Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PayPal Introduces Open API

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the freedom-to-pay dept.

IT 128

m2pc writes "PayPal has just announced the availability of their Open API under the 'PayPal X Program.' This enables developers to integrate PayPal payment processing services without forcing users to redirect to PayPal's website to enter payment information. This new initiative is designed to allow the company to better compete with the likes of Google and Amazon, which offer similar services. I wonder how much they paid for their domain: x.com?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

As a Developer (1)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986780)

As a developer, I'm freakin excited. I hope it doesn't cost too much money.. or any at all. That's the reason I prefer Paypal for smaller projects over authorize.net.. save the monthly bills.

Re:As a Developer (1, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988084)

As a developer, I'll be avoiding this like the plague.

Why on earth would I want to add the burden of handling and protecting sensitive financial information when I can just send the user to a website they are familiar with to complete the transaction? No credit card numbers in my DB to steal, added trust for the user - this API seems like fail-fail.

Re:As a Developer (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29988474)

The info isn't saved in your database. Have you ever even used a payment gateway?

Re:As a Developer (4, Informative)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988764)

Why on earth would I want to add the burden of handling and protecting sensitive financial information when I can just send the user to a website they are familiar with to complete the transaction? No credit card numbers in my DB to steal, added trust for the user - this API seems like fail-fail.

If you're storing credit card numbers, you're doing it wrong. Here's how it should happen:

  • Your payment page is SSL secured and people enter their CC details
  • Your web server sends it through an SSL-secured API to PayPal
  • PayPal responds with the result
  • Your web server does or doesn't approve the order as appropriate (this is the ??? step)
  • Profit!

The only storage of sensitive information that goes on is inside the server's RAM and it gets discarded from RAM once the transaction concludes.

Re:As a Developer (3, Insightful)

Jherico (39763) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989356)

The problem here is if I'm not redirected to PayPal, I'm offering up my palpal authentication information to a third party in the hope that they're going to use it for the transaction I've authorized and nothing else.

Re:As a Developer (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988234)

It does seem to require you have a registered business name though, I like the micropayment potential and all but it looks like government is still getting in the way of truly seamless, open payments out of fear of money laundering etc. "As a developer" I think this goes a bit OTT, and they could probably afford to take the time to see where money is coming from and going to if/when a significant amount gets made rather than require you prove that you're not a criminal via a huge number of checks and then find out if it's worth it etc.

Re:As a Developer (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989680)

It also looks like you're an idiot. The difference is, of course, that you actually are.

API??? (4, Insightful)

click2005 (921437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986788)

Another Price Increase

Re:API??? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987584)

@click2005: "Another Price Increase"
Yep. A pack of gangsters just created some technology. Great.

Re:API??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29989412)

x.com was a company that was acquired by paypal in the early days (elon musck's company)

one-letter domain? (2, Interesting)

Tolaris (31078) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986800)

Since when are 1-letter second-level domains allowed? I thought it was limited to two letters and up.

Re:one-letter domain? (2, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986860)

One-letter names are allowed. But they were all taken within a very short time. I think about 26 seconds.

Re:one-letter domain? (3, Informative)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986976)

Wrong. One-letter domains were never made available by ICANN except for just a few exceptions made because of trademark issues: q.com for qwest, x.org for the former Open Group and a few others, including (obviously) x.com, though I don't remember who was the original owner of that one.

Re:one-letter domain? (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987416)

PayPal has always owned it:

The current incarnation of PayPal is the result of a March 2000 merger between Confinity and X.com. X.com was founded by Elon Musk in March 1999, initially as an Internet financial services company. Both Confinity and X.com launched their websites in late 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal [wikipedia.org]

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

noundi (1044080) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987866)

PayPal has always owned it:

The current incarnation of PayPal is the result of a March 2000 merger between Confinity and X.com. X.com was founded by Elon Musk in March 1999, initially as an Internet financial services company. Both Confinity and X.com launched their websites in late 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PayPal [wikipedia.org]

That doesn't add up. According to this [wikipedia.org] article the existing single-letter second-level domains were all registered before 1993, as in 1993 IANA reserved the remaining domains. Originally x.com was owned by Weinstein & DePaolis. Some half assed googling led me to this [depaolis.com] , which isn't much. And a quick whois [www.who.is] showed that they also own x.cx, judging by the email used.

