Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yahoo Shuts Down Their PayPal Competitor

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    But they were using BidPay, so Yahoo will never see the money now.
  • by Power Everywhere (778645) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:25PM (#10614628) Homepage
    PayPal should do that if they'd like to pick up some more customers. Yahoo should so that since they're nigging out on people.
  • by bastardsquadmuzz (573762) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:26PM (#10614629) Homepage
    ...the American public cry out that the Dollar is a monopoly, and that Pounds and Yen should be allowed as well.
  • by stankulp (69949) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:26PM (#10614632) Homepage
    ...the need for PayPal, other than as a means for vendors that VISA/MC won't have to sell things to customers in a manner that prevents those customers from having any recourse for fraud and defective merchandise.


    If a company won't take my credit card, I don't purchase their merchandise, period.

    • by DoorFrame (22108) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:29PM (#10614640) Homepage
      Paypal is a hell of lot faster and easier than using credit cards. Also, as someone who sells things on eBay on a regular basis, it allows me to accept payments both from paypal people and from people with credit cards, which I wouldn't have otherwise been able to do. Also, I can dump money directly from paypal into my bank account, which I cannot do with my credit card.

      So there you go.
      • I have no doubt that it is advantageous to you as a vendor, but I utterly fail to see the advantage to me as a buyer, and I see lots of disadvanteges, primarily the disadvantage that you can defraud me and I have little recourse other than to beg PayPal to give me my money back.

        With credit cards the burden of proof is on the vendor. With PayPal the burden of proof is on the purchaser.

        I will keep my advantage, thank you.
        • by Torham (544278) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:41PM (#10614727)
          The advantage to me as a consumer is that I don't have to give my CC# to a complete stranger. The burden of proof is on the vendor but it is still a hassle to get everything fixed if your card number is stolen.
          • The advantage to me as a consumer is that I don't have to give my CC# to a complete stranger. The burden of proof is on the vendor but it is still a hassle to get everything fixed if your card number is stolen.

            It's a hassle to get it back, but if you're defrauded with paypal you can't get it back. Personally I'd rather have trouble getting it back than to not be able to get it back at all.

            Also, if your card number gets stolen out of a database from someone you gave it to, visa usually quickly finds out a
            • And that is because Visa knows if they dont, Mastercard, Discover, American Express and others are there ready to take over that unhappy customer.

              Paypal no longer has such worries, so expect the quality of service and customer service to only go down.

        • > I have no doubt that it is advantageous to you as a vendor, but I utterly fail
          > to see the advantage to me as a buyer

          I guess the main problem is, when set up correctly, you do not need a paypal account as a buyer to do business with someone using paypal on the vendor side.

          So the advantage to you is that you refuse to do business with the vendor unless they accept your credit card, and paypal allows them to accept your credit card.

          Additionally, all the disadvantages you claim are bogus.

          > With
          • by TClevenger (252206) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:18PM (#10614886)
            Uh, sorry. The buyer disadvantages are NOT bogus. Here's my example.

            I bought $82 worth of magazines from a seller in Colorado. Seller never shipped the item. I issued a chargeback request with PayPal, who then said it would take 60 days to 'investigate.'

            After about 60 days (right after my chargeback privilege with my issuer expired), they sent me an email stating, "We have found in your favor. However, the seller has a zero balance in their bank account, so we cannot give you your money."

            The seller continues to do business through PayPal through the same account, with no further attempts by PayPal to hold the money or withdraw it. I've issued further complaints to PayPal, which have been ignored. Needless to say, I will be claiming my money back through the class action lawsuit already in progress.

            • After about 60 days (right after my chargeback privilege with my issuer expired), they sent me an email stating, "We have found in your favor. However, the seller has a zero balance in their bank account, so we cannot give you your money."

              I guess the smart thing to do would be to not trust paypal and do a chargeback at the same time as you file a complaint with them.

              I don't buy that it takes 60 days to check if someone conned you. Has anyone managed to get their money back through this complaint system?
            • > I issued a chargeback request with PayPal, who then said it would take 60 days to 'investigate.'

