PayPal's 'Policy Update' Includes Price Hikes (paypal.com)

"Buying and selling items on the internet is about to get a bit more expensive if you use PayPal to transfer money," reports MLive, noting that some of PayPal's fees will be increasing on March 29. Slashdot reader turbotalon also complains PayPal is disguising news of the price hikes as a "policy update". Roughly one quarter of the "policy changes" are rate hikes, yet their emailed summary glosses over the rate hike, focussing instead on a few of the "policy changes" with one sentence at the end about "changing some of the fees we charge". Additionally, they have added a "non-discouragement clause" for sellers that provides:

"In representations to your customers or in public communications, you agree not to mischaracterize PayPal as a payment method. At all of your points of sale (in whatever form), you agree not to try to dissuade or inhibit your customers from using PayPal; and, if you enable your customers to pay you with PayPal, you agree to treat PayPal's payment mark at least at par with other payment methods offered."

Comments

Not use it?

[sp4ni3l]

You could of course choose not to use it. This is a playing field with enough alternatives.

Re:Not use it?

[WD]

Do you have any suggestions for such alternatives?

Re: Not use it?

[mmell]

Uh, credit card? Debit card?

Re:Not use it?

[sp4ni3l]

http://tech.co/top-15-alternat... Just to name a few on top of normal creditcards?

Re: Not use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

He is mainly talking about sellers. Getting a CC authority is expensive and hard for many.

On the buyer side there are benefits to not splashing your CC details to people on the net who may or may not store it and then get hacked.

Re: Not use it?

[MoarSauce123]

How many private sellers or buyers can process credit cards? I can't! Please provide practical alternatives!

Re:Not use it?

[silas_moeckel]

It's a really cheap bank transfer method at 50c a transaction under 10k and none of the complexities of setting up an outbound ACH.

Re: Not use it?

[Traxton]

In Sweden, we have something called "Swish". All transactions are done on your smart phone using the sellers mobile phone number. Both buyer and seller has configured which bank account the money gets transferred to and from. Only thing that gets shared is your phone number. The service is 100% free for both buyer and seller. This has replaced paypal and cash in almost all transactions (Sweden is estimated to be 97% cash free).

Re: Not use it?

[corychristison]

If you have an online presence and sell products/services I highly recommend Stripe.

Re: Not use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sweden is estimated to be 97% fully surveilled and controlled.

FTFY.

Re: Not use it?

[ShanghaiBill]

Uh, credit card? Debit card?

1. Credit/debit cards cannot be used for peer-to-peer transactions.
2. Credit/debit cards require trust. How do I know that some random website isn't going to resell my CC info to criminals? Or charge additional fees to my card without my approval? Or store my info unencrypted on their insecure server? None of these are issues with Paypal.

Re: Not use it?

[arth1]

Sweden, like most of Europe has a payer initiated system. USA doesn't. Here, all transfers are started by the receiving side (payee), and then the payer (or bank or credit institution on behalf of the sender) have to approve it.
So a giro system isn't possible, and bank account numbers becomes private information to be guarded.

Yes, it's pretty damn backwards. Hell, a large portion of Americans still pay by cheque. And credit and debit cards still have a magnetic strip. Even those that have a chip still have the magnetic strip. And raised letters. As late as last year, I paid in a store where they rolled carbon paper over the card to get an imprint. No, I'm not kidding.
The bank I use (one of America's largest) doesn't even have two-factor authentication for its online banking, something my European bank had back in '98.

It's by far the most antiquated banking system I have encountered anywhere in the world, yet Americans believe they're the most advanced nation on the planet...
To Americans, PayPal seems like a miracle of convenience...

Re:Not use it?

[Overzeetop]

Square
Stripe
BluePay

Re: Not use it?

[SydShamino]

Need to update your partisan copypastas dude. The Obama administration doesn't like or dislike anything.

Re: Not use it?

[mmell]

Square?

Re: Not use it?

[LVSlushdat]

In case you hadn't noticed, Obama is no longer in office... Just thought I'd mention it since you seem to have been under a rock for the last few months...

Re: Not use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe 'murkin doesn't want secure, they want convenience. convenience made 'murika great. security is for suckers.

