Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

If you think that the primary problem in payments is technical, maintaining data integrity while bits get shuffled around, then you tend to expect that things like user base, convenience, user experience, aesthetics, etc. will have a big impact on the rising or falling popularity of any particular payment service.

If, on the other hand, you think that the technical problems are just the foundation and the big problems are actually things like regulatory compliance, fraud reduction, reducing cost of payments, and maintaining strong relationships with processors, governments, and banks then the landscape looks a hell of a lot different.

Paypal has already tackled the easy problems, and has been tackling the harder problems a lot better than any of the competition, with the very significant exception of customer service. If you want to trade money between any two individuals on the planet paypal is by far the most likely solution to the problem aside from air mailing gold coins. And paypal spends a hell of a lot more effort on things like detecting and mitigating fraud (and money laundering, and phishing, and so on) and expanding into more countries than most of its competitors. That's why they're still on top.



Well ... yes. I never thought the problems were purely technical.

That doesn't change my simple reality: the only game in town for me, right now, is PayPal.

And boy do they know it.


Yes, I'm agreeing with you. My point is that most people who think "paypal is doomed" probably don't understand the business with any degree of sophistication. Paypal has spent the last decade wriggling into every corner of the global economy, that's not something you can replace with some clever ruby code.


I think I was confusing the global "you" for the personal "you".


Which is why, despite its formal awkwardness, we have the option of the indefinite personal pronoun "one":

"If one thinks the the primary problem in payments is technical [one is mastaken]".

Personally I prefer the less formal compromise of "someone" (or "somebody", "anyone", "anybody" etc. with the choice depending on context and meaning):

""If anyone thinks the the primary problem in payments is technical [they are mistaken]".


I don't think you should have been downvoted.

While one can use 'one', it does as you say have a certain British awkwardness that doesn't endear it to the Australian or American ear.


> I don't think you should have been downvoted.

Deserved because of the typo? One probably shouldn't make such mistakes when discussing grammar!

I suspect though that most down-voted before fully reading and comprehending that in my comment I said exactly what you just repeated - that "one" is correct, but stuffy, and that there are other, better alternatives to "you" when referring to a broader readership.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: