I heard through some friends that Swedish start-up Klarna is actually using your Facebook profile to evaluate probability that you are a real person. If you pay online using an e-mail address that has lots of friends on Facebook then the overall risk of the transaction is considered lower.
Seriously? Ads?
191–200 of 229 posts
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
That because you can't buy inexpensive stuff on the internet. Because of minimum card charges. Now you know what we're all talking about and can start giving a flying fuck!
I don't think you understand my position: 1. I don't have any pressing need to buy a product at such a low price point, and don't see any need to do this in the future. 2. My credit card works wonderfully, and if a retailer pisses me off, I'll phone them and it'll be reversed no questions asked. 3. Again, I (and most other consumers) already have a solution to buying something online that is almost perfect from my pe…
Oh, OK, I now understand.
So you're making two mistakes:
1. you != everyone else
2. 100 keypresses per transaction[1] != 'ideal solution'
There's plenty of room for disruption in this market still. No-one's asking you to become one of those disruptors and we won't be taking away your credit card. You can keep it. Just like all those people who prefer cash to credit cards can keep their cash.
[1] Card number, SSN, expiration date, address, address line 2, City, County, Postcode. Maybe emailaddress, telephone number. Roughly 100 key presses to enter that lot
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Revenue is multiples of those numbers though. Because Visa manages to have insanely bloated overhead doesn't mean Facebook would.
I agree that Facebook could try to be less bloated, however that's not very likely. The history of tech companies is gradual bloat, whether you're talking about Microsoft or Google or Apple. Visa has a $80 billion market cap, $9b in sales, and $3.6b in profit with a mere 7,500 employees. One of the best ratios of any major company. In fact, it's better than Facebook's current employee to sales ratio (and it's worth p…
The only reason these companies have such high margins is because these businesses are unbelievably profitable. Being the guy who takes money from someone, puts some of it in his pocket, and hands the rest to another guy is a very very sweet place to be.
I think Facebook could tack on a payments business with relatively little additional hiring or resources, and maintain far higher than 40% margins. Whether they would try to be that efficient or not is another question.
Most tech companies don't bother with being particularly efficient. Google could have stuck to their search engine and advertising and had > 80% margins if they wanted to.
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook security isn't nearly good enough . . . Pretty sure most cases where people's accounts get hacked have nothing to do with the security of the website, except inasmuch as the site fails to provide an authenticator. Most "hacking" involves getting a computer virus or entering your password into a site that is not actually Facebook.
This is true. On the other hand, online banking security starts from "the client computer is compromised", and a new service that says "you're fully liable if your machine is hacked" will have... problems getting traction.
"online banking security starts from 'the client computer is compromised'"
Facebook currently (or did) reset the password by having you identify the names of your friends using their pictures. I could see this as a way to authenticate a transaction.
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not about FB deliberately doing something funky with it - it's about one of the million and one apps that have requested access to your FB account at some point doing something funky with it. You may trust them to do it as securely as the next person, but at least partly based on their past reputation around privacy, I don't.
Do you think facebooks payment implementation would be naive enough to allow anything like this?
I don't see a great deal of evidence that they wouldn't.
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#196100% spot on, Facebook could see massive profits if it pulls off any or all of the following: - Upon logging in Facebook lets me know my favourite band is playing in a few weeks, tickets are $25 and I can purchase with one click. - A new episode of Dexter comes out, Facebook knows I love dexter and thus notifies me and allows me to watch instantly in my browser for just $1. - A games company (steam, humblebundle, bli…
I reckon most people would quickly turn off this feature after it would produce more than a few bad predictions/recommendations in a row.
People wont be able to turn it off unless they install adblock.
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the transaction processing costs were 0, do you suppose this payment system would still continue to not exist?
There are very few things that are worth 5 cents that you'd get me to pay for that I couldn't just do without.
That wasn't the question; what percentage of the economy is from purchases that fall into the category of "I could do without"?
The question is, the NYTimes article linked on HN with 120 comments... would you pay 5cents to read it?
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. On the other hand, online banking security starts from "the client computer is compromised", and a new service that says "you're fully liable if your machine is hacked" will have... problems getting traction.
"online banking security starts from 'the client computer is compromised'" Facebook currently (or did) reset the password by having you identify the names of your friends using their pictures. I could see this as a way to authenticate a transaction.
Really? None of your friends have pictures of cats or their babies or grainy shots of them and four other friends as their profile pictures? Because sometimes it feels like half of mine do.
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. On the other hand, online banking security starts from "the client computer is compromised", and a new service that says "you're fully liable if your machine is hacked" will have... problems getting traction.
"online banking security starts from 'the client computer is compromised'" Facebook currently (or did) reset the password by having you identify the names of your friends using their pictures. I could see this as a way to authenticate a transaction.
At that point your requiring about as much effort to authorize the transaction as you would be to enter a card number.
Also not sure how secure that would be , how difficult would it be for a would be attacker to find out who was in the images?
I imagine a reverse image search could be fruitful.
Re: Seriously? Ads?
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that Facebook could try to be less bloated, however that's not very likely. The history of tech companies is gradual bloat, whether you're talking about Microsoft or Google or Apple. Visa has a $80 billion market cap, $9b in sales, and $3.6b in profit with a mere 7,500 employees. One of the best ratios of any major company. In fact, it's better than Facebook's current employee to sales ratio (and it's worth p…
The only reason these companies have such high margins is because these businesses are unbelievably profitable. Being the guy who takes money from someone, puts some of it in his pocket, and hands the rest to another guy is a very very sweet place to be. I think Facebook could tack on a payments business with relatively little additional hiring or resources, and maintain far higher than 40% margins. Whether they woul…
You're absolutely right, payment processing is incredibly profitable, but I don't see what that has to do with Facebook attempting to be even more efficient than Visa.
Facebook has already shown they're not even as efficient as Visa; despite being so young they're more bloated than Visa already. And that lends credence to the notion that they wouldn't be any better at payment processing than a company that has specialized in that for a very long time and is the best in the world at it.
Certainly a company like Microsoft could have just published Windows and had 90% margins. But no mega company ever does that, so it's not a realistic scenario. They don't do that because they're seeking growth, which is something shareholders always want to see.
Companies that had extremely lucrative margins and dominant positions, that didn't sit still: Cisco, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Samsung, Nintendo, Sony, Google, and on and on.
I've not aware of any major tech company that has ever just created one extraordinarily profitable product, and then did nothing else but collect their 85% net margin. Facebook isn't likely going to be the first.