              First, I must appologize for not reading past this line.

              But to point out what i was saying, paypal is NOT a credit card.
              If you would have used your credit card, you dont even have to talk to paypal, you tell your credit card company the charge was fradulant and they issue the charge back, and you would have your money with no problems.

              If *you* use paypal as the buyer (as well as the vender using them as
            • Contact your state attorney general office. The more people complain about Paypals poor and unscruplous practices, the more pressure States will exert on the company.
        • by tekunokurato (531385) <jackphelps@gmail.com> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:04PM (#10614813) Homepage
          I bought a laptop from someone who ended up sending me a piece of shit. I tried to get them to take it back, and they gave me further crap about no returns, condition as advertised, etc. I then e-mailed paypal and they sent me a response in UNDER two hours with their insurance information, how they were investigating, and what my recourse options were. About two days later they wrote back saying they had gotten the vendor to cooperate and that all I needed to do was send the laptop back and have receipt confirmed by the shipper (not necessary to have it confirmed by the asshole vendor) and they'd refund my money. I did and they did. Couldn't be more pleased. I used to work at MBNA, which is about the highest-service CC company out there, and their claims were nowhere near that quick.

          Moreover, the other advantage to you as a buyer is that you can easily and conveniently do business with a HUGE range of people you could not previously do business with. That increases merchant competition and keeps prices lower.
        • The advantage to me as a buyer is I can buy from people who don't transact enough to make CC processing economical. In certain markets (ie, eBay) the question is not "what is the advantage of PayPal over using credit cards" but "What is the advantage of PayPal over sending a personal check". Then the advantage is: Convenience and speed.
      • I have heard a lot of bad things about paypal here. What would be the slashdot preferred vendor for services such as these?

        I would like to be able to take donations and stuff via credit card for specific groups on my site but want to avoid the "monopoly".
    • Awww, don't hate... even criminals need to do banking. And Paypal is PERFECT for them, designed to serve their exact needs.

      Remember the Paypal slogan "We are not a bank".
    • The issue isn't with Visa or MC, its the bank that supplies you with the merchant account.

      The costs involved in getting a merchant account are reasonably large, too much for small ebay sellers and companies with small turnovers. Paypal is very cost effective in these cases (mainly due to no gateway fees).

      As for fraud and defective merchandise - you should read all the bad stuff that people come out with concerning Paypal and its policy on chargebacks. I think its more a 'paypal sucks' type mentality, but
      • The costs involved in getting a merchant account are reasonably large, too much for small ebay sellers and companies with small turnovers. Paypal is very cost effective in these cases (mainly due to no gateway fees).

        IIRC, it is something like $700 USD yearly for each of Mastercard and Visa to get a merchant account and accept credit payments. I was looking into selling file hosting bandwidth, and seeing what it would take to get payment services set up. But the initial cost is just too high for a small time

    • Not every exchange online is between companies, it's often between private individuals, and Paypal makes it much easier for someone to accept credit card payments.

      That said, I'm quite leery about Paypal and recognize the general lack of recourse and such, but it is a service that many people find useful.
    • i agree in regards to vendors and companies.

      But it was convenient for me, before I boycotted due to their inexcusable behavior. It was a lot easier to pay that way than go get a MO and mail it just for the 3 dollar book you bought on ebay.
    • by wcdw (179126) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:51PM (#10614760) Homepage
      From the e-tailer point of view, we added PayPal for the convenience of our customers. And a substantial percentage of our total orders are settled that way - even though we *do* take credit cards.

      *WHY* people use PayPal? Well, there are those who don't have credit cards, to start. (I had a bank account _long_ before I got my first credit card, many years ago though that was.) Beyond that, there have always been people who, for whatever reason, prefer to e.g. write checks, or use their debit card. PayPal is/can be the on-line equivalent. Not to mention literally thousands of reasons of which I haven't thought. ;)

      http://www.theboyz.biz/ [theboyz.biz]Your source for computers, parts, electronics, small applicances and more!
      • There's another reason: I use Paypal where e-tailers provide the option because I have no idea how good their privacy policy and data security is. While it's arguable that PayPal may be no better in those regards, I'd rather have my credit card data in less places than more.
    • In germany credits cards are far less widespread, so for a lot of people 'pay only via credit card' is equal to 'not available'. Paypal on the other side can be used in combination with a normal bank account, no need for a credit card, and makes international bank transfer pretty easy, especially for smaller amounts of money. When it comes to micropayment, Paypal is really the only one that gets close.

    • My company accepts both. We have a simple PayPal account, and the full blown merchant account, with an SSL cert, payment gateweay, custom code, and all the rest that goes with it.

      And you'd be surprised that a large number of people choose the PayPal option, for two reasons. TRUST and CONVIENENCE.

      They trust PayPal because they are a huge company
      that they have used before. It's extremely convienent because they don't have to re-enter all their credit card and billing information into yet another website.
    • That's great, but what if the seller is not a company? Like me, I don't have a company, and I can't accept credit cards directly. I HAVE to use Paypal. Besides, not everybody has a credit card (this is especially true outside the US). Paypal makes it possible to use bank transfer.
    • The really wonderful thing about PayPal is its ease of use. Without it, I have to enter all my info into someone's database for every site with its own shopping cart. With PayPal, it just gets popped into Paypal. No fuss, no muss.

      We must be wary, however, no matter how good PayPal may be. Monopolies have rarely ever produced good prices and service on long timelines. I was hoping PayDirect would catch on, because as much as I love and rely upon PayPal, a little competition never hurt anyone.
  • Yahoo Stores (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BrianGa (536442)
    This was a decent service and was in some ways a superior "eshopping cart" service. Many small websites or discount hardware websites use Yahoo stores and used the PayDirect service...I wonder if Paypal will, indeed, take it's place.
    • Minor objection. Based on the only time when I have tried using it, they had a considerable proportion of vendors with outdated catalogues that claimed to sell an item which none of them in fact had (BP11 and BP51 Sony batteries). After baiting me to supply my details for a quotation request every single one of the arseholes went along to sell them to SPAMMers and spammed me as well with no removal option (CANSPAM does not apply to non-US cittizens ya know). The experience was sufficient for me to stay awa
  • by bcs_metacon.ca (656767) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:28PM (#10614638)
    A consortium of Canadian banks (BMO, CIBC, RBC, ScotiaBank, and TD) offer "email money transfers" through CertaPay [certapay.com]. My wife and I use it for almost everything we used to do through PayPal because -- unlike PayPal -- it's free for both the sender and receiver (as long as you have a banking plan that gives you a number of free transactions per month).
    • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:35PM (#10614692)
      Anbd in the UK, you want to check out Natwest's FastPay [fastpay.com]. Much cheaper than Paypal, in the few areas where it isn't free.
    • The original poster pointed out the same service I was going to, but a few things are worth mentioning.

      Certapay isn't just a method of paying vendors - it's often referred to by banks as an 'e-mail money transfer', and this is what it is. I can put through a transfer from my online banking and send it to my roommate, and the system sends him an e-mail. When he recieves it, he can confirm and accept payment, and the money is automatically put into his bank account. Thus, I can send money from my account to
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I still can't believe how clumsy the eBay to Paypal interface is a year after the merger. Can't they make it seemless so that my customers don't have to sign in twice to make a payment?? They certainly have made enough in fees to improve the system.
    • Keeping the systems separate is in my opinion a protection to the consumer. I would never want my paypal account connected directly to my ebay account. I have had my ebay account broken into but never had my paypal account messed with. I would rather have to input my two different passwords to make a payment for a purchase than to have that worry that my bank account is prone to an ebay phishing scam.
  • A monopoly? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Keith Emerson (824935)
    This is just more hyperbolic editorial blather on the part of timothy. If you can name a couple of significant competitors off of the top of your head, then it's not a monopoly. It would be a monopoly if it were impossible to use anything but PayPal, but it's not. We all have a choice. If we hate PayPal that much maybe we should launch a boycott of them and all tangentially related companies. Then we can use the superior alternatives instead of letting PP become the next Microsoft.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:34PM (#10614685)
      He corrected the submitter by naming several competitors. He could've gone further by removing the submitter's comment entirely, though.
      • He named a dubious looking (as a UK user) bid payments-only service and a professional, business-only service. PayPal are both of these (kinda; WorldPay's out of their league really), but they're not direct competitors; I couldn't use BidPay to sell services on my website, and I couldn't use WorldPay to sell the occasional item on an auction site.

