Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

simple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 295 posts

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#271

Post by nickpinkston »

thwest wrote: post #199
al3x wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Bank" in "BankSimple" was problematic for us. We're technically not a bank. We also don't want to be associated with the way people have approached banking, particularly in the US. Sorry you're not crazy about the new name, but we're happy with it. It gives us a lot of room to grow.

Oh but I wish you were a bank or credit union. How my deposits are used is something we should be able to negotiate about.

I'm assuming you mean this in a "move your money" kind of way right?

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#272

Post by drivingmenuts »

bradleyland wrote: post #60
buro9 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still confused. Is the account at the partner bank in my name, or that of Simple?

I have no affiliation with Simple, but the relationship seems pretty straight forward. "Where" your money is becomes an abstraction. You hold an account with Simple, and are issued a Visa card with which you can access the funds in your account. Everything beyond that is transparent to you. The accounts would technically be "in your name", since the funds are yours, but you never have to interface with the other bank…

Fine, but if we're being pragmatic, then it's better to stay with BoA because they're the biggest and they're too big to be allowed to fail. Your money is safer with them than anywhere else.

I would be interested in knowing who the partners are so that I can assure myself that they are doing business in a way that differentiates them from the megabanks.

On a side note: I was onboard with the BankSimple idea when I thought they were building a bank, now, I'm not so sure. I think it's a good idea, but not a great idea.

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#273

Post by alwillis »

I signed up for Simple née BankSimple nearly a year ago—I have an email dated November 30, 2010 that says I'm in their queue.

I literally can't wait to open my Simple account, especially as 2011 is winding down.

Being an early adopter and someone who became disillusioned with our financial institutions, especially the banks, signing up for Simple was a no-brainer for me.

I cringe every time I have to deal with old-school, traditional banks; every month I hope it'll be the last one I have to deal with these archaic and broken institutions.

As far as I'm concerned, I can't open my Simple account soon enough. I don't have any connection to the company or any of its employees. However, I do recognize when there's a better solution to an existing pain-point.

I know I'm not alone in experiencing how broken banking has become—I have a $35 overdraft because I bought a $1.99 app that overdrew my account. Yeah, I'm looking at you Bank of America.

I have my fingers crossed that I'll be in the first big wave of customers as Simple continues expanding its customer base since I signed up long before the Johnny-come-lately's showed up.

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#274

Post by Riverbed »

Lewisham wrote: post #84

Did anyone else see this in the FAQ? Who can use Simple? To be eligible, you must: - Be a resident of the United States and over the age of 18; - Have a Social Security number; and - Own a smartphone (iPhone or Android). Do I really need to have a smartphone? Well, you need to have an iOS (version 4.2 or higher) or Android device. Android phones and iPhones are preferable so that you can deposit checks using your sma…

Scanning checks on a smartphone is the killer app for anyone who has a small, mobile business.

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#276

Post by astrong »

al3x wrote: post #44
hemancuso wrote: post #24

Burning money on outrageously priced domain names instead of executive bonuses. I love it!

Hi, cofounder of Simple here. It wasn't a cheap domain, but our investors felt it was worth the expense. It's memorable, flexible, and to-the-point. We're generally not a profligate company, but we felt strongly about this.

how much was it ? I'm guessing $800,000

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#277

Post by eliben »

al3x wrote: post #32
cynicalkane wrote: post #3

I thought BankSimple was a great brand, because it tells you what it is and fits well with the current zeitgeist. What is "BankSimple?" A way to bank that's simple. Sounds interesting! Everyone hates how complicated banking is, right? Let's go to the website to find out more. What is "Simple?" Who knows. A website that has something to do with banking--or so I'm told--with yet another web 2.0 one-word "brand", a real…

The "Bank" in "BankSimple" was problematic for us. We're technically not a bank. We also don't want to be associated with the way people have approached banking, particularly in the US. Sorry you're not crazy about the new name, but we're happy with it. It gives us a lot of room to grow.

Even though I sympathize with the problems having "bank" in a name, "Simple" is just too general to be useful.

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#278

Post by [deleted] »

ganeumann wrote: post #251
sector wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a customer, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if you worked solely as a technology vendor to my bank. This isn't a knock on the team you're putting together, or your ability to build a great company. It's caused by the realities associated with venture capital. Now that you took VC money, there's countdown to an exit, and I have to think about likely buyers. If you're successful, one of the top possibilities is a st…

I was the first investor in Simple. I can't speak for all the investors, but for me this was an investment in making the world a better place. When Josh proposed the idea to me I asked a few people about their experiences with their banks. One of my friends told me how she had accidentally double-booked an airline ticket. This overdrew her account and--since she uses her debit card for everything--she started incurri…

[deleted]

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#279

Post by Someone »

eliben wrote: post #277
al3x wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Bank" in "BankSimple" was problematic for us. We're technically not a bank. We also don't want to be associated with the way people have approached banking, particularly in the US. Sorry you're not crazy about the new name, but we're happy with it. It gives us a lot of room to grow.

Even though I sympathize with the problems having "bank" in a name, "Simple" is just too general to be useful.

http://simpel.com and http://simpel.nl disagree with that statement. http://simple.fr and http://einfach.com also are taken, but redirect.

Re: BankSimple invites first customers; rebrands itself as Simple

#280

Post by alwillis »

Lewisham wrote: post #84

Did anyone else see this in the FAQ? Who can use Simple? To be eligible, you must: - Be a resident of the United States and over the age of 18; - Have a Social Security number; and - Own a smartphone (iPhone or Android). Do I really need to have a smartphone? Well, you need to have an iOS (version 4.2 or higher) or Android device. Android phones and iPhones are preferable so that you can deposit checks using your sma…

I would hazard more people have access to a scanner (even the one at work) than own a smartphone.

That's probably not true; Reading The US smartphone landscape (http://www.asymco.com/2011/11/06/the-us-smartphone-landscape...).

Also, Nielsen points out that 43% of all cell phones in the US are smartphones; it's just a matter of time before every cell phone sold is going to be a smartphone. Apple's iPhone 3GS is free with a two-year contract.

62% of users 25-34 years old own smartphones: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/generation...

So requiring a smartphone (iOS and Android have a combined installed base of 63 million devices in the US) isn't as whacky as it sounds.

Post reply on HN