Options
Google Checkout - Anyone using it?
clackamas
Posts: 5,615 ✭
Fees are free until Dec 2007. You get $10 by signing up. Anyone using it for Ebay auctions?
0
Comments
by EBAY.
EBAY listings offering google-checkout as a payment
option will be removed and listing fees will not be
refunded.
by EBAY.
EBAY listings offering google-checkout as a payment
option will be removed and listing fees will not be
refunded.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
But you can still offer it to the buyer as an option.
///////////////////////////
You can probably safely make an oral offer, after the sale.
EBAY can/does read all written emails sent through their
system; thus, written offers would not necessarily be safe.
Their software can also flag any keyword in such an email.
EBAY takes the matter pretty seriously.
<< <i>It is not designated as a "safe payment method"
by EBAY.
EBAY listings offering google-checkout as a payment
option will be removed and listing fees will not be
refunded. >>
Interesting, I did not know that. This will be interesting to see the battle errupt on Google vs Ebay.
////////////////////////////////
IF google is unable to gain access to EBAY, the battle might be brief.
google is having some success with major online-retailers, but absent
EBAY, I dunno......
<< <i>
EBAY takes the matter pretty seriously. >>
So do other monopolies with threats of competition.
If customer loyalty was at 100% (or even 50%+) they wouldn't even care. I got burned by paypal and have been hoping for somthing to replace it for a long time.
Now lets see if there will be a google-bay. That would be pretty cool
system; thus, written offers would not necessarily be safe.
Their software can also flag any keyword in such an email.">>
So what. Unless they have changed their policy; as a seller you have access to all bidders and their email addresses. You don't need eBay's "SYSTEM" to make contact with the buyer after that.
<< <i>But I'm not going to make the first move and rile eBay. >>
And how would you do that? eBay has no right or need to know how the buyer paid for his item. Simply refund his PayPal payment if thats what he used and offer to accept another form.
<< <i>
<< <i>But I'm not going to make the first move and rile eBay. >>
And how would you do that? eBay has no right or need to know how the buyer paid for his item. >>
I rather disagree with that. On eBay's site, I do feel they should have control over how payments are made. I disagree with their decision to disallow Google Checkout, but I concede their right to make that (stupid) decision.
<< <i>I pay for space eBay's site to offer my items for sale. >>
By listing on eBay, you are contractually obligated to follow their rules. If you want to be a renegade, go for it -- just don't come whinging back when you get NARU'd; you'll have brought it upon yourself.
If you don't like eBay's rules, go somewhere else. Yahoo, Overstock, Craigslist, Google Base, Amazon zShops; and of course Heritage, Teletrade, and the rest for coins. There are plenty of outlets out there; surely you can find one that has rules you can respect.
<< <i>Since when do eBay's rules say I must use PayPal. >>
They don't, and I don't think I said that they did.
<< <i>Their rules say I can't advertise Google checkout on their site, but it doesn't mean that the buyer and I can't use it if we both have accounts. >>
Incorrectomundo. You're invited to review eBay's acceptable payments policy. Once you've taken the red pill, you're bound by those rules.
<< <i>If you think their protection plan is worth something to you then by all means toe their line. >>
I don't agree with eBay's acceptable payments policy. However, when I list on eBay, I will abide by it.
<< <i>Google should sue Ebay's a$$ of over that - sounds like restraint of trade and monopolistic practices to me... >>
I agree, but that's another story. I don't expect a seller to stick their neck out and take one for the team by violating eBay rules. But I do agree that this ban on Google checkout doesn't pass the smell test and does sound like a violation of anti-trust laws.
trade and monopolistic practices to me... "
"But I do agree that this ban on Google checkout ..................
does sound like a violation of anti-trust laws."
/////////////////////////////////////////////
May sound like it, but EBAY's current lawyers are quite confident
that it is not. An online company has a right to make rules that
they think will keep their operation safe and profitable.
On a broader scale:
No merchant can be forced to accept any non-governmental issued
form of payment.
COSTCO has held several "auctions" among CC issuers to determine
who will be "allowed" to become the ONLY credit card accepted at
their stores. No AT/RT violation there.
