This would be my #1, as it would have drastically changed (for better or worse) the internet. Although, it's a psycological problem instead of a technical one. You can put a PayPal button or Stripe popup on your page using technology today, which will usually take 10 seconds (given that the user is logged into those services, since we're assuming that this micro-payments practice is common), but it's a wild expectation that people would actually get used to willingly give up a nonzero amount of time to pay for something so small as an article.
Another problem may have been this. If everyone on the internet agreed that say, watching a video should cost $0.02/minute, then people would get accustomed to paying this amount because that's such a small cost. But it's only a $0.02 decision for a content creator to restrict or allow it to be watched for free, and if say, 5% of artists just decided to "eat" the potenential earnings, then you'd have 5% of free videos and 95% premium videos. The 5% free videos would prevent the 95% of videos from being watched, because why would anyone pay to watch a video if you can watch another one for free. Basically I'm saying that this idealization of micropayment content is destroyed by free content, whether that is a good thing or not. I do this myself with respect to Android apps, since I don't take my time seriously enough to pay the occassional $1 per app.
This is because VISA/AMEX have an oligarchy, and VISA is backed by the banks, i.e. the entities that issue credit.
So, the financial system is 'behind' the crapy payment scheme.
Something would have to come along to basically offer credit without all that.
I'm mostly surprised that Amazon and/or Wallmart have not simply done that.
I'll bet Bezos does some day: a low-interest rate 'Amazon Card' that other merchants can use, credit provided by Amazon (not banks), and it's 0% payment for other merchants.
That is a good point, but PayPal and other services don't need to use cards at all (PayPal balance, attached to a bank routing number), so I don't think it's the reason micro-payments are not the norm.
A credit card alternative from Amazon would be fantastic competitor to VISA / MasterCard to break the lack of innovation in the personal finance industry.
To use PayPal - you have to have your money in PayPal, or it will use an underlying credit card. So, it's really just like using a bank account to pay directly.
Most people don't like having to keep a separate current amount in PayPal to buy stuff.
Also - I'm not sure if the merchant fees that PayPal charges are any less, i.e. they didn't take the 'no fees' angle for the merchants.
And of course there is the consumer benefit: even if a system only charged 0% to merchants, and not 2-3%, well, consumers don't care. So getting enough consumers to sign up is hard.
VISA / AMEX prevent merchants from advertising cheaper prices for use of other cards - so even if a merchant had a 0% processor option, they're not allowed to discount by 2-3% for that card vis-a-vis VISA / AMEX.
It's a tightly controlled oligarchy. It's huge, entrenched, it's entire consumer financial system. Going after it would be economic thermonuclear war.
A disruptor will have to come from an outside angle - or - be huge and have their own base.
So I can see Amazon just 'doing it' themselves, for their own customer base, which equals a critical mass.
Or - someone does something 'online' that shakes things up, and that bleeds over into the brick and mortar. A crypto-currency ... I can see doing that in some way.
You can connect PayPal to your bank without a credit or debit card, so yes, they can be out of the equation if the consumer wants to.
I don't think PayPal or card fees are significant in this discussion of micropayments. The issue of micropayments is getting people to pay at all, either 0% or 100%. A 3% detail doesn't have a huge effect on why they aren't commonly used.
Right, totally agree, but this is not the reason that micropayments is not more commonplace. It's equally difficult to get people to log into a payment system to pay $1.40 vs $1.55.
I already mentioned two ways around this, which is why your argument is void: Holding small amounts in PayPal (or similar) accounts, and bypassing cards entirely and using bank routing transactions. Both are solved technical problems.
Another problem may have been this. If everyone on the internet agreed that say, watching a video should cost $0.02/minute, then people would get accustomed to paying this amount because that's such a small cost. But it's only a $0.02 decision for a content creator to restrict or allow it to be watched for free, and if say, 5% of artists just decided to "eat" the potenential earnings, then you'd have 5% of free videos and 95% premium videos. The 5% free videos would prevent the 95% of videos from being watched, because why would anyone pay to watch a video if you can watch another one for free. Basically I'm saying that this idealization of micropayment content is destroyed by free content, whether that is a good thing or not. I do this myself with respect to Android apps, since I don't take my time seriously enough to pay the occassional $1 per app.