
Noca - Payments Simplified - zengr
http://www.noca.com/rates
======
citricsquid
god damnit no. the issue is NOT rates, the issue is NOT security, the issue is
NOT how "nice" the company is, the issue IS international support.

Paypal are "winning" and will forever "win" because they support _EVERYONE_.
Finding a person who can't use Paypal (who is over the age of 18 and isn't a
previously terminated customer) is very hard because it supports (almost)
_EVERYONE_ yet these "new" "paypal killers" don't and they won't gain any
traction because of this.

and even then there are still bigger issues, but the biggest issue is
international support.

~~~
pjg
@citricsquid

International support will come over time. However Noca is more like a better
alternative to Authorize.net. Paypal in shopping cart takes the Consumer away
from Merchant site and requires the Consumer to have an account i.e. sign-up.
Even with Paypal's high userbase only 1 out of 3 or 4 users in the US have an
active Paypal account. Not a good idea to potentially loose majority of
Payors/Buyers simply 'cause they don't have Paypal accounts

~~~
Fizzer
PayPal does not require an account. Simply click the "Pay as guest" link and
it presents a standard billing form.

Further, when you're a small site, I'd think it's preferable to redirect your
customers to Paypal's site when they enter their billing information as it
gives them confidence that it's secure. As a user myself, I would think twice
before typing my CC info into a small obscure website, as I have no idea what
kind of security measures they have in place (https is only one piece of the
puzzle).

------
jacques_chester
> For Secure Check(tm), the merchant needs to have a business checking account
> in a bank in the United States. And consumers can only pay with a checking
> or savings bank account with a bank in the United States. Currently for
> VISA/Mastercard Consumers can pay with Visa/Mastercard issued by a bank in
> United States. We are however opening up to accepting International
> cards/Checks soon.

So basically, no, this isn't a real competitor to PayPal at all.

~~~
pjg
When Paypal launched is did not do "foreign" accounts. We're still in early
stage.

But more importantly Noca is more of an alternative to Authorize.net than
Paypal (the "Paypal competitor headline came from Techcrunch - not from Noca )

~~~
xtracto
> Paypal (the "Paypal competitor headline came from Techcrunch - not from Noca
> )

So then why is Paypal part of the side-by-side comparison in the linked page?

~~~
pjg
Comparison is with 4 different providers and comparing just the rates, not the
user experience.

------
thinkcomp
I know PJ, who runs Noca. He's been working on it for several years (it used
to be called Paybl). Unfortunately it suffers from the same problems as every
other payment system in California that is regulated by the Money Transmission
Act, which is to say it's basically illegal as of July 1. Then again, maybe
he's changed the business model in some way I'm not aware of.

See...

[http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/In-Fifty-Days-
Payments-...](http://www.quora.com/Aaron-Greenspan/In-Fifty-Days-Payments-
Innovation-Will-Stop-In-Silicon-Valley)

[http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhosta...](http://www.thinkcomputer.com/corporate/whitepapers/heldhostage.pdf)

This isn't the first time I've seen a "finally, a real PayPal competitor!"
post on Hacker News. I don't think people get it. There isn't going to be one
any time soon. PayPal raised a hundred million dollars. It has licenses in
45-ish states and Washington, D.C. that cost about ten million dollars alone.
It supports multiple currencies. The dot com boom (and the comparative lack of
regulation at the time) is just about the only thing that allowed PayPal to
exist. Venture capitalists (and banks) know better now, and they're not
enthusiastic about investing in red tape just so Jamie Dimon and friends can
make more of it.

~~~
pjg
@Aaron (and others who want to change the current payments landscape):

Noca is more of competitor to Authorize.net than it is to Paypal.

"Paypal competitor" headline was written by Techcrunch - not by Noca. As
anyone who has been "Techcrunch'ed" knows they don't get to say what they want
but instead what Techcrunch wants to about them (No complaints here - I was
aware of this when I talked to Techcrunch)

Unfortunately I have little control on how to steer information about my
company once the "buzz" has been created.

