Google Accidently Revealed As eBay Critic

Xiroth writes "In what could cause an escalation of tensions between the two internet giants, an anonymous critique of eBay's upcoming move to accepting only PayPal as the payment method in Australia has accidently been revealed to have been submitted by Google thanks to PDF meta-tags."

Heh

[dreamchaser]

I think it's funny that the PDF dissapeared shortly after the discovery, only to be reposted with the incriminating metadata stripped out hours later. That's pretty brazen since the cat was already out of the bag.

Did anyone NOT think that Google astroturfs like all the rest? They just got busted at it is all.

I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[poeidon1]

so does it really prove that the document came from Google? Of course, they might be the one but who knows...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[dreamchaser]

Sure, anyone could created a similar incriminating document. Heck even Ebay could have. However, I'm pretty sure Google astroturfs along with the rest of it's competetion, so I tend to think it was just a slip up on their part, especially since it was reposted with metadata stripped out later on.

I guess it could be a clever setup to make Google look bad, but my instincts tell me it's not. YMMV.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[Starburnt]

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Re:Heh

[elnico]

If you pay attention, you'll notice that the "brazen reposting" was done by the ACC, not Google.

And I don't see this as astroturfing. Posting anonymously is different from posting under a fake identity. Not to mention they're both tangential to whether or not Google has a point in their submission.

RTFA

[IronMagnus]

For all of you saying this was Google's mess up... please RTFA:

The Australian competition watchdog has accidentally revealed Google as the anonymous source of a submission that is highly critical of eBay's proposal to force its users onto the PayPal payments system.

Google didn't mess up, the watchdogs did.

Re:Does anybody still use eBay?

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, eBay owns Paypal, so why is anyone surprised? And in any case, what's the big deal with using Paypal? Sure, I've heard the horror stories, but fortunately nothing like that has ever happened to me as a seller, so there ya go.

I'll say one thing in defense of paypal -- it sure is damned convenient.

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[morgan_greywolf]

Is Google really direct competition for eBay, though? Google Checkout is really more competition for Yahoo stores than anything else, and even then it's not direct competition. Google just isn't in the online auction business.
 

Re:I can also produce a pdf with the same title

[dotancohen]

Why do you people on slashdot keep on repeating the same sentences, are you Bor

You must be new here.

Re:RTFA

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I doubt that Google needs to remain anonymous anyway. I know there's always the inference of bias because Google is a competitor, but there is a similar, and possibly stronger inference of bias with anonymous statements because of the question of why they need to remain anonymous on this topic.

I can't help but imagine a much bigger outrage if Microsoft tried to anonymously complain about a competitor's anti-trust activities.

Time for google to step up

[ArchieBunker]

They have a payment system and the technical capabilities, time for Google Auctions. Fuck ebay.

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

It's not unethical. What is unethical is not allowing users to use any other form of payment (aside from COD). Why would an online merchant who already has a merchant gateway (credit card processing) account have to pay PayPal's ridiculous fees? There is absolutely zero technical reason for the prohibition, and aside from check/MO/cashier's check fraud, adds zero to the overall safety of transactions.

They are the defacto monopoly in the online auction space, and are using that weight to shut out competitors in another market (payment processing.)

'Accidently' is not a word, 'Accidentally' is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, would a spellchecker kill the editors?

Re:PayPal requires caution

[Rorschach1]

I did get screwed by PayPal as a buyer once - bought two of an item and only received one, but I was told that as long as I received *something*, even an empty package, that PayPal wouldn't help me out. Maybe that's changed.

I've made thousands of sales through PayPal without any problems, but there are a couple of reasons for that. First, I'm not selling on eBay - all of the sales are through my own site, which doesn't attract scammers (Indonesian credit card fraudsters aside) like eBay does. Second, I've got a low enough return rate and high enough margins that I can afford a liberal return/replacement policy. Sending a prepaid return mailer and issuing a full refund to the rare dissatisfied customer does a very good job of defusing conflicts.

Yes, PayPal's fees are a little high. Not vastly higher than the discount rate on a card-not-present merchant account, though. Dropping PayPal as a payment option would mean losing many of my sales to certain countries.

