So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
PayPal offers PayPal Credit which is essentially what Apple looks to be wanting to do. I think it’s great. I can use PayPal Credit with any merchant who accepts PayPal like Home Depot and Lowe’s along with Ebay. With PayPal Credit sometimes they offer interest free installment payments for 6-12 months. I would love for Apple to provide the same service.
I feel like anything that is tied to Apple hardware is going to be an issue for some folks on the anti-trust / anti-competition front. Do those people actually use Apple products?? I’m a Apple fan because I love the ecosystem and all that it offers. Let the other companies compete for my money. Innovate. Don’t ruin the experience for me for the sake of some narrow minded junk.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
An option is hardly something that requires an off switch. I guess it'd be nice to be able to hide it if you literally have zero interest, but if its an option that you just never use, meh.
There's an app I regularly use that has a checkout page with PayPal, ApplePay and Credit Card options. What does it matter if a couple of extra Apple Pay Later options get added? I don't care that PayPal is there even if I don't use PayPal, I just don't use it.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
Speaking of bad critical thought and burden of proof responsibility, etc., you don't even seem to know who it is you're responding to, in this case addressing a response to me, when you're responding to a comment from @MplsP. So maybe try dismounting from your high horse. The AI article left out important information and was unclear, describing the program in a way suggestive of it being offers that pop up at the point of sale. I'm not even sure from the way it's described above that the writer even noticed that there's a user-submitted application required first. You have to click through to the Bloomberg source to figure that out.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
Speaking of bad critical thought and burden of proof responsibility, etc., you don't even seem to know who it is you're responding to, in this case addressing a response to me, when you're responding to a comment from @MplsP. So maybe try dismounting from your high horse. The AI article left out important information and was unclear, describing the program in a way suggestive of it being offers that pop up at the point of sale. I'm not even sure from the way it's described above that the writer even noticed that there's a user-submitted application required first. You have to click through to the Bloomberg source to figure that out.
Huh? I referred to you in the third person while responding MplsP. The response referenced you and your post but wasn't addressed to you.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
Speaking of bad critical thought and burden of proof responsibility, etc., you don't even seem to know who it is you're responding to, in this case addressing a response to me, when you're responding to a comment from @MplsP. So maybe try dismounting from your high horse. The AI article left out important information and was unclear, describing the program in a way suggestive of it being offers that pop up at the point of sale. I'm not even sure from the way it's described above that the writer even noticed that there's a user-submitted application required first. You have to click through to the Bloomberg source to figure that out.
Huh? I referred to you in the third person while responding MplsP. The response referenced you and your post but wasn't addressed to you.
"Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu."
Oh, I see. Unclear writing strikes again, eh? Even though that sentence reads as though you are directing your comment to me (in the second person), you meant something else. Herein lies the crux of the problem. When things are not written clearly, it's easy for people to misunderstand. The article above reads as though it's describing a feature that will simply start popping up at the point-of-sale, and says nothing about the required application mentioned in he original Bloomberg article. Particularly when the AI article does mention that this service will be provided without running credit checks, a reasonable person might think this is something that will have to be assertively turned off. Better writing might've cleared that up. One could respond to that sort of misunderstanding by offering additional information and clarifications, or one could take the more unfriendly, high-horse approach, including misquotes ("fumble around with each transition"? I didn't write that...) and unclear writing in all one's fury.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
Speaking of bad critical thought and burden of proof responsibility, etc., you don't even seem to know who it is you're responding to, in this case addressing a response to me, when you're responding to a comment from @MplsP. So maybe try dismounting from your high horse. The AI article left out important information and was unclear, describing the program in a way suggestive of it being offers that pop up at the point of sale. I'm not even sure from the way it's described above that the writer even noticed that there's a user-submitted application required first. You have to click through to the Bloomberg source to figure that out.
Huh? I referred to you in the third person while responding MplsP. The response referenced you and your post but wasn't addressed to you.
"Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu."
Oh, I see. Unclear writing strikes again, eh? Even though that sentence reads as though you are directing your comment to me (in the second person), you meant something else. Herein lies the crux of the problem. When things are not written clearly, it's easy for people to misunderstand. The article above reads as though it's describing a feature that will simply start popping up at the point-of-sale, and says nothing about the required application mentioned in he original Bloomberg article. Particularly when the AI article does mention that this service will be provided without running credit checks, a reasonable person might think this is something that will have to be assertively turned off. Better writing might've cleared that up. One could respond to that sort of misunderstanding by offering additional information and clarifications, or one could take the more unfriendly, high-horse approach, including misquotes ("fumble around with each transition"? I didn't write that...) and unclear writing in all one's fury.
