31–40 of 96 posts
Its a great idea, but will customers really be comfortable providing websites with their bank details in order to make a single purchase?
Awesome. I looked into doing this in Denmark about two years ago, but it fell to "schlepp"-avoidance. It's worth noting that PayPal already does exactly this, although I can see the value in cutting them out of the loop.
At first I thought this was awesome. Then I realized I would never open my bank account to anyone again after a Paypal incident. Great price and I'm in on that, but the system needs work.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right, I've let that go straight over my head. It's the same deal though at the end of the day, as a business I want to take payments from my customers without hassling them to make manual transfers. So an id for cc details is the same as bank details from my end providing I can request payments for flexible amounts. Service providers in the UK seem to be able to change the amount I pay on direct debit agreeme…
Looking at the API, if you have the agreement set up you can make charges up to a maximum limit (that you can see) without further customer interaction. If you need to interact with the customer there are different API calls, eg to increase limit, get initial agreement.
So id have to get the customer to agree to authorise an amount larger than their current subscription fee so that it has scope to cover upgrades and extra services - something doesn't quite feel right there, maybe I'm approaching it completely wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
£2 is the most you'll pay as a fee. 1% or £2, whichever is lower.
I wonder if there is a minimum of 1p? Either way this is potentially compelling for micropayment type solutions...
Edit: Hmm, with a ceiling of £2 that doesn't make sense. Oh well.
I don't get why the US and UK rely so much on payment methods that rely on the secrecy of some unique codes, that you have to trust every payee to secure. Seems backwards to me. Here in Portugal we have both direct debits and "service payments" (for one-off stuff), and in both cases the payee is the one telling the bank about the payment (usually on the bank's website or an ATM). There are codes involved (the merchan…
That requires your customer to actually go to the banks website/ATM and pay you.
Its a great idea, but will customers really be comfortable providing websites with their bank details in order to make a single purchase?
This is how a lot of payments are conducted in Germany. It's easy and secure for the customer as he can reverse fraudulent charges. What makes this different than providing websites with your credit card details?
can you even have a one-off direct debit? I didn't think the system was really designed for that.
At first I thought this was awesome. Then I realized I would never open my bank account to anyone again after a Paypal incident. Great price and I'm in on that, but the system needs work.
What's the Paypal incident?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the API, if you have the agreement set up you can make charges up to a maximum limit (that you can see) without further customer interaction. If you need to interact with the customer there are different API calls, eg to increase limit, get initial agreement.
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. So id have to get the customer to agree to authorise an amount larger than their current subscription fee so that it has scope to cover upgrades and extra services - something doesn't quite feel right there, maybe I'm approaching it completely wrong.
https://gocardless.com/docs/api_guide#pre-authorization
I can't see any guidelines about how you are recommended to approach these types of situation. In some ways pre-setting a max limit is nice for the customer if you warn them when they approach. I know people who have been billed huge amounts on AWS without really realizing. SO long as you hand hold the customer and your pricing model is simple to understand you should be able to make it work out I would think. For upgrades there is probably no reason not to get explicit agreement (presuming it is just a checkbox really, no need to give the acount details again after all), it is variable usage that is more complex I would think.