With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
Dunno about that, but there’s no point keeping it in a bank where its value is leaking away through inflation.
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
Dunno about that, but there’s no point keeping it in a bank where its value is leaking away through inflation.
Somewhat of a strange comment. I don’t define saver as only using a bank. There are other investment options. So your comment illustrates my point, we clearly define that word differently.
How about they "arrive" the Apple Card in other countries "within weeks" so we can all make use of the 3% discount?
I am guessing that Apple is actually aware of the fact that Apple Card in other counties is a net win. I’m also guessing that navigating financial laws international isn’t a minor thing to do.
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
In a ZIRP environment, the traditional return (interest) on savings has been mostly or entirely eliminated.
Some might interpret that to mean there is no reward in saving. Others might seek to gain that reward by investing those saving in risky investments that tend to offer a higher return -- but also offer the possibility of eliminating those savings.
A ZIRP environment penalizes savers and uses their savings to subsidize things such as "no interest loans" or stock prices.
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
In a ZIRP environment, the traditional return (interest) on savings has been mostly or entirely eliminated.
Some might interpret that to mean there is no reward in saving. Others might seek to gain that reward by investing those saving in risky investments that tend to offer a higher return -- but also offer the possibility of eliminating those savings.
A ZIRP environment penalizes savers and uses their savings to subsidize things such as "no interest loans" or stock prices.
It is a form of wealth transfer.
So that was the long way of saying you see savers a people that use bank savings accounts. We define that differently which is totally fine and reconciles our different opinions.
I will say that there is a difference between zero interest rate policy and Apple’s financing. Apple’s financing has been 0% irrespective of prime rate.
My guess is Apple thinks they can slow or reverse the decline in computer sales. The simple fact is that the iPad is all the computer most people will ever need.
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
In a ZIRP environment, the traditional return (interest) on savings has been mostly or entirely eliminated.
Some might interpret that to mean there is no reward in saving. Others might seek to gain that reward by investing those saving in risky investments that tend to offer a higher return -- but also offer the possibility of eliminating those savings.
A ZIRP environment penalizes savers and uses their savings to subsidize things such as "no interest loans" or stock prices.
It is a form of wealth transfer.
So that was the long way of saying you see savers a people that use bank savings accounts. We define that differently which is totally fine and reconciles our different opinions.
I will say that there is a difference between zero interest rate policy and Apple’s financing. Apple’s financing has been 0% irrespective of prime rate.
LOL... No, I didn't say that.
As for your last statement: The Fed has had a ZIRP policy (or close to it) far longer than Apple has.
With interest rates at near zero levels - making the future value (or premium) of money nearly worthless -- this is a smart move by Apple:
They can offer their customers an easy and affordable way to acquire products with little or no cost to themselves.
That's a win-win for Apple and its customers. The losers are those who saved their money and now earn no interest on it. It is essentially another wealth transfer scheme that Apple is RIGHTLY taking advantage of (similar to Apple taking advantage of low tax rates when they are offered).
Smart move Tim!
Your loser proposition is partially accurate. If I have 1k to spend on a Mac Book Air and the extra cash to pay the monthly installments over 12-24 months then I’d come out better interest wise paying installments. But the difference between paying up front and then redirecting the payment amount to savings over the next 12-24 months and holding your one 1k and making monthly payments over 12-24 months ends up being fairly small. If I don’t have the 1k to pay up front and but have extra cash monthly over 12-24 months then you wouldn’t come out better for it interest wise and you’d have a liability should my monthly income get impacted.
I perhaps did not make myself clear: Savers are the losers in a ZIRP environment because they not only do not make money (through interest) on the money they saved, but actually lose money through inflation. In effect, they are subsidizing these no interest loans.
(In reality, they are being forced to choose between losing money through inflation or putting their savings into the stock market and other risk investments)
You are defining “savers” in a way that I am not aware of. It sounds like you are saying people should spend all of their money rather than save it.
In a ZIRP environment, the traditional return (interest) on savings has been mostly or entirely eliminated.
Some might interpret that to mean there is no reward in saving. Others might seek to gain that reward by investing those saving in risky investments that tend to offer a higher return -- but also offer the possibility of eliminating those savings.
A ZIRP environment penalizes savers and uses their savings to subsidize things such as "no interest loans" or stock prices.
It is a form of wealth transfer.
So that was the long way of saying you see savers a people that use bank savings accounts. We define that differently which is totally fine and reconciles our different opinions.
