Hacker News Reader

Comment by csomar | Hacker News Reader

but WePay isn't PayPal. Why are they doing so? They won't solve my problem and I already know PayPal sucks.

indeed. if wepay would provide a very basic, simple method for sending/receiving payments and provide something like paypal's IPN, i'd be all over it. the focus on groups is good for carving out a niche for the service, but its not something i need.

Providing PayPal's IPN is technically easy. PayPal succeeds because it can do what it does and still operate. PayPal is protected in so many ways, it's not even funny. I have no idea how someone would disrupt their model.

provide the same basic functionality (perhaps make it easier to use), and improve customer service.

i'd be willing to pay somewhat more for the same service if i have more of an assurance that my funds won't get frozen/confiscated/etc., and/or if the product were easier to work with.

edit: hell, if wepay is partnering with a bank, if they can set things up so that i can get a debit card associated with that account and accept transfers, i'd use it as my primary business account for at least my smaller online business stuff.

None of that would disrupt PayPal. You can't just provide the same basic functionality of PayPal. If you could, I'd have done it a long time ago. The problem is with the credit card companies.

As for debit cards, those are easy to get. Incredibly easy, and easy to integrate with as well. Again, it's nothing special. I've been there, I've done it. A complete system where you could transfer money into your account tied to a debit card, send money, receive money, automated API, etc.

It sounds great on paper, but really, none of this is disruptive.

being disruptive doesn't necessarily imply success. in what way do you think wepay right now is disruptive? plus, its not like paypal was the first online payments system.

sometimes its about timing, and at this point in time, there are a lot of people who are really angry with paypal.

> sometimes its about timing, and at this point in time, there are a lot of people who are really angry with paypal.

"At this point in time" has been for more than a decade. People have always been angry with PayPal.

> in what way do you think wepay right now is disruptive?

I don't think it is. It's not at all disruptive to PayPal. And I'm not even talking about the biggest limiting factor right now for WePay: lack of support for non-US payments.

> People have always been angry with PayPal.

and yet people don't have a viable alternative that provided the same or similar serivces. i'd stop using it almost immediately if had one.

> I don't think it is. It's not at all disruptive to PayPal

then why does it matter if it pivots or not?

> then why does it matter if it pivots or not?

You've lost me. I never said anything about this. Maybe your confusing me with someone else?

"As for debit cards, those are easy to get. Incredibly easy, and easy to integrate with as well. Again, it's nothing special. I've been there, I've done it. A complete system where you could transfer money into your account tied to a debit card, send money, receive money, automated API, etc."

So...what's left, then, to lock people into PayPal? Are you saying that if you can just get people to use debit instead of credit, it's easy to provide all the same services as PayPal?

Certainly sounds like the necessary infrastructure is in place for whoever wants to take a shot at being a PayPal disruptor at least.

No, no, I'm not saying that. Sure, anyone can get debit cards for their company, but you still have to have people deposit money into that account. And why are they going to do that? You'd have to have merchants. Credit cards work because they are widely accepted. If no merchants accepted credit cards, they wouldn't be as useful.

> Certainly sounds like the necessary infrastructure is in place for whoever wants to take a shot at being a PayPal disruptor at least.

The infrastructure is there. That hasn't been the problem for a long time now.

PayPal is protected in so many ways, it's not even funny. I have no idea how someone would disrupt their model.

Wrap them. My guess is that fewer than 1% of PayPal transactions go awry, and that PayPal renders it difficult or impossible for the injured part to recover their loss in perhaps 1% of those transactions. If there is in fact any real, widespread dissatisfaction with this state of affairs, then you could set up a site to act as a proxy for receiving PayPal transactions and self-insure it again PayPal's malice and/or incompetence. Monetize by keeping a very small premium over PayPal's own rate.

If PayPal is really that risky to do business with, then sellers won't mind paying 2.6% instead of 2.5%, or whatever PayPal charges.

If, on the other hand, all this talk of PayPal freezing accounts is mostly just a bunch of FUD, then there's no point trying to compete with them at all unless you can do it on the basis of lower transaction charges.

So, what you're suggesting is basically a PayPal insurance policy? :)

Yep. If there's a risk, there's an opportunity.

The biggest problem I see is that the only people who buy insurance will be the ones who are most at risk of needing it...

making PayPal in a bigger scale aware that their policy is hitting too easily and too many. Despite reading all bad publicity on PayPal and how many accounts got frozen I thought it won't happen to me. It did not take long and my account just got frozen. I am not sure how the software algorithm triggered it, but now I am stuck and yes PayPal sucks.

I too thought "it won't happen to me", only to have my funds frozen when I was doing a few thousand of Bing eBay cashback churning on postal stamps.

a) Inserting themselves into a hot-button topic and getting incredible free press all over the place.

b) "We defintely see ourselves as a competitor to PayPal, says WePay co-founder Richard Aberman."

http://www.bankingreview.com.au/2010/06/we-came-wepay-we-con...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com