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

lannocc (568669) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987702)

As another commenter mentioned, it may have been PayPal. It was certainly some sort of financial institution. I still have an old X.com-branded credit card.

Re:one-letter domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29988264)

It used to be owned by this online bank. The bank was bought by paypal within a year or so, and the x.com name was phased out.

Re:one-letter domain? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29988680)

x.com used to be an on-line bank. It was founded sometime around 2000. They were originally competition for PayPal: their tagline was basically, "you can e-mail money."

When they first started, if you opened an account with them, they actually gave you $20 for free and mailed you a debit card. The only problem with their system is that they didn't own any ATM's and you had to mail in deposits (or do direct deposit via ACH.) So it didn't last very long. They eventually got bought out by PayPal, and so now PayPal owns the x.com domain name and their businesses licenses, etc. I believe it was after the purchase that PP started offering debit cards, so I'm guessing they are doing so under x.com's state charter.

Re:one-letter domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987936)

Yah... PayPal has owned x.com for as long as I've been using it (circa 2000).

Although, the whois record for it indicates that it was created in 1993, which certainly predates PayPal.

Re:one-letter domain? (5, Funny)

greatica (1586137) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988124)

I heard it used to belong to some ridiculous group claiming ufo defense or something.

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991204)

I heard it used to belong to some ridiculous group claiming ufo defense or something.

SpaceX?

Re:one-letter domain? (3, Informative)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989256)

Archive.org has the whole history of the site:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.x.com [archive.org]

Before 2000, it was owned by Rob Walker, then purchased by a company named x.com, which became Paypal:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000520015239/http://www.x.com/ [archive.org]

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990588)

So they were never allowed. Except for the 26 corporations that asked for them. Gotcha.

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986932)

Since ever? X.org [x.org] for example has been around quite awhile.

Re:one-letter domain? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29986936)

You're on Slashdot and you've never been to x.org?

Re:one-letter domain? (2, Funny)

nacturation (646836) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988806)

Slashdot already owns /.org but it's a real bitch to get browsers to recognize the URL.

Re:one-letter domain? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992492)

Slashdot already owns /..org but it's a real bitch to get browsers and DNS servers to recognize the URL.

That's more like it ...

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990218)

Rare, but ICANN has allowed them from time to time. Never visisted x.org? Turn in your geek card for unfamiliarity with the X11 protocol. :-)

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

kimba (12893) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991008)

The single letter .COM/.ORG/.NET domain prohibition was enacted prior to the existence of ICANN, however, existing single letter registrations were grandfathered in and were able to be kept. No exceptions have been granted after the prohibition started.

Re:one-letter domain? (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991062)

Right you are, I stand corrected. [wikipedia.org]

On December 1, 1993, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) explicitly reserved the remaining single-letter and single-digit domain names. The few domains that were already assigned were grandfathered in and continued to exist.

Among the list of grandfathered-in domains was x.org.

Um...guys.... (3, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986820)

I was doing this on an ecommerce site I administered like four years ago. It was called PayPal Payments Pro (or some such) and cost $20/month. No redirects at all. Other than the new domain, what's new? Is it free now?

Re:Um...guys.... (1)

webheaded (997188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987176)

Payflow Pro. I'm thinking the same thing. Maybe they're actually pointing more towards using a Paypal ID without leaving the site or something...I dunno, but I do know my company is one of the processors for Paypal and that they've had functionality like that for quite some time.