A small/medium sized company is allowed to issue its own CC and
declare it the ONLY form of non-cash payment accepted. No violation;
even though the subject company OWNs and finances the CC op.
If google thought they had been torted (and could prevail), WE would
have all seen the filings long before now.
While it may be fun to hope that EBAY will get nailed on the checkout issue,
it just ain't gonna happen.
For sellers who would like to see a viable alternative to EBAY, the
refusal of EBAY to allow google-checkout could be the best thing
that has happened yet. It is possible that cumulative events may
push google toward taking the plunge. But remember, there are
reasons that google has stayed out, and one of those is that they
are far from certain that they would win even enough market-share
to recover the first billion the attempt would cost.
storm
<< <i>No merchant can be forced to accept any non-governmental issued
form of payment.
COSTCO has held several "auctions" among CC issuers to determine
who will be "allowed" to become the ONLY credit card accepted at
their stores. No AT/RT violation there. >>
Normal laws don't always apply if it appears to be a restraint of trade violation. That's usually true in the eyes of the law with de facto monopolies, and for most practical purposes eBay is one of them.
As for Costco, they aren't a monopoly in the same vein as eBay. There's always Sam's Club, for example, in most areas. There's no equivalent of Sam's Club to eBay's Costco.
That's usually true in the eyes of the law with de facto monopolies, and for
most practical purposes eBay is one of them."
/////////////////////////////////
Since the courts are really no longer interested in breaking-up
most real monopolies, de facto monopolies are likley low on their lists.
The fact that EBAY owns PayPal will be found not relevant to any
argument google might raise. Dozens of other payment processors
are permiited on EBAY. EBAY has decided that google "is not yet
shown to be safe." EBAY says they are only protecting consumers.
But, EBAY argues they are not a monopoly at all; and, they are
correct. There are hundreds of auction sites that are virtual
failures because the market prefers venues that have traffic.
EBAY has not poisoned the efforts of the upstarts. EBAY has
simply been the only one that works.
No one is stopping google from starting an online-sales venue;
only their prudent good sense has deprived US of an alternative.
(The COSTCO example only illustrates the right of corps to choose,
and has nothing to do with the notion of monoploies.)
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>But I'm not going to make the first move and rile eBay. >>
And how would you do that? eBay has no right or need to know how the buyer paid for his item. >>
I rather disagree with that. On eBay's site, I do feel they should have control over how payments are made. I disagree with their decision to disallow Google Checkout, but I concede their right to make that (stupid) decision. >>
Ebay is just a venue
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
//////////////////////////////////
That is the key to the lock on the kingdom of real competition.
Until that myth is debunked, all the rest of the "arguments" are
a waste of time.
<< <i>(The COSTCO example only illustrates the right of corps to choose,
and has nothing to do with the notion of monoploies.) >>
Maybe. But in legal terms that distinction is critical. When a business is a monopoly, whether actual or a de facto natural monopoly, its practices are much more closely scrutinized because it is judged to have more power over partner businesses and other entities, enough that the perceived competitive balance is skewed too much in favor of the monopolistic business.
<< <i>"Ebay is just a venue."
//////////////////////////////////
That is the key to the lock on the kingdom of real competition.
Until that myth is debunked, all the rest of the "arguments" are
a waste of time.
Actually I think this helps the case AGAINST eBay.
Something that is "just a venue" should not be dictating the agreed-upon terms of payment between buyer and seller. All a pure "venue" is supposed to do is provide a mechanism for buyer and seller to come together in agreement on the terms of sale.
/////////////////////////
That is correct.
Provided you understand that the ONLY "case against EBAY"
is a complaint that they are not just a venue.
Keeping google out can be argued to be a defensive move
that a mere venue would not take.
But, "the case" would have to include lots more examples
of conduct that show EBAY stepping far out of their role
as "simple venue." There are many such examples, but no
private firm has chosen to compile them and act on them.
The FTC is likely the only entity - public or private - that has
the ability to deliver a good remedy. That agency has looked
at all of the elements for a very long time; thus far, they have
decided there is nothing there.
EBAY's current position that more than 1,000,000 people make
their full-time living as a result of the venue's operations, is a
very strong argument that government intervention should only
be a last resort. EBAY will continue to play that card.
