easily deny that they submitted it.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[cduffy]

How is this "astroturfing"? Not giving an identity is entirely different from pretending to be John Q. Public.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[**loki969**]

PLZ moderate parent up.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Magic5Ball]

I think you are correct. From TFA:

"Most of the submissions are identified as having been made by named individuals and organisations. Only a few - including the one shown to be bearing traces of Google's DNA - are listed as either "[name withheld]" or "Anonymous".

The ACCC is able to categorise submissions as anonymous if the submitter can argue that there are commercial-in-confidence reason not to reveal their identity."

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[1 a bee]

I think I can make an argument why it has to be from Google. Here are the "facts" FTA:

1. The original submitted document bears the word Google.
2. The submission is later updated with the word Google removed.
3. All this happens on a site controlled by the Australian watchdog.
4. The watchdog knows, in fact, who the anonymous submitters are.

We know that last fact from

The ACCC is able to categorise submissions as anonymous if the submitter can argue that there are commercial-in-confidence reason not to reveal their identity.

An ACCC spokeswoman said the ACCC had received the document from the parties in a PDF form for posting on the public register in that format.

She said it was not the ACCC's responsibility to check that all the identifiers had been stripped out because the parties insisted it was fine.

Now consider the counter-case where the document was not originally authored by Google. The watchdog would have then learned that one of its submitters is attempting to masquerade as another. Now that would be a story. The watchdog could, and would, easily argue that the "terms of anonymity agreement" have been breached and come out the name of the submitter. At the very least, the watchdog would feel compelled to say "it's not from Google."

But none of this has happened. So it's gotta be Google.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, anyone could created a similar incriminating document.

No they couldn't.

The posting was controlled by the ACCC - the Australian competition authority. The submission in question was posted on the ACCC official site where they post official applications or submissions dealing with the Trade Practices Act. They know the identity of the person who made the submission and are the sole arbiters of whether someone is allowed to remain anonymous.

Comments that eBay could have undertaken criminal actions ("Heck even Ebay could have") when dealing with the competition authority lack any credibility and are just an indication of extreme ignorance. You don't hack into government websites or fraudulently pretend to be someone else when dealing with the government on matters of Trade Practices law. That is the quick way to facing multiple criminal sanctions in court.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[thomasw_lrd]

I wish I had mod points, cause that was really funny.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also possible that it was written by someone within the ranks of Google who isn't officially representing his corporate masters.

No it's not. Read the document and you will appreciate that it was prepared by a team of high-priced lawyers. Individuals don't have those kinds of resources.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[TekPolitik]

Three shocking things about this story

Only shocking if you think Google is the sort of company that takes a stand on principle. They are not. Hell, a Sydney newspaper recently interviewed a senior executive at Google who was visiting the Sydney offices of Google at the time. In the article this senior executive denied the "do no evil" motto. The story, so she claimed, was that an engineer wrote it on a whiteboard in a meeting room used by the marketing division shortly after Google established one, fearing that Google would become evil. The motto was never, apparently, adopted as a corporate creed of any kind.

I understand it is common for engineers within Google to subscribe to the motto (and in evaluating this you need to take into account the fact that Google engineers have to be willing, as a condition of employment, to participate in applying for software and business method patents), but beyond the engineers it is nothing, not even an aspiration.

There is no need for that engineer to fear the possibility of Google becoming evil now, of course. It is pointless to fear that which has already occurred.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[fizzup]

Try number 6 on this page.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Richard_at_work]

Why is no one forcing Amazon to accept Google Checkout then? I personally think this whole case is ludicrous.

Good.

[Jafafa Hots]

eBay is wrong and unethical, Google is right to complain.

Re:Good.

[robot_lords_of_tokyo]

How is it unethical to use your own checkout system? Is it also unethical for a merchant to accept Visa and deny my very own Bongo card?

Re:Good.

[GoodbyeBlueSky1]

Exactly, I don't see what the problem is. Google is the bad guy after calling out eBay for blatantly abusing their monopoly power? Who cares if they were trying to do so "anonymously"? Doesn't change the facts.

Re:Good.

[Vectronic]

Indeed, and this just helps the case for people who were already protesting against it. Publicity.

If Google had just outright said "We Here At Google Don't Like The Idea", no one would have cared, not news-worthy, but trying to cover it up... "hmm"... intrigue.

Re:Good.

[gadabyte]

eBay is wrong and unethical, Google is right to complain. i wonder how many people who view ebay's actions as wrong and unethical will continue to buy through ebay. complaining won't get their attention; dwindling profit will. i, for one, turn my back on our new paypal-shilling wannabe overlords.

Re:Good.

[owlnation]

i wonder how many people who view ebay's actions as wrong and unethical will continue to buy through ebay.

Fortunately, less and less every day. Their growth rate has been stagnant for several years now. Their share price is also stagnant. It's a company that's slowly dying -- fortunately. Few companies deserve to die more than eBay.

Google is right to complain. But what would be better is if they worked on micropayments and improved local search. The ONLY reason eBay exists is because a closed database is needed to find things. If search worked better there would be no need for eBay whatsoever.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

It's not unethical. What is unethical is not allowing users to use any other form of payment (aside from COD). Why would an online merchant who already has a merchant gateway (credit card processing) account have to pay PayPal's ridiculous fees? There is absolutely zero technical reason for the prohibition, and aside from check/MO/cashier's check fraud, adds zero to the overall safety of transactions.

They are the defacto monopoly in the online auction space, and are using that weight to shut out competitors in another market (payment processing.)

Re:Good.

[bsDaemon]

No, but eBay is pretty much the only game in town as far as auctions that don't involve guns, ww2 relics from certain countries, and anything else cool go.

By saying that you have to use their own system for transactions is therefore fairly anti-competitive. It's like Standard Oil or US Steele owning the mines, the rail roads, the plants, and the houses where the workers lived. Its designed to save them money by controlling the whole process, not make things more convenient for you.

Yes, paypal is pretty ubiquitous, and google checkout is sort of the discover card of checkout systems. However, when the auto parts store on one side of the street doesn't take mastercard and the one right across the street from you does - you can choose to go the one that takes your card.

There isn't really a serious competitor to eBay, so its lock-in.

Re:Good.

[Mistshadow2k4]

I don't know about unethical, but it definitely is anti-competitive. eBay does have a monopoly in the online auction business. That there are other online auction businesses is little different than MS saying they're not a monopoly because of Apple. So, that the move is anti-competitive would have a good chance of standing up in court. If eBay thinks they're so powerful that this needn't concern them, I'd say that's pretty arrogant; Google may be the search giant rather than the online-pay giant, but they're still pretty powerful.

Re:Good.

[Simon (S2)]

I think google did it anonymously because a great % of google ads income is from ebay. This could wery well piss ebay off, and decide to spend their money elsewhere (if ebay is stupid enough - but I don't think so).
It sure makes google look like a coward not to file the complain signed.

Re:Good.

[LVSlushdat]

The best thing Google could do right now, is start up an auction venue, like eBay *used* to be, and I'd bet it would take off like a scalded rabbit. With all the idiotic things ePal/PayBay are doing, which are royally pissing off their long time sellers, who by the way ARE eBay's customers, NOT the buyers eBay seems to be courting, I expect ANY alternative to feeBay started by Google would be flocked to by all the angry sellers leaving eBay looking for alternatives.. I've been a small eBay seller since 1998, and I've given up eBay due to the fact that I will now be REQUIRED to accept PayPal on everything I sell in used computer equipment,despite the fact I have 100% feedback.. Just AINT gonna happen... I for one, would sign up with a Google auctions in a heartbeat, were they to do it.. And of course, where the sellers go, the buyers will follow... hopefully leaving feeBay talking to themselves....

Re:Good.

[mortonda]

Great quote from Ocean's Eleven:

"I may be biased but that doesn't mean I'm wrong!"

Re:Good.

[legirons]

How is it unethical to use your own checkout system? When you have a monopoly in the auction market and wish to extend this to a monopoly in the electronic payments market?

Re:Good.

[jlarocco]

The definition of "monopoly" is not "large and popular". There are thousands of online auction sites. There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field. Any "web developer" worth the title could hack together a functional auction site in a couple days. The only downside is those other sites don't have as many users as eBay, but there are ways around that if you really dislike eBay.

If you keep using eBay, even though you think they're doing something wrong, how will they know you disagree with them? In fact, if you keep using them, they don't even care what you think. Making PayPal mandatory and seeing a 10% decrease in revenue means something. Making PayPal mandatory and having a bunch of people cry doesn't.