Re:Um...guys.... (4, Interesting)

jjohn24680 (1050922) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987708)

PayProFlow is their credit card payment gateway, and handles other kinds of related transactions (debit cards, pre-funded cards). It appears this API ties to their main payment system (transfer funds between PayPal accounts) rather than credit cards. The company I work for uses their gateways to process transactions for both credit cards and also payments between PayPal accounts. Currently, if someone wants to receive a payment from us, they have to go to the PayPal website and create an account there. Once they have an account, we can use the existing API to transfer funds. From the article, it appears that you can use this API to create a new account, which is something that I don't believe can be done at this point.

Paypal has owned X.com for YEARS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29986844)

Paypal bought x.com a number of years ago. 8 years? Something like that. I think it happened when they were still giving you $5 for every new referral you brought in (I made some $$$$ off of Paypal, now it's the other way around. :( ).

Paypal was originally x.com (4, Informative)

SashaMan (263632) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986866)

Paypal has owned the x.com domain since before they were paypal (check wikipedia), so while x.com probably wasn't super cheap back in 1999, it's not like they just purchased it.

Re:Paypal was originally x.com (1)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986912)

Yeah, the offered online checking accounts. I signed up for X.com and Paypal accounts initially because they were giving away free money, no deposit required. I didn't think either one would last (I was half right), but hey, free money.

Re:Paypal was originally x.com (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987226)

I still have my old x.com credit card. It's a great geeky X-Com commemorative, even though it has nothing to do with the game. :-D

Re:Paypal was originally x.com (1)

kalislashdot (229144) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987538)

Years ago, I used to go to paypal by going to x.com. It was so much shorted to type and it just redirected for me to paypal.com Then they made it the "labs" site and my shortcut was ruined.

Re:Paypal was originally x.com (3, Interesting)

loshwomp (468955) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991708)

X.com was one of the companies that merged to form PayPal. They epitomized the bubble "land grab" mentality by giving away free money to attract customers.

I still have a check for $0.01 sent to me (for no obvious reason) by "PayPal's X.com" during the bubble days. It's such a perfect metaphor for the stupidity of that era that I just had to save it and frame it.

I wonder what PCI implications this will have. (2, Insightful)

marbike (35297) | more than 4 years ago | (#29986992)

A lot of companies expend a great deal of resources in order to conform to PCI-DSS. The need for extensive testing, Web App Firewalls and the like is a pricey and time consuming activities for merchants dealing with PCI. When seasoned developers often forget to mask PANs, I wonder what the novice developer will do. I hope that this service will include some PCI guidelines so small merchants won't get bit in the ass by the certification bug.

redirect is better (5, Insightful)

bolthole (122186) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987024)

I personally LIKE the redirect. I LIKE only inputting my credit card/whatnot information to paypal.com directly, instead of some random site that I'm doing a one-time transaction with and will probably never see again.

Re:redirect is better (4, Insightful)

webheaded (997188) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987220)

Yeah, I'd have to agree. I generally shy away from websites that directly ask me for a username and password for another site. I don't care who you are, but after all the phishing emails and such we've seen over the years, you'd have to be pretty dense to not feel at least a little uncomfortable with something like this.

there is a solution (3, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988946)

We have a site that can ease your mind about such transactions, and we can even alert you to suspicious activity! Kindly provide the following information and our salespeople will get you set up:

Name:
Paypal Username:
Paypal Password:
Social Security Number:

Re:redirect is better (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987478)

Sort of off topic, but something that might interest you if you haven't seen it before is a feature Citi offers with their credit cards called virtual account numbers [citicards.com] . Basically, it allows you to generate different numbers that point back to your real account and are only good for one use. You can also limit the amount of time they're active as well as put a cap on how much money can be drawn from it. Pretty cool.

Re:redirect is better (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988820)

yeah, but that means doing business with Citi. No thanks.