I will say that there is a difference between zero interest rate policy and Apple’s financing. Apple’s financing has been 0% irrespective of prime rate.
LOL... No, I didn't say that.
As for your last statement: The Fed has had a ZIRP policy (or close to it) far longer than Apple has.
Apple has offered 0% financing going back to the 90s. The length of it has varied but it’s been there. They promoted the hell out of when the first iMac came out it's actually how I got mine.
Expanding the installment plan to MacBooks but not iMacs, Mac Minis. This is a clear signal that Apple is abandoning the desktop or considers the desktop unworthy of support and innovation.The Mac Pro is simply out of reach for most of us who still want a desktop Mac. The desktop is dead at Apple.
I wonder if the relationship with Barclay will be ending. Just before Apple Card came out I got the Barclay Card and do not want to get another card if this is the path.
I think this is the fact of that relationship ending -- if apple.com offers its own Apple Card financing for a new Mac purchase, rather than Barclay Card financing, that's the end of the relationship.
This is on the individual, but many people end up using 'zero interest' programs to buy more than they need and/or can afford. If you do that, 'zero' interest is not a bargain.
If you don't get the 3% rebate for using the Apple Card, then it becomes a de facto 3% interest rate, not 0%
GeorgeB makes a big deal about interest rates relative to inflation but that's basically a moot point for this discussion. What matters is what you would have done with the money had you not plopped it all down at once to get the computer. If you would have had it in a savings account earning 1% then you are making 1% on the money. if you would have invested it in an account that got a 6% return you make 6% on the deal. If you invest in an account that ends up losing money, well, you would have been better off paying up front!
All of this becomes a confusing shell game very quickly because very few people have the discipline to simply take the extra money and invest it. What Apple and other companies depend on is the psychological attraction of 0% interest to convince people to buy when they wouldn't, to buy more than the otherwise would have, or to buy and then capture interest and penalty income when they don't pay it off in time.
This is on the individual, but many people end up using 'zero interest' programs to buy more than they need and/or can afford. If you do that, 'zero' interest is not a bargain.
If you don't get the 3% rebate for using the Apple Card, then it becomes a de facto 3% interest rate, not 0%
GeorgeB makes a big deal about interest rates relative to inflation but that's basically a moot point for this discussion. What matters is what you would have done with the money had you not plopped it all down at once to get the computer. If you would have had it in a savings account earning 1% then you are making 1% on the money. if you would have invested it in an account that got a 6% return you make 6% on the deal. If you invest in an account that ends up losing money, well, you would have been better off paying up front!
All of this becomes a confusing shell game very quickly because very few people have the discipline to simply take the extra money and invest it. What Apple and other companies depend on is the psychological attraction of 0% interest to convince people to buy when they wouldn't, to buy more than the otherwise would have, or to buy and then capture interest and penalty income when they don't pay it off in time.
1) I have no reason to believe the 3% won't apply on these Apple purchases on the Apple Card. They even apply it when using current third-party loan fulfillment, like Citizens Bank loans on iPhones. I find this implausible.
2) What evidence do you offer to support this? iPhones, Apple's biggest profit driver, offers 0% interest on the very popular installment plans, which are specifically designed to prevent you from paying interest. Existing Barclay's 0% financing is likewise scheduled over a a long term to ensure you pay no interest with a small monthly payment (I'm using this for my 2019 iMac). And using Apple Card's app also makes remarkably easy to pay only what you must to avoid paying interest each month (simple app, but it's a much easier and clearer depiction of balance vs interest than any of my other credit cards websites/apps over the past 20+ years).
So where is your data that shows Apple is depending on predatory interest schemes? It sure isn't those.
This is on the individual, but many people end up using 'zero interest' programs to buy more than they need and/or can afford. If you do that, 'zero' interest is not a bargain.
If you don't get the 3% rebate for using the Apple Card, then it becomes a de facto 3% interest rate, not 0%
GeorgeB makes a big deal about interest rates relative to inflation but that's basically a moot point for this discussion. What matters is what you would have done with the money had you not plopped it all down at once to get the computer. If you would have had it in a savings account earning 1% then you are making 1% on the money. if you would have invested it in an account that got a 6% return you make 6% on the deal. If you invest in an account that ends up losing money, well, you would have been better off paying up front!