I will regardless continue to do what I believe in i.e. Build a payment system
that doesn't suck! I have been doing it for a while and the opportunity simply
keeps getting bigger.

Noca did start with Check payments, however we've pivoted to doing Credit
Cards (the reason/explanation is long, maybe I'll post it sometime )

About the Money Transfer licenses - it's not required for Credit Card
transactions. Also for "Check" transactions there are limitations and
exclusions. If we need to operate without restrictions we will need Money
Transfer License, but can operate within restrictions

~~~
nikcub
Just a tip - bloggers will fill in parts of the narrative that you haven't fed
them. Readers love comparisons - 'heroku for x' , etc. and if you don't give
them one, they will create one for you

tech savvy ppl may roll their eyes at the comparison headlines and call them
out for being lazy - but since readers spend seconds scanning headlines you
need something that can be grokked by non-tech users quickly

------
rdl
This is a useful payment offering. However, I'd still offer Google Checkout,
Paypal, and Amazon to customers in most contexts, since they're more willing
to do a transaction at all -- even if you pay a higher rate, it's better to
have the transaction happen. Maybe offer this in addition, but I always feel
better when I see multiple payment options.

Stripe ([http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/28/stealth-payment-startup-
str...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/28/stealth-payment-startup-stripe-
paypal/)) is a great option, when they launch.

Square is 2.75% and no fees for card present; 3.5% and $0.15 for card not
present.

ACH (checks) can be $0.25-0.50 flat-rate.

~~~
irengba
Offering multiple payment options is just fine. Specifically with the "equal
preference rule" being rescinded a Merchant can now offer incentives for a
specific payment system.

Google Checkout, Paypal and Amazon payments all require the Consumer to sign-
up or already have an account with these services. While a number of Users
already have an account with Paypal, Google checkout the majority don't. e.g.
in case of Paypal (estimates vary ) but only 1 out of 4 online users in the US
has a Paypal account. Would you as a Merchant be willing to loose upto 75% of
your users ?

As far Stripe: Not live yet but hopefully will be good

Square: is irrelavant since its for Card Present space primarily. Noca is for
the CNP Card Not Present space

ACH for $0.25-$0.50 has been around for decades. Its hasn't taken off because
nobody has their routing number and account number handy. Take a look at
Noca's check offering, it obviated the need to repeatedly input Routing number
and Account number. Basically making ACH easier for the Consumer and hence way
different than traditional ACH.

~~~
brlewis
Got a link about the "equal preference rule" being rescinded? Sounds
interesting and I hadn't heard of it. Googling "equal preference rule credit
cards" didn't help me.

------
dr_
At a 3.49% credit card rate, I'm not sure how much of a real competitor it is.
No fixed fee helps for smaller sized transactions though.

~~~
pjg
Notice the rate for Checks its 1.49% Less than half of Paypal's rate. Paypal
is able to route approximately 50% of the users to pay using bank accounts
which costs almost zero yet they charge the Merchant the same. With Noca the
Merchant saves directly when the Consumer pays using Checks so the average
rate is much lower than 3.49% (Plus No Other Charges Apply )

(PS: As I posted/mentioned in this thread, Noca is more of an alternative to
Authorize.net than Paypal)

~~~
latch
Is it common that people are paying for online things with checks? (honest
question, nothing I do is worth charging anyone for, so I don't know).

~~~
foobarbazetc
I can tell you (from looking at real world stats) that only 1% of people use
eCheck when paying through PayPal.

So it's kind of irrelevant.

------
foxylad
The first paragraph of the "About" page is garbled - doesn't inspire
confidence, which is paramount for services like this.