Re:Not use it?

[darkain]

http://authorize.net/

Re: Not use it?

[ArchieBunker]

Can you show me to how only take credit card payments on eBay? I remember when you were allowed to send money orders! When Google came out with their payment system eBay started cancelling auctions who used it and then they bought PayPal.

Re: Not use it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's by far the most antiquated banking system I have encountered anywhere in the world, yet Americans believe they're the most advanced nation on the planet...
To Americans, PayPal seems like a miracle of convenience...

There are actually quite a few of us that understand this is purely a matter of greed. US banks will continue to refuse to implement ANY kind of additional security, unless required to by law, because they claim it will cost them millions of dollars that is better spent giving their chief executives huge unearned bonuses. This is the exact excuse they used when they refuse to implement chip & PIN on credit cards, like most of Europe uses. Now I hear that Trump wants to get rid of the Dodd-Frank law, which requires investment bankers to put their clients first instead of their own pocketbooks. Believe me, the US banking system desperately needs MORE regulation, not less.

Re:Not use it?

[mysidia]

Bitcoin?

Re: Not use it?

[rworne]

Be a Luddite and use US postal money orders.

Back before PayPal was merged with eBay and CC use became common, I used this method. Only drawback is that it's slower.

Buyer sends M.O., When it arrives, go to the P.O. to mail the item. Cash the M.O. and pay the postage. If the M.O. is bad or counterfeit, you know right then before your item leaves your hands.

What's in it for the buyer? Proof of payment. Besides, using the P.O. for fraud is a bad idea (for either party).

Re: Not use it?

[Crashmarik]

No it's not that hard to do. Matter of fact the last version of quickbooks I was using let you set it up from within the program

https://search2.quickbooks.com...

Re:Not use it?

[jenningsthecat]

Unless you use ebay. That is the only reason I bother with PP.

The only reason I don't bother with eBay is that, except for the occasional seller set up to take debit or credit cards, the only way to pay is with PayPal. I simply refuse to do that. Ever. Because of PayPal, eBay is dead to me.

Re: Not use it?

[bn-7bc]

Let me se if I have this right: if petson A wants to send person b (both live in the us) person a must tell person b (via bs bank) to request a trensfer from person as accont in oeson as bank.. bacwards indeed, i hope i misunderstood something

Re: Not use it?

[fermion]

PayPal provides a level of security when paying an unknown party. It is like using a terminal instead of giving the credit card to a stranger to run.if costs get too high, many people are going to choose amazon instead of eBay.

Re: Not use it?

[BlueStrat]

Need to update your partisan copypastas dude. The Obama administration doesn't like or dislike anything.

Apparently the Obama administration did like it when they created 'Operation Chokepoint'. And whine to the Wiki curators not me, that quote was directly from the Wiki entry.

And BTW, I didn't vote for Trump.

Strat

Re: Not use it?

[OrangeTide]

The less advanced your banking system, the more enlightened you are.

Re: Not use it?

[arth1]

Let me se if I have this right: if petson A wants to send person b (both live in the us) person a must tell person b (via bs bank) to request a trensfer from person as accont in oeson as bank.. bacwards indeed, i hope i misunderstood something

No, that's pretty much it. That's often done by sending the recipient a cheque, which the recipient takes to his bank, and the bank contacts the sender's bank to get the money. That might take a week. It can be speeded up by buying a money order, which is basically a bank cheque. Then the "clearing" time is less.

For my fellow Americans: How it works in most of the world is that when A wants to pay B, he asks for and gets B's account number, and instructs his bank to deposit the funds into that account. B gets full access to the money within seconds.
For private accounts, there's usually no charge either, on either side.
For recurring payments, you don't authorize the payee to withdraw from your account, but set up a recurring payment job with your own bank. You control when it gets paid.

Re: Not use it?

[tlhIngan]

Be a Luddite and use US postal money orders.

Back before PayPal was merged with eBay and CC use became common, I used this method. Only drawback is that it's slower.

Buyer sends M.O., When it arrives, go to the P.O. to mail the item. Cash the M.O. and pay the postage. If the M.O. is bad or counterfeit, you know right then before your item leaves your hands.