        Try again.
  • by craXORjack (726120) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:37PM (#10614699)
    There are other players in this field, though, like bidpay and worldpay.

    Wasn't there one also called e-gold [e-gold.com] that purchases actual gold to back its electronic currency? Of course, if you had a lot of money in it and somebody discovered how to turn lead into gold, well then you'd be ruined. So its kind of a risky holding.

    • ``somebody discovered how to turn lead into gold, well then you'd be ruined. So its kind of a risky holding.''

      LOL. PayPal has it a lot better, though. They convert bits into money. :-)

      Anyway, the problem with e-gold and the likes is that they denominate everything in gold. While arguably more objective than USD, it feels a bit clumsy. I think that explains the lack of popularity.
      • is they are only a "holding company" and to actually get "ewgold" you have to go through one of their money changers. Then you have to do it AGAIN to get money back out. Because it is "gold" few of these folks bother with credit cards, and most that do actually allow you to (for example) use your Visa to buy egold charge an additional fee on top of the 4-7% they already get.

        Paypal is WAY cheaper than egold. Which is to be expected, since (contrary to the idiotic blather elsewhere in this thread) paypal isn
    • actually it seems the e-gold creators have already thought of this possiblity and provided for it in their User Agreement [e-gold.com]:
      ...
      4.8. The Fusion Codicil

      Issuer reserves the right to stop issuing additional e-gold by ceasing to accept bailment of additional bullion. This extraordinary provision will be triggered only in the event that lower cost or more efficient physical methods of extraction or transmuting the metals that comprise the reserves of the e-gold system result in subsequent non-scarcity of those
  • NoChex (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Frogg (27033) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:37PM (#10614701)

    In the UK we still have NoChex [nochex.com], which is a very similar kind of thing...

  • by Bitmanhome (254112) <bitman&pobox,com> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:37PM (#10614702)
    I'm not surprised, the c1it service was much more fun.
  • Competitors (Score:3, Informative)

    by mr_sas (682067) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:40PM (#10614717) Homepage
    Worldpay is not really a competitor to the main paypal market, since iirc it costs GBP100ish (USD 180) a significant amount (to an average part time ebay seller) to set up, plus an annual yearly fee, plus they take so much per transaction. Nochex [nochex.com] is a competitor, but it was limited to UK customers only last time I checked it out.
  • No Alternatives (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @01:41PM (#10614725) Homepage Journal
    I hope somebody will step up and prove me wrong, but after some extensive searching, I can't come up with any better alternatives than PayPal. For simply and cheaply accepting credit card payments.

    Killer features: no sign up cost, no monthly (yearly, whatever) fee, low transaction costs, works around the world, accepts all major credit cards, as well as other payment methods.

    Only two disadvantages I can identify: buyers need to create an account (unless paying to an US business), and PayPal's...reputation.
    • It doesn't work in every country of the world however. Even some EU countries aren't allowed to use it.
    • by VidEdit (703021)
      There is another very significant problem with Pay Pal. Pay Pal censors what you can buy and sell and has stated a policy that they will "fine" buyers or purchasers of "adult" items $500. The definition of whether an item meets PayPal's standards is decided solely by PayPal and its official censors, who will even go so far as to read through romance novels/erotic fiction to see whether they pass muster.

      While PayPal may not yet be a monopoly, it could be. Right now PayPal is the 800 pound Gorilla of online
      • There is another very significant problem with Pay Pal. Pay Pal censors what you can buy and sell and has stated a policy that they will "fine" buyers or purchasers of "adult" items $500. The definition of whether an item meets PayPal's standards is decided solely by PayPal and its official censors, who will even go so far as to read through romance novels/erotic fiction to see whether they pass muster.