Re:redirect is better (1)

Alok (37687) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988880)

The same feature was offered on MBNA cards as well, and afaik is still there post-acquisition (by BoA). I think Discover has virtual numbers too, and probably AmEx should also be having something similar.

The unfortunate part is that there are some caveats to the 'one time use only', or atleast in MBNA's case there were stories of people who got charged on the number months after their initial purchase - unfortunately I don't really remember much about that, never used them much myself anyway.

Re:redirect is better (2, Insightful)

amasiancrasian (1132031) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987496)

+1 post; allowing website owners to directly process user/pass info for PayPal is potentially a dangerous move if all sorts of security audits/nefarious site owners are processing login info. There's definitely potential for abuse because the redirect kept the user/pass separate from the app processing. We implemented SSO handling via CAS because we could train users never to type in their user/pass on any site except for sso.bigcompany.com.

Further, even banks require all sorts of audits if a website is handling credit card info directly. We have to undergo all sorts of security audits (e.g are you storing cc numbers? who has access to your code? who has access to your database?) before we were even allowed to touch a cc gateway.

Re:redirect is better (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987768)

Not to mention, there'll be a whole host of XSS crap going on so that sites can grab your login information to Paypal from their website. After all, their site has to include the paypal stuff in it, who's to say that "submit" button isn't "send us and paypal your login"?

If using Paypal, I expect to visit Paypal's site to log in. (There were some XSS used to get the site's inventory into Paypal, but that's a different issue, and it happens before login).

My Paypal information is valuable - I don't want to trust some oddball website with it. I hope there's a "Redirect to Paypal" link I can use instead of this stuff...

Re:redirect is better (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987626)

Totally agree with you here. It felt weirder ordering off Dell.com than it did DealExtreme.com. I was expecting redirects to a secure site for payment.

Re:redirect is better (3, Insightful)

DigitalCrackPipe (626884) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987742)

I hope they continue to allow the explicit paypal.com visit. Otherwise I forsee bailing out of a number of transactions due to the sketchiness of giving free access to your bank account to some random site.

Re:redirect is better (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988712)

There is no reason you can't have both, and just let the consumer decide. Believe it or not, there are cases where the consumer would rather not leave the site.

For instance, when our customers wanted a refund from us, we had to tell them to make the request through Pay Pal first (at least, at the time that was the case, I don't know if it still is the case now), and then we would issue the refund as soon as we saw the request come in. We couldn't initiate that request ourselves.

This really didn't sit well with our customers. Also the Pay Pal process for requesting a refund made the process unnecessarily adversarial and completely user-unfriendly. As a company in a very competitive area, we didn't want our customers (who for some reason were not satisfied with our services/products) to feel we were dragging our feet, or to feel that we were pawning them off to some giant faceless corporation who didn't know the first thing about what went wrong in the first place. Unsatisfied customers who feel that way are much more likely to write very negative reviews.

Re:redirect is better (1)

vanyel (28049) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989568)

As a paypal user from the other side, I like the redirect because it means I never see customer credit cards, so I don't have to deal with that level of security concerns...

Bummer! (5, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987026)

As an end user, to me the value in going through a centralized payment service is the security of having only one reputable company (PayPal) handling my personal information, instead of having every vendor out there from whom I've ever bought anything potentially putting my CC# into their database. Forget disintermediation via this API, I'd rather go the other way and have assurance from the middleman that the vendor will never get anything they don't need for order fullfillment - that is, just my name and mailing address.

Re:Bummer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987252)

Looks like you missed www.paypalsucks.com

Re:Bummer! (4, Informative)

nametaken (610866) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987426)

You're kidding, right? Did you just call PayPal a reputable company? You clearly haven't had an account seized for no particular reason... or the various other nefarious shit they're known for.

Re:Bummer! (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987644)

Right - but it's better Paypal than an eBay seller, or Paypal plus a random site, right?

Re:Bummer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987692)

Better the evil you know than the evil you don't and the evil you know, mate. Think about it for a moment.

