[HN Gopher] Why doesn't Stripe use Stripe Billing? ___________________________________________________________________ Why doesn't Stripe use Stripe Billing? Author : swyx Score : 245 points Date : 2022-10-13 14:19 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.getlago.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.getlago.com) | orliesaurus wrote: | To the author of this blogpost: you're using the wrong product. | You want to use Stripe Connect. | edwinwee wrote: | First off, yes, Stripe uses Stripe to bill our own customers. In | fact, for our larger customers who have negotiated complex | pricing plans, we're currently migrating much of our manual | billing to a system that's inspired by Stripe Billing. | | Second, this article seems to miss the point of Stripe. It seems | to want to build a platform, which is what Stripe Connect is | designed for. | | For example, charging a percentage fee is just one line | (https://stripe.com/docs/api/application_fees): | | ` $application_fee_percent = 5` | | Slack, Atlassian, and Notion have all built their B2B billing on | top of Stripe. But we don't target just B2B or B2C ecommerce in | case a business has multiple revenue streams (which many | businesses are increasingly adding). In fact, we designed Billing | so it can flex across any business model--per-seat, usage-based, | tiered, or even graduated. | | This is the point of Stripe. A single stack that flexes with your | business as it grows and pricing that's public. | hklgny wrote: | I would be shocked to learn you're using stripe billing and | checkout sessions successfully internally - those products are | so convoluted in how they overlap and don't as to be unusable. | All but the most basic use cases are a nightmare to both | implement and then track rev Rec on. So much so that you've got | a whole new product dedicated to trying to figure it out. If | that were the result of a dog-fooded product I'd be pretty sad | to hear it. | gamblor956 wrote: | Agreed, at my company we have a fairly complex custom | reconciliation process set up just to reconcile our stripe | billings. | | In contrast, reconciling pretty much every other payment | processor is relatively straightforward. | | Somewhere along the way Stripe went from being developer | friendly to becoming more convoluted than Java. | kurrik wrote: | We're always working on making Checkout and Billing gel | together better, and our Revenue Recognition product | automates ASC606-compliant accrual revenue reporting | including automatically recognizing data from Stripe Billing. | Have you talked to us yet about your use-case? Could you | email me at ark@stripe.com? | hklgny wrote: | I appreciate the offer. We are very much working closely | with you on implementation and have from the start (over 6 | years spanning many of your products). I am very familiar | with all of your offerings. | | The core of stripe is great, we're fans. But as you add any | complexity you end up with a mess of various internal | account balances to maintain. It forces you into gross | things like bin packing refunds, complex internal transfer | fail handling. Toss in the inconsistent handling across | connect and man, you'd be better off just going back to | basic charges and ignoring all the value adds. | tiffanyh wrote: | > First off, yes, Stripe uses Stripe to bill our own customers. | | This is confusing because you're implying that Stripe _Billing_ | is used internally but another employee clarifies and says it's | not, it's simply another billing service was created that | predates Stripe Billing. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33193807 | edwinwee wrote: | Sorry, to be clearer--we are moving away from the old billing | service my colleague mentioned and to a new one. Our new | system shares similarites with the Stripe Connect + Stripe | Billing flow I mention above (specifically | https://stripe.com/docs/api/usage_records). | mi_lk wrote: | no bad intention - I am not sure when was the turning point | but you appearing on a Stripe thread now seems like a | negative signal recently, for me at least | | It's of course your choice, jfyi | blast wrote: | You say it _shares similarities_ with Stripe Billing. | Above, you say _inspired by Stripe Billing_. | "Similarities" and "inspired" are weasly ways of saying | that it is _not_ Stripe Billing. | | It used to be that Stripe could be relied on not to do this | sort of corporate doubletalk. The OP asked a direct | question and you've given a misleading PR answer. | | I'm sure you're a nice person just trying to do your job, | but your inevitable PR posts to HN, within minutes of | anything Stripe-related coming up, are hurting your cause. | The Stripe of the past would never have spewed propaganda | like "This is the point of Stripe. A single stack that | flexes with your business as it grows and pricing that's | public" into HN threads. It's embarrassing, and what it's | telling us is that culturally you've lost your way. | | Maybe that's inevitable on your way to world domination, | but if you guys can no longer communicate honestly or treat | readers as intelligent, you'd be better off not posting | here. I like Stripe, by the way. I know this is harsh but I | would like it to be helpful. | ath0 wrote: | Several of the concerns revolve around the complexity of managing | multiple IDs (product SKUs, prices, etc) for a single | subscription - and the author reaches the conclusion that this is | because it's optimized for "e-commerce and not B2B SaaS". | | While from the buyer's perspective, "single negotiated cost with | overages" may appear simple - it's a single bill after all - on | the accounting side for the company selling the product, I'd | expect it's much more complicated; with potentially different tax | rates for different products and complexity around producing an | auditor-defensible determination for "cost of goods sold" and | "marketing expense." | | So for at least some of these requests, I see Stripe's posture | here as helpful - it's not "requesting a dollar figure", it's | "creating a detailed enough accounting trail behind that bill to | operate your business." Looking across the breadth of Stripe's | products, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt here. | atian wrote: | See how your site looks like on mobile with content blockers | turned on. | | For me the navigation bar doesn't collapse and covers the whole | screen. | jonas-w wrote: | It loaded slow but apart from that it looks normal. I use | firefox on android with ublock origin. | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Thanks! we're working on this, the point is: the problem | occur for a small portion of visitors, and we're iterating to | reproduce that. Thanks again for the feedback! | weird-eye-issue wrote: | It loaded so slow I couldn't even get there. Was just a white | screen for several seconds. I'm in Thailand but still this | shouldn't happen | coding123 wrote: | They tried and then got locked out. | cpursley wrote: | What I'm interesting in is a front end where the underlying | payment provider can quickly be replaced when Stripe/PayPal etc | cancel you (for any reason at all). | bredren wrote: | For a long time, Apple stores used mobile devices other than | iPhone to process payments on the floor. Windows mobile, I think? | kurrik wrote: | (I work on Stripe Billing). This is a question we raise fairly | regularly internally at Stripe. The real, prosaic answer is | because when we started working on Stripe Billing in 2017, Stripe | had already built an internal billing system to bill its own | customers. Stripe was 7 years old at that point. | | At the time, we got lots of feedback from the folks who had built | that system. Our goal was to build a flexible billing system for | all kinds of companies at different sizes, but we were definitely | focused on smaller (doing maybe $100k-$10M of ARR) SaaS companies | to start. We've come a long way since then and now power billing | for a number of large/public companies. Atlassian, Figma, Notion | and Slack are either using or migrating onto Stripe Billing | today. | | Stripe Billing is a powerful tool with a role to play in any | company's revenue management system, including Stripe's. Newer | Stripe products (such as Atlas) do build on top of Stripe Billing | but we haven't gotten around to migrating our existing stack. | That said, I do have a personal goal of taking on more internal | billing responsibilities over time (e.g. I think we could easily | use Stripe Invoices internally today, and it's mostly opportunity | cost keeping us from actually doing so). | | I do want to say that the specific use case covered in the post | is something we have thought about a lot. I think about it as a | pipeline with stages for collecting high volumes of usage events, | aggregating them, mapping them to rate cards based on usage, and | then producing recurring bills, collecting payment, dunning, | etc... The post claims we don't do a good job on the first two | stages (collecting usage events and aggregating them) is perhaps | missing that the style of percentage-based fees is a one-line | addition to a Connect integration as my colleague edwinwee | mentioned below. It is also possible to have a scalable usage | event collection/aggregation pipeline integrated with Stripe | Billing. You can read this AWS blog post | https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/building-a-third-party-saas... | for information about how to build such a system according to our | best practices. | | While I'm here, I'm always eager to hear feedback on Stripe | Billing from folks who are using it. My email is ark@stripe.com. | cutenewt wrote: | Lago is really gunning for Stripe Billing. | | Is Lago barking up the wrong tree? Or is there really an | untapped opportunity here? | Rafsark wrote: | I'm Raffi from Lago. Frankly, Stripe is a awesome company. | They've built amazing products, including Stripe Payments | (the blog post starts with this exact same statement). When | it comes to billing, we do believe we are creating a better | solution, especially for companies having complex billing | (usage based, for instance). At least, we offer a new | solution to prevent additional % fees on revenue, vendor | lock-in and rigid billing solution by creating the tool we | would have loved to use. | | We do not bark up the wrong tree, but try to give our point | of view about the perfect billing system | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Hi! I work at Lago. | | Billing is still a huge nightmare for engineers, this is what | we're going after -> | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31424450 | | We've built and scaled it internally in a 5x Fintech Unicorn | before joining YC, we would have loved to use an off the | shelf solution, but none of them were a fit. | theturtletalks wrote: | If Lago builds a billing UI and API that can connect to | Stripe Billing, Paddle, Authorize.net, PayPal, etc. then that | is a huge opportunity. | swyx wrote: | why exactly? is this just some form of xkcd-style "there | were too many APIs so i built a superAPI" line of thinking? | or is there something more fundamental about this problem | you are referring to | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Interested in the answer too! Maybe you meant being a | 'metering x billing layer' that can easily connect to any | PSP, unlike 'Stripe Billing' that is only usable with | 'Stripe Payments'?). In that case, we'd connect to | 'Stripe Payments' (not Stripe Billing), which we already | do :) Genuinely looking forward to your thoughts! | theturtletalks wrote: | Stripe Billing is not fully internationally available so | a lot of software companies are opting for Paddle. A | super API would allow users to easily switch between | billing platforms and avoid lock-in. | | The other reason is that Stripe Billing is stupidly good. | So good in fact, that they could raise they rates from | 0.5% to 1-1.5% and most people would pay up since | migration would cause downtime and man-hours. I use | Stripe Billing now, but could integrate with Lago once | and easily switch between payment processors. | joshpadnick wrote: | (This is my second feature request on this thread; apologies | for any noise.) | | Stripe Billing helpfully allows you to set the original | subscription start date to a past date, _but only at | subscription creation time._ If we could modify the | subscription start date, then Stripe could be authoritative for | when 100% of our subscriptions actually started. | kurrik wrote: | Thanks! I'm curious about your use case and specifics about | how you're looking at start date and how often you'd expect | to update it (i.e. is this a one-time cleanup or a regular | thing?). I'd welcome an email with some details! | rtanks wrote: | This is great information. Thanks! | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Hey Ark, I work at Lago, thanks for the detailed answer! | joshpadnick wrote: | We use Stripe Billing and it's gone very well overall, but the | biggest miss for us is that Stripe conflates "contract term" | with "billing frequency." We sign up customers for annual | contracts but bill them monthly, but Stripe Billing only | understands the "bill monthly" part of that. | | Are there any plans for first-class contract term support | coming? | anamexis wrote: | You could use subscription schedules to end the subscription | after 12 months. | | https://stripe.com/docs/billing/subscriptions/subscription-s. | .. | joshpadnick wrote: | Yep, tried that. But we want an auto-renewing contract of | 12 months, and subscription terms require you to have an | end date. | jawr wrote: | Shameless plug, but at www.salesbricks.com we separate | out billing schedule and contract terms. We also handle | complex deal structures, upgrades and renewals! | kurrik wrote: | Yes, this is definitely a use case we've been working on. If | you'd be willing to email me any more details about how you | need things to work at ark@stripe.com I'll make sure the | feedback makes it to the people working on it. | neosat wrote: | Thanks for some internal insights. I think the original post | wasn't making the point that such a use case is not _possible_ | to build but rather that the architecture and design choices of | Stripe Billing are not optimized for these use cases and don 't | make it easy. | AlecSchueler wrote: | I loved the answer but it's a good point to raise in return, | what makes migration to internal billing so unappetising for | the teams at Stripe? | longboardcat wrote: | Hopefully because there's an actual business to be | building. | AlecSchueler wrote: | Yeah, that's what I figured too as I was asking that. | Focus on the product first. In a way it's actually a plus | point that they haven't migrated, as it shows they're | clearly focused on building. | kurrik wrote: | I wouldn't say it's unappetizing for us. Even | contemplating the possibility offers us insight about | what companies the size and complexity of Stripe need to | go through in order to migrate Billing systems. e.g. back | of house processes for revenue reconciliation and | recognition need to work across both systems, we need to | support bulk migrations of data, both systems need to | recognize the "canonical biller" for a customer so that | you avoid double-billing issues, you need to backfill | invoices and ensure no gaps in numbering, product teams | need to update their integration and provisioning code | and so on. My observation is that large companies can | spend 10s-100s of engineers on the order of several | quarters or years to do this kind of migration safely. | | We've