All of this becomes a confusing shell game very quickly because very few people have the discipline to simply take the extra money and invest it. What Apple and other companies depend on is the psychological attraction of 0% interest to convince people to buy when they wouldn't, to buy more than the otherwise would have, or to buy and then capture interest and penalty income when they don't pay it off in time.
1) I have no reason to believe the 3% won't apply on these Apple purchases on the Apple Card. They even apply it when using current third-party loan fulfillment, like Citizens Bank loans on iPhones. I find this implausible.
2) What evidence do you offer to support this? iPhones, Apple's biggest profit driver, offers 0% interest on the very popular installment plans, which are specifically designed to prevent you from paying interest. Existing Barclay's 0% financing is likewise scheduled over a a long term to ensure you pay no interest with a small monthly payment (I'm using this for my 2019 iMac). And using Apple Card's app also makes remarkably easy to pay only what you must to avoid paying interest each month (simple app, but it's a much easier and clearer depiction of balance vs interest than any of my other credit cards websites/apps over the past 20+ years).
So where is your data that shows Apple is depending on predatory interest schemes? It sure isn't those.
1) I have no idea if the 3% will apply or not; people were speculating and asking the question and my point was simply if the 3% doesn't apply. I suspect it will, but we won't know until Apple reveals the terms.
2) Where did I accuse Apple of being predatory? I simply said they are using the same marketing psychology as many other companies do. A friend's wife worked in marketing for General Mills. I asked her once how many people forget to tear off the coupons they put on the front of the box ("save $1 now!") She instantly replied with the answer - Marketing knows exactly how much promotions cost and they also know or have a very good idea what percentage of people end up paying penalties for not paying off in time. I fully expect Apple has done the same calculations.
As long as the terms are clear, reasonable and easy to abide by there is nothing predatory about having a 0% promotion but the fact remains there will be people who buy when they wouldn't have, buy more computer than they otherwise would have or end up paying penalties. Like any other company, Apple takes account for these when it looks at the cost of a promotion. They would be stupid if they didn't.
This is on the individual, but many people end up using 'zero interest' programs to buy more than they need and/or can afford. If you do that, 'zero' interest is not a bargain.
If you don't get the 3% rebate for using the Apple Card, then it becomes a de facto 3% interest rate, not 0%
GeorgeB makes a big deal about interest rates relative to inflation but that's basically a moot point for this discussion. What matters is what you would have done with the money had you not plopped it all down at once to get the computer. If you would have had it in a savings account earning 1% then you are making 1% on the money. if you would have invested it in an account that got a 6% return you make 6% on the deal. If you invest in an account that ends up losing money, well, you would have been better off paying up front!
All of this becomes a confusing shell game very quickly because very few people have the discipline to simply take the extra money and invest it. What Apple and other companies depend on is the psychological attraction of 0% interest to convince people to buy when they wouldn't, to buy more than the otherwise would have, or to buy and then capture interest and penalty income when they don't pay it off in time.
"The Big Deal" (as you call it, not me) is that Apple is offering zero interest loans because the money is essentially free to them -- courtesy of U.S. government and its ZIRP. But, somebody always pays for the "free lunch". And, in this case, it's Americas savers who receive little or no interest on their savings and are forced to choose between losing money to inflation or risking their principle in risk based investments.
The intent of ZIRP is to do what this is doing: increase spending. But, someone always pays for the free lunch.
This is on the individual, but many people end up using 'zero interest' programs to buy more than they need and/or can afford. If you do that, 'zero' interest is not a bargain.
If you don't get the 3% rebate for using the Apple Card, then it becomes a de facto 3% interest rate, not 0%
GeorgeB makes a big deal about interest rates relative to inflation but that's basically a moot point for this discussion. What matters is what you would have done with the money had you not plopped it all down at once to get the computer. If you would have had it in a savings account earning 1% then you are making 1% on the money. if you would have invested it in an account that got a 6% return you make 6% on the deal. If you invest in an account that ends up losing money, well, you would have been better off paying up front!
All of this becomes a confusing shell game very quickly because very few people have the discipline to simply take the extra money and invest it. What Apple and other companies depend on is the psychological attraction of 0% interest to convince people to buy when they wouldn't, to buy more than the otherwise would have, or to buy and then capture interest and penalty income when they don't pay it off in time.
1) I have no reason to believe the 3% won't apply on these Apple purchases on the Apple Card. They even apply it when using current third-party loan fulfillment, like Citizens Bank loans on iPhones. I find this implausible.