------
notb
What about WePay!? 3.5% flat fee. Supports international payments. Dead simple
API. No merchant account required! Plus, it's only 50¢ for e-checks vs Noca's
1.49%. <https://www.wepay.com>

~~~
lobster_johnson
Looks good, but WePay lacks a number of features found in PayPal, such as
recurring payments (aka subscriptions).

------
JoshTriplett
Looks much improved since the last time I looked at it. Last time, it looked
awesome except that customers had to provide bank account information to pay
with it, which will instantly drive away a huge number of customers. Now it
looks like they accept credit cards, too, which makes it a viable contender.

In particular, they now have everything they need for the "lightweight payment
system market". They still can't address the surprisingly large "I want to pay
but I don't have any kind of credit card at all" market, though.

~~~
pjg
@JoshTriplett

About the "I want to pay but I don't have any kind of credit card at all" -
that's where Noca's "Check" system comes in. It allows payments using bank
account without having to type in the cumbersome Routing # and Account #

------
jeff18
A flat 3.49% (not even including the 20% discount at volume) for credit cards
is substantially better than PayPal and Amazon for micro-transactions.

Is there some kind of hidden fee or limitation I'm missing?

~~~
pjg
There is no other fee. (NOCA = No Other Fees Apply). There is a minimum
transaction size, currently at $2.00 i.e. Noca will not accept transactions
less than $2.00

~~~
jeff18
It was indeed too good to be true. I think you guys should mention that on the
site.

It's not really fair to compare yourself to Amazon's micro transaction fees
but not actually accept micro-payments.

------
petemccarthy
I'm waiting for someone to disrupt the "Card Present" side of the industry. I
work for a large Point of Sale software provider and the choices and for
Payment Gateways are awful. We need things like Noca and Braintree for
transactions in the real-world. Our NextGen product is going to be HTML5 web-
based client, but we can't find good Payment Gateway partners with a Restful
API. If your out there and and working on this, please let me know. Our
customers process billions in transactions.

~~~
mcherm
Watch "square"; they're interesting.

~~~
petemccarthy
They're an interesting company, but not for these reasons. If someone built a
payment gateway in the same fashion of Noca and Braintree, but for "Card
Present" transactions, it could make it easy for many independent developers
to build their own "Square". That's what's missing in the "Card Present"
space.

btw....Square uses Authorize.net

------
pbreit
Pretty spammy submission. The previous title was "Real competitor to PayPal is
here - Noca.com" and it links to a "Fees" page that provides little support
(for starters, PayPal is generally less expensive).

The new title "Noca - Payments Simplified" is not much better considering the
link is still to the fees page and Noca does not seem simple at all (ex: the
signup page is painful).

Finally, the service doesn't appear to be new.

~~~
pjg
@pbreit

Compare it with Authorize.net not Paypal (as I have said in my earlier posts,
the "Paypal competitor headline was written by Techcrunch - not Noca )

It will take you a month or so on an average to setup an account with
Authorize.net (if you are a small entity ). The signup form that we have at
Noca will give you virtually instant sign-up

Plus did I tell you our API doesn't suck. (It's not perfect yet, we are
working out some kinks but basically accepting payments should be simple and
easy for any entity launching on the web - something that incumbents don't do
)

~~~
pbreit
Authorize.Net is a gateway which seems quite different from Noca. Noca looks
more like ProPay, 2Checkout and Stripe.

~~~
pjg
Fair enough. Noca's look and feel is indeed different

~~~
pbreit
There's a pretty big difference between a gateway and pseudo-merchant account
provider.

------
borski
This looks like a good service, but I still really haven't found anything that
is even close to as easy and simple as Stripe.

~~~
chexton
I am in Australia so have to watch from afar, but I am really keen to see
exactly how Stripe operates.

As far as I can work out (I obviously don't have a login) part of what will
make them brilliant is they enable you to accept payments in minutes, I.e
don't require you to hold a merchant account / create one for you.

Is this correct? Keen to know more as PayPal are really the only other service
that do this and their increasingly difficult fraud protection barriers must
be a result of the complexity of managing such a service.

