Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » Amazon Cuts Off Bill Me Later
advertisement
advertisement

Amazon Cuts Off Bill Me Later

Written by Evan Schuman
December 31st, 2008
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

Amazon.com issued a statement on Thursday (Dec. 30) saying that it was cutting off Bill Me Later as a payment option as of December 31, giving its customers less than 12 hours notice of the change. The highly anticipated move was a result of eBay’s October 2008 purchase of Bill Me Later.

Amazon’s statement offered no explanation for the move, merely declaring that Bill Me Later “will no longer be accepted as a payment method on Amazon” and that the change was “effective Wed., Dec. 31, 2008.” Amazon issued the statement on its own Amazon Seller Community forum on December 30 at 12:17 PM.

For the nitpickers in the readership (and I am proud to count myself among them), the statement was silent on the timezone question so it’s not clear whether it stopped accepting Bill Me Later at midnight New York time or midnight Los Angeles time. No matter. It’s history now.

As for orders in process, Amazon said they would be permitted to conclude. “All sales and orders processed with Bill Me Later prior to this date will continue to be processed. No changes are needed for these existing orders,” the Amazon statement said, before generously adding “Amazon customers can continue to use the remaining payment methods available on Amazon.com in future orders.” Not quite sure what confusion that last sentence had been attempting to address.

Bill Me Later issued its own statement, which explicitly made the eBay connection: “Based on the change of control of Bill Me Later, Amazon exercised (its) right in deciding to discontinue offering Bill Me Later as a payments option.”

Leaning toward the optimistic side of New Year’s Eve, Bill Me Later tried to keep the door open in case Amazon changes its mind. “We think Bill Me Later provided a valuable service to shoppers on Amazon.com, and we would welcome the chance to work with Amazon.com in the future.”

Not Unexpected

The thought that eBay’s 2008 October purchase of Bill Me Later would kill the Amazon deal is hardly new. Our coverage of the eBay deal announcement quoted one party involved as saying that “the Amazon and Bill Me Later relationship is dying if not dead already.”

But the history of Amazon and Bill Me Later dates back a year, when Amazon announced in December 2007 that it would accept Bill Me Later as a payment option at some point in the future, a move it didn’t make good on until July 9, 2008.

Amazon also announced at that time that it was making an equity investment in Bill Me Later, but the company wouldn’t say how much of an investment it was making nor how large a share it was buying. Given that Amazon never received any seats on the board of directors of Bill Me Later, it’s reasonable to conclude it was a relatively small minority stake.

But the good feelings didn’t last long. Exactly 20 days after finally accepting Bill Me Later payments, Amazon rolled out its own alternative payment approach, called Amazon Payments.

Whether the introduction of Amazon Payments made Bill Me Later feel uneasy about the relationship is unclear. But in two-and-a-half months, the eBay acquisition was signed, sealed and announced.

So the alternative payment space continues, with Web behemoths eBay (Bill Me Later), Google (Google Checkout) and Amazon (Amazon Payments) all having their own horses in the race.


advertisement

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...