2) What evidence do you offer to support this? iPhones, Apple's biggest profit driver, offers 0% interest on the very popular installment plans, which are specifically designed to prevent you from paying interest. Existing Barclay's 0% financing is likewise scheduled over a a long term to ensure you pay no interest with a small monthly payment (I'm using this for my 2019 iMac). And using Apple Card's app also makes remarkably easy to pay only what you must to avoid paying interest each month (simple app, but it's a much easier and clearer depiction of balance vs interest than any of my other credit cards websites/apps over the past 20+ years).
So where is your data that shows Apple is depending on predatory interest schemes? It sure isn't those.
1) I have no idea if the 3% will apply or not; people were speculating and asking the question and my point was simply if the 3% doesn't apply. I suspect it will, but we won't know until Apple reveals the terms.
2) Where did I accuse Apple of being predatory? I simply said they are using the same marketing psychology as many other companies do. A friend's wife worked in marketing for General Mills. I asked her once how many people forget to tear off the coupons they put on the front of the box ("save $1 now!") She instantly replied with the answer - Marketing knows exactly how much promotions cost and they also know or have a very good idea what percentage of people end up paying penalties for not paying off in time. I fully expect Apple has done the same calculations.
As long as the terms are clear, reasonable and easy to abide by there is nothing predatory about having a 0% promotion but the fact remains there will be people who buy when they wouldn't have, buy more computer than they otherwise would have or end up paying penalties. Like any other company, Apple takes account for these when it looks at the cost of a promotion. They would be stupid if they didn't.
Yeh, I agree. This is not, in any way, predatory. If people buy more than they can afford then that's on them not the lender or seller.
Predatory typically refers to those lenders who take advantage of people desperate for immediate cash -- say to feed their family or repair a car -- but then charge exorbitant interest rates on the loan. And this situation is quite the opposite of that in every way.
Comments
I am guessing that Apple is actually aware of the fact that Apple Card in other counties is a net win. I’m also guessing that navigating financial laws international isn’t a minor thing to do.
My guess is Apple thinks they can slow or reverse the decline in computer sales. The simple fact is that the iPad is all the computer most people will ever need.
- This is on the individual, but many people end up using 'zero interest' programs to buy more than they need and/or can afford. If you do that, 'zero' interest is not a bargain.
- If you don't get the 3% rebate for using the Apple Card, then it becomes a de facto 3% interest rate, not 0%
- GeorgeB makes a big deal about interest rates relative to inflation but that's basically a moot point for this discussion. What matters is what you would have done with the money had you not plopped it all down at once to get the computer. If you would have had it in a savings account earning 1% then you are making 1% on the money. if you would have invested it in an account that got a 6% return you make 6% on the deal. If you invest in an account that ends up losing money, well, you would have been better off paying up front!
All of this becomes a confusing shell game very quickly because very few people have the discipline to simply take the extra money and invest it. What Apple and other companies depend on is the psychological attraction of 0% interest to convince people to buy when they wouldn't, to buy more than the otherwise would have, or to buy and then capture interest and penalty income when they don't pay it off in time.2) What evidence do you offer to support this? iPhones, Apple's biggest profit driver, offers 0% interest on the very popular installment plans, which are specifically designed to prevent you from paying interest. Existing Barclay's 0% financing is likewise scheduled over a a long term to ensure you pay no interest with a small monthly payment (I'm using this for my 2019 iMac). And using Apple Card's app also makes remarkably easy to pay only what you must to avoid paying interest each month (simple app, but it's a much easier and clearer depiction of balance vs interest than any of my other credit cards websites/apps over the past 20+ years).
So where is your data that shows Apple is depending on predatory interest schemes? It sure isn't those.
2) Where did I accuse Apple of being predatory? I simply said they are using the same marketing psychology as many other companies do. A friend's wife worked in marketing for General Mills. I asked her once how many people forget to tear off the coupons they put on the front of the box ("save $1 now!") She instantly replied with the answer - Marketing knows exactly how much promotions cost and they also know or have a very good idea what percentage of people end up paying penalties for not paying off in time. I fully expect Apple has done the same calculations.
As long as the terms are clear, reasonable and easy to abide by there is nothing predatory about having a 0% promotion but the fact remains there will be people who buy when they wouldn't have, buy more computer than they otherwise would have or end up paying penalties. Like any other company, Apple takes account for these when it looks at the cost of a promotion. They would be stupid if they didn't.