Unless you own a lot of eBay stock, you don't get to decide how they run their business. Your only options are "Use eBay" or "Don't use eBay".

It's kinda funny how every day people on here whine that companies only care about money, yet everybody avoids using it against the companies like we're supposed to.

Re:Good.

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually,
It's not unethical. You are not forced by anyone to buy or sell from ebay.
This will help competing auction sites (and there are some specialized ones) to grow.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

De facto: in actuality, if not actual legal definition. Market share is a key indicator of monopoly status. Using that market share to create an artificial barrier to entry (into payment processing, not auction sites) is an abuse of that status.

To put it another way, requiring use of PayPal could easily be argued to amount to unlawful bundling of a service that is not strictly necessary to eBay's auction business.

Granted this is all from a US legal standpoint, rather than an Australian one.

Re:Good.

[jlarocco]

De facto: in actuality, if not actual legal definition. Market share is a key indicator of monopoly status. Using that market share to create an artificial barrier to entry (into payment processing, not auction sites) is an abuse of that status.

What barrier are they creating? Is eBay the only website that uses payment processing?

The other payment processors, and businesses in general, aren't entitled to customers. I can start my own payment processing company this afternoon if I wanted to. Doesn't mean anybody has to use it.

To put it another way, requiring use of PayPal could easily be argued to amount to unlawful bundling of a service that is not strictly necessary to eBay's auction business.

How is taking payments not necessary to eBay's auction business? It would seem that's the entire point. This is no different than stores that don't take certain credit cards. It's not smart, but it's hardly illegal.

Re:Good.

[TheRaven64]

There are thousands of online auction sites. There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field Rubbish. There are huge barriers to entry. Buyers will not go to a new online auction site unless there are people selling things they want to buy. Sellers will not go to an online auction site that doesn't have many buyers, because they will get too low a price for their goods.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

A barrier into providing payment processing for online auctions. You can say they are not a monopoly all you like, but the actual fact of the matter is, if this becomes the standard payment model for eBay services nobody will have a choice of payment processors in the current market. It doesn't matter what might happen sometime in the future. This is how the industry exists right now, and the law isn't really much for looking at theoretical potentialities. They may cease to be a monopoly at some point in the future by virtue of market share changes or other things. That still makes absolutely no difference to the state of the industry right this second. eBay has a de facto monopoly market share in their industry, and are using that weight in order to force down the market share of other payment processors. It does not have to be complete. It doesn't even have to be effective. All that matters is that they are attempting to use their dominant market share in the online auction industry to decrease competitor market share in the payment processing industry.

I did not say taking payments was unnecessary to eBay's business. I said requiring customers to use one particular payment model that is owned by eBay is not necessary to eBay's auction business. Their auction business would survive essentially unchanged if PayPal were swapped out by any other payment processor. There is no inherent technical reason requiring a tie of the use of eBay's services to the use of PayPal's services, hence making it an unlawful service bundle (again, in US law).

Put yet another way, eBay is saying that you cannot pay for items through their site using legal negotiable instruments. Once the auction is over, they have no legitimate say in how the contract between buyer and seller is fulfilled. They are attempting to dictate the payment terms in a contract that they are not actually party to.

Now, if eBay operated as an auctionhouse that took payment on behalf of sellers, they would have more legitimate say in what types of payment were accepted. However, they do not.

After reading this I realize now that replying to your post on this topic is an exercise in futility, though since the reply is written I'll post it anyway. You might not like the way bundling laws work (or perhaps you aren't able to differentiate what makes an unlawful bundle vs one that is perfectly legitimate), but they are there nonetheless.

Re:Good.

[TekPolitik]

How is it unethical to use your own checkout system?

Actually in Australia what eBay is doing is (at least arguably) illegal, that's why the ACCC are looking into it. It is illegal in Australia to use a position of substantial market power in one market to:

1. damage a competitor in another market;
2. prevent the entry of somebody into another market; OR
3. deter or prevent somebody from engaging in competitive conduct in another market.

I doubt many would argue eBay does not have substantial market power in the online auctions market. I also doubt many would argue that forcing users to use Paypal rather than other payments systems amounts to damaging competitors in the payments systems market. I also doubt that many would argue that this does not prevent competitive conduct in that market.

For the law on this affecting eBay, see the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) s46

On top of this, if Paypal is owned through a corporation rather than held by the same company that conducts the eBay business, eBay is arguably engaging in third line forcing, which is also illegal. Third line forcing is the use of arrangements forcing people you trade with to use the services of a particular third party. Unless the PayPal and eBay companies are one and the same (not just related), then PayPal is a third party. As to this, see s47.

Google is still evil though.

Re:Good.

[TekPolitik]

I can start my own payment processing company this afternoon if I wanted to.

You might be able to start the company this afternoon, but not the business. Payments systems are heavily regulated and you are likely to require approvals in many jurisdictions you would be operating in.

Nevertheless the arrangement does decrease the ability to compete in payments systems because it prevents other payments systems providers from competing for the business of the buyer and seller in the transaction. eBay is not a party to that transaction - they may have facilitated it, but they are not (and for their own protection want to make absolutely certain they are not) a party to it.

This is no different than stores that don't take certain credit cards.

Actually it's not because eBay is neither the buyer nor the seller. The correct analogy would be the owner of 90% of all malls in the world (presumably Westfield, at some time in the future) imposing a condition on shops in the mall that they only accept payments by American Express, banning Visa, Mastercard (etc), cash or cheque.

it's hardly illegal

The ACCC investigation is taking place because the conduct is, at least arguably, illegal. I suspect the ACCC know a bit more about Australian competition law than you do. See my previous comment for details.

Don't mistake me for a Google apologist, though, as far as I am concerned both Google and eBay are evil and I'd rather not have to deal with either.

Re:Good.

[jlarocco]

Rubbish. There are huge barriers to entry. Buyers will not go to a new online auction site unless there are people selling things they want to buy. Sellers will not go to an online auction site that doesn't have many buyers, because they will get too low a price for their goods.

"Our competition has a huge head start", sucks, but it's not a barrier to entry. A barrier to entry is something like "It costs millions of dollars to launch a satelite" or "The equipment costs $50000".

Re:Good.

[Onan]

There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field.

I'm afraid I must disagree. The technical and financial hurdles are moderate, but the real barrier to entry is network effect.

Surely you don't believe that some technical facet of eBay is four or five orders of magnitude better than any other auction service that has ever existed? No, people post things to sell on eBay, because people looking to buy something look on eBay, because people post things to sell on eBay, because people looking to buy something look on eBay...

It is a self-reinforcing loop that favors one competitor to the exclusion of others, regardless of their merits. In other words, precisely the sort of thing that competition-regulating agencies are designed to monitor and control.

Re:Good.

[jlarocco]

I did not say taking payments was unnecessary to eBay's business. I said requiring customers to use one particular payment model that is owned by eBay is not necessary to eBay's auction business. Their auction business would survive essentially unchanged if PayPal were swapped out by any other payment processor. There is no inherent technical reason requiring a tie of the use of eBay's services to the use of PayPal's services, hence making it an unlawful service bundle (again, in US law).

I don't think it would be illegal in the US. Take this court case, for example. In that case, the court decied that the market wasn't "cellophane" it was the more general "flexible packaging material". In the eBay/PayPal case, the market isn't "payment processing for online auctions", it's the more general "payment processing". Also relevant, one could argue the market isn't "online auctions", it's the more general "auctions", or even "buying stuff online", or even just "buying stuff".

Also, just to name a few, Overstock Auctions, Webidz, and QxBid are auction sites which aren't eBay, and don't require PayPal payments, so it's a little hard to believe eBay and PayPal are a monopoly even in the "payment processing for online auctions" market.

Re:Good.

[ejecta]

Well, when it breaks the law*, and you force everyone of your customers to do it anyway, I'd say it is quite unethical.

*Comes under Third Line Forcing legislation.

Re:Good.

[Skippy_kangaroo]

Let me acquaint you with the well known term - cellophane fallacy.

It is commonly agreed that this case was decided incorrectly.

Re:Good.

[dangitman]

There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field.

Are you ludicrously insane and out-of-touch with reality? There is a massive barrier to entry in the online auction market. It's called eBay.

Re:Good.