made several internal and a few external changes | over the years to help our users with these kinds of | issues and in my estimation we've been getting closer to | making the commitment, but as of right now we haven't | done a stop-the-world effort to change systems | internally. | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Hi neosat! I work at Lago and co-wrote the post, this was | exactly our intention. Thanks for pointing that out :) | neosat wrote: | Hey AnhTho - the points in your post resonate, and y'all | seem to be doing some exciting work at Lago - good luck! | [deleted] | Biganon wrote: | So, same reason why Microsoft uses SAP instead of Microsoft | Dynamics. They would use their own product if they were to | start now, but migrating from SAP would cost them millions and | take a lot of time. | jmartens wrote: | Never host your status page where you host your app, and never | use your billing product to handle your own billing. | zcombynator wrote: | Interesting that one YC company publicly attacks another YC | company. I thought there's at least some "family" vibes there, | instead of bitching each other now. | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Hi! I work at Lago. As we wrote in the disclaimer of the | article, we're just stating how our positioning is different, | extract here: | | "We were told recently: "We love your 'Stripe hate' content". | While it was intended as a compliment, 'Stripe hate' has never | been our intention. | | We partner with Stripe Payments and love their products. Our | own product is an alternative to Stripe Billing (and Chargebee, | Recurly, etc.) but with a deep focus on B2B and product-led | companies. We actually have common investors on our cap table | (e.g. Y Combinator and others)." | vasco wrote: | As the old men say at the park, there comes a moment in every | SaaS's life where you need to spend a year of a team's time just | adding Zuora. They are dark days but hopefully life is better on | the other side. | zcombynator wrote: | @paulg isn't it against YC guidelines to attack other YC | companies? | ekofish wrote: | I work at an HR/Payroll company with a phenomenal app that we put | our blood, sweat, and tears into every single day. And every | single day I clock in with Oracle Time and Labor. There's a legal | reason for this and we do it for compliance. I'm guessing Stripe | is in the same boat with this product despite its flaws. | tiffanyh wrote: | Twilio is the same. | | They use Zoom & Slack internally, not their own video and chat | offerings. | | Dogfooding is a good thing. | | You'd be surprised how few companies actually do it (which is | terribly shocking). | [deleted] | umvi wrote: | In the case of GP he is saying they want to dogfood their | product but cannot due to legal reasons. | juliansimioni wrote: | Dogfooding can often be a good thing but not if your target | customer is a very different type of business than your own. | | For example, Stripe is a _very_ large company but their | product is geared mostly towards small and medium size | businesses. | | It's very possible that in the process of making Stripe | Billing work for Stripe, they'd make it work less well for | their actual customers. | | It's the same reason why Intuit probably doesn't use | QuickBooks to do their accounting. | twstdzppr wrote: | There's got to be a better term than "dogfooding" | simianpirate wrote: | A salesperson that I worked closely with like to use: | "Drinking our own champagne." I liked it enough I started | using it though the engineer in me tends to be fine with | "dogfooding". | nsxwolf wrote: | "Use your own product" was too simple and direct. | Dylan16807 wrote: | "Using your/their own product" is six syllables. | Dogfooding is half that. | | In the version without "ing", that's 5 versus 2 | syllables. | hnlmorg wrote: | I'm definitely in favour of dogfooding. But it's worth noting | that there is still a positive flip side to using competitors | products: | | + you get to keep up with their advances so you're not | relying on your customers telling you about your competition | | + in the case of chat apps, if your infrastructure goes down | you can still work as a team to coordinate the remediation | bombcar wrote: | It makes sense to me - if Twilio undergoes a massive outage, | do you want them to be unable to communicate as they try to | fix it? So they use Zoom and Slack. | bnt wrote: | Email? "Massive outage" for Twilio would bring down a lot | of products, they would have to be back up in minutes. | antihero wrote: | Just have that stuff as a backup? | bombcar wrote: | That can also work - but backups that aren't used can | atrophy - and market segments could mean that what | "works" for the company isn't what the company is | selling. | | It might be a goal to move everything internal (I believe | Google is now using Google Apps internally, but they | didn't for awhile, even after other businesses were). | loriverkutya wrote: | They could use staging. Or the solution they have in place | in case they have a video conference system outage while | they are fixing their own outage. | duxup wrote: | Dogfooding is a good thing. | | However, I find it can get tiresome / has potential | compilations. | | Customer's can be terrible with incomplete, bad idea, and | nonsensical requests. But sometimes internally you get the | worst "Someone spilled some words into email that don't sense | / no you don't actually want that / bro this is accounting | software not Photoshop." situations that folks who are more | familiar with the origination might make, but customer's | might not make. | | It takes an extra level of internal discipline to deal with | dogfooding side effects at times IMO. Still, a good idea none | the less. | Thaxll wrote: | This sounds terrible, it shows a lack of confidence in your | own product, imagine if Google internally would use Zoom... | | I can tell you that devs that use their own product deliver | better quality. | sjtgraham wrote: | Then why does Google Meet suck? | marcosdumay wrote: | Well, optimally you would want to use both yours and your | competitors' products. | cachvico wrote: | This is a good question. Does Google use Meet? Are they | still subject to the frankly ridiculous max resolution of | 720p? | SaltySolomon wrote: | I mean, it also creates a circular dependency, if you have | an issue with your own product and trying to fix it then | you can suddenly not communicate. | mattnewton wrote: | That's why SRE teams at companies I have been at always | keep an IRC server hosted separately from all their other | infra. | grensley wrote: | The Facebook outage last year being a great example of | this. They lost basically all internal communications. | dghlsakjg wrote: | The sound quality and filtering on Zoom is noticeably | better than on Meets. | | Perhaps you also need to use the product that your | competitors use to understand what you need to beat. | Thaxll wrote: | For testing and strategy maybe not for day to day use. | airstrike wrote: | Maybe alternate between the leading product and your own | so you can experience the same pain users do when they | are forced to use the inferior choice after becoming | accustomed to best-in-class. | neurostimulant wrote: | I'm sure Google Meets works flawlessly at Google's office | (presumably a short hop away to their data centers via | dedicated fiber optics link). | lazide wrote: | Google has invested heavily in sound management in their | rooms, and issued noise cancelling headphones to everyone | awhile back they got to take home. That might explain | some things. | throwaway5752 wrote: | "Dogfooding is a good thing" | | That gets repeated a lot but I have observed the opposite | when you have a diversified company dogfooding an internal | product that isn't strategic in their portfolio, or is | targeted at a market segment that the company doesn't belong | to. I have seen companies hamstring themselves by using a | product that isn't the best offering for them or a poor | technical fit, only because it is their own offering. Also, | in the worst case, companies become develop tunnel vision in | the market, because they don't regularly use the competition. | | If you have a large, international software company targeting | small to medium business customers in the US, dogfooding | would be counterproductive. It would probably harm their | strategic customer base by overcomplicating their product | with features they don't need at the same time it slows the | parent company down by using a product that's poor fit. | ridgered4 wrote: | Also if your product is adware, full of dark patterns or | generally hot garbage it might be really frustrating to | use! | cpeterso wrote: | Like the Twitter employee who bragged that Twitter | employees can turn off ads in their personal accounts. | pseudostem wrote: | Fanboy Alert! (I may be biased). | | Not a company, but OpenBSD dogfoods exclusively. And they | do deliver a good product. | throwaway5752 wrote: | OpenBSD sure does - also a fan - and dogfooding _can_ be | a really good thing. But one has to approach it | critically and sensibly. | crazygringo wrote: | Yup. | | The idea behind dogfooding is that you get more/better | feedback and more internal pressure to fix problems. | | But the product team should already be getting feedback | from a diverse set of customers. And if they're not, that's | what needs to be fixed. | | Dogfooding can also result in overprioritizing only your | own company's product needs, and at worst the ultra | specific issues that one particularly vocal VP is having, | to the detriment of the overall customer base. (I've seen | it happen way too many times.) | | Companies should use the best tools for the job, not | necessarily the ones they make themselves. If those are the | same, then great. If not, then also great. | throwayyy479087 wrote: | Oscar is the same. They no longer offer Oscar insurance to | their employees. It's a liability to mandate that your | coworkers information is stored in Production and accessed by | Client Services. | thedangler wrote: | What HR payroll ? | reaperducer wrote: | The company where I work disallows us from using our own | product because it would be considered a conflict of interest. | Some co-workers say it's a federal regulation, but I've never | seen that anywhere in print, so I suspect it's just a workplace | rumor/justification. | | I've had customers complain to my face that we tailor the | products to our needs, and are surprised (and sometimes vocally | disbelieve) that we don't use it, ourselves. | | In certain industries, dogfooding is considered bad, and | sometimes illegal. | willio58 wrote: | Yeah most of the time I hear conflict of interest I don't | believe it at this point. Conflict of whose interest? If you | used your own product wouldn't you learn some issues that | exist within it? | randomdata wrote: | _> If you used your own product wouldn't you learn some | issues that exist within it?