What's in it for the buyer? Proof of payment. Besides, using the P.O. for fraud is a bad idea (for either party).

Yeah, and that really adds a lot of friction to the whole "e-commerce" thing.

First off, the buyer now has to go to a post office and get the money order, line up, and then send off the letter. It then has to arrive at the seller's mailbox. That can easily be two weeks for domestic (assuming the buyer has to make a special trip to the post office, so they'll do it on a convenient day which may be a week later). And if it gets lost, it can easily be more weeks.

Second, having to go out to do the transaction, versus just keying in your credit card number and paying while sitting at the computer. That itself can mean if you're a seller that buyers will move on to someone more convenient, or for eBay transactions, buyers will factor in their inconvenience into the bids, making lower bids.

There's a reason Paypal is the way they are - they know they remove a lot of friction between two parties paying each other on the Internet.

eBay owning Paypal made a lot of sense, since eBay has a lot of random two parties transacting. Money orders can easily take a month or more - sellers often demand payment within 3 days of auction ending because of high volumes. If they had to deal with money orders, that easily means a buyer can delay payment for weeks (even if a letter is lost, the post office may demand 3 or more weeks to elapse before declaring it lost and suggesting you resend).

Yeah, a seller won't be willing to wait for months for payment, and yet, a buyer can easily take that long if unlucky.

Re: Not use it?

[animaal]

I'm not an economist, but I would have thought a cashless society makes little difference to the level of government control. Cash is controlled by the government anyway - they can:

- outlaw/withdraw certain denominations (see India, Venuzuela)
- change the format of the notes/coins, forcing everybody to swap them for new ones
- change currency entirely, although this is normally done for reasons other than controlling a black market (new/old UK pound, Euro)
- Flood the market with newly minted currency, devaluing the existing currency

At the end of the day, the best way to take wealth away from prying government control is to buy physical goods that maintain value pretty well in the long term. Maybe gold, although I don't know how practical that is for most people.

Re: Not use it?

[thejynxed]

I don't know anyone who still uses eBay for anything over choosing Amazon for buying and selling already.

Re: Not use it?

[mrclevesque]

"Apparently the Obama administration did like it when they created 'Operation Chokepoint'"

Sadly it's just as much a republican thing too

Re: Not use it?

[BlueStrat]

Sadly it's just as much a republican thing too

'citation needed'

AFAIK this was totally a Democrat thing. They were targeting (heh) perfectly-legal gun stores, after all. Don't know of many (R)'s who would favor the government attacking gun stores.

Strat

Re: Not use it?

[mrclevesque]

Making rules to bypass current law while hoping the rules won't be challenged is a republican thing too. Eventually the rule usually gets changed but in the mean time they got their way.

Re: Not use it?

[BlueStrat]

So you concede my point.

Thank you.

Strat

Re:Not use it?

[TRRosen]

Of course all the alternatives have the same terms. its just standard fare for financial transactions.

Re: Not use it?

[lsatenstein]

Idiot.

He is mainly talking about sellers. Getting a CC authority is expensive and hard for many.

On the buyer side there are benefits to not splashing your CC details to people on the net who may or may not store it and then get hacked.

Paypal is a print money organization. Their inventory is equity. Ten years ago, the average item sold on Ebay or equivalent financial transaction was half of what it is today. So costs to purchase since even 5 years ago doubled, and paypal earns double the money for no greater risk. Now add higher rates. Shame

I guess bitcoin will come along and make paypal obsolete. I certainly think that with paypal greed, it will happen sooner, rather than later.

Re: Not use it?

[mrclevesque]

I was acknowledging your point and adding to it, and your welcome too.

Re:Not use it?

[doccus]

Do you have any suggestions for such alternatives?

Er...I've heard there's some german system.. name escapes me.. And some other american system.. name escapes me, as well. I think I've made my point...
Most vendors only offer PP anyways, so the whole "policy update" appears to me to be, in addition to a rate update, a "talk nicely about usor you're gonna be TOAST!"

Re: Not use it?