[rtechie]

What is unethical is not allowing users to use any other form of payment (aside from COD). Why would an online merchant who already has a merchant gateway (credit card processing) account have to pay PayPal's ridiculous fees? eBay is not intended for online merchants that already have merchant accounts. It is intended for private sellers. Hopefully this change will reduce the prevalence of professional sellers on eBay.

There is absolutely zero technical reason for the prohibition, and aside from check/MO/cashier's check fraud, adds zero to the overall safety of transactions. Incorrect. The majority of fraudulent transactions on eBay are now processed through shady third-party credit card processors. Requiring PayPal will give eBay more control over transactions.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

eBay is not intended for online merchants that already have merchant accounts. It is intended for private sellers. Hopefully this change will reduce the prevalence of professional sellers on eBay.

eBay specifically courts people to sell professionally using their service. You might want to read up on their efforts regarding the Power Seller program (just for starters). This statement is completely and utterly baseless.

The majority of fraudulent transactions on eBay are now processed through shady third-party credit card processors.

The majority of fraudulent transactions involve non-delivery of goods. I'll assume you actually meant "fraudulent transactions by buyers," a much, much smaller segment of eBay fraud. Though, since you seem convinced of this, surely you have numbers to back up "shady credit card processors" as being the largest scam vector. Cashier's checks are popular (personally know of a couple of those), as are fraudulent escrow services. It's a lot harder to operate a fraudulent credit merchant account.

Re:Good.

[rtechie]

eBay specifically courts people to sell professionally using their service. It may be true that the eBay corporation wants people to sell professionally using their service. It doesn't change the fact the SYSTEM is best suited for private sellers. If you wish to sell professionally using eBay you must understand that you pay a hefty price for mooching off eBay's brand. If you don't like it go elsewhere. As I've made clear, I don't like most of the professional sellers on eBay and would like the lion's share of them to go away.

The majority of fraudulent transactions involve non-delivery of goods. I'll assume you actually meant "fraudulent transactions by buyers," a much, much smaller segment of eBay fraud. No, I meant seller fraud. Based on the people I talk to, the majority of fraud cases are non-delivered goods paid for by Visa and MasterCard processed by a handful of credit card processors that will essentially issue "disposable" merchant accounts to anybody. The accounts are used for fraud, but by the time eBay catches up the rogue merchant is gone and the processor shrugs their shoulders. Rinse, repeat.

Well done google.

[jbb999]

this is a problem how exactly?

Re:Well done google.

[robot_lords_of_tokyo]

Because google is using word to submit their semi anonymous critiques... shameful shameful

so?

[ILuvRamen]

So? That doesn't make the policy any less stupid.

RTFA

[IronMagnus]

For all of you saying this was Google's mess up... please RTFA:

The Australian competition watchdog has accidentally revealed Google as the anonymous source of a submission that is highly critical of eBay's proposal to force its users onto the PayPal payments system.

Google didn't mess up, the watchdogs did.

Re:RTFA

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I doubt that Google needs to remain anonymous anyway. I know there's always the inference of bias because Google is a competitor, but there is a similar, and possibly stronger inference of bias with anonymous statements because of the question of why they need to remain anonymous on this topic.

I can't help but imagine a much bigger outrage if Microsoft tried to anonymously complain about a competitor's anti-trust activities.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

by Anonymous Coward on Sat May 31, 09:44 AM (#23610437)

The mess up was trying to be anonymous in the first place. What else are they hiding?



I don't know... you tell me, Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, eBay owns Paypal, so why is anyone surprised? And in any case, what's the big deal with using Paypal? Sure, I've heard the horror stories, but fortunately nothing like that has ever happened to me as a seller, so there ya go.

I'll say one thing in defense of paypal -- it sure is damned convenient.

That'll teach 'em...

[l00sr]

That'll teach 'em to use Word for any purpose whatsoever.

Doh! Google Docs anyone?

[jimpop]

How do they know that this wasn't an average Joe using Google Docs?

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[0100010001010011]

It has to me, twice. Once as seller once as buyer.

I got the 'confirmation' from PayPal. I got the guaranteed address. I shipped with a tracking #. The CC was stolen. No matter. PayPal deducted an instant $900 from my account because of some wording loophole.

$2k G5 3 years ago. Opposite situation. I was the seller. Seller was long gone but Hurray for Paypal. They were able to 'recover' $150. (This prompted me to get a credit card so if anything ever did go wrong I would have full recourse through Visa)

Google Checkout needed for spamming

[Animats]

Google Checkout is the payment scheme of choice for Craigslist spammers. Some other payment processors have kicked off spam tool vendors, but spammers have found a friendly welcome with Google. Google also supplies spammers with free e-mail accounts in bulk. Google's YouTube runs ads and videos from spammers. Google's Blogger provides free hosting for spam and redirection sites. It's full-service evil.

Google has clearly gone over to the dark side. They're not just an innocent victim. Google Checkout is laundering spammer money and taking a cut. Google AdWords is accepting ads from spammers. The dark side generates revenue for Google.

Re:Google Checkout needed for spamming

[tomhudson]

If anything, I'd be upset at Bill Gates for promising that spam would be gone in two years. That was 2004

And he's right - with the Vista "file move bug", it takes 2 years to move that spam to the trash bin.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[mikael]

Paypal doesn't support the use of Maestro or Solo credit cards (these UK ATM cards make your bank account appear like a credit card to sellers - so you can make purchases without going into debt - if you don't have the money you don't make the purchase).

PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

And in any case, what's the big deal with using Paypal? Sure, I've heard the horror stories, but fortunately nothing like that has ever happened to me as a seller, so there ya go. Give it time and you'll experience some of the horrors first hand. The main problems with PayPal from the standpoint a seller is that their policies make it pretty easy for buyers to abuse you and PayPal is rather expensive as well. I've sold over 10,000 items on eBay and received most payments via PayPal. 99% of the time it works well even if it is overly pricey for the service provided - but PayPal's policies are heavily tilted towards favoring buyers and you should NEVER forget that.

Eventually you'll run into someone who decides they don't like something and the magic words with PayPal are "not as described" - it doesn't matter how accurately you actually did describe it since PayPal does not check or even care. Anyone can return anything, regardless of your policy on returns and get a full refund - screwing you out of the shipping price in the process. (accepting returns is usually a good policy but not in all cases) Worse, sometimes the "buyer" will ship you a box with nothing in it (keeping the item) and PayPal will give them their money back as soon as they provide "proof" of shipping. As for PayPal's seller's "protection", it's nearly worthless and PayPal puts so many stipulations in that they can basically weasel out anytime they want to. (and believe me they do)

PayPal wants to be a bank without being regulated like one. They also implement a lot of poorly thought out policies that could only be fair if they could/would inspect the merchandise - but they don't and never will. I don't have a problem with their service overall but it should be used with a strong dose of caveat emptor.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[Nixoloco]

Actually, I think caveat venditor is more appropriate, considering your description of paypal.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

Actually, I think caveat venditor is more appropriate, considering your description of paypal. Ha! Certainly a good option. I hadn't thought of that one.

However since as a seller you are a customer of eBay/PayPal I'll pedantically stand by my original statement.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[Rorschach1]

I did get screwed by PayPal as a buyer once - bought two of an item and only received one, but I was told that as long as I received *something*, even an empty package, that PayPal wouldn't help me out. Maybe that's changed.

I've made thousands of sales through PayPal without any problems, but there are a couple of reasons for that. First, I'm not selling on eBay - all of the sales are through my own site, which doesn't attract scammers (Indonesian credit card fraudsters aside) like eBay does. Second, I've got a low enough return rate and high enough margins that I can afford a liberal return/replacement policy. Sending a prepaid return mailer and issuing a full refund to the rare dissatisfied customer does a very good job of defusing conflicts.

Yes, PayPal's fees are a little high. Not vastly higher than the discount rate on a card-not-present merchant account, though. Dropping PayPal as a payment option would mean losing many of my sales to certain countries.

But parent is right - they want to be a bank but without the regulation. For the fee they take, they provide very little protection, compared to the credit card companies. I would imagine that ramping up a large enough fraud department to properly handle the number of disputes they get would be VERY costly, and short of the government forcing them into it, I can't see it ever happening. As long as that great sales engine of eBay keeps cranking along with a 99% success rate, people will just accept it.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[LVSlushdat]

I used to sell refurbed computers/laptops on ebay. I described them endlessly, and in the end, I only accepted Postal MO and cashier checks, no PayPal on those transactions, as the units were As-Is. I did give a 14-day DOA/money back warantee on them, and only had to refund one system that appeared to have gotten jiggled in shipping, and just wouldnt boot.. The buyer shipped the system back and I refunded his $$.. No sweat.. But PayPal doesnt care what YOUR terms of service are, they refund, often without you even communicating with the buyer on the problem.. I used PP for small stuff and it is truely convienient, until you get zinged by them... Fortuantly, in my time with eBay/PP I never got zinged...