~~~
borski
Sorry about the late reply, but yeah, that's entirely correct. It's pretty
sweet.

------
cvander
Competition is always welcomed in this market. Don't know how much users are
going to use checks instead of a card, and the example only seems good in
prices comparing agains authorize and paypal for small transactions, not big
ones.

------
aidenn0
I keep on hearing Foo: Payments Simplified, and yet payments are still
complex. Is it perhaps that a lot of what people consider accidental
complexity in payments is necessary complexity?

------
gst
@pjg: Do you accept customers having a TPPA (Third Party Payment Aggregation)
business model? What are the requirements in order to be accepted as customer?

~~~
pjg
@gst

We _may_. I hate to use the phrase "it depends" but unless we know more I
cannot give you a conclusive answer. If the TPPA is doing "low risk"
transactions e.g. utility billing with a service charge lets say, it should be
ok. Higher risk items will be tougher. Send an email to "support@noca.com"

------
braindead_in
About -> press leads to a 404.

The video player popup moves with mouse on Firefox 6.

Is there a direct link to the demo video? I couldn't get it to play on the
site.

------
fuzzythinker
Anyone used this?

------
nubela
impt question: international customers?

~~~
wiradikusuma
i add another: international merchants?

~~~
chunkyslink
In the FAQ is says 'Is this legal is all 50 states' so I'm guessing its USA
only.

They need to add this answer to the FAQ

------
svisstack
THIS NOT SUPPORT MECHRANTS OUTSIDE UNITED STATES ;-( like amazon and
authorize.net

PayPal Win;-)

------
res0nat0r
What about Amazon Payments? Is that a good Paypal alternative?

~~~
rorrr
2.9% + $0.30 for transactions above $10

So it's exactly the same costs.

~~~
JoshTriplett
<https://www.xkcd.com/918/> seems to apply perfectly to that.

------
rshm
Yay !! for micro payments.

3.49 is too much for large transactions.

~~~
abloodywar
>minimum transaction size is $2.00

------
pitdesi
PayPal does a number of things (stored value system, aggregation, virtual
terminal, etc). I'm not sure how Noca is a competitor at all. Also, this page
has a number of inaccuracies. For example, chargebacks don't exist for checks,
Authorize.net as a standalone doesn't enable payments at all (it is a gateway,
you also need a merchant account, which you could get cheaper than at Noca),
etc. It does NOT take months to sign up with Authorize.net, you can get setup
in an hour.

Noca is relevant if it is somehow 3.49% for all transactions though... It
would make it a cheap option for transactions <$10 or so.

~~~
pjg
@pitdesi

I do need to compliment you on deciphering Noca's service - it is more an
Alternative to Authorize.net than Paypal (Thank you for pointing it out ). You
are correct, Authorize.net is not a gateway but an aggregator (most people
confuse them for a gateway) and yes Noca will will provide a similar service
much better

About Chargebacks: They _do_ exist for Checks. They're just not called
"Chargebacks" instead they are called ACH returns, specifically return code
R10 (google "ACH return code R10" )

Its just that ACH i.e. Check payments are not pervasive online hence knowledge
about Chargebacks or the ability of the individual Payor i.e. Consumer to
initiate a chargeback is generally not known. Unlike Credit Cards, Checks do
not have an "800" number printed on the back that the Consumer can call to
dispute a payment. However the rules set by the Federal government i.e. the
Fed are similar/identical (google "Reg E" or FED regulation 12 CFR 205
specifically 205.6 if you really want to read the rule ). So the issue is more
of Consumer interface/UX/UI and Consumer education - something that can and
needs to be solved.

------
amateurguru
Can I make deposits to a client account using this? Instead of debiting from
the accounts of my users I want to deposit in them (presumably using their
account and routing numbers.

~~~
pjg
Not yet. But our Marketplace solution should be able to provide you with you
are looking for. Send an email to "support@noca.com"

~~~
amateurguru
Thanks! I will.