But parent is right - they want to be a bank but without the regulation. For the fee they take, they provide very little protection, compared to the credit card companies. I would imagine that ramping up a large enough fraud department to properly handle the number of disputes they get would be VERY costly, and short of the government forcing them into it, I can't see it ever happening. As long as that great sales engine of eBay keeps cranking along with a 99% success rate, people will just accept it.

Re:PayPal requires caution

[sjbe]

You mean you were weren't offering a full refund, or you weren't offering returns? Dude, What kind of sham operation were you running?

There are lots of cases where no returns is appropriate and there is NOTHING ethically wrong with a no returns policy as long as it is disclosed up front. No one HAS to buy from you and with a no returns policy you should expect to get less money given the risk the buyer is taking. Lots of real world vendors do it every day. If you don't like the policy, don't buy from that vendor.

Certain types of clothing is an obvious case where a no refund policy (think used underwear... ick) is highly appropriate. Likewise second hand, already opened software or music is another. There are also situations like selling items on consignment where it is impractical to offer a return policy due to insufficient margins. But even beyond all that, if a vendor wants to sell something with a no return policy that is their right just as it is your right not to buy from them.

Nobody expects you to be walmart (though many Americans think that?) and take broken crap back, but if the item hasn't even been opened, you should be taking it back and deducting the shipping fee.

Actually buyers DO expect you to be Wal*Mart and that's the problem. If the seller actually got the shipping fee back on returns that would be fine but with PayPal they do not. PayPal does NOT refund shipping EVER. As a seller I am NOT willing to eat a $10 to $100 shipping fee (depending on the item being shipped) just so someone can on a whim decide they don't like something. That's a fast way to lose a ton of money. Furthermore I've experience countless cases where someone shipped back merchandise they broke (not the carrier) and PayPal gave them their money back without the slightest effort to verify the condition of the merchandise. Wal*Mart makes billions and can afford to accept returns for any reason. That rarely describes sellers on eBay.

"Bad buying experience" is caused entirely by sellers who want an easy way to ditch customer service in favor of keeping more of the profit

Try actually running a real business someday before making such a ridiculous statement. "More profit"? Try ANY profit. It is extremely difficult to make ANY profit selling on eBay. A no questions asked return policy on top of 7-10% eBay/PayPal fees and non-reimbursed shipping costs is a good way to go out of business fast. Furthermore there are at LEAST as many scummy buyers as there are scummy sellers on eBay. I've seen every scam in the book first hand as a seller and you're going to tell me it's all the sellers fault? You have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:My eBay feedback 1000, still rooting for Google

[zippthorne]

Indeed, the infrastructure is already there.

But, we really just need a web-host with a number of decent templates for various items, and a strict classifying scheme to promote good searching. The "auction" bit is a nice gimmick, but search capabilities are more useful.

For instance, you shouldn't have to do a text search for laptops and manually filter out all the laptop accessories. You should be able to drill down your requirements until what remains is a number of laptops that meet your requirements with varying prices and optional stuff that might help your decision, but isn't strictly necessary.

eBay doesn't even do this very well and that's their core business. The auction bit is a nice gimmick, and has some utility in establishing market price for items you're not sure about, but an improved version of craigslist (even one where you pay for the listings) would be an eBay killer.

Anonymous to avoid ad-hominem

[mlwmohawk]

The problem with Google's posting of an opinion, that many probably agree with, is that the use of ad-hominem is so prevalent and accepted that, these days, it is impossible to state something factual and verifiable, or reasonable and well thought out, without it being automatically colored by what people's perceptions of your motives might be.

People have just given up even attempting to think. They judge quickly based on sound bites and prejudices, they no longer contemplate the validity of an argument before forming an opinion.

Re:Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the enemy of my enemy (and eBay is every law-abiding citizens' enemy) is my friend, so in my eyes Google still does no evil.

Why? If you don't like eBay, don't use them. Problem solved.

Re:Good.

[legirons]

How is it unethical to use your own checkout system?

When you have a monopoly in the auction market and wish to extend this to a monopoly in the electronic payments market?

Re:Good.

[Fjandr]

De facto: in actuality, if not actual legal definition. Market share is a key indicator of monopoly status. Using that market share to create an artificial barrier to entry (into payment processing, not auction sites) is an abuse of that status.