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

You mean you were weren't offering a full refund, or you weren't offering returns? Dude, What kind of sham operation were you running? There are lots of cases where no returns is appropriate and there is NOTHING ethically wrong with a no returns policy as long as it is disclosed up front. No one HAS to buy from you and with a no returns policy you should expect to get less money given the risk the buyer is taking. Lots of real world vendors do it every day. If you don't like the policy, don't buy from that vendor.

Certain types of clothing is an obvious case where a no refund policy (think used underwear... ick) is highly appropriate. Likewise second hand, already opened software or music is another. There are also situations like selling items on consignment where it is impractical to offer a return policy due to insufficient margins. But even beyond all that, if a vendor wants to sell something with a no return policy that is their right just as it is your right not to buy from them.

Nobody expects you to be walmart (though many Americans think that?) and take broken crap back, but if the item hasn't even been opened, you should be taking it back and deducting the shipping fee. Actually buyers DO expect you to be Wal*Mart and that's the problem. If the seller actually got the shipping fee back on returns that would be fine but with PayPal they do not. PayPal does NOT refund shipping EVER. As a seller I am NOT willing to eat a $10 to $100 shipping fee (depending on the item being shipped) just so someone can on a whim decide they don't like something. That's a fast way to lose a ton of money. Furthermore I've experience countless cases where someone shipped back merchandise they broke (not the carrier) and PayPal gave them their money back without the slightest effort to verify the condition of the merchandise. Wal*Mart makes billions and can afford to accept returns for any reason. That rarely describes sellers on eBay.

"Bad buying experience" is caused entirely by sellers who want an easy way to ditch customer service in favor of keeping more of the profit Try actually running a real business someday before making such a ridiculous statement. "More profit"? Try ANY profit. It is extremely difficult to make ANY profit selling on eBay. A no questions asked return policy on top of 7-10% eBay/PayPal fees and non-reimbursed shipping costs is a good way to go out of business fast. Furthermore there are at LEAST as many scummy buyers as there are scummy sellers on eBay. I've seen every scam in the book first hand as a seller and you're going to tell me it's all the sellers fault? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

I tried speaking to multiple persons at Paypal, stated my case politely etc. That was your mistake I'm guessing - talking to PayPal "representatives". If you want a refund through PayPal, generally as a buyer you want to avoid talking to anyone at the company. Use their online dispute resolution and you'll get your money back in the vast majority of cases. I've occasionally heard of people being asked for verification like yours but having been through the process myself hundreds of times, trust me it's rare.

Meanwhile the seller left bad feedback for me even though I had paid on time, threatened to involve the police and take me to court for defamation because I left bad feedback for him. It's all talk especially if the item is $30. No seller has the time and money to waste on legal fees over a $30 item. Rude but an empty threat. However if you demand a refund or leave negative feedback you should pretty much expect retaliation of some kind unfortunately. Generally I recommend that if people get their money back, leave it at that unless you were REALLY screwed over.

I had another item worth about $450 turn up despite the address being incorrect. When I queried the seller on why the address was incorrect, and whether there was some record on Ebay/Paypal that I needed to amend the seller got very defensive and wanted to know why I cared since I got the item and what kind of trouble I wanted to make. Yeah sometimes you run into an asshole. It happens unfortunately. All I can say is try to be sweet as pie and that usually helps. Sellers usually deal with a LOT of customers and many are really rude. If you start off the least bit confrontational odds are you'll immediately make them defensive and that's rarely good.

I also had a relative recieve pirated DVDs as a buyer through Ebay. Remember that eBay is the largest fencing operation in the world. Be VERY careful about anything that can be duplicated easily, especially from sellers without a LONG track record of good service.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

I did get screwed by PayPal as a buyer once - bought two of an item and only received one, but I was told that as long as I received *something*, even an empty package, that PayPal wouldn't help me out. Maybe that's changed. Nope. PayPal accepts delivery confirmation from a major carrier as "proof" that the item in question was successfully returned. They make NO effort to confirm that the item in question was actually in the box, in appropriate condition, or packed properly. I've received return boxes that someone put a china in with no padding whatsoever - PayPal still returns their money. I've received boxes containing nothing - PayPal still returns their money. I've had the carrier lose the package but claim it was "delivered" - PayPal still refunds the money.

In short, PayPal provides a decent (if imperfect) safety net for buyers but not so much for sellers compared with the alternatives.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been my experience that the only real way to make a profit on eBay is if you stole the item in the first place...

On a completely unrelated note, I have a used PSP listed for ten bucks, if anyone is interested.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[bh_doc]

He just said he got screwed as a buyer. It seems PayPal has (or at least had, if they've since changed) pretty poor if any safety net for *either* party.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

It seems PayPal has (or at least had, if they've since changed) pretty poor if any safety net for *either* party. PayPal is no panacea for buyers either but generally speaking buyers are more protected than sellers. I can enumerate policies if you like but I've had a LOT of experience on bother sides of disputes. Trust me, the buyer comes out on top most of the time if money is going to change hands in a dispute.

As I've said elsewhere, the only way PayPal's policies would make sense is if they actually had some sort of affordable escrow service. But that will never happen because eBay doesn't want the liability or the expense. As it is, PayPal is in the enviable position of being an unregulated bank with a marketplace (eBay) essentially to themselves.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[ejecta]

there are at LEAST as many scummy buyers as there are scummy sellers on eBay. Yup, like the good old "I never got the package".

You check tracking, it's delivered, you call the delivery service, happen to get lucky and get the actual delivery dude on the phone, even luckier that he remembers your fluro yellow fragile box and can tell you with full certainity the parcel was delivered even providing a physical description of the buyer who opened the front door and took delivery.

Yet, Paypal refunds the money. Package never delivered.

Awesome - as of today I no longer sell on ebay after over 6 years of doing so, I simply will use local forums/etc until an alternative pops up - or they reverse this paypal nonesense.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[dangitman]

Try actually running a real business someday before making such a ridiculous statement. "More profit"? Try ANY profit. It is extremely difficult to make ANY profit selling on eBay

Well, fuck you for trying to run a business on eBay. It should be about individual sellers selling their used personal items, not fucktards who ruin it for everybody.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

Well, fuck you for trying to run a business on eBay. It should be about individual sellers selling their used personal items, not fucktards who ruin it for everybody. And fuck you for thinking you get to determine what eBay is used for and by whom. Arrogant prick...

Re:PayPal requires caution

[dangitman]

I never said I should get to determine it - just that people who run businesses on eBay are total assholes of the type who fancy "get rich quick" schemes. Thus, the market for honest person-to-person sales has been demolished by the hungry "power sellers". Heh, I don't think my arrogance (of which there's plenty) can compare to the craziness of people who go to eBay brainwashing meetings for sellers, who buy into the cult completely. It's like fucking Scientology crossed with Amway.

Time for google to step up

[ArchieBunker]

They have a payment system and the technical capabilities, time for Google Auctions. Fuck ebay.

Re:Time for google to step up

[Pseudonym]

As has been noted earlier, Google does not have a payment system in Australia, which is the actual reason for their desire for secrecy.

Re:Time for google to step up

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Well, Google Checkout is one member of a long list of Google "failures" (i.e. products/services that were heralded by pundits and fanboys as products/services that would take over a particular market). Many slashdotters and pundits gleefully predicted PayPal's demise at the hands of Google Checkout; didn't happen. Your proposed "Google Auctions" would suffer a similar fate when going up against ebay.

* Most of Google's products are "failures", not that they aren't good or even successful, but only in the sense that they aren't the market leader. But the same goes for nearly every large company in existence. But Google's fans seeme to think that Google is #1 in everything they do and can bring down anybody at will. It ain't so.

i am on Google's side

[FudRucker]

I don't trust eBay either (den of thieves), too easy for intentional misleading product descriptions or not get the product at all...

Direct link to the PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

The 38-page PDF

(via Ars Technica - "Google tries anonymously fighting eBay's PayPal-only policy")

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[EllynGeek]

What's the big deal? The big deal is Ebay tightening the screws and removing even more options and incentives for sellers. PayPal is expensive, insecure and unreliable, and if Ebay succeeds in locking sellers in the fees are not going to go down, and fair treatment of sellers is not going to increase.

pdf file created from MS Word doc?

