Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Launches Subscription-Based Billing And Payments Service

Posted by samzenpus on from the time-to-pay dept.

mpicpp (3454017) writes in with news about Amazon's new payments service. "The company launched a service Monday known as Amazon Payments that allows consumers to use their Amazon accounts to send and receive money and shop online at 'thousands of sites other than Amazon.' It's accessible on both desktops and mobile devices. For businesses, Amazon is selling the service as a way to take advantage of its security and user data while saving time for new customers. There's no recurring fee for retailers to use the platform, though Amazon plans to take a standard cut of 2.9% from those businesses, plus $0.30 for each transaction of $10 or more. With more than 244 million active customer accounts, Amazon already has a massive base of potential users for the service. The effort represents a new front in its assault on eBay, which owns online payments service PayPal."

21 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. OLD news by santajon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Amazon payments launched in 2007. I've had an account with the service for at least 5 years.

    1. Re:OLD news by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Indeed. I just renewed my Schedules Direct account for my MythTV system using Amazon Payments.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:OLD news by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      Same here. I've paid for things from non-Amazon sites using Amazon as a payment type for years. Just like Paypal, it saves reentering shipping, billing and payment details. Also keeps the credit card number out of the end merchant's hands.

    3. Re:OLD news by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Informative

      For sure. The news is actually just they added recurring payments.

      I tend towards using "epay USA" for my clients because they're the only one that offers the complete package; card present, card not present, mail order, recurring, etc.

      Since there is only one API so far that supports everything, it is common to have to spend a bunch of money switching payment providers, just to add features to a product, or worse, some of my point-of-sale customers have to have different payment processors for online and in-person sales.

      So I agree the feature is an important addition. But not important to most people, and not a new "service."

  2. Re:Let the Patent War Begin by just_another_sean · · Score: 2

    Well, I'll make the popcorn, you pick up some beer!

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  3. Re:On the heels of the recent eBay data breach... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

    It exists. It's called a credit card, underwritten by a real bank, which will adhere to actual banking laws instead of "whatever we decide we want to do", and actually have some stake in fraud prevention.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  4. Re:On the heels of the recent eBay data breach... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

    a real bank, which will adhere to actual banking laws instead of "whatever we decide we want to do", and actually have some stake in fraud prevention.

    Snicker. Snicker. Oh, stop. Stop! Oh, hahahahahaha!

  5. 2.9% + $0.3 by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

    >2.9% + $0.3

    Nothing to see here. Until someone starts offering a flat fee for payment processing somewhere close to cost of the transaction, which is microscopic, this is offering nothing that can't be done with existing credit card processing options.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:2.9% + $0.3 by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

      Nobody will offer a flat fee because credit card networks dont offer a flat fee. They're not going to pay out to Visa/Novus/etc just so shoppers can have cheaper payments.

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    2. Re:2.9% + $0.3 by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      The 'real costs' of any single transaction are no more that a few pennies. More importantly, the cost of servicing the transaction does not increase with the size of the transaction. So taking a percentage is wrong.

      2.9% of a $1000 transaction is theft.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  6. Re:Why isn't there competition on fees? by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

    Because that's standard credit card fees. There's really no room to cut fees without paying out.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  7. Re:On the heels of the recent eBay data breach... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    It exists. It's called a credit card, underwritten by a real bank, which will adhere to actual banking laws instead of "whatever we decide we want to do" (emphasis mine)

    PayPal has been a very bad player in this area, apparently closing accounts on a whim, locking up the monies in those accounts, etc., etc., etc.

    .
    For that reason, I've never given PayPal direct access to my bank accounts, in spite of PayPal's constant hounding to do so.

    PayPal just has not been behaving well in this space. For me, PayPal is a payment service of last resort, not of first choice.

  8. Re:On the heels of the recent eBay data breach... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I much prefer to allow a trusted third party

    If you consider PayPal a trusted third party ... well, good luck with that. I sincerely hope it works out well for you.

    Me, I consider PayPal to be about as trustworthy as your average meth head, and wouldn't let them near my money on the best of days.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. why there is no competition by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's two reasons

    first Visa and MC both require merchants not to charge extra fro using their card. Thus there's no reason for consumers not to use the most widely accepted cards.

    second, even though Visa is a franchise of issuers, the master company avoids putting them in competition.

    Thus there's just no easy way for competition to breakout since merchants don't want to just restrict their sales to AMEX holders anymore.

    It's also likely it's an illegal price fixed cartel but I don't have any evidence for that.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:why there is no competition by datavirtue · · Score: 2

      It is common for merchants to give discounts for cash however.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    2. Re:why there is no competition by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 3, Interesting

      first Visa and MC both require merchants not to charge extra fro using their card. Thus there's no reason for consumers not to use the most widely accepted cards.

      Nope. Not anymore.

      Briefly (if you don't want to read the link), as a result of a major 2012 settlement with Visa and Mastercard, merchants ARE now allowed to charge fees for credit cards. (There are still restrictions on how exactly this is done; a good summary is here.)

      Some states have restricted this practice significantly, most commonly requiring that POSTED prices for goods be the higher price, and thus only allowing a "cash discount" rather than an extra "fee" for using credit cards.

      I've bought items at two places just in the past couple days that have dual pricing: a gas station and a liquor store. In one case, the advantage of cash pricing far outweighs any credit card bonus point advantage I could get.

  10. Google Wallet processes by tepples · · Score: 2

    I was under the impression that Google Wallet for physical goods required the merchant to already have a merchant account with a non-Google payment processor. See "keep your existing payment processor" on this page.

  11. Re:We could definitely use alternatives to paypal by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

    Google and Amazon (despite what the summary incorrectly states) have had online payment systems for years. Those are just the 500 lb gorillas, there's literally dozens of other providers, none of which have managed to gain much traction.

    Personally I avoid paypal like the plague, too many horror stories. But then, I've never had reason to argue with Google Wallet or Amazon Payments, so maybe resolving conflicts would be just as much hassle with than as with paypal, I couldn't even say.

  12. Another one for no Canadian by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    option. Pay Pal is it then once again.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  13. Re:Let the Patent War Begin by Richy_T · · Score: 2

    If I had mod points, you'd be down 1 for not doing that in Yoda voice.

  14. Re:Why isn't there competition on fees? by alen · · Score: 2

    one time a long time ago wal mart tried to buy a bank to handle their own CC transactions and it was killed by the powers that be because they dared lower the cost to their customers