It's fun to be an EBAY-hater for some, but most of US would be
mighty unhappy if the venue disappeared.
Google is just bidding it’s time, letting the damages rack up, and POW! This is going to be one hellva antitrust suit, and EBay WILL lose. In antitrust rewards, the damages are AUTOMATICALLY trebled.
I can’t believe EBay is being so mislead by it legal counsel….
FlridaBill
<< <i>Te I have a Google Checkout account. If a buyer asked to pay with Google Checkout, I would accept it. But I'm not going to make the first move and rile eBay. xt >>
Darn, what a perfect example of EBay abusing it's monopolistic position....
Even Bill Gates wasn't this OVER THE LINE....(inciting fear within the customers for repercussions for using the services of a competitor).
FloridaBill
<< <i>By listing on eBay, you are contractually obligated to follow their rules. If you want to be a renegade, go for it -- just don't come whinging back when you get NARU'd; you'll have brought it upon yourself. >>
<< <i>I have a Google Checkout account. If a buyer asked to pay with Google Checkout >>
So then its ok to thumb your nose at eBay's rules as long as the other guy initiates it?
Either one is a paragon of virtue like many here profess to be or he/she is an unprincipled opportunist like many on eBay are painted to be.
<< <i>
<< <i>By listing on eBay, you are contractually obligated to follow their rules. If you want to be a renegade, go for it -- just don't come whinging back when you get NARU'd; you'll have brought it upon yourself. >>
<< <i>I have a Google Checkout account. If a buyer asked to pay with Google Checkout >>
So then its ok to thumb your nose at eBay's rules as long as the other guy initiates it?
Either one is a paragon of virtue like many here profess to be or he/she is an unprincipled opportunist like many on eBay are painted to be. >>
I don't see it that way. There is an inherent conflict between serving eBay and serving the Customer. I'm not going to go out and "thumb my nose" at eBay's rules, but I'm also reticent to upset a Customer.
I am neither a "paragon of virtue" nor a "unprincipled opportunist" -- somewhere in between, I suspect.
<< <i>I am neither a "paragon of virtue" nor a "unprincipled opportunist" -- somewhere in between, I suspect. >>
This wasn't directed to any one individual, but would fit most here I'd say. I suppose there are some that are farther right or left of center than others.
Just my opinion, and really only the people's opinions that really matter on a question of law are wearing the black robes and I am not one of them. That's my wag for what its is worth.
See below:
Excerpts from the New York Times:
EBay, online auction house, says in its annual report that Justice Department has ended its antitrust investigation of company without taking any action; in 1999, eBay sued Bidder's Edge asserting that company had trespassed on eBay's computer servers when it listed eBay's search results on BiddersEdge.com; companies settled dispute for undisclosed sum in March 2001
EBay Inc reveals in Securities and Exchange Commission filings that it is subject of at least three local and federal investigations into its business practices; EBay says Justice Department subpoenaed documents last week relating to probe begun in 1997 of Sotheby's and Christie's of alleged price-fixing in commissions; in December, Justice Department's antitrust division requested documents related to eBay's lawsuit against Bidder's Edge, company that polls auction sites and lists auctions post...
EBay Is Under U.S. Antitrust Investigation
Justice Department is investigating whether EBay Inc, online auction site, violated federal antitrust laws in actions toward smaller Internet rivals
eBay and Skype sued by Morpheus parent company
By Justin Mann, TechSpot.com
Published: May 24, 2006, 2:06 PM EST
Typically, especially in P2P cases, we see the big guy going after the little guy. This time, the tables are turned, and the company behind the P2P software Morpheus is suing eBay and Skype, for a non-paltry sum of $4 Billion. The particulars of the lawsuits, which we heard of initially a while back, are that Skype's technology uses the Morpheus network and infringes upon it. They are looking to do more than just get money, though.
In addition to $4.1 billion in damages, the suit seeks an injunction that would prohibit eBay from selling Skype's online phone calling services. The suit was originally filed in January but was updated on Monday to include eBay for the first tim
Antitrust is also brought into the suit, and the company behind Morpheus believes (so they claim) that the entire thing was an attempt to shut Morpheus down by assimilation. Very interesting stuff.
Proud Participant in Operation "Stone Holey" August 7, 2008