[hansraj]

From TFA:

Translated it means that the PDF was created from a Microsoft Word document with the filename "204481916_1_ACCC Submission by Google re eBay Public _2_.DOC". Didn't Google use a version of Ubuntu internally? Probably not a real question given the size of Google but nevertheless...

Re:pdf file created from MS Word doc?

[ikkonoishi]

Sounds like it was an email copied to word then turned into a PDF for posting on the web.

Re:pdf file created from MS Word doc?

[ELProphet]

I use Ubuntu. I don't use OpenOffice.org. I find myself more productive using Office 2007 Word, Powerpoint, and Excell, so I bought myself a copy of Office 2007 and put it on Wine. Does it run perfect? Not quite, but I still prefer it. I'm sure that many in Google's middle management feel the same, esp as Office is targeted directly at that market.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[morgan_greywolf]

Here in the States, most major banks (Chase, Bank of America, etc.) offer debit cards -- basically ATM cards with a Visa or MasterCard logo on them. Many of them don't even charge fees to use them as debit cards.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[CrashNBrn]

In places like Canada, and Australia you can do free bank transfers without resorting to WesternUnion. Which makes utilizing things like payPal just an added expense.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[Dogtanian]

Paypal doesn't support the use of Maestro or Solo credit cards (these UK ATM cards make your bank account appear like a credit card to sellers - so you can make purchases without going into debt - if you don't have the money you don't make the purchase). Yes, but if I remember correctly, they *aren't* credit cards and don't offer the same protection for purposes over GBP 100 as proper credit cards do. Given PayPal's questionable record as this sibling to your post suggests (and my general mistrust of them), I would definitely want to use a credit card. If there were any problems, I'd claim the money from the CC company, they'd get it from PayPal, who in turn would have to get the money or lose it.

And I wouldn't have an ounce of sympathy for them, because eBay/PayPal have shown that while they'll quite happily do **** all for or stiff innocent users of the services (particularly sellers) when it suits them, they're equally happy to do nothing about repeated use of the same services by blatant fraudsters.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[Mistshadow2k4]

Sure, I've heard the horror stories, but fortunately nothing like that has ever happened to me as a seller, so there ya go.

Very likely the victims of those horror stories said the same thing before it happened to them. Duh. Do you drink and drive because you've never killed anyone yet?

Always clean the metadata.

[urcreepyneighbor]

Basic security. Jeesh.

Google has a history of being irritated with eBay

[DrEldarion]

The Google Checkout team has very publically prodded eBay before: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google+checkout+let+freedom+ring&btnG=Google+Search

This is why I doubt this was some covert Google operation. Last time they wanted to protest eBay, they were going to throw a party about it. That's just how they work. This is more likely just someone at Google who was passionate about this topic and used their work computer to write the doc up.

Anyway, I'm glad this is being brought up again, because the move to block GCO from use on eBay is very, very shitty and should be as public as possible. Their official reason is that it doesn't have a "substantial historical track record of providing safe and reliable financial and/or banking related services", which works to keep out shady payment processors, but also apparently works for keeping out legitimate competitors.

More info on the original spat: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google+checkout+ebay&btnG=Google+Search

Google has hated ebay for awhile....

[WGFCrafty]

It's coming up on two years since the slashdot article announcing that Ebay bans Google checkout payments.

I'd be pissed too if Ebay pretty much implied that shitty little companies like propay.com can handle high dollar business transactions better.

Of course the lack of features or policies is probably not the reason at at all. Paypal is probably just scared of having it's market share shoot straight through the floor.

Re:RTFA^2

[Fastolfe]

Also from "TFA":

An ACCC spokeswoman said the ACCC had received the document from the parties in a PDF form for posting on the public register in that format.

She said it was not the ACCC's responsibility to check that all the identifiers had been stripped out because the parties insisted it was fine.

I read this as saying Google provided the "anonymized" PDF, and the ACCC said, "OK," and posted it. This would make it Google's error.

Mod parent up

[Boss Sauce]

Way too much sketchiness and outright fraud on eBay-- they seemed to stop engineering the system years ago.

I bet a few Google engineers have thought of this and at least a few have thrown a little 20% time at this isue...

Re:Mod parent up

[Kasis]

They're still engineering it, but the continued development is intended to maximise profits. The user experience, scams, disputes, etc are all secondary to profit.

Something needs be done with eBay and PayPal...

[BlueF]

Is it even possible for someone to challenge their market dominance at this point?! What's to stop them from continuing to raise their already ridiculous prices (and practices)??

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[x_MeRLiN_x]

Yes, they do. The Solo and Maestro logos are clearly shown on their UK home page. I also happen to use my Solo card with PayPal just fine.

My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[Nova Express]

As someone who has bought and sold science fiction first editions on eBay for nigh on a decade now, and who currently has eBay feedback over 1000, I hope that this finally spurs Google to launch an eBay auction competitor to eat eBay's lunch. (Or, as you newfangled kids say these days when you're not getting the hell off my lawn, I hope Google drinks eBay's milkshake.)

The reason is that eBay has gone from being bringing buyers and sellers together to treating them like pinatas to be beaten with a stick to extract the maximum amount of money from them. Fees have only gone up, the changes made to feedback have been asinine, and eBay has let their core auction business language while they've been trying to turn themselves into an inferior clone of Amazon.

It's gotten so bad that I've reduced my listings by 98% since the new fee structure was announced (and most of the remaining 2% are books another writer asked me to sell on eBay on consignment)> It's simply insufficiently profitable for me to deal there anymore.

Since Google already has the infrastructure in place, I hope they come out with a Google Auctions, radically undercut eBay's fee structure (free for the first two years might do it), and either make eBay's repent or else drive them under entirely.

Why not? Certainly Google has enough computing infrastructure to run an auction business as big as eBay's without even noticing the loading, and I know they're smart enough to create an auction system from scratch.

Lawrence Person
Lame Excuse Books
http://home.austin.rr.com/lperson/lame.html

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[PIBM]

Creating an auction site is very easy... the thing is you need to have it known and trusted. And I guess Google could manage that =)

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[mortonda]

and eBay has let their core auction business language I had to read that several times before I realized you meant "languish".

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[LVSlushdat]

Reading this made me check my eBay sales records.. I just sold one video card in the last week, sort of testing the eBay waters so to speak, having sold nada since all the new idiocy was announced by feebay.. On a 15.88 final sale price, I was charged a Final value fee by feebay of $1.39, and a previous transaction which sold for $15.50, in 2006, had an FVF of $0.81, for a nearly 60% increase... That's not including the PayPal fee, listing fee... I'm so through with feeBay... Hope they choke to death...

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[zippthorne]

Indeed, the infrastructure is already there.

But, we really just need a web-host with a number of decent templates for various items, and a strict classifying scheme to promote good searching. The "auction" bit is a nice gimmick, but search capabilities are more useful.

For instance, you shouldn't have to do a text search for laptops and manually filter out all the laptop accessories. You should be able to drill down your requirements until what remains is a number of laptops that meet your requirements with varying prices and optional stuff that might help your decision, but isn't strictly necessary.

eBay doesn't even do this very well and that's their core business. The auction bit is a nice gimmick, and has some utility in establishing market price for items you're not sure about, but an improved version of craigslist (even one where you pay for the listings) would be an eBay killer.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too. I used to do a substantial amount of business via eBay. We were at around £5000 a month in sales (~$10000) before we stopped. They suck. Huge fees, no customer service and you get it in the ass if a customer feels like committing fraud. I'm lots of people think 'take your business elsewhere'. Problem is that there is no elsewhere. It's a chicken and egg problem; nobody uses other auction sites because nobody uses them... Google could side step this due to their huge, established, user base.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[fan of lem]

And maybe Google Auction can carry over feedback scores from eBay. I hope this is possible/legal?

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[AbRASiON]

I have only got into Ebay in the last 2 years and I couldn't agree more, Ebay have become one of the scummiest companies on the internet, the fees are ridiculous. If you use paypal and the item sells in a certain price range, fees can be as high as 15% - that's insane for an online transaction using some html and images - they are making a killing and it's primarily due to being a monoply.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[turing_m]

And maybe Google Auction can carry over feedback scores from eBay. I hope this is possible/legal?

I suspect that verifying who you are would be the difficult part. Ebay wouldn't help.

