4 ms·

Because there's already a Stripe. Doesn't mean you couldn't start a company to do what Stripe does, but it'd be hard, since people would probably be saying, "Is

Because there's already a Stripe. Doesn't mean you couldn't start a company to do what Stripe does, but it'd be hard, since people would probably be saying, "Isn't that what Stripe does?"

moonlighter 15y ago
I disagree completely. Stripe is the only one so far who doesn't suck. There's room for more, and plenty of room for differentiation. Sure, stripe.com set the bar and has first mover advantage etc., but that doesn't mean they now own the market. Not at all.
- inuhj 15y ago
  Agreed. There is plenty of room for competitors.
- moe 15y ago
  Agreed. There's room for more than one payment-provider-that-doesn't-suck™. And let's not forget stripe hasn't even launched in europe, yet. That's quite a market still waiting to be schlepped.
cyrus_ 15y ago
If you did exactly what Stripe did but charged less, there is no reason you couldn't completely replace Stripe. You aren't being judged on novelty here.
- ak2012 15y ago
  Perhaps the irony here by PG is that, even now 99% of people will not do what strip does.
Strom 15y ago
You could do what Stripe does, but with international support. That would be awesome.
jaredmck 15y ago
But isn't that the same line of thinking this article is arguing against?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]