Which is irrelevant for my point, what’s relevant for the comment chain is that a person can quickly make a direct transfer and the second person receives it instantly most of the time. The inner workings of the functionality are not relevant when talking about the use case.
You make it seem like I need to send a request email to the target bank, then wait until their certified postal mail reaches my bank, then my bank sends them money. This is a hyperbole, what I mean is that you make it seem way more cumbersome than it is for the end user.
I agree that it’s important from a security standpoint, but it’s not relevant from a usability standpoint.
They originally said:
In the US you really could not send money from one Person to another?
And you answered:
It’s actually the same in Europe. You can only authorize someone else to take money out of your account.
You are describing how the process works internally to someone in a chain that describes usability from the end user. In Europe we can send money, we tell the bank which amount and where, and then they use their incredibly shitty security methods to perform the transaction. That’s agnostic to me from an usability standpoint. That’s why I said that you were not saying relevant information.
Tell that to my bank which couldn’t undo a scam transfer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What all those shiny new services underestimate about Paypal is buyer protection for the costumer and for shop owners the guarantee to receive the money. Probably the latter not so much anymore, but back in the day, when online shopping took of it was.
No, it was an instant transfer which was withdrawn already at the receiving end, so they could not undo it. Everything within one working day. But be it as it may, maybe I could’ve done something more, but that is, why I came to like Paypal: very hassle-free to get your money back. Every other service would need to do the same at least to convince me.
It’s actually the same in Europe. You can only instruct someone else to take money out of your account.
I dont think so. As far as i know i can send money to whoever i want when i have their iban number.
Nope. You’re telling your bank to tell their bank that you authorize them to withdrawal that amount.
I go to my phone app, make a transfer, put the IBAN of the one I want to send money, put amount, bank tells me if it takes a day or is immediate, go.
The other person recieves money, lately most banks have it instantly, so they get it instantly.
Is it really that important what the banks are doing internally if I’m the one initiating the action and they get the money?
I even have my usual contacts in the bank’s app, so most of the time sending the money is super simple.
I’m familiar with the UI. Its pull-based in the back end. Source: I worked for a bank
Which is irrelevant for my point, what’s relevant for the comment chain is that a person can quickly make a direct transfer and the second person receives it instantly most of the time. The inner workings of the functionality are not relevant when talking about the use case.
You make it seem like I need to send a request email to the target bank, then wait until their certified postal mail reaches my bank, then my bank sends them money. This is a hyperbole, what I mean is that you make it seem way more cumbersome than it is for the end user.
It’s absolutely important. Because pull based transactions are less secure.
I agree that it’s important from a security standpoint, but it’s not relevant from a usability standpoint.
They originally said:
And you answered:
You are describing how the process works internally to someone in a chain that describes usability from the end user. In Europe we can send money, we tell the bank which amount and where, and then they use their incredibly shitty security methods to perform the transaction. That’s agnostic to me from an usability standpoint. That’s why I said that you were not saying relevant information.
What you describe is SEPA Core Direct Debit and not a sepa credit transfer
They’re both debit. The difference is the UI. In the backend, its both pull-based.
You can’t prevent someone malicious from pulling from your account.
But you can transfer is back if its maliciously. Its just a click in the online banking. If you transfer it yourself you cant get it back.
Tell that to my bank which couldn’t undo a scam transfer ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
What all those shiny new services underestimate about Paypal is buyer protection for the costumer and for shop owners the guarantee to receive the money. Probably the latter not so much anymore, but back in the day, when online shopping took of it was.
Was the scam tranfser to long ago timewise? There is an maximum time frame for undoing that.
No, it was an instant transfer which was withdrawn already at the receiving end, so they could not undo it. Everything within one working day. But be it as it may, maybe I could’ve done something more, but that is, why I came to like Paypal: very hassle-free to get your money back. Every other service would need to do the same at least to convince me.