What they could do would be to make an improved trustworthiness metric, taking into account the major way fraudsters manipulate ebay user ratings. I'm sure there are people at google (or ebay) who are savvy enough to calculate the odds of a particular seller ripping off a buyer (or vice versa, I suppose) as a function of item price and terms of sale for the item to be sold, and previous transaction history: (both number, feedback, item prices, types of items, type of sale terms, and also the trustworthiness rank of the person giving the feedback) etc.

So instead of merely a trustworthiness rank for a person, which is all very well, what buyers want is to know to what extent they can trust a particular transaction. So, generate some data by developing an auction site on the ebay model (if you are google, if you are the monopolist in question aka ebay, I guess you could always innovate, cue horse laugh), mine the data, fit the data to a statistical model, and figure out the likelihood of a particular transaction going resulting in negative feedback. Once you have a good model, you can also sell insurance for a transaction. It's easy - just (transaction price) * (probability of negative feedback) * (1 + some markup for profit). Adjust the model or increase the margin over time as people attempt to scam the insurance.

If you like that idea and you are google, it's probably within your capabilities to figure out who I am, what my email is and email me a job offer if you so desire. ;) If you are ebay I guess you can reply to this thread.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong.

First of all, setting up a webstore (with a decent flat monthly fee, not one of those prebuilt things that suck the money out of you for each item inventoried) is next to impossible still in this day and age for a nontechie.

Ebay is around to avoid the mess with shopping carts and all that junk.

Also, ebay fees help on reducing noise/junk on a site and making sure sellers only sell that which is demanded. That way a site/it's search engine has to wade through spam/crap. I've seen many free auction sites that get filled up with junk. Even "good" items can be frustrating if the buyer can't make a purchase because the seller abandoned a site and won't care about clearing his profile since it costs nothing anyway.

However, ebay's fees are too high. I thought that they were money grubbing weasels since about 1998-99. They get about as much commissions as real auctions without doing any work in comparison. And at real auctions, some things bring much better prices.

Still, ebay would have its uses. If they didn't keep ratcheting up the fees.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[nog_lorp]

Not to mention, enforcement of basic rules is atrocious. I *rarely* use e-bay, and yet almost every time I have a bad experience with:
1)horrible mis-listings
2)auctions that actually are not auctioning or buy-it-now'ing anything, but just link to a non-ebay e-retailer, or
3)redirection to pornographic malware sites.

If ebay wants to not suck, they could start with some of those issues. Also, fixing the damn categorization structure and ENFORCING it would be nice, instead of having ...>Phones>Accessories being 50% phones and 20% random totally unrelated shit, and ...>Phones>Phones being 80% accessories and 20% random totally unrelated shit.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[dangitman]

Or, as you newfangled kids say these days when you're not getting the hell off my lawn, I hope Google drinks eBay's milkshake.

Errr, no. Google drinking eBay's milkshake would put Google in the inferior position, with eBay enjoying all the pleasure of having its milkshake consumed. It doesn't work at all like "eating your lunch", it's a completely different metaphor.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[SuiteSisterMary]

Yup yup. I have, literally, stacks of OOP RPG books, video games going back all the way to the C64 era, and so on, that I can simply no longer be bothered to put on Ebay.

If Google were to create an auction type site, I'd be there the very next day.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[WGFCrafty]

Fortunately, if the website is large enough and has enough visitors then garbage can be easily rooted out.

Look at craigslist for example, FREE everything except job listings in a couple of cities. Yet, the majority of advertisements posted in the more serious sections (Free Stuff, Automobiles Ect., NOT man looking for woman) are not noise or junk.

All of this is done due to the self moderation buttons at the top of every ad, and the tens of millions of users who hit these buttons. Slashdot itself functions in much the same way, only you must be registered to moderate.

It is a myth that just because something is free, it's not as good as it's costly competitor.

'Accidently' is not a word, 'Accidentally' is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, would a spellchecker kill the editors?

Impossible.

[Jaggo]

"has accidently been revealed to have been submitted by Google" ??

No.

Google does *not* make mistakes.

Re:Impossible.

[1 a bee]

Google does *not* make mistakes.

Everyone does once in a while. The difference here is that for Google this is described as "a clerical error". If it were an oil company making this mistake, the article would be all over the incompetence of old world business types.

--
Avoid brand-think.

Where's the original?

[cwcpetech]

It's a bit hard to believe when the only copy has the stripped metadata - where's the original? Otherwise it just seems like a PR stunt.

Being critical isn't allowed?

[darealpat]

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Google within their rights to criticize whomsoever they choose? Their "stature" may influence the relative importance of whatever they are saying, but citizens of the internet world should be able to speak up about what they feel like without being judged by the fact that they spoke. If the hullabaloo is about the content or points of what was said, then fine, so be it. But that is not what is going on here.

Go Google

[Bananatree3]

I actually think this brings more weight against eBay. Its just another way to suck money out of their customers, with paypal fees on top of the auction collections. With Google now vetted as the author, it just gives the opposition that much more credibility.

Anonymous to avoid ad-hominem

[mlwmohawk]

The problem with Google's posting of an opinion, that many probably agree with, is that the use of ad-hominem is so prevalent and accepted that, these days, it is impossible to state something factual and verifiable, or reasonable and well thought out, without it being automatically colored by what people's perceptions of your motives might be.

People have just given up even attempting to think. They judge quickly based on sound bites and prejudices, they no longer contemplate the validity of an argument before forming an opinion.

Re:Anonymous to avoid ad-hominem

[Maxo-Texas]

I totally agree with you because I like your user name!

Re:Anonymous to avoid ad-hominem

[bit01]

The problem with Google's posting of an opinion, that many probably agree with, is that the use of ad-hominem is so prevalent and accepted that, these days, it is impossible to state something factual and verifiable, or reasonable and well thought out, without it being automatically colored by what people's perceptions of your motives might be.

That is a problem of education. Corporations are privileged legal entities and because of the need for legal transparency and accountability corporations should have no right of anonymity in public discourse at all.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Live and Learn...

[IonOtter]

Its issues like this-appearing on SlashDot-that have taught me to be VERY careful of metadata on my files.

When I recently installed OpenOffice, I entered all my details. Then, after I'd created a .PDF for my business partner, I checked to make sure it had the proper credentials in the metadata. Whoops! It had mine, not my partner's.

A quick retooling and re-save of the file, and everything came up roses.

So yeah! Learning from the mistakes of others will help you avoid showing up here as the topic du jour.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[ecavalli]

Your support of Paypal makes me wonder whether that .sig of yours is an ironic jab or a cleverly veiled salute.

Either way, you do realize where you're posting right? Stop fucking with the status quo!

Re:Google has a history of being irritated with eB

[d_jedi]

eBay may have had an argument when Google Checkout first came out. But it's been available for two fucking years now.. what more does eBay want?

Accidently revealed??

[Crazyswedishguy]

Did CowboyNeal "accidently" mangle the title's spelling?? (yeah yeah, I've heard it before - "this is Slashdot")

Anyway, I don't see how this is "revealing" in any way. It's obvious that a move to make Paypal the only form of payment accepted by eBay would hurt Google Checkout. I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised that Google is critical of eBay for doing this. Whether they submitted their critique anonymously or not isn't really of any importance.

Nothing to see here, move along.

'astroturf'

[unity100]

you can apply that term to shit like what at&t pulls with its inexistent 'grassroots' movement against network neutrality.

criticizing something that is really negative is never astroturfing.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[analog_line]

My brother works for a formerly huge eBay seller that's generally tried to get people pointed toward their own website rather than the eBay store. Apparently PayPal out of the blue has decreed that they're "keeping 20% of their sales for six months", which I assume means they'll only be able to withdraw 20% of any payment until six months after the payment happens. If this stands, it's pretty much going to drive them bankrupt (how many businesses do you know that have a 20% profit margin on every transaction? None that I personally deal with...). They take Google Checkout on their website, but they're all but forced to accept PayPal because it's so ubiquitous they lose a ton of sales if they don't offer it. On top of that sellers can now no longer leave negative feedback about buyers, but buyers can say/do whatever they want, and only if you're "very abusive" will eBay do anything about it.

I just finished selling some stuff via eBay/PayPal, but never again. Maybe if the US regulatory authorities wake the fuck up and treat PayPal like the bank it is, I'd consider it.

