Live data from Hacker News

Payments: The end of a monopoly

economist.com

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#21
post #3

I mainly use credit card and paypal for one reason: Give me 2% discount and I pay cash, or I pay in the US way, and you lose 3%. This of course works best in countries like Germany, where credit cards and paypal are not widely accepted.

I'm already getting 2% back from my credit card, so getting 2% discount for cash would not be enough to bother with inconveniences of dealing with cash. It would have to be at least something like 4%. Which makes no sense vs. 3% credit card costs. So I'm afraid we're stuck with cards unless there's another way which is as convenient but cheaper.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#22
post #4

tl;dr: Banks' revenue from credit cards is under threat from payment mechanisms which bypass them: - Paypal encourages bank transfers in some countries, to avoid cc interchange fees - Bitcoin - Telecoms operators' mobile payment services - Store-specific prepaid cards Furthermore, payments could become a loss leader for companies that make revenue from other sources (like ads or data). This would increase competition…

> make revenue from other sources (like ads or data) Just what we need, mining credit card history to target ads. :( If this is the future of payments, I'd rather have the monopoly.

Beats how they are targeted now. I've visited a local garbage removal company's site once on a device without adblock and for a month I saw nothing but garbage (literally and figuratively) ads on it. I haven't seen an ad relevant to me in years. I'm not actually that concerned that advertisers would show me ads relevant to me. It's just they are doing so horribly poor job right now both in targeting and in delivery that I have to block them out. It's like living in a company of an idiot with a logorrhea.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#23
post #3

I mainly use credit card and paypal for one reason: Give me 2% discount and I pay cash, or I pay in the US way, and you lose 3%. This of course works best in countries like Germany, where credit cards and paypal are not widely accepted.

Cash also has costs unique to its physical holding like counting, security, transport, storage and theft. As a % I guess this would vary by business but would balance some against the clip payment companies take.

> [...] counting, security, transport, storage and theft.

And oddly enough, the first and last item on that list are not too far apart.

Banks / payment companies charge fees to count cash deposits, and they sell the currency back (coin rolls in particular) with a premium.

Skimming - coming and going.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#24
Try to not be US-centric when thinking about this. There are some very interesting (and often strange) payments systems in use around the world. Really exotic systems like Bitcoin stand a much better chance of catching on at first in smaller countries, shaking the issues out before they face the complex US and EU government/commercial orgies.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#25
post #24

Try to not be US-centric when thinking about this. There are some very interesting (and often strange) payments systems in use around the world. Really exotic systems like Bitcoin stand a much better chance of catching on at first in smaller countries, shaking the issues out before they face the complex US and EU government/commercial orgies.

Paypal supports quite a lot of such exotic payment systems, that's an important part of their offering.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#26
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't is illegal, or impossible to order online, if you dont run windows in South Korea also? So far, yes. Things are beginning to change because Chinese consumers are crowding into Korean stores, both online and offline. Even the President is concerned that the old system hurts the economy by turning away potential buyers. Guess what, one of the perks of being a semi-authoritarian culture is that if the President…

Is something like paypal for person to person fund transfers legal in South Korea? I ask, because I was surprised when my friends in Japan told me that that was illegal in japan!

I can't seem to find an answer to your question on the Internet. This tells something about how little Koreans in general even think about PayPal.

As far as purchasing is concerned, PayPal is just another foreign merchant that accepts Visa and MasterCard. A withdrawal is just another international wire transfer. But since both transactions are international, if you combine them you get two currency exchanges and so you lose a lot of money. That, along with the fact that the whole process can easily take 2-3 weeks, is probably why nobody even bothers.

Besides, Korean banks already have a system that allows anyone to send money to anyone else, instantly, often for free. Nobody ever mails checks in Korea. This works perfectly well in our own walled garden. PayPal will probably never be able to compete with that, even when the other side is burdened with ActiveX crapware.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#27
Some cold water: Square Wallet was discontinued 2 days after this article was published.

If that doesn’t convince you to take these puffy “payments revolution” pieces with a huge grain of salt I don’t know what will. They tend to be big on exciting futuristic hype and pretty poorly reasoned when it comes to actual analysis.

For example, it just blasts on through the “PayPal accepted at major retailer!” opening without even touching on whether there’s a reason for consumers to use it. Hint: not much. Credit cards offer rewards and don't require entering your phone number, plus have well established consumer protections.

We now know that Simple was incredibly overhyped. It wasn’t a revolutionary un-bank, it was a regular banking UI layer with maybe a couple more budgeting features and a more modern design. It was acquired by a bank -- not exactly a monopoly killer.

M-PESA is cool but it is not the “end of a monopoly”. It is a practical solution for an underserved market. The article even notes that fewer people even use banks in the first place. Ergo, not ending a monopoly.

Bitcoin, too early to tell what niches it may find (maybe international transfers). But none of its coverage AFAIK has made a compelling argument for why ordinary consumers would generally choose it over cards. Hard to see how that would break that monopoly.

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#29
post #28
post #13

Google cache allows you to bypass the paywall: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww....

A subscription to The Economist is well worth the money, in my opinion.

If only the digital subscription didn't cost twice as much in my country than it does in the US, even though we're poorer. But hey, I get a tree planted in my name! /s

Re: Payments: The end of a monopoly

#30
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A subscription to The Economist is well worth the money, in my opinion.

If only the digital subscription didn't cost twice as much in my country than it does in the US, even though we're poorer. But hey, I get a tree planted in my name! /s

The digital subscription is pretty useless terms of getting a cheaper deal as it costs as much as the print edition. The information is the same though, and the Android app is pretty good, so I've mostly switched to reading it on my tablet. Also, I like getting it on Thursday night, rather than waiting for the Italian postal system to take their sweet time about delivering it (or not).
Post reply on HN