_ | | Isn't that the worry? Say a bug in your timekeeping | software underreported hours worked and that lead to | workers not being paid their agreed upon rate. When it goes | to court you now have to prove that you didn't maliciously | introduce the bug to save on employment costs, whereas if | it is a third-party providing the software it's their | problem. "Conflict of interest" is ultimately just another | way to say "I don't want to assume the liability when | things go sour". Nobody cares about conflict of interest | when things go right. | marcosdumay wrote: | >"Conflict of interest" is ultimately just another way to | say "I don't want to assume the liability when things go | sour". | | No, it's not. | | It's "malice is not a reasonable explanation for things | going wrong". It only changes liability when it follows | malice, what is much rarer than you seem to think. | | It is also a way to assure people that you won't do | something bad. | [deleted] | duckmysick wrote: | Can I see the files of an example case where something | like that happened? | randomdata wrote: | If it happened then one would claim that they have a | legal onus. Conflict of interest is speculative about an | unforeseen future. | duckmysick wrote: | I'm not familiar with that definition. On the other hand, | the Department of Defense explicitly says it happens "if | the particular matter will have a direct and predictable | effect on that interest". Predictable being "a real, as | opposed to speculative possibility, that the matter will | affect the financial interest". | | https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Conflicts-of-Interest/ | randomdata wrote: | The topic is centred around off-hand remarks made by | someone as to why they aren't doing something (such as | using their own product) and how, as pointed out by | willio58, "conflict of interest" is used where there is | no actual demonstration of conflict of interest. We're | not talking about military rigor, as interesting as that | subject may also be. | | Again, "conflict of interest" is what people often say | when they don't know if it will affect them, but don't | want to take the risk. "Regulation requires it", as | illustrated in the first comment, is what people say when | caselaw actually demonstrates that they would be liable. | | The fun thing about language is that it is fluid and can | take many forms. | mattkrause wrote: | Conflict of whose interests? You say the product is useful | and other people should buy it, while you yourself use it | seems pretty aligned. | | It cannot possibly be the case that Microsoft runs on Open | Office and MacBooks. | Turing_Machine wrote: | For a long, long time Microsoft was using Unix sendmail for | its own internal mail system, while touting Outlook for its | customers. | | They only started eating their own dog food when people | started making fun of them in public. | slekker wrote: | What's the legal reason? | MichaelCollins wrote: | If the system happened to break in a way that was opportune | for the employer but ripped off the employee, it's better to | point fingers at Oracle than your own company. | Pet_Ant wrote: | So limiting liability. | marcosdumay wrote: | Limiting the cases of conflict of interests. | nulbyte wrote: | Doesn't the company face the same risk with its clients? | MichaelCollins wrote: | The risk is the appearance that the company was | deliberately ripping off employees. When the employer has | created their own labor tracking software, it's easier | for mistakes to look deliberate. | connicpu wrote: | It's easier to convince others that it was a genuine | mistake when you didn't personally profit from the | mistake | culturestate wrote: | Corporate liability to customers and corporate liability | to employees are two _very_ different things. | [deleted] | Merad wrote: | Maybe not a legal reason per se, but even if you have | production data access appropriately locked down there will | be some people who hold the keys to the kingdom. There's a | lot more risk of people peeking at things they aren't | supposed to when the data in question is about their own | company, friends, coworkers. | lostgame wrote: | I'm working on the iOS/WatchOS app(s) for a major bank, and | fortunately of course most of our staff uses it; too - because | of course we bank with the bank we work for. (There's tangible | benefits to a staff account, even those who have accounts | elsewhere I'm willing to bet still do their primary banking | with us.) | | I've actually had an instance or two over my four years there | where I discovered a bug in our PROD/App Store version myself; | simply from using the software enough. | | It's