[tepples]

Last I checked, Amazon didn't allow sellers to list used products in a lot of categories, such as used toys. (source) This leaves eBay for toy collectors.

Re: Not use it?

[arth1]

Most antiquated? Maybe in the developed world, not in the world as a whole. Spend some time in developing countries and you'll see that your statement is more than a little hyperbolic.

I have, and the situation is that most developing countries have more modern banking systems than the US does. They have moved past cheques, for example, and have systems allowing direct credit to other people's accounts.
I think it's you who are unaware of how the rest of the world (including developing countries) has pulled ahead of the US in some areas.

Re: Not use it?

[arth1]

1. Credit/debit cards cannot be used for peer-to-peer transactions.

Not entirely true. Some ATMs allow using a debit card to do a giro transfer, for immediate deposit to the payee's account.
If you don't have your 2-factor authentication for doing it online, it saves you and the teller from having to do it inside a bank branch.

Re: Not use it?

[ZorroXXX]

I'm not an economist, but I would have thought a cashless society makes little difference to the level of government control. Cash is controlled by the government anyway -

But the economics is besides the point. If for instance the government of North Korea had the possibility to track all economic transactions between all the people in the country because they were digital, do you think that would lead to fewer or more arrests of political dissents? If the economy in North Korea was cashless, do you think that would lead to fewer or more cases of torture? Killings? Would it be possible for a group of political dissents to meet each other on a weekend if it were impossible to move anywhere without leaving traces like everyone buying bus/train tickets to the same place, etc?

And while it is easy to pick on North Korea as a worst in class example, something far away, it is worth considering what the effects might be in countries that like to consider themselves best in class with regards to democracy and freedom for its citizens. Imagine if you suddenly without your knowledge are placed on a no-fly list because you have bought a few things from a country that the government has deemed evil, terrorist, communist or some other fashionable witch hunt term. Or perhaps you just have bought something from somebody else that have traded with those countries. This is just what might already happen today. The important thing is to imagine the potential for abuse and then make sure that there always is a non-digital alternative available.

Is it a payment method or isn't it?

[dgatwood]

... you agree not to mischaracterize PayPal as a payment method. ... you agree to treat PayPal's payment mark at least at par with other payment methods offered.

So it is a mischaracterization for us to call it a payment method, but PayPal calls it a payment method. More to the point, if it isn't a payment method—a means of transferring money to someone in exchange for goods or services—then what the heck is it and why would anybody want to use it?

Somehow, this contract seems invalid to me, or at least guaranteed to reduce PayPal use significantly by preventing it from being characterized in any meaningful way.

Re:Is it a payment method or isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could be wrong but I got the impression that this sentence is meant to say something like "you agree not to mischaracterize Paypal's quality as a payment method" and it's just poorly worded.

Re:Is it a payment method or isn't it?

[Blue Stone]

They mean, don't mischaracterise Paypal, not that calling it a payment method is a mischaracterisation.

I think they just don't want you to say Paypal is shit and doesn't do this or that, or gives the seller some disadvantage. I guess even if those things are true, they're claiming it as 'mischaracterisation'.

Re:Is it a payment method or isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

but payypal is shit and calling it shit would not be a mis-characterization.

Bitcoin? Ether?

[WoodburyMan]

Sounds like all the more reason to switch over to payment in either Bitcoin or Either. Bitcoin first, however Either is generalized as more business friendly, with contracts and such being allowed. Dell, NewEgg, Overstock, and several other online vendors use it as a zero-cost alternative already for digital transactions. No PayPal fees, no credit card processing fees. Digital cash. Also works great for sending people money.

PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[pubwvj]

I actively discourage customers from using PayPal because PayPal costs me money. I will continue to do so for this reason - it's truth. I pay no fee for receiving cash or checks, PayPal sometimes withholds funds, delays payments, makes life generally difficult and is insecure for me as the seller. When PayPal is on par with cash or a check, costing me nothing more and being just as secure for me the seller then I'll treat PayPal the same.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[Overzeetop]

All forms of payment cost money. Ever tried to deposit $50k at a national bank account? Fee. Have more than X number of checks per month. Fee.