Network effects

[sjbe]

The definition of "monopoly" is not "large and popular". There are thousands of online auction sites. There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field. EBay has one of the most formidable barriers to entry there is, namely network effects. Sellers go to eBay because that is where the buyers are and vice-versa. The barriers to entry if you want to compete with eBay are HUGE. Amazon.com and Yahoo both tried and failed miserably to make a dent in eBay's auction business and they have all the capital and IT talent necessary already. Like it or not, eBay has a de-facto monopoly on online auctions to the same extent Microsoft has one on operating systems.

The only downside is those other sites don't have as many users as eBay, but there are ways around that if you really dislike eBay. That's pretty much the one disadvantage that actually matters. The ENTIRE point of a marketplace is to bring buyers and sellers together. No one brings more buyers and sellers together than eBay - in fact there isn't even a close second. As someone who has conducted over 10,000 online auctions let me tell you, if you want to use any site other than eBay except for very specialized items (like guns) even if you sell your item at all off eBay you aren't likely to get a good price or many interested buyers.

The relevant law:

[chrisjrn]

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 46 Misuse of market power (1) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of: (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market. (1AA) A corporation that has a substantial share of a market must not supply, or offer to supply, goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying such goods or services, for the purpose of: (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; or (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market. I suspect that 1 (a) and (b) could be a problem here.

Re:Good for Google

[argent]

I don't trust Pay Pal (and I've read many stories of people who have been done over by Pay Pal - there's an "Informative" comment (ie. rating 5) somewhere in this thread giving an example).

This is why I keep my paypal linked to a bank account that only ever has minimum balance in it.

Re:Good for Google

[Dan541]

PayPal is my preferred payment system because its fast and secure,
but when I'm selling I want to offer people alternatives and ebay shoulden't have a say over how payments are done, thats between me and my customers.

I support Google's submission to the ACCC.

Everyone is mad at eBay

[AmigaMMC]

Big deal. I've been posting/reading regularly on the eBay forum and everyone is pi$$ed at eBay for Paypal, the feedback change, etc. So Google is pissed too... big deal, why shouldn't they be? Google has a goos payment system called Google Checkout that is more convenient than PayPal but eBay (owner of PayPal) won't allow its use. eBay (called GreedBay in the forums) is a monopoly and they're discussing even on stopping buyers from accepting money orders and checks making PayPal the only authorized funds handling system.

Paypal holding funds 21 days now?

[AmigaMMC]

This is traumatic. I'm already quite pi$$ed that every time I transfer money from my bank account to paypal it takes 3-5 business day for my founds to appear in my PP account even if the money is taken the very next day from my bank account (obviously they earn interest out of my money) and now they want to hold the sellers funds for 21 days? Outrageous! Why aren't there any decent laws in the US to protect consumers against greed corporations like this one? This stuff doesn't happen in the EU, I tell you that much. Follow the link for more info: http://forums.ebay.com/db1/thread.jspa?threadID=1000710887&tstart=0&mod=1212270911461

Re:Dirty rotten frame job!

[Kalriath]

Shut the fuck up Twitter. Even OpenOffice.org creates metadata. After all, it's a function of any useful word processor to do so, especially for a company that searches stuff for a living.

Only eBay makes real money on eBay

[sjbe]

It has been my experience that the only real way to make a profit on eBay is if you stole the item in the first place... Sadly that's probably close to true. Price levels on eBay are wholesale at best and often are down to liquidation levels. Sellers outnumber buyers and sellers have close to zero pricing power. If you have any sort of luxury goods which might have a margin the maker (think Gucci or Rolex) will have your auctions pulled even if the items are completely authentic with a fully documented paper trail. Furthermore there are so many thieves fencing stolen goods through eBay someone who acquires the same items honestly will be lucky to break even on them.

In my opinion the only ones making money on eBay IS eBay... and some thieves.

Re:Dirty rotten frame job!

[Macthorpe]

Word does not yet have direct to pdf printing. Shocking how archaic is is, isn't it? 2007 Microsoft Office Add-in: Microsoft Save as PDF or XPS

Yet another stupid lie from Twitter - shock horror indeed.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[mikael]

Thanks for that correction - I guess I must have used paypal.com to sign up, and so never got the Maestro option.

shroedinger's cat

[trdrstv]

It's presumed to be both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrodinger's_Cat

Why hasn't what you hope been done already?

[Mana Mana]

Because of the network effect.

Amazon tried, as well as Yahoo (years ago), to compete with ebay's business but you know what, although everyone griped, save the true Mom and Pop believers, and gripes to this day about Ebay's atrocious failings it is the commom people, you know the everyday peons, which think of Internet auction and Ebay as synonymous. AS though they are one and the same.

If I recollect Yahoo even made their offerings gratis, free. And they still did not make a dent.

Before you say, ja, mon, but Google is different, let me point out that Google Video could not compete with the Youtube (and they tried and tried), and as a consequence Google threw money at the Youtube founders. That network effect again, or the bandwagon effect, as wikipedia alternatively calls it.

Let's hope you are right, that Google competes for Ebay's profitable "auction" business. And consequently brings some responsiveness to that field. I have see my gf during the Teenie Baby craze use Ebay regularly, I never have, thankfully, but just my attemtps over the yearS(!) to peruse their wares left me, still leaves me flabbergasted at how shitty they are!

Anyhow, real competition to Ebay apparatenly comes from Craigslist, so the newspapers say and fear, and strategize to subvert. Try they do. Maybe Craigslist will be the antidote. Or auction.google.com. Nah! Never! The states regulate the auction business, that is why Ebay never refers about itself with the term auction. Auctioneers have to meet a lot of governmental regulation. Only lazy newspaper writers, and/or recently assigned to the beat, use that term so readily near Ebay, Inc.

Man, all this has been discussed over the years on the /. ^.^

Google: Microsoft Circa 1998

[notaprguy]

It's becoming increasingly interesting and funny to watch as google tries to adjust to success in search. They've got one hell of a business in search...not much else yet but search alone is enough to make them one of the most profitable companies in the world. The result is that people are watching them, just as people started watching Microsoft very closely in the mid 90's when they had unparalleled success. Although this little tiff isn't a huge deal in my opinion, it's symbolic of what they can expect for years to come. Honeymoon finally over?

Buyers versus sellers

[sjbe]

I'm not saying I'm a big fan of PayPal or eBay, but changing the feedback stuff was pretty legitimate. A lot (most?) sellers wouldn't leave feedback for the buyer until the buyer left positive feedback for them. And? Nothing good comes to a seller by leaving feedback. Leaving positive feedback does not result in repeat business, it takes time from their day, and if the feedback is anything other than positive it always results in retaliation. Taking retaliatory feedback away from sellers simply tilts the equation even more towards buyers. Buyers can now leave undeserved negative feedback with impunity. Sometimes the seller deserves a negative but just as often so does the buyer.

There is *a lot* more risk to the buyer than there is to the seller on eBay. Hogwash. If a buyer pays with PayPal and they want their money back they'll get it almost every time. Read eBay's policies someday. You'll find they are definitely tilted in favor of the buyers.

It would be much easier to scam a buyer than it would be to scam a seller. I've conducted over 10,000 auctions and I can say with authority you could not be more wrong. Want to know how? Buy something and pay with PayPal, receive it, open a PayPal dispute claiming the item was not as described, send back an empty box or send the item back damaged and when PayPal gets confirmation of a return shipment they will give the buyer his money back. Seller is out shipping, the item as well as the cost of the item and their time to conduct the auction.

Doesn't work for sellers because even if they send an empty box, the buyer can just ship an empty box right back and get a refund if they paid with PayPal and PayPal will provide buyer protection up to a certain dollar value.

Re:Buyers versus sellers

[dangitman]

Taking retaliatory feedback away from sellers simply tilts the equation even more towards buyers.

What the fuck? eBay has never been favorable to buyers. It has always been tilted in favor of sellers, to a ridiculous degree.

If a buyer pays with PayPal and they want their money back they'll get it almost every time.

So, what if they don't pay with PayPal, huh?

Re:Buyers versus sellers

[sjbe]

What the fuck? eBay has never been favorable to buyers. It has always been tilted in favor of sellers, to a ridiculous degree. And your evidence is what? EBay's policies when followed, favor the buyer in the sense that they will almost always allow the buyer to get their money back - they are made whole in the legal sense. The seller is NOT made whole BY POLICY. At best the seller will be out their time and shipping fees. Are there crooked sellers? Absolutely. But there are least as many crooked buyers. Do you have ANY idea how many auctions are paid for with fake credit cards? Do you have any idea how often sellers get ripped off for shipping fees and get shipped back empty or damaged boxes? Clearly you don't.