        This is hardly unique to Paypal. A huge range of merchant account providers also refuse to accept merc
        • The difference with PayPal is their attempt to pretend it has the moral right to "fine" users $500 and PayPal goes so far as to censor the sale erotic literature via PayPal. If someone violates this fuzzy policy, PayPal plans to fine the person $500 and freeze all of the money in their account! This is outrageous and would not be allowed if PayPal were properly regulated as a bank.
    • Yahoo! PayDirect was the only good alternative I found... until they started charging me $5.00 a month for the mere privilege of having a PayDirect account. Needless to say, I cancelled shortly after that. I just don't do enough business.
  • Why didn't Yahoo or CitiBank sell their PayPal competitors to someone interested in the business? After the severe PayPal problems this Summer, like successful (though settled) class-action lawsuits and days-long outages, the market looks ripe for competition for the abusive PayPal monopoly. Without even those token competitors, the PayPal monopoly is not only stronger, but more complacent about abusing the market.
  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:01PM (#10614799) Homepage
    Bank of America's bill-paying service is still available. If the receiver has a BofA merchant account, the transfer occurs electronically. If not, BofA prints up a check and sends it.

    I'd much rather get services like that from a legitimate commercial bank than some flakey service like PayPal.

    Realistically, you don't want to send money to a "merchant" that can't qualify for a Visa/MC merchant account. I've run mail-order software sales out of my house, and I had a real merchant account from a major bank (not a reseller), a business license, a fictitious name filing, and a Dun and Bradstreet rating. All those things are easy to get. Someone who doesn't have them is probably doing something wrong.

    • Realistically, you don't want to send money to a "merchant" that can't qualify for a Visa/MC merchant account. ... Someone who doesn't have them is probably doing something wrong.

      If by "doing something wrong", you mean "based outside of the US", then yes, you're probably right.

      While it's trivial to obtain a merchant account in the U.S., it's damn near impossible for a small online (non-brick-and-mortar) business to get one if they're based in Canada or elsewhere.
  • Paypal alternatives (Score:3, Informative)

    by wikinerd (809585) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:04PM (#10614816) Journal
    http://www.ikobo.com/ [ikobo.com] allows online money wordwide transfer and gives you an ATM card to withdraw monies from ATMs all over the world. In contrast with PayPal, iKobo supports much more countries in EU and the rest of the world.

    In addition, there is http://www.moneybookers.com/ [moneybookers.com] that also allows online money transfer and is based in UK and supports more countries than PayPal

    What sucks is that both services want you to have a user ID before using them.

    There is also Western Union that does online transfers but it is only for USA I think and their charges are high IMO.

  • by cyberwave (695555) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:09PM (#10614833)
    http://paypalsucks.com/ They once withheld funds from me for over a month, and when I finally spoke to a real person at my expense, they would not help.
  • ...but they no longer accept Mastercard credit/debit cards. It's a shame, because I actually preferred them to Paypal.
    • And this is also unfortunately the choice of "seemingly legit" scammers.

      Bidpay does NOT insure your purchase in any way - so - scammers will use Bidpay so that you "can pay with your credit card" and send them a money order.

  • Since CitiBank abandoned their
    c2it service last year, PayPal now seems to be a monopoly by default.

