Unfortunately that kicks the user out of your app and into Square's temporarily. And according to the TOS, the customer needs to be supervised by a merchant employee during the transaction. Ideally you would be able to handle the customer's payment seamlessly and unsupervised within your own app.
Yeah something like a kiosk. I want to be able to process card swipes instead of making users enter their card number (as in the Ecommerce api). The additional benefit is that you get charged the 2.75% card present fee instead of the 2.9% + $0.30 card not present fee.
Yes, this can be used as a payment gateway option for ECommerce platforms (including Woocommmerce). It's already available through both Bigcommerce and Weebly.
That's the funny thing about startup valuations; they are not an apples-to-apples comparison to a public market. In fact, a savvy investor may be willing to invest $100M at a $25B valuation knowing full well there will never be a liquidation event worth $25B. It all depends on the deal terms (preferences, ratchets, etc.).
It's entirely rational to invest $XM at $YB valuation when your deal terms stipulate a minimum return of ($XM * 1.25), regardless of valuation.
Which leads to the conclusion that without knowledge of the terms of the deal it is a bit of a weird thing to value the entire company based on that deal. Because such a deal should be discounted based on the terms not applying equally to the rest of the shares already created.
"AirBnB raises $100m which gives them an unknown valuation due to the complex financial terms of the deal" just doesn't draw as many clicks on your story
Google matches the greater of something like 100% of $3000 - or - 50% of the max employee contribution.
A 100% match from Microsoft would mean an annual 2015 contribution of $36,000 ($18,000 employee + $18,000 employer match) versus $27,000 maximum ($18,000 employee + $9,000 employer match) from Google. That's a $9000 difference.
EDIT: Looks like the article is incorrect. Correct numbers are 50%, as stated in parent comment.
You are correct. The article incorrectly quoted the source:
"we’ll increase the company’s 401(k) match from 50 percent of the first 6 percent that employees defer, to 50 percent of all regular deferrals. With the current IRS regular deferral limit of $18,000, this means employees will have the opportunity for Microsoft to match their contributions up to $9,000 per year."
Nobody knows. Microsoft's own release makes no sense. You (and your employer, combined) cannot contribute more than $18,000 tax-free per year. It's either 100% match of $9,000 on your $9,000 to make $18,000, or it's 50% match of your $12,000 to make $18,000. It can't be both things that the press release says it is.
My best guess is that they meant to say they now match 100%, but we won't know for sure until they correct the press release.
Actually, employer contributions do not count towards the $18k maximum per year in contributions. This is the specific advantage of having a 401k match in the first place, as it allows employees to have more tax deferred savings than otherwise possible.
No. They are increasing from 50% of 6% to 50% of all deferrals. So the maximum before was like $540 if you put in $18,000. Now its $9000.
"Retirement readiness is an important part of overall financial wellness, so beginning Jan. 1, 2016, we’ll increase the company’s 401(k) match from 50 percent of the first 6 percent that employees defer, to 50 percent of all regular deferrals."
I don't think that's plausible. More likely the match was 50% of the first 6% of salary employees deferred. That would require an employee to earn $300,000 in order to see a maximum $9,000 match. Now an employee can receive the full match merely by deferring the maximum amount, regardless of their salary.
6% refers to 6% of salary, not 6% of deferrals. 401k contributions are measured in terms of percentage of pre-tax salary contributed, and the match is based on that.
Under the old scheme, you had to contribute at least 6% of your pre-tax salary to get the maximum match, which was 50% of whatever that value was. In other words, the maximum match was 3% of your salary, and you had to be contributing at least 6% of your salary to get that. Now, anything you contribute gets matched at 50%, regardless of what your salary is.
You're incorrect. Employers are allowed to contribute to an employee's 401K plan up to a $53,000 combined limit. The $18K limit applies only to employee contributions.
Unrelated, but Wall Street parasite fees do count towards your contribution limit. And 401k plans mostly offer high fee funds. So be careful or you might think you're contributing $18k but you're actually only contributing $17k and making an annual $1k gift to some some banker's bonus. Also, 401k is a massive Wall Street scam.
It's likely this was a conscious business decision; PayPal derives value through its brand, which is lost to consumers (buyers) using the platform if the platform becomes a white label solution.
PayPal wants customers to know they can pay with PayPal at business/merchant X, not just their credit card.
Indeed, Paypal doesn't want you to pay with your credit card, and won't let you change your default PayPal payment method. You have to go through a process to select it Every.Single.Time, if you remember, and if you overlook to do it - well, what do you know, PayPal just saved the CC fee...
I love the execution, but I also see inherent problems.
Robots.txt is just a convention to advise crawlers. I'm confident most sites explicitly state this is against their terms of service.
You will encounter terms along the lines of:
"Unauthorized uses of the Site also include, without limitation, those listed below. You agree not to do any of the following, unless otherwise previously authorized by us in writing:
Use any robot, spider, scraper, other automatic device, or manual process to monitor, copy, or keep a database copy of the content or any portion of the Site."
The law isn't entirely blind to conventions, though. They don't guarantee anything, but if a court understood that there exists a convention for saying "no robots, please", and the robot operator in question followed it, then a court could well look less favorably on the damages claims of a website operator who didn't make use of the widely known convention.
You've got a valid point. We want to eventually create a space that allows responsible scraping - so webmasters can have access to analytics on what's being scraped and can explicitly turn off kimono APIs for their domains if they see fit. We also think there are use cases for people who own their own data. Often, APIs will provide a way for companies to streamline their internal app development and figure out what to expose to the developer community before investing in an expensive API deployment.
