This thought places a mental transaction cost, or the energy required to make a buying decision, on the user every time a purchase is considered. If every website requires a small fee to view it, then this cost is placed on the user many times over a short period of time. Additionally, below a threshold value, it is much harder to assess the value of certain goods. Society currently values printed newspapers at a certain cost, but is each article worth a certain number of cents? Users must prepay for each article and they are unsure of the content they will receive.
The Item Unit Of Measure data element provides the unit of measurement of the item quantities, for example, “tracks” “hours and minutes” (of game-play). 2 is a description of a typical merchant fee structure of the background art. Reference is made to Table 1 which provides examples of commercially deployed systems of the background art in each of the two categories of acceptance-side systems and intermediary-account systems. Of the International Symposium in Electronic Commerce, LNCS 2040, Springer-Verlag, pp. 20-32, 2001. We depict the transaction process of Kim and Lee’s protocol in Figure 3.
The buyer can still challenge the purchase as there is no signature on the payment slip (i.e. non-repudiation is not guaranteed). The Merchant Category Code data element provides an identifier of the type of business being done by the Merchant for this transaction. For example, the MCC can be encoded in accordance with the standard ISO of the background art. The Approval Code data element contains the unique code generated by the issuer to approve the transaction.
“As an end-user, you don’t want to sign up with multiple vendors for small payments as there would be ‘wallet fatigue’. According to Sen, the only challenge he sees with micropayments is the mindset of publishers as many do not believe that the content that they have been providing freely can be charged. The Compaq system presents both the best and worst case scenario’s for the future character of a Web dominated by 소액결제 정책미납
The current pricing model of many digital companies is a license/subscription model, where you get a pre-defined package of features. Alternatively, a lot of digital companies provide free services but gain revenues through advertisement and selling user data. Even the most cost-effective online payment facilitators, such as Stripe, charge $0.30 plus roughly 3% of the transaction. But I believe it doesn’t make economic sense for an end user to pay pennies for each article consumed when the transaction itself costs $0.30.
The user’s phone bill is then charged by the mobile network operator. An early attempt at making micropayments work, iPIN was a 1998 venture-capital-funded startup that provided services that allowed purchasers to add incremental micropayment charges to their existing bills for Internet services. A micropayment is a financial transaction involving a very small sum of money and usually one that occurs online. A number of micropayment systems were proposed and developed in the mid-to-late 1990s, all of which were ultimately unsuccessful.
The only transactions that users can approve without thought are ones that cost them nothing, thus any micro-transaction of positive value will incur mental costs through its requiring a decision. Furthermore, mental transaction costs actually rise below a certain threshold value, a phenomenon that places micropayments at an even greater disadvantage. For instance, it is easy to think that a copy of today’s newspapers costs $1, but readers face much more difficulty and anxiety in deciding on the value of each article or word.