261–270 of 312 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they can't even be bothered to keep their mobile app up to date Guessing their clients aren’t banking via mobile apps, their staff having lines to their banker. Most top-tier private banks barely have an online presence. If you want something, you (or your assistant) calls or texts your banker.
This is so true. Try to bank in Switzerland, it is so 1980ties...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds sad to me. It’s like how visions of heaven 500 years ago all imagined huge feasts every day, but if you told me heaven was a Golden Corral, I’d look for a different heaven. We are still in this scarcity-capitalist-mindset that more money/stuff is always better, but I don’t think that’s the right way to be looking at things. We should appreciate the forced scarcity, like how our ancestors may have been hungr…
> Please keep in mind I’m not talking about living in poverty, I’m talking about having all your monetary needs met to live your lifestyle (without being forced to work), without having a huge excess left over. Out of curiosity (not debating, but rather conversating) -- what portion of humanity is in this enviable condition?
It's probably somewhere <5%, maybe <1%, right now (I would include current successful retirees).
This is one of the most exclusive banks in the world, counting the British Royal Family among their notable clients, and they can't even be bothered to keep their mobile app up to date. Pretty much sums up what rich people think about technology: make it sexy and powerful but I don't want to hear about ongoing maintenance costs. According to Wikipedia, new clients needed £500k in disposable funds to set up an account…
That’s quite a jump there. One bank is bad at maintaining their app all the way to a blanket statement about rich people and technology.
The IT Crowd TV series are representative.
This is one of the most exclusive banks in the world, counting the British Royal Family among their notable clients, and they can't even be bothered to keep their mobile app up to date. Pretty much sums up what rich people think about technology: make it sexy and powerful but I don't want to hear about ongoing maintenance costs. According to Wikipedia, new clients needed £500k in disposable funds to set up an account…
That’s quite a jump there. One bank is bad at maintaining their app all the way to a blanket statement about rich people and technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still pretty embarrassing when Microsoft maintains backwards compatibility for decades.
Not embarrassing, its a deliberate strategy to keep the platform moving forward.
I see this as Apple breaking the app. Demanding and nudging users to auto-update the iOS, the consequences being the OS fails to run what it previously could run.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if you can’t “buy your way in” to these banks, what are the criteria? First you will need to be "introduced" to the bank by an existing customer. We're not talking about a referral link here, we're saying who introduces you is just as important as who is being introduced (i.e. long-standing customer vouching for an introduction gets more weight than a newbie trying to get a mate in). Second, if the introduction…
"e.g. bank is purposely setup as unlimited liability legal structure" Why would they want to do that?
To show the customer they're putting their money where their mouth is, i.e. that they are genuinely more interested in the long-term relationship than the pure commercial profitability of the client.
Going for unlimited liability also focuses the mind of the bank's management. You can't make short-sighted decisions just because you want to boost your bonus. You have to genuinely make sound decisions with the bank and the bank's customer's in mind.
Its very rare these days. Rarer than pure partnership legal structure which is already very rare. Almost all organisations these days opt to take the easier route and hide behind the corporate veil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s quite a jump there. One bank is bad at maintaining their app all the way to a blanket statement about rich people and technology.
Name one bank that's run by a poor person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if you can’t “buy your way in” to these banks, what are the criteria? First you will need to be "introduced" to the bank by an existing customer. We're not talking about a referral link here, we're saying who introduces you is just as important as who is being introduced (i.e. long-standing customer vouching for an introduction gets more weight than a newbie trying to get a mate in). Second, if the introduction…
Thanks, that’s insightful. What’s an example of one of these banks?
C. Hoare & Co. [1]
Their unlimited liability and the reasoning behind it is briefly discussed in a blog post by one of their senior partners[2].
[1] https://www.hoaresbank.co.uk/ [2] https://www.hoaresbank.co.uk/The_Special_Dynamics_of_a_Famil...
This is the difference between Microsoft and Apple. Where Microsoft goes through great lengths to keep new versions of OSes compatible with previous ones, Apple just lets users and developers sort it out.
Yes and Microsoft has constantly paid the cost by not being able to move as fast and having security issues because of some long forgotten piece of legacy code. Apple was able to have basically the same core OS run on phones, tablets, watches, set top boxes and monitors (yes the latest Apple display runs a version of iOS on an iPhone 11 era chip with 64GB RAM). Back as early as 2005 there were more than half a dozen…
Security fixes should always be backported, because there will always be people stuck at a version of the OS for one reason or the other (it is guaranteed if you serve millions of people).
Blaming users for not upgrading, or forcing developers to upgrade is NOT how it should be done.