    Citibank simply lacked the knowledge to successfully stimulate their service's userbase.
    Proper manipulation of customers is key when attempting to peak profits and make people come back for more.
    Unfortunately CitiBank was to preoccupied with measuring itself against the competition tow orry about the satisfaction of others.
  • I don't understand the problem so many of you have with Paypal. Admittedly I only use it for sending money to other people. I do this because I can dispute any payment I make with my credit card provider, in case the eBay seller tries to rip me off--an option I do not have if I send a cheque.
  • by targo (409974) <targo_t&hotmail,com> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:43PM (#10615004) Homepage
    In Estonia, my native country, banks created a cross-payment system in 1993 (over ten years ago!). Since then it has been possible for anyone with bank account in any Estonian bank to pay anyone else with a bank account. Shortly after that most banks made the system available over the Internet.
    It became quite common for me to go out to lunch with my colleagues so that someone would pay the bill, and later everyone else would transfer some money instantaneously to his bank account. When I moved to the US in 1999, I was most puzzled by people having to mess with personal checks for such things, and the inconvenience they had to go through whenever they needed to make payments to anyone (e.g. utility bills).
    Things like PayPal, various (paid!) bill payment systems and other things like that are simply hacks built on top of an antiquated banking system and would not be necessary if we had a decent cross-payment system between the banks. So can anyone please enlighten me and tell why we still don't have one??
    • I live in the UK and I can do this but only through internet banking. I have accounts with HSBC, Lloyds TSB and Woolwich (Barclays) and they all have this facility. I don't think many people realise - I have confused a few people by dropping money into their account rather than sending a cheque.
    • A number of reasons I suspect.

      Estonia likely has far fewer banks then the USA. Canada has, for all practical purposes, 6 banks. Well, 5 banks and hundreds of Credit Unions which have a single centeral authority. Thus a single interbanking system is far easier to manage. In the USA there are hundreds of banks and (I suspect) dozens of interbanking networks, none of which all the banks are members of. They are all too busy fighting with each other to add features.

      Estonia has leapfroged over the technolgy us

      • Additionally, the system in the US is "good enough" for the citizens in all of these examples. I can transfer any amount into any checking account given the account number. I do it all the time, from my computer. The problem is that the Credit Card laws are so consumer-friendly in the US, nobody wants to use anything else. If there are any problems with my purchase at all, I only need to complain and, under law, the merchant must give me my money back until THEY prove they had a right to take it out, an
  • by Thaelon (250687) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @02:54PM (#10615067)
    [rant]They're owned by eBay, so when you sell something, and get via Paypal, eBay is now double dipping.

    They get money for the listing, AND money from your money.

    If they were a nice company like Google, one or the other would be free if you used both eBay and Paypal on a given sale, but like most greedy coroporations they don't care about making their customers happy, they care about making the maximum amount of money from their customers. [/rant]
  • no options (Score:3, Informative)

    by Tom (822) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @03:04PM (#10615113) Homepage Journal
    The listed alternatives aren't. They take somewhere between 100 and 300 Euros/$ in setup fees, which means you've gotta shell that out before you can make any transactions.

    For a small site taking donations, that kills the option right there.

    The only real alternative I found to paypal is Moneybookers [moneybookers.com].

  • is now paypal is the monopoly of the fucking market, sure, there are little companies out there that do the same thing, but they're virtually invisible

    (yowcow comes to mind)

    and paypal could buy them out with a whim.

    Paypal also has soem unfair policies and need very little reason to lock your account, hell, you can say someone's doing something illegal with their account and paypal will lock the funds without investigation. It's annoying, especially for sites that go on donations and are forced to shut do
  • Kagi? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Macrat (638047)

    PayPal isn't the only service on the block. Nor is it the first.

    Just use Kagi.com [kagi.com]

  • StormPay (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jace of Fuse! (72042) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @04:15PM (#10615492) Homepage
    I don't know how big or reliable they are, but there is always Storm Pay [stormpay.com].
  • by TV-SET (84200) <leonidNO@SPAMmamchenkov.net> on Sunday October 24, 2004 @04:54PM (#10615701) Homepage Journal
    This [politechbot.com] recent post at Politech [politechbot.com] seems to be on the subject. It has a few alternatives and explains the pros and cons of some of them.
  • by jonwil (467024) on Sunday October 24, 2004 @09:55PM (#10617425)
    When it works, it works great.
    Its how they handle problems that is the problem.

    Here in australia, I can log into my online banking and transfer money directly to any australian bank account with any other bank.
    If banks worldwide got together and made that possible for the entire world (just think of all the Bank Fees they would be able to charge for the privilage) it would put an end to crap like Paycrud.

Despite all appearances, your boss is a thinking, feeling, human being.

Working...