Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 62 posts

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#31

Post by logicallee »

Omniusaspirer wrote: post #22
tehwebguy wrote: post #15

How is it that so many seemingly incredible people come out of PayPal, and PayPal still sucks so much? The all-star list is insane, it keeps growing, and yet PayPal still that can't seem to do anything new.

How much new can they really do as a payment processor? I'm sure there's some little things they could dabble in but realistically the only things people want from Paypal are less fees, less account closures/theft from account holders, faster transfers and overall better customer support. Paypal doesn't need to innovate, they need to fix the obvious issues that relegate their service to a "barely workable until the i…

> How much new can they really do as a payment processor?

dude, how can you say this this year.

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#32

Post by nostromo »

panarky wrote: post #26
tehwebguy wrote: post #15

How is it that so many seemingly incredible people come out of PayPal, and PayPal still sucks so much? The all-star list is insane, it keeps growing, and yet PayPal still that can't seem to do anything new.

PayPal and eBay are hugely vulnerable. They've underinvested in infrastructure, their technology is old, and they've become slow and bureaucratic. Worst of all, their ideas are stale and the user experience is dreadful. PayPal's fat margins aren't justified by the service they provide, only by the lack of alternatives. But new alternatives are launching much faster than eBay can respond. Square has become a well-run,…

Yes, I think Ebay will die by a thousand cuts.

There won't be one grand disruption (except maybe Amazon or Alibaba), but there will be many small vertical disruptions, like Etsy.

The real question is why Facebook is poaching from EBay and not vice versa.

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#33

Post by r00fus »

tehwebguy wrote: post #15

How is it that so many seemingly incredible people come out of PayPal, and PayPal still sucks so much? The all-star list is insane, it keeps growing, and yet PayPal still that can't seem to do anything new.

When did the eBay acquisition occur?

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#34

Post by Omniusaspirer »

logicallee wrote: post #31
Omniusaspirer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much new can they really do as a payment processor? I'm sure there's some little things they could dabble in but realistically the only things people want from Paypal are less fees, less account closures/theft from account holders, faster transfers and overall better customer support. Paypal doesn't need to innovate, they need to fix the obvious issues that relegate their service to a "barely workable until the i…

> How much new can they really do as a payment processor? dude, how can you say this this year .

To clarify:

How much new can they do as Paypal? The company has a horrific public image (due to the reasons I listed) and has arguably been getting outmaneuvered innovation-wise in the payment processing business for many years now. The company is a giant just waiting to be toppeled.

Disclaimer: I may very well look back in 10 years and feel like a fool for the above opinion, but my current experiences have me pretty self-assured.

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#35

Post by yuhong »

DigitalSea wrote: post #24
tehwebguy wrote: post #15

How is it that so many seemingly incredible people come out of PayPal, and PayPal still sucks so much? The all-star list is insane, it keeps growing, and yet PayPal still that can't seem to do anything new.

This is a problem with most large companies. Once you reach a certain size, you encounter problems with scaling. Paypal is such a big company the only way they and other companies like them innovate is by acquiring other companies and teams because it's cheaper and easier. The amount of friction within a company like Paypal I would imagine is quite high. Not even those at the top of companies like these can change th…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6455951

I wonder what ended up happening inside PayPal since this post.

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#36

Post by abraxasz »

Genuine question: The article goes on and on about how making the apps paid in developing countries would make more sense than using ads, etc, etc.. Ok, I see the point. But is it really that different from the developed countries? How much do they get per user in advertisement? How much would it cost me if I wanted to opt out of advertisement? I don't know if people in general prefer ads, but if I had to pay, say $5 a year for a an ad-free whatsapp, I'd gladly pay. Is it ridiculously low compare to what they make with ads?

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#37

Post by rtx »

panarky wrote: post #26
tehwebguy wrote: post #15

How is it that so many seemingly incredible people come out of PayPal, and PayPal still sucks so much? The all-star list is insane, it keeps growing, and yet PayPal still that can't seem to do anything new.

PayPal and eBay are hugely vulnerable. They've underinvested in infrastructure, their technology is old, and they've become slow and bureaucratic. Worst of all, their ideas are stale and the user experience is dreadful. PayPal's fat margins aren't justified by the service they provide, only by the lack of alternatives. But new alternatives are launching much faster than eBay can respond. Square has become a well-run,…

So why are there no alternatives to Paypal. It's been fifteen years. Cost you are talking about is in built in money transfer business. Fraud prevention alone will kill most of the start-ups.

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#38

Post by pmallory »

asdfologist wrote: post #19
bmm6o wrote: post #11

Maybe I'm being nit-picky, I wish we would stop using "poaching" to refer to the (legal) hiring of a person already employed at another company. Actual poaching is illegal, conversely anti-"poaching" pacts are collusive and illegal.

Source? According to Merriam-Webster, to poach means "to attract (as an employee or customer) away from a competitor". No indication of illegality here.

Since PayPal and Facebook aren't competitors "poaching" isn't an apt description by that definition either. I think "poaching" is just a more dramatic and linkbaity synonym for "hiring".

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#39

Post by irtefa »

nostromo wrote: post #32
panarky wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PayPal and eBay are hugely vulnerable. They've underinvested in infrastructure, their technology is old, and they've become slow and bureaucratic. Worst of all, their ideas are stale and the user experience is dreadful. PayPal's fat margins aren't justified by the service they provide, only by the lack of alternatives. But new alternatives are launching much faster than eBay can respond. Square has become a well-run,…

Yes, I think Ebay will die by a thousand cuts. There won't be one grand disruption (except maybe Amazon or Alibaba), but there will be many small vertical disruptions, like Etsy. The real question is why Facebook is poaching from EBay and not vice versa.

Because they are failing to understand the importance of having smart people on board. I did an internship over there few months back. People are generally not motivated. They have below par hiring practices, especially in engineering.

Re: Facebook poaches PayPal president David Marcus to run Messenger

#40

Post by skj »

asdfologist wrote: post #30
mburns wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the very next definition of the page you are quoting. Poach (verb) "to trespass for the purpose of stealing game; also : to take game or fish illegally"

That's the wrong definition though. Humans are not "game".

That's the GGP's point, I think. The word 'poaching' is used because the humans are treated as game, and continuing to use that word continues to bring up that connotation.
Post reply on HN