Re:Bummer! (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988920)

Better the evil you know than the evil you don't and the evil you know, mate. Think about it for a moment.

But, if it's an evil I do know that decides to change into an evil that I don't know, then I would be dealing with an evil that I know but really don't know - think about that for a moment.

Poor choice of words... (5, Insightful)

raehl (609729) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987880)

He meant greedy business entity strongly financially motivated to avoid any uncontrolled release of your information.

PayPal very diligently acts to protect their bottom line. You may not like their policies on withholding balances, but that same financial diligence also goes in to maintaining security to prevent the huge financial losses that would occur should the public no longer perceive paypal as secure.

Re:Poor choice of words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29992120)

Wait so you're calling larceny "financial diligence"?

I better become "financially diligent" when I got to the local 7/11 and chew on some snacks without paying for them. I'll leave behind 99% of the snack later, so no real loss for them. In fact, I'll go around every place in town, eat 99% of the snack. After I do this a hundred times, I've chewed enough to have a whole snack.

In fact, I'll just send out a robot to do this for me. Every day I'll have piles of snacks for free, because I'm financially diligent and no one loses out.

That's basically what Paypal do when they withhold accounts. Those accounts are not earning any interest you see. Paypal does however, earn interest on its the robbed values. Paypal is a scam and the people behind it are slimey and known to lock accounts under political motivation.

Re:Bummer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29989470)

That's right, paypal has a terrible habit of taking clean owned money out of good peoples accounts and delving them into faceless labrynthian bureaucracy which has no known end. Paypal is more reputable than mailorder bride dot ru or something; but paypal does not have a good reputation.

Re:Bummer! (3, Funny)

Phroggy (441) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989718)

They are a reputable company, in that they have a reputation.

Re:Bummer! (1)

MrPerfekt (414248) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991658)

You clearly haven't tried to manage fraud on more than 70 million active accounts. Anybody that's had a high school statistics class will tell you that some innocent people are going to get caught in the net. Of course, it's not perfect. It never will be. Neither is the Visa fraud system that denies charges that it deems to be "out of character" for your habits. But I don't see you bitching that Visa won't let you buy a lifetime subscription to your favorite monkeyporn site.

My point is that, PayPal gets a bad rap because of a small minority of people that have had a bad experience because they met the fraud models that were put in place to protect the other millions and millions of customers. Sorry to hear about the misfortune. Life goes on.

x.com (2, Informative)

JoeF (6782) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987058)

They didn't pay anything for x.com. They were x.com originally.

Re:x.com (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987212)

They paid in opportunity cost [wikipedia.org] . Imagine how much they could have made by selling x.com!

Re:x.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987574)

about 1/3 as much as if they had xxx.com

Re:x.com (1)

TomXP411 (860000) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988748)

Not true. x.com and PayPal were two different companies with two different products back in 2000. x was a bank, PP was an on-line payment service. By buying x.com, PayPal was able to offer debit cards and some other fun stuff they couldn't before (at least not without getting a charter as a bank, which is probably more expensive than simply buying a bank...) I remember it well; I had an x.com debit card at the time, and I used to use both services.

Security? (3, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987322)

This is sad news for me personally.

I always liked that I got redirected to PayPal.com to enter my PayPal details. Allowing me to check the SSL certificate and avoiding certain kinds of phishing fraud. Plus keeping my login details out of the hands of third parties who might enjoy looking at my payment history (which I agreed to in line 9999 subsection 5, amendment 3 of the T&C).

Ironically while PayPal moves away from a redirection systems the big credit card companies (VISA, Mastercard, etc) are moving into one. Now often bringing up a password page operated by your CC company in order to verify that you haven't stolen card details.

Re:Security? (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987930)

If it ties in to the rotating cipher device PayPal offers its all the same to me. Its a DigiPass Go 3 FYI, similar to what Blizzard uses for WoW.