CC fees are more, no doubt. BUT, for the consumer, having an intermediary like a CC is an enormous level should anything go wrong with the transaction. It's almost a mini-escow transaction, but where the buyer has an unfair advantage in the initial mediation - aka a chargeback. If it's a transaction worth more than $100 or so, there is almost no way I'll be paying with cash, except where it's a service or good covered by some other means of protection. You may be a great vendor, just as I think I'm also a great vendor (and I grudgingly take CC, too), but there are way too many shysters out there these days.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[Mandrel]

With these new conditions, if you still dissuade your customers from using PayPal, you risk having PayPal cut you off.

In Australia, it's illegal for companies to ban reasonable surcharges, so PayPal can't stop vendors adding a surcharge to recoup the PayPal fees, to prevent PayPal cross-subsidising other payment methods. But elsewhere they can impose this sort of parity clause that Amazon is so famous for, using their muscle to gain immunity from fee hikes, and as a way to make all sellers pay for buyer protection.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

All forms of payment cost money. Ever tried to deposit $50k at a national bank account? Fee.

Bank Of America is a scumbag organization run by scumbags, but no, they won't charge me a fee for depositing $50k.

Call them yourself and ask them, "Is there a fee for depositing $50,000", and they'll confirm that they do not bill you for depositing money.

Foreign currency or wire transfers, maybe, but a US check for $50k or $50k in US cash will be accepted without a fee. It'll get you put on a watchlist, of course, but there's no fee for that either.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[pubwvj]

Only about 0.0001% of my customer invoices are >$10,000 and none have ever been $50,000 so your point is useless. When I bought large parcels of land I withdrew and deposited upwards of $80,000 and there were no fees. 98% of the checks are $1,000. I get charged nothing by my bank for depositing cash or checks. Perhaps you need to switch banks.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[pubwvj]

"you risk having PayPal cut you off."

Not a big deal. 99% of my business does not involve PayPal. Most customers pay with checks or cash. PayPal benefits more than I do from the transactions.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[pubwvj]

Yes, but that is not the point of the article. The point is about how things are for sellers.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[mysidia]

OK..... Assume I want to not use Paypal..... How can I transact on eBay as a seller without getting a Credit card merchant account?

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[mysidia]

I suggested don't "Dissuade" them from using PayPal.
Actively encourage an alternative method by providing the customer a financial incentive to use the method that is best for you as seller.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[Mandrel]

Are PayPal's fees well beyond your cost of handling checks or cash? Are you seeing an increased demand for card payments? I'd guess that card payments would be a much larger fraction of your business if your customers could just tap their card or phone rather than swipe/insert & enter-PIN/sign.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[Mandrel]

I'd say that PayPal's parity clause bans both PayPal surcharges as well as discounts for other payment methods such as cash. Same for the big card companies.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[SeaFox]

Yes, but that is not the point of the article. The point is about how things are for sellers.

What PayPal bring you is customers who might not be there otherwise. Many people are worried about their bank/credit account information falling into the wrong hands. The AC's response to you cuts both directions. PayPal gives them a way to pay you that they feel comfortable with. The absence of that option means they may choose to buy from someone else instead.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[nnull]

"All forms of payment cost money. Ever tried to deposit $50k at a national bank account? Fee. Have more than X number of checks per month. Fee."

Uhh, yes, all the time, I don't pay a fee to my bank for doing so. Unless you live in some crap country that does.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[pubwvj]

Most of my customers are wholesale. I give them an invoice and either they pay then COD (most restaurants do that) or they pay Net-15.

About 10% or so of my customers are retail and they pay a deposit, then the remainder due at delivery COD with a check or cash.

My cost of handling the cash and checks is trivial compared with the PayPal charges.

It used to be that there was a reasonable reason for the credit card company charges but now with everything so automated they should drop their fees to about 1/10th of what they're currently charging.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[pubwvj]

"Many people are worried about their bank/credit account information falling into the wrong hands."

Cash and checks eliminate that issue.

"The absence of that option means they may choose to buy from someone else instead."

Since I'm already selling at capacity that isn't an issue. Most of my sales are wholesale and they don't use credit cards or PayPal. Only a small percent use PP.

