+20 points for "ich nichten lichten."
eBay Germany is being investigated by competition authorities concerned that its tying of PayPal to certain eBay purchases is in breach of consumer law. eBay.de recently asked sellers with low feedback points to offer PayPal. The company justified the move because it said the number of bad buying experiences is twice as high …
+20 points for "ich nichten lichten."
enlighten me, I don´t get the reference.
On one hand I can see why they would do this. If they control the payment method then they can verify disputes such as non-payment which is in fact safer.
However they do take that 1.9% for the privilege.
Damned if you do, damned if you dont.
In the UK Paypal is compulsory on ALL eBay sales
(not motors and property of course)
Again the UK gets the crap and says nothing
I think this story is about Ebay insisting on Paypal and not allowing any alternatives at all, whereas most UK sellers can still offer cheque or cash on collection etc as an option in their auctions. However, if a seller has a history of disputes I think ebay withdraws the option.
ON THE INTERPRETING OF EBAY STATEMENTS
If you want to understand anything that eBay says you have to reverse the meaning of what they say a random number of times. Only then might you have a still less than fifty percent chance of understanding what eBay actually means by what they have said.
Some people are cynical enough to suggest that you should simply reverse the apparent meaning of what eBay says to arrive at what they actually mean by what they have said.
Me, I could not possibly be that cynical; I much prefer the random number approach as it introduces an exciting element of chance into the calculation.
Regardless, nothing eBay says (or does) is for the benefit of eBay users—buyers or sellers—it is only ever for the benefit of eBay—more and more desperately so of late.
Unfortunately, eBay’s management is now so desperate to protect its revenue that they have lost all understanding of the concept that a happy customer usually produces a happy profit. No, unfortunately, eBay has been in a self-induced death spiral for a good number of quarters now—and deservedly so.
eBay is a most amoral, unethical, disingenuous, unscrupulous, indeed criminal organization—that is the real issue that should concern everyone.
You can find the basis for such an accusation at
(See, I can tell the truth occasionally.)
At least then you have a good change to get your money back in case of a bad transaction. Paypal NEVER gives money back and you can't even question your credit card company for transactions that go through Paypal.
I canceled my Paypal account. They totally suck!
PayPal and Bill Me Later are not a bank, are not regulated as banks are and yet offer banking-type services, services that would be more appropriately, efficiently, and competently carried out under the auspices of the banking community (via their credit card company partners).
The simple fact is that without the bankers’ knowledge of the entities involved in the transactions, PayPal, or any other non-bank provider, will always be handicapped. Non-bank providers can never guarantee anything for the buyer or seller because they simply don’t have the bankers’ knowledge of the entities involved.
PayPal is an unregulated, unprincipled, systemically dysfunctional, amateur organization (just like its ugly parent, eBay).
The head turkey at eBay, “Noise” Donahoe, has talked of the possibility of offloading PayPal because he is just barely smart enough to know that when the major credit card companies do get off their butts and introduce a like card/terminal-less payments system to complement their credit card system, they will do it properly, and the dysfunctional and “clunky” PayPal will then sink like a stone—other than, possibly, on what is by then left of the Donahoe-ever-shrinking eBay marketplace.
If Donahoe has any brain at all he will be actively trying to sell PayPal to the banks to complement their credit card system; but I doubt the banks would want to lower their image any further by associating themselves with the likes of PayPal; not even for a peppercorn consideration would the banks touch such an incompetent amateur operation as PayPal, I suspect.
Does anyone think that “all the banks” are not watching this market segment with interest, and is it possible that PayPal (along with the upstart “Bill Me Later”) could be having a negative effect on their credit card business? Why then would “the banks” not be considering a like system to complement their existing card systems? After all, every internet banking user is already set up to receive such a service directly, efficiently and securely, from their bank. The simple fact is that anything that PayPal can do “the banks” can do so much better.
Do we then need to offer the banks and the major credit card companies another such monopoly-type situation? Ideally not. But, having said that, within the credit card system the individual banks do compete with each other on interest rates, etc.
Regardless, it would be nice to have a card/terminal-less system that worked efficiently and effectively—as does the banks’ credit card system. Regrettably (or thankfully, some say), PayPal does not have such a partnership with “all the banks” and so PayPal can never offer that same effectiveness.
My only surprise is that “all the banks”, via their credit card partners, have not yet announced their own system. When they do, it will be bye, bye, PayPal—you most ugly of children. And, more importantly, we will then have a system that works effectively, just like our credit cards do!
In support of the above comment I offer an introduction to the full sad/ugly story of eBay/PayPal at
I've got 49 transactions, 100% feedback, five years history with loads of high-value stuff. Now eBay tells me I'm not to be trusted and must offer PayScam as a payment option.
So, I set up a new account (cursing, as PP once kept £300 of my money for six months, for no reason) and lo! Another message... I must now offer PP as the ONLY payment option!
Cheating, swindling scumbags. Gumtree, here I come...
On many items now, you HAVE to offer free postage and packing. Ebay seem to think that the postal service is free in this country. Having spoken to customer service reps, they have all said that the p&p must be included in the starting price. As far as I remember this has always been against ebay rules... but wait..!
If you include p&p in the starting price, that means you have to pay extra to ePay a) for the final value fees and b) Payscam fees for recieving payment. Surely this is illegal as it is (no matter how indirectly) interfering with the royal mail as well as taking payment for a delivery service it isnt even offering (Royal Mail or whoever do the delivery work!)
I take exception with your position here. What eBay is doing is in response to unscrupulous sellers flooding the listings with $1 items and then attempting to charge $10 for something that invariably shows up in your mailbox, bent, crumpled, and with $.79 postage attached. The sellers reasons for doing this were twofold. One reason, as you noted, was to escape eBay's fees, however, I think the bigger was to get to the top of listings sorted by price and this method effectively made the price column meaningless. The kicker was when you saw sellers who would refuse to combine shipping for photos and such which they would still combine into a single package.
As a compromise I would accept that sellers be allowed to charge shipping but that it not be allowed to exceed the bid price.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017