Re:Security? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29988134)

Now often bringing up a password page operated by your CC company in order to verify that you haven't stolen card details.

Yeah and what a freaking scam that is. While in theory things like "Verified By Visa" seem like a good idea, it is extra security after all, all it's really doing is making you liable if someone happens to hack your Verified By Visa account. It is probably easy to do considering it seems to use some funky redirecting XSS type crap (ie. it won't work if you have javascript off and it can probably be easily intercepted/man-in-the-middled by 3rd parties). If that happens you might no longer be as well protected by the fraud laws that limit your liability (which is $50 in the US). Search around and you can find more information (see here [theregister.co.uk] for starters).

As a representative of one burned by PayPal (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987386)

It'll be a cold day in hell before they see any utilization by any of the companies I work for or service.

They could be the last financial institution on the planet. I and some of the people I work for would revert to a barter economy first.

Re:As a representative of one burned by PayPal (1)

Nithendil (1637041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987660)

It still amazes me that there isn't a legit popular alternative to paypal for online shopping (other than huge sites like amazon). I refuse to have anything to do with them anymore. At least it taught me a lesson in scams and how to deal with companies who care very little for their customers.

Re:As a representative of one burned by PayPal (3, Informative)

Have Brain Will Rent (1031664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987990)

In Canada there is Interac where you can send money by email - I assume there is something similar in the US. An Interac transfer is as good as a wire transfer - i.e. when the money gets to your account it is yours period. There is also HyperWallet which is popular with the credit unions and some other institutions.

Re:As a representative of one burned by PayPal (1)

Nithendil (1637041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988256)

What I have seen in the US is either the website has their own shop with credit processing, or they are affiliated with someone (amazon, google) or they take paypal; I'm sure there are other options but they are outliers.

Re:As a representative of one burned by PayPal (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988138)

Well, if you're looking for a way to receive money from your customers, there's always esellerate [esellerate.net] .

(I'm not affiliated with them, just a happy customer.)

Re:As a representative of one burned by PayPal (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989006)

2co.com ?

Re:As a representative of one burned by PayPal (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29990430)

Speaking as someone in the industry... there's a lot of reasons. The barriers to entry are extremely high (and that's before you realize that your competition is a multi billion dollar giant with massive market and mindshare), there's a huge amount of legal BS that you have to deal with, and the banking industry is painfully slow and outdated to work with.

I AM surprised that other payment gateways don't do more in consumer-facing work, but there's plenty of very good reasons that they'll be staying strictly B2B for the foreseeable future

No parking. (4, Funny)

Snufu (1049644) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987430)

I wonder how much they paid for their domain: x.com?

It's variable.

This is a bad idea because... (5, Insightful)

phiz187 (533366) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987440)

This is going to make users accustomed to entering their paypal credentials into all sorts of unique interfaces, on a variety of websites. It is going to condition users to be less guarded about their paypal credentials. As it stands now, you basically only enter your PayPal credentials into either the PayPal.com or Ebay.com domains. Users know that if anywhere else asks for their credentials, that it is a phishing site. I think this is going to be a minor disaster for PayPal. But hey, maybe they're cash-flush enough to eat the cost of all the new fraud claims that are going to result.

Re:This is a bad idea because... (2, Informative)

gravyface (592485) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988246)

I have a newsflash for you Walter Cronkite: users wouldn't know the difference between ebay.com and ebay.ha.ha.pwned.com if it had an eBay logo on it.

Re:This is a bad idea because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29989216)

newsflash for you: this is not true for people internetknowledgeable enough to actually register on paypal.

Re:This is a bad idea because... (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988608)

Well, that sucks for people that trusted Paypal to begin with.

x.com? duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987476)

I wonder how much they paid for their domain: x.com?"