So, what if they don't pay with PayPal, huh? Pay with a credit card and dispute the charges. Or use a credit card with PayPal, get PayPal to reverse the charges and then dispute it and get double your money back. Happens all the time even though it's illegal as hell.

Re:Buyers versus sellers

[dangitman]

The evidence is that the buyer has to risk sending their money, before receiving any goods. As a seller. you can check for fraudulent payments before sending the goods. And up until recently, you could withhold positive feedback, until you got it from the seller - even though you had successfully received the payment. This let sellers use the feedback system in very vindictive ways, even though it is the individual buyer who relies on that positive feedback more.

Anyway, sounds like your beef is more with Paypal than with eBay (although there is a fine line between the two). Paypal might tip the balance slightly back toward the buyer, but the balance was already tipped so far towards the seller, it's not funny. Sounds like you're just a bitter seller, and you can't see straight because of that bias.

Re:Buyers versus sellers

[sjbe]

The evidence is that the buyer has to risk sending their money, before receiving any goods. As a seller. you can check for fraudulent payments before sending the goods. EBay does NOT require the buyer to send money first. Never has and probably never will. You are perfectly welcome to sell something and then send it before payment. As a buyer you are also welcome to ask the seller to ship the item COD (some will) or even use an escrow service if the item is valuable enough to justify one.

Of course a seller would be a grade-A moron to ship an item before receiving payment since eBay CANNOT legally compel transfer of funds for payment. Which is why eBay gives such generous refund terms (which through PayPal they CAN compel) and recommends against sending hard to recover payment methods such as money orders. That's not eBay favoring sellers, that's sellers not being retarded. Why don't you go and ask Amazon or Wal*Mart to give you something before paying sometime. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige you. Only a retard would imply that eBay sellers are favored because they don't behave like complete fools.

As for checking for fraudulent payments, there is no way for eBay sellers to check for a stolen credit card. Sellers just have to hope the credit card company finds out and cancels it before payment occurs. If you accept that form of payment (through PayPal or directly) as a vendor you will have a hard time recovering your money from fraudulent transactions. Happened to me numerous times.

This let sellers use the feedback system in very vindictive ways, even though it is the individual buyer who relies on that positive feedback more. Get a clue. Sellers are HIGHLY protective of their feedback ratings for some very good reasons. A low positive rating directly affects how much they get for their auctions and can even get them kicked out of the power seller program or off eBay. Worst thing that happens to a buyer from negative feedback is that they might be looked at more carefully when buying high priced stuff which they should damn well expect. Only the retarded ones get kicked off due to too many negative feedbacks.

Anyway, sounds like your beef is more with Paypal than with eBay (although there is a fine line between the two). I have no beef with either and continue to use both services to this day. I'm simply extremely well aware of the flaws in the service and no longer sell on eBay because the economics of it don't work. Furthermore there is NO line between the two since PayPal is a wholly owned subsidiary of eBay. Furthermore well over 90% of payments for items sold on eBay come through PayPal. Sellers who don't use it won't sell much on eBay. The two are inextricably linked so PayPal policies effectively ARE eBay policies and vice-versa when selling on eBay.

Re:Buyers versus sellers

[dangitman]

That's not eBay favoring sellers, that's sellers not being retarded. Why don't you go and ask Amazon or Wal*Mart to give you something before paying sometime. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige you.

Right, and who would be so stupid to think that the stakes are not geared towards the seller in the case of Amazon or Wal*Mart? Just because things are tilted against the buyer everywhere else, doesn't mean they aren't also tilted against the buyer on eBay. It's just that with eBay, things are even more tilted against the buyer than usual.

Get a clue. Sellers are HIGHLY protective of their feedback ratings for some very good reasons. A low positive rating directly affects how much they get for their auctions and can even get them kicked out of the power seller program or off eBay. Worst thing that happens to a buyer from negative feedback is that they might be looked at more carefully when buying high priced stuff which they should damn well expect

But typical individual buyers have feedback numbers under 100. Any medium-sized seller has potentially thousands of points of feedback. So negative feedback hurts the typical buyer more than the typical seller. And waiting until the buyer leave positive feedback, even though the transaction was good, is just underhanded and spiteful. The way sellers were using the feedback system was outrageous, which is why I suspect that eBay removed the ability to give negative feedback on buyers. If the sellers hadn't totally abused that system, then maybe you would still have that capacity?

Re:Buyers versus sellers

[sjbe]

Right, and who would be so stupid to think that the stakes are not geared towards the seller in the case of Amazon or Wal*Mart? Both sell commodity items for barely profitable margins because buyers can easily go elsewhere for anything they sell. So in order to attract customers they have to drive prices down as far as possible which pretty much only benefits those who buy from them. Yeah, Wal*Mart really have buyers over a barrel. Please...

Just because things are tilted against the buyer everywhere else, doesn't mean they aren't also tilted against the buyer on eBay. It's just that with eBay, things are even more tilted against the buyer than usual. eBay is a marketplace where items sell for wholesale at best to liquidation prices. That means that buyers have the advantage in pricing power which is usually the most reliable indicator of who has the upper hand in the transaction. Furthermore eBay offers sellers NO volume discounts, has pathetic and illogical security allowing countless items to be fenced through their site, through PayPal enforces allows returns for anything for any reason, lets manufacturers pull auctions of branded items being legally sold at will, raises sellers rates every 6 months like clockwork (which is where eBay really makes their money), plus takes away defense mechanisms like negative feedback.

Your counter argument is that buyers usually send money first so they are being screwed even though they can almost always get it back if they use PayPal which most of them do. I'm done with this discussion as it's clear you have no experience and certainly no credible arguments.

But typical individual buyers have feedback numbers under 100. So what? There are NO meaningful consequences to a single negative feedback for a buyer unless they have essentially zero feedback. Plus when sellers have less than 100 feedbacks (and ALL of then do/did at one point) they get threatened constantly and there ARE serious consequences for sellers. That's a useless argument and a perfect example of how eBay's feedback system is flawed and nearly useless.

The way sellers were using the feedback system was outrageous Buyers behave no better and abuse feedback every bit as much. The answer is to really change the feedback system to something useful, not unbalance it against the sellers.

Go try to sell some stuff on eBay. Seriously. Go conduct 100 auctions with something that has some real value. Then come back and we can have this discussion. Until then you are simply trolling about things you don't understand and haven't experienced.

Barriers to entry

[sjbe]

"Our competition has a huge head start", sucks, but it's not a barrier to entry. Uhh yeah actually it certainly can be a barrier to entry. Please study learning curves and Porter's Five Forces before you say something so absurd again.

A barrier to entry is something like "It costs millions of dollars to launch a satelite" or "The equipment costs $50000". Capital requirements are just one of many possible barriers to entry and not necessarily the most important one. Plus in eBay's case the relevant barrier is network effects, the same thing that gave Microsoft their monopoly.

Alternatives

[Jesus IS the Devil]

What people have to realize is that rather than just talk, we need to start taking action in moving away from ebay, even if it's only one bit at a time.

One way is to separate out your reputation/feedback from any one shopping system. vBuddy.com/netputation is one such site. Your reputation is linked to your email address, meaning you can now use it anywhere. For instance, if you buy something from someone using an online forum, you can check the buyer's reputation by searching for their email address on vBuddy.com.

Then you can request that they put their reputation on the line by creating a feedback transaction through vbuddy. The seller gets an email requesting approval. Once they approve, the transaction feedback request is authenticated and starts. From this moment on both parties can start leaving feedback for each other. So, if they screw up, everyone will know.

It's time to take back control.

Competeing with...

[Burning1]

I can start a phone company as well. I'll string some wires together with my neighbors, and call it pac-burning1. We will be competitive with Version. The point I'm trying to make is that building an online auction website and competing with E-bay are very different things.

Why are they not using Google Docs?

[pancakegeels]

If you are going to be submitting such things... I suppose it is possible the government types have converted it.

Google: Microprose Circa 1993

[ginbot462]

MS: Circa 1998? This is slashdot ... most people here have a genetic tendency to hate them from birth. For me it was around when Win95 came out, I finally had the magic combination memory manager and sound card drivers (why did those damn things never work) where almost everything I had worked. The new shit, Win95, just wasn't "Plug and Play" like they said (not that I was naive enough to believe their hype). Of course dosbox works better than DOS did back then (6.2 not 6.22, that removed some disk compression due to copyright infringement if I remember).

offtopic -1. Old MS ramblings +3.