really unfortunate that this isn't the case for a lot of | dev shops. Dogfooding is incredibly important to QA. | alfl wrote: | Their account got banned too many times :) | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Curious about which account you're mentioning? | ItMayWorkTryIt wrote: | 100 writes per second seems like a generous default rate limit. | Presumably if my real traffic is above that I can ask Stripe for | a higher limit | rattray wrote: | You can. | scifibestfi wrote: | Evidence of a recursion limit in the simulation? | Traubenfuchs wrote: | The only damning evidence we need is quantum physic gotchas + | uncertainty principle + matter/wave dualism which happen | because the simulator does not have enough precision, | performance or memory to fully simulate the reality within it | operates and needs to cut corners. But maybe this simulation IS | reality and reality is simply limited in its precision, | performance and storage. | mananaysiempre wrote: | To call the uncertainty principle a precision limitation on | measurement is something of an oversimplification. | | Passing from the general physicist's uncertainty principle to | a more restricted but still physically meaningful case, the | Fourier-transform version of the uncertainty principle | (requires no physics to derive and) states that the narrower | and less smooth a spatial representation of something is, the | wider and slower-decaying its frequency representation | becomes. (Sharp and abrupt sounds have wide spectra, which is | why they get mangled into the strange but recognizable | bubbling in low-bitrate MP3s. The two-dimensional case of the | same phenomenon is well demonstrated by the JPEG "ringing" | around sharp edges, with the caveat that JPEG transforms | every 16x16 block of pixels independently.) Physics comes in | here only when you say that position and momentum (amplitude) | distributions are Fourier transforms of each other. | | If a single sample or the average value is all you get, then | yes, the width of the peak becomes the uncertainty of your | measurement. If you can get many samples, though, then you | absolutely can trace the shape of that peak. It's just that | the instruments used at the dawn of quantum mechanics were | not built that way. | | (What "particle-wave dualism" means, I think nobody really | understands except maybe Bohr scholars; "dualism" was his | personal German-philosophy-style all-encompassing idea that | he was smitten with before he even started thinking about QM. | It's a wave, period, it's just that high-frequency waves can | look like particle propagation if you squint, as seen in | optics and acoustics.) | dzink wrote: | If I were a regulator I would be suspicious if a company runs its | own billing on its own billing software and then something goes | wrong with the numbers. Keeps honest executives honest in a way. | Also keeps outages and hacker attack vectors somewhat contained. | paxys wrote: | This isn't as much of a gotcha as they think it is. Amazon was | using Oracle databases until like 2019, _13 years_ after the | launch of AWS. Same with pretty much every large company that has | a mature hand-crafted tech stack in place. Sometimes the costs | and complexity of migration are simply not enough to justify | switching, even if the target product is your own. | traceroute66 wrote: | Xero is the same and it really pisses me off. | | In Xero you've got something called a "Xero Network ID", which is | an ID that you can give to other Xero users and they can link it | to your contact record on their account, which means that | invoices they raise are automatically posted in your Xero account | without you having to lift a finger. | | Now, you would have thought that Xero would do the same for their | subscription invoices (i.e. automatically post them to your Xero | account). | | But no..... | | Instead they send you one by email which you then have to post | manually onto your Xero account. And they do that every ... | single ... month. | | If you ask them "why ?", you get an arrogant reply that along the | lines of "we're too big to use Xero, so go away you silly little | person". | | But that doesn't answer the question. Xero is their dogfood. So | even if they use Sage or whatever internally, surely it is not | _that_ difficult for them to build an integration so they can | post their damn invoices to the customer 's accounts. | | Rant over. ;-) | yeutterg wrote: | Slightly off-topic, IMO Xero has really gone downhill. The | Yodlee integrations with banks fail so often these days, it | makes it hard to use the product at all. When you refresh a | bank/credit card feed or log in for the xth time, you have no | expected timeline as to when the feed will update or whether it | will even work. There are multiple buttons to reset a feed, and | they do different things. | | It's nearly impossible to just log in and reconcile all your | accounts because you are always fighting with unconnected bank | feeds. This degrades the core value prop of making it easy to | stay atop of bookkeeping--now I always have some form of | "accounting debt" these days. | | I got so frustrated that I am in the process of migrating my | personal account to Tiller + Google Sheets, and I'm still | looking for a solution for our small business account. | | I agree about the billing issues; I waste time figuring out | where the invoices live in the product and manually posting | them. Otherwise, the product would be fine if outdated, if it | wasn't for the unreliability of Yodlee. | wharfjumper wrote: | What country are you in? | traceroute66 wrote: | > I'm still looking for a solution for our small business | account. | | For a long time I resisted moving to Xero. | | Unfortunately my hand was forced because my existing solution | (MYOB which was then bought by Mamut) stopped being Apple | compatible through their own lazyness (they refused to update | the software for 64-bit compatability). | | Apple had pre-announced the post-Catalina 64-bit requirement | years in advance. Every other developer out there had made | the change. But Mamut/MYOB ... nope, they sent out a long | email one day basically making that absolutely clear they | were not moving from 32-bit. | | Their answer was to offer a "cloud" version. I say "cloud" | because what they offered was a remote desktop connection to | a Mac running an old version of software on their side. | | So hence I was forced over to Xero. My accountant was | pressuring me too, but Mamut/MYOB killing off their own | product was the straw that broke the camels back. | | (I believe they _may_ have finally relented and brought out a | 64-bit version subsequently, but by that time it was too | late, I 'd moved already. And I had lost trust in their | software support abilities anyway by then). | ghiculescu wrote: | It's really unclear what everyone at Xero does these days. | Their main product development seems to be keeping up STP | compliance, and trying to move add-ons onto their new App | Store. I haven't seen an exciting new feature in a long time. | (Their business development team, by contrast, seems pretty | busy.) | devmor wrote: | This article comes at a welcome time for me. I've been building | out a usage-based B2B product and have wracked my brain on how to | properly implement billing (without having to pay large upfront | fees or integrate a more complex gateway that I don't really | need). | | I'd never heard of Lago before but I think I'll give it a try. | AnhTho_FR wrote: | Hi Devmor, I work at Lago. Happy to learn more and to support! | My email: anhtho@getlago.com | clintonb wrote: | https://stripe.com/docs/billing/subscriptions/usage-based | devmor wrote: | I use Stripe for other products, and their usage-based | billing is limited to specific scenarios that are not one- | size fits all. This is in fact the entire subject of the post | we are commenting on. | | Why would you assume I haven't evaluated Stripe's offering on | a post that is specifically about the shortcomings of | Stripe's offering. | 0_____0 wrote: | Whenever I hear about a US based payment processor, I feel | compelled to mention UPI, India's Unified Payment Interface. | | Basically, with fairly modest investment, the Indian government | put together a system to allow instant transactions between bank | accounts. There are no transaction fees. | | We have so many companies (sometimes the same company with | multiple faces - Paypal/Venmo, Stripe, Clover, Square, all of | whom want a cut of transactions for the incredible service of | making a number go up in one place and down in another place. | Instead of fixing bank-to-bank transfers, we're stuck with ACH, | which for some godforsaken reason takes days to clear. | | There's no technical reason why the US can't have a system like | UPI. There's no reason why we MUST allow rent-seeking payment | processors to take a cut when someone in Mumbai can make a peer | or merchant transfer for free in seconds. | | UPI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Payments_Interface | selimnairb wrote: | Is this a example problem from an updated edition of "Godel, | Escher, Bach"? | yucky wrote: | Stripe is large enough to need their own dedicated merchant | account, why would they use a product designed for smaller | businesses? | dangus wrote: | Seems very understandable to me that your customers' profile | doesn't necessarily meet your customers' customers profile. | | If I sell a cash register app to indie businesses who sell | trinkets at the art fair, that doesn't mean my solution meets my | own needs for billing my millions of those business customers. | rlewkov wrote: | Maybe own dogfood doesn't taste so good ... maybe | ceejayoz wrote: | Stripe Billing came _after_ Stripe, by years, and it 's | intended for a different purpose anyways. Stripe doesn't bill | _me_ ; they take a cut of what I bill _my customers_. That 's a | very different model than Stripe Billing is for. | thiscatis wrote: | It's called Stripe Billing, not Stripe MDR. What a pointless | exercise but I guess someone wi have some takeaways from this, | not sure which one though. | [deleted] | swyx wrote: | what is MDR? | scrollaway wrote: | Merchant Discount Rate. Another (confusing) name for what you | might know as "payment processing fee". | | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/merchant-discount- | rate.... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-13 23:00 UTC)