There is no particular reason for me to want to pay PayPal tens of thousands of dollars a year for what is not of value to me.

Re:PayPal is not as good as other payment methods

[Mandrel]

Direct bank account to bank account transfers are cheaper than cards, and are getting cheaper and quicker.

In Australia these are free, but currently take 12-48 hours (only on business days). Later this year an instant (and still free?) system is coming in.

I don't know whether ACH in the US is developing along the same lines, but it has the potential to kill off debit cards, especially if the card companies can no longer hide their fees from customers by banning vendor surcharges.

Re:Well, I'm covered then

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"In representations to your customers or in public communications, you agree not to mischaracterize PayPal as a payment method. At all of your points of sale (in whatever form), you agree not to try to dissuade or inhibit your customers from using PayPal; and, if you enable your customers to pay you with PayPal, you agree to treat PayPal's payment mark at least at par with other payment methods offered."

For something that's not a "payment method", they sure seem to bill themselves as a "payment method". They say it themselves: "if you enable your customers to pay you with PayPal..."

I mean, if I can pay for things using PayPal, is it not by definition a "payment method"? In what twisted-logic universe are they not a "payment method"?

Here's how you can tell if something is a "payment method"- you try and buy something with it and if you can, it's a "payment method".

:-P

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah well fuck potheads. drug dealing is still a federal crime. state govs are fucking stupid. when I read about pot sellers getting robbed, I cheer.

You sound like a wound-up, aggressive sort of guy. If only there were a substance that could help you chill out, man...

Ever heard of the "concurrence" ?

[Thanatiel]

Why would anyone pay more if there are several other, safe, ways to pay a shop?
Whenever I use a debit or a credit card, the transaction has to be authenticated with the bank using a small device.
PayPal will lose market share in Europe if it becomes more expensive.

Re:Well, I'm covered then

[mysidia]

Give your customers an equal choice of all forms of payment.
Note the percent transaction tax the merchant pays right beside each payment method offered.

At the very bottom, place a footnote: Buyers will receive a 3-X % store credit on purchases more than $10 with a payment processing tax less than %3.

Re: The only reason they can do this is rump

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah.. it's terrible now that:

1. National Security is a Priority
2. Enforcing immigration laws is a priority
3. Renegotiating crappy trade deals that killed American jobs is a priority
4. Getting companies to invest in the USA and hire American workers
5. Finding judges that will support the USA constitution
6. Cracking down on voter fraud.

It's just terrible how bad Trump is running the country.

As an illegal immigrant terrorist that doesn't want to work, I find Tump appalling. American owes me everything, just because.

But seriously, SNOWFLAKES, it is time to wake-up. The Democrats aren't your friend. Beyonce' isn't your friend. Madonna isn't your friend. You are sheep to be manipulated.

If they were your friends, they would have already helped you when the had control of congress and the Whitehouse.
 

Re:europe

[Proudrooster]

Believe it or not, Ebay and Paypal get a cut of postage fees. It didn't used to be that way, but now Ebay charges a fee for the total (item + shipping). Historically, Ebay used to just charge a final value fee on the item, but idiots started selling items for $.01 + $99 shipping thus the crackdown. So the sellers are just rolling the fee increase into shipping, but Ebay and Paypal are still profiting.

I think Ebay will slowly die as Amazon marches forward. Unfortunately, Amazon is usually more expensive than Paypal. Ebay on average gets 11% and Amazon is currently at 15%. Shoppers that blindly buy off of Amazon may be paying higher prices than on Ebay.

Re: The only reason they can do this is rump

[nukenerd]

This. rump has made our lives a living hell. It's just been theee weeks since he started ruling us, but I already want to die.

Please get on with it.

Re:europe

[Proudrooster]

Maybe you are correct, but Ebay is a hot shopping mess. Descriptions, categories, titles are a mess. Make a typo on Ebay and you won't find your stuff. Make a typo on Amazon and you still gfindet your stuff. Ebay is sloooow and requires critical thought to sort through inconsistent listings. Amazon has a faster website which takes you right to the lowest price and has Amazon Prime. Order on Ebay, get it in a week. Order on Amazon, get it in 2-days.

