Live data from Hacker News

Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

finance.yahoo.com

111–120 of 198 posts

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed though "it needs to be below 6th grade reading level" would essentially invalidate every contract/license/agreement ever entered into..

That's usually not an issue if your contract and marketing claims are aligned. Even if the customers didn't you read the contract, they still got the gist of it through the marketing copy and probably won't hit a point where they're really mad about you. Actual trials will also be easier to deal with as you're in good faith. For all the press we get on "frivolous" lawsuits, no average Joe are winning actual stupid su…

Absolutely there are bad actors, and consumers getting taken advantage of.

However as you point out - credit cards essentially make money from the less financially savvy by design. It's not entirely a bad thing, in a sense.. some people just run out of money between paychecks and need some liquidity.

Credit access vs predatory debt are sometimes in the eye of the beholder and a very fine line.

It also reminds me of some of the "I've been paying my student debt for 10 years and the balance went up!" like.. yeah, but it means you paid less than the interest. Would you have been happier paying more for the last 10 years? Like what outcome were you expecting and what college education did you go into debt for that didn't prepare you to have reviewed your monthly statements even once in 10 years to realize this?

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#112
post #90
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Marcus still exists in the US. I use them for my savings account. They don't have anything besides that that I know of (checking, brokerage). Current APY 4.1% so as good as you can find in a savings account here.

Fidelity Cash Management has a 4.5% yield (which is also state-tax free for those in states with income tax, which could be a boost of up to 0.5% for some).

[deleted]

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll probably get 3 months of Apple Arcade free.

Or a $100 off coupon for spending over $500?

On a select items that they mark up 20%.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#114
Awkward time for Apple.

- Moves into finance have been a failure, cancelling their BNPL as well.

- Vision Pro basically dead at this point.

- A large number of senior execs getting reshuffled/moving on from the company.

- Apple Intelligence, still no where to be seen.

This is most likely a Goldman Sachs issue, but still, who at Apple decided to partner with the bank that hasn't got any track record in consumer banking?

The only advantage GS would have had over competitors is that they would have offered Apple very generous terms because they wanted to leverage Apple to get into a new market. Choosing GS was not very customer centric.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#115
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably payment on GS backend was processed late even if customer initiated payment on the due date. So customer was charged interest. I was an early adopter of the AC during my Apple glazing days. Everybody has the same due date (end of month) and GS systems just could not handle the volume. I remember an auto payment taking a week to withdraw from my bank account and applied to account. I wasn’t charged interest a…

> Apple glazing What is "Apple glazing"?

apple glazing:apple::navel gazing:orange

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goldman thought they were going to be able to fleece Apple's customers, but they can't. Good job Apple!

Saying "good job Apple" in the context of payment processing deals is like cheering on a slightly more buff gladiator bashing in the face of his opponent. Both of them intend to fleece the users, they just disagree over who gets priority access. I'm not saying you can't have a favorite gladiator, I'm saying you can't pretend this isn't pugilism.

> you can't pretend this isn't pugilism.

What's wrong with pugilism?

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good! This idea that businesses should be free to fleece the stupid and under educated with obtuse contract phraseology and walls of text that have managed to include things like "the soul of your first born" because nobody can reasonably be expected read and understand the full thing is just asinine, naked failure of the government to protect people from predatory business practices. Caveat Emptor should not mean "T…

Legalese is about specificity. How does being less precise assist understanding with specificity? I cannot, in a contract, just refer to a street address. For reasons of specificity, I must state where the survey marker corner is located -exactly- and then detail how many feet from that in a direction, etc. These long descriptions ensure that there are no misunderstandings later. The verbiage of these contracts have…

> How would one go about accomplishing a 'dumbing down' of a contract

Perhaps go with the UCC default and not try to have the buyer opt out of every specific consumer right.

The longer the contract, the more one party is probably being screwed with great specificity.

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#118

Awkward time for Apple. - Moves into finance have been a failure, cancelling their BNPL as well. - Vision Pro basically dead at this point. - A large number of senior execs getting reshuffled/moving on from the company. - Apple Intelligence, still no where to be seen. This is most likely a Goldman Sachs issue, but still, who at Apple decided to partner with the bank that hasn't got any track record in consumer bankin…

There’s actually some nuance to this. One of Apple’s big requirements was to have quite lax acceptance criteria. They didn’t want lots of their customers being denied for cards and creating a negative brand association.

Apparently GS was up for that. Possibly because they didn’t actually know what they are doing. My understanding is the loss rate was way too high for them to be profitable.

It was well covered at the time, here’s the first example to come up in a quick search: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/12/goldmans-gs-apple-card-busin...

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#119
post #9

My recent experience with Apple has been anti-user .. juice their bottom line.... - iCloud storage notifications saying have to upgrade to $9.99 plan to continue to store my photos, videos and even worse if I wanted to continue getting my iCloud emails. What(?), as my Google Photos is still sucking/backing up all the same media (goes back to 2016) for free. LAME Apple especially threat of not getting my iCloud emails…

What does this have to do with the Apple credit card?

Re: Goldman and Apple 'illegally sidestepped' obligations to credit-card customers

#120
post #118

Awkward time for Apple. - Moves into finance have been a failure, cancelling their BNPL as well. - Vision Pro basically dead at this point. - A large number of senior execs getting reshuffled/moving on from the company. - Apple Intelligence, still no where to be seen. This is most likely a Goldman Sachs issue, but still, who at Apple decided to partner with the bank that hasn't got any track record in consumer bankin…

There’s actually some nuance to this. One of Apple’s big requirements was to have quite lax acceptance criteria. They didn’t want lots of their customers being denied for cards and creating a negative brand association. Apparently GS was up for that. Possibly because they didn’t actually know what they are doing. My understanding is the loss rate was way too high for them to be profitable. It was well covered at the…

Without simply citing greed, I find this difficult to justify or explain. Apple is a premium, luxury brand. They make opinionated hardware and software that has offended many. They’ve certainly never given a phone away, but they’re afraid of offending someone by turning them down if they have bad credit? Rubbish.

Forgive me, I’m not trying to shoot the messenger. Nuance or not, I think GP is right. It wasn’t very customer centric.

Post reply on HN