To put it another way, requiring use of PayPal could easily be argued to amount to unlawful bundling of a service that is not strictly necessary to eBay's auction business.

Granted this is all from a US legal standpoint, rather than an Australian one.

Network effects

[sjbe]

The definition of "monopoly" is not "large and popular". There are thousands of online auction sites. There are no barriers to entry into the online auction field.

EBay has one of the most formidable barriers to entry there is, namely network effects [wikipedia.org]. Sellers go to eBay because that is where the buyers are and vice-versa. The barriers to entry if you want to compete with eBay are HUGE. Amazon.com and Yahoo both tried and failed miserably to make a dent in eBay's auction business and they have all the capital and IT talent necessary already. Like it or not, eBay has a de-facto monopoly on online auctions to the same extent Microsoft has one on operating systems.

The only downside is those other sites don't have as many users as eBay, but there are ways around that if you really dislike eBay.

That's pretty much the one disadvantage that actually matters. The ENTIRE point of a marketplace is to bring buyers and sellers together. No one brings more buyers and sellers together than eBay - in fact there isn't even a close second. As someone who has conducted over 10,000 online auctions let me tell you, if you want to use any site other than eBay except for very specialized items (like guns) even if you sell your item at all off eBay you aren't likely to get a good price or many interested buyers.

Re:Heh

[bit01]

And I don't see this as astroturfing. Posting anonymously is different from posting under a fake identity.

Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud.

Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.

Companies should have no right of anonymity and it's about time the law caught up with them. All communication by corporate entities should be clearly identified as such. Corporations have a privileged legal position and with that privilege comes responsibility. In particular, transparency and accountability.

Think it doesn't matter? It does, or they wouldn't do it.

Corporate tools will claim that readers will not give them a fair hearing if they post under the corporate name. Well hello, guess why. If corporations were trustworthy they wouldn't have a problem.

Others will claim that the message should be evaluated independent of the messenger. Self serving nonsense, context is very important in evaluating the veracity of a message.

---

Paid marketers are the worst zealots.

Why hasn't what you hope been done already?

[Mana Mana]

Because of the network effect.

Amazon tried, as well as Yahoo (years ago), to compete with ebay's business but you know what, although everyone griped, save the true Mom and Pop believers, and gripes to this day about Ebay's atrocious failings it is the commom people, you know the everyday peons, which think of Internet auction and Ebay as synonymous. AS though they are one and the same.

If I recollect Yahoo even made their offerings gratis, free. And they still did not make a dent.

Before you say, ja, mon, but Google is different, let me point out that Google Video could not compete with the Youtube (and they tried and tried), and as a consequence Google threw money at the Youtube founders. That network effect [wikipedia.org] again, or the bandwagon effect, as wikipedia alternatively calls it.

Let's hope you are right, that Google competes for Ebay's profitable "auction" business. And consequently brings some responsiveness to that field. I have see my gf during the Teenie Baby craze use Ebay regularly, I never have, thankfully, but just my attemtps over the yearS(!) to peruse their wares left me, still leaves me flabbergasted at how shitty they are!

Anyhow, real competition to Ebay apparatenly comes from Craigslist, so the newspapers say and fear, and strategize to subvert. Try they do. Maybe Craigslist will be the antidote. Or auction.google.com. Nah! Never! The states regulate the auction business, that is why Ebay never refers about itself with the term auction. Auctioneers have to meet a lot of governmental regulation. Only lazy newspaper writers, and/or recently assigned to the beat, use that term so readily near Ebay, Inc.

Man, all this has been discussed over the years on the /. ^.^

Re:Heh

[pclminion]

Bullshit. It's posting in a way that's intended to deceive the reader into thinking the message is by an average citizen and not paid propaganda. It's fraud. Astroturfers are lying scum and should be in jail.

People should be jailed for speaking anonymously? Exactly which Godwin reference were you shooting for?

Re:PayPal requires caution

[dangitman]

I never said I should get to determine it - just that people who run businesses on eBay are total assholes of the type who fancy "get rich quick" schemes. Thus, the market for honest person-to-person sales has been demolished by the hungry "power sellers". Heh, I don't think my arrogance (of which there's plenty) can compare to the craziness of people who go to eBay brainwashing meetings for sellers, who buy into the cult completely. It's like fucking Scientology crossed with Amway.