Amazon is neatly organized and the ease at which you can buy stuff is far superior to Ebay. Amazon reduces the friction to buy with one-click ordering and now their Alexa product. Need to do a return? Amazon gives your money back as soon as the item is scanned for return while returns can be painful.

Amazon lets people harvest local deals, stuff it in a 50lb. box, then send it to an Amazon fulfilment center where they handle inventory and shipping. If you are a good harvester, you barely have to touch the product. Using Ebay you have to harvest the products, store them, inventory them, and ship them.

Amazon is clearly continuing to innovate while Ebay lumbers along playing constant games with fees.

For full disclosure, I am an Ebay seller and investigating moving to Amazon.

Re:europe

[sims 2]

IME it's a little easier and a little harder selling on amazon vs ebay.
On amazon you have to be approved to post something as new. Some item categories you have to be approved to post in any condition it's not just art and stuff I was not allowed to resell a USB transfer cable that I bought on amazon.

On amazon you are required to have a photo with a white background so it blends in with the site but you aren't required to have a photo. On ebay they require a photo but you can take a blurry photo with your 0.5MP digital camera or a stock photo of some random unrelated product and be fine.

I haven't tried sending anything to amazon to let them fulfill an order yet so I don't know how that part works.

The very first item I sold on amazon was returned because their mail forwarding address had expired.
I was able to do a partial refund and return all but the shipping fee since USPS doesn't refund your money if they can't deliver still ended up being shorted about $0.10 due to the estimated shipping being very close to the actual shipping and amazon taking their fee out of it.

As for prices in my experience very small items are usually higher or not available on amazon also lots items are more likely to be found cheaper in lots on ebay than on amazon.

IME ebay is more WYSIWYG since sellers posting images of the actual item is still common where as on amazon you have 20+ sellers sharing a listing and not one has bothered to post a picture of what they are selling or made any remarks about its condition.

If you are going to post any type of food on amazon please put the date on the tin in the listing.

Paypal dying?

[roman_mir]

Just a couple of days ago I bought something on eBay and had to pay 520USD. To my surprise the system demanded that I had to contact PayPal customer support. Amazingly enough I was able to get through the maze of call answering menus and eventually had a human on the phone. She asked me to confirm the visa number (interestingly enough it seems they have the access to the unencrypted visa numbers) and eventually said I had to log out, log back in and try again. This time the transaction went through. I asked her what this was all about, she replied that they have to confirm large transactions ?????????? (520usd is a 'large transaction'???????) to avoid fraud. Immediately I thought that PayPal is in trouble. If they have to confirm transactions of that type and amount by hand, it seems to me their transaction costs have to grow significantly and they will become uncompetitive compared to visa and such. Seems to me PayPal is dying.

Looks like price hikes are for non-US buyers

[ET3D]

Currency conversion and higher seller fees for selling outside the US. Getting with the Trump in crowd?

Re:Well, I'm covered then

[nnull]

I had a new client that wasn't in my system and didn't have a method to pay me to have an order proceed. He decided that he could use paypal to pay me. I reluctantly agreed to help the guy out, boy was that a mistake. First, the transaction fees were absurd. Second, the guy had to pay me at increments because paypal has a limit and third the amount of time it took to get the money OUT of paypal was absolutely horrible. You have to wait a few weeks before you can even touch your money and then to transfer it out of paypal was another two weeks of BS that made my accountants life miserable. Paypal instantly treats you as a person with criminal intent for new accounts and only allows you to transfer $1000 at a time.

Would I use paypal again? Nope. 99% of my clients pay me with wire transfers or checks. Unless paypal can offer better services for people that move large amounts of money, they're completely useless to me and don't offer anything for me of any value.

Re:WTF is a "payment mark"?

[tepples]

Other examples of "payment marks" include the logos of Visa, MasterCard, American Express, and Discover.

Re: The only reason they can do this is rump

[tepples]

As written, [the US Constitution] clearly states that immigration law and blocking the migration or importation of people is a power of Congress

But enforcing said laws is the executive's job, within the budget allotted by Congress.