Well, if the submitter did any background work before furiously cutting and pasting from someone's blog to get this submission, they'd realize that x.com is actually paypal's ORIGINAL domain name before they got bought and turned into paypal. But hey, who expects facts in a slashdot submission?

Critical missing piece (1)

RyoShin (610051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29987636)

Nifty, but I'm waiting for the day that they announce good customer service.

(Although I believe they're lifting the ban on adult content sites, so that's good.)

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29987876)

I wonder how much they paid for their domain: x.com?"

.

I wonder if PayPal is ever going to provide anything better than barely mediocre customer service?

You have a short memory... (1)

larwe (858929) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988086)

Don't you remember that X.com *WAS* PayPal until about 2000? I would be surprised if they paid more than a four-figure sum for the domain; real estate wasn't as valuable back then. X.com was originally an online bank of sorts.

Re:You have a short memory... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29988624)

He also has a short penis.

Re:You have a short memory... (1)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 4 years ago | (#29991210)

You'd be surprised if they paid more than a four-figure sum for the domain? Valuable domains sold in the millions in the late 90s, and that was oct 1999, only a few months away from the peak of the dot-com bubble. I can't find data on how much x.com was sold for, but for some examples selling in the millions in '99, look at altavista.com, autos.com, business.com--and I'm only at the start of the alphabet there.

Anyway, this is kind of an unimportant point to make, but the irony of saying someone else has a short memory while completely forgetting how crazy things were in '99 amused me enough to respond ;-)

where is (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988172)

Where is the whatcouldpossiblygoeswrong tag ?

There goes all the conditioning... (2, Insightful)

foxtyke (766988) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988242)

I have spent the better part of my digital life convincing people that Paypal credentials should ONLY be provided when on Paypal.com, when you have a nice SSL certificate showing Paypal, Inc. and the like.

Granted you could place your credentials on retailer sites through existing APIs but most retailers recognized the need for consistency and helped condition Paypal users to expect to be taken to Paypal.com to complete the transaction and then back to the retailer site.

I agree, the chances of phishing success just went up considerably with this decision and more likely than not, it will be affected normal everyday users of Paypal more than the new users.

thanks sirs - exciting news (2, Funny)

postmortem (906676) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988564)

Dear Sirs,

These are great news that promise increased effectiveness and efficiency in money transfers for humble users from Nigeria.

Additionally, if you could assist me in transferring some funds from our deceased noblemen, you will truly be awarded.

Yours Faithfully,

Dr. Akeem Biobaku

mod uP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29988706)

hand...Don'T our ability to And sold in the driven out by the

Security risk? (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 4 years ago | (#29988932)

The new PayPal APIs allow developers to engage customers directly within their own applications rather than forcing them to port users off to the actual PayPal site. Users who don't even use PayPal can actually sign up for PayPal within the third-party application and begin making PayPal payments seamlessly from within the third-party application.

So now you're relying on a third party application running on your vendor's website to not secretly cubbyhole a copy of your PayPal password as you use the third-party site to login or register for PP ?

x.com? (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989182)

Hey, whatever gets us more page views.

(If you haven't been to http://x.org/ [x.org] , you might not get the joke.)

x.com (1)

strstr (539330) | more than 4 years ago | (#29989794)

Hasn't PayPal always owned x.com? if I recall, you used to access the website at paypal.x.com and it wasn't until a few years ago that they started using paypal.com.

ma8e (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29990112)

be on A wrong

It's like banking, without consumer protections. (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#29992116)

PayPal calls this WebSite Payments Pro. [paypal.com] They don't use the world "Open", at least not to developers.

What they are offering is essentially the same thing banks offer as "merchant accounts" that connect to "shopping cart" programs. But, this being PayPal, without all the consumer protections that banks are required to provide. I've been reading through the documentation, and there's no sign of all the security requirements Visa imposes on merchants.

(Well, actually there is [paypal.com] - under "Legal Agreements, Exhibit A". But there's no sign of technical requirements to back them up.)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?