I'm not 100% sure on this but I'm think the sentence is a correct third person referral. I'm not hell bent on being right on that so I'll just concede that it was unclear. It names the subject in the sentence. You are correct I typed the wrong word in the quote. It should have been "transaction" not "transition"
I'll absolutely agree that Apple Insider does an abysmal job of relaying relevant information from source materials. That has been a long standing complaint of mine and I have learned that if I want full details I need to click through and read source.
Anyway, you are leaning really hard into the unclear thing as a way to back peddle on the fact that you made up an issue and then were criticized Apple for an issue of your own invention. The article may not be well written but it doesn't say users will be auto enrolled or that it will be the default payment options that users have to override manually with every purchase. Those are baseless claims.
I get it, no one likes to be wrong but it's way easier to just admit a mistake then twist yourself in knots in a misguided attempt to save face. See my opening paragraph on this comment for an example.
There is also a certain irony in you making accusations of high horses and fury given the alarmist tone of your initial comment.
So if I follow correctly, this would essentially have a Goldman Sachs line of credit jump in front of whatever card the user has set in Apple Pay? No thanks. Let’s hope there’s a big off button for that.
I wouldn't see it as "a jump". Just another option. The person can still pick who they choose for a loan.
There are people who aren't looking to borrow money and pay off their cards each month. They're going to want an "off" switch that doesn't require fumbling around with each transaction to avoid borrowing money. There are others who have borrowed money and are seeking to move to the not-borrowing-money category. They're probably not going to want an extra line of credit poking at them each time they make a purchase, either.
Where in the article does it state that iPhone users s will be auto enrolled in this program? And where does it say that it will be made the default and the only option to change payment will be to go into wallet and select something else?
it doesn’t. You have made these things up and declared them problems. This is pretty much the definition of concern trolling.
To be fair, it doesn’t say that they won’t, either. The article actually says nothing about the implementation leaving it to the reader to draw conclusions. It does say it will be financed through GoldmanSachs, the same bank that runs AppleCard operations, the picture on the story is one of someone paying with Apple Pay, the story says Apple Card can be used to pay in installments, and also says the ‘Apple Pay Later’ plan will be available through Apple Pay for “typical Apple Pay transactions.“
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
Speaking of bad critical thought and burden of proof responsibility, etc., you don't even seem to know who it is you're responding to, in this case addressing a response to me, when you're responding to a comment from @MplsP. So maybe try dismounting from your high horse. The AI article left out important information and was unclear, describing the program in a way suggestive of it being offers that pop up at the point of sale. I'm not even sure from the way it's described above that the writer even noticed that there's a user-submitted application required first. You have to click through to the Bloomberg source to figure that out.
Huh? I referred to you in the third person while responding MplsP. The response referenced you and your post but wasn't addressed to you.
"Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu."
Oh, I see. Unclear writing strikes again, eh? Even though that sentence reads as though you are directing your comment to me (in the second person), you meant something else. Herein lies the crux of the problem. When things are not written clearly, it's easy for people to misunderstand. The article above reads as though it's describing a feature that will simply start popping up at the point-of-sale, and says nothing about the required application mentioned in he original Bloomberg article. Particularly when the AI article does mention that this service will be provided without running credit checks, a reasonable person might think this is something that will have to be assertively turned off. Better writing might've cleared that up. One could respond to that sort of misunderstanding by offering additional information and clarifications, or one could take the more unfriendly, high-horse approach, including misquotes ("fumble around with each transition"? I didn't write that...) and unclear writing in all one's fury.
I'm not 100% sure on this but I'm think the sentence is a correct third person referral. I'm not hell bent on being right on that so I'll just concede that it was unclear. It names the subject in the sentence. You are correct I typed the wrong word in the quote. It should have been "transaction" not "transition"
I'll absolutely agree that Apple Insider does an abysmal job of relaying relevant information from source materials. That has been a long standing complaint of mine and I have learned that if I want full details I need to click through and read source.
Anyway, you are leaning really hard into the unclear thing as a way to back peddle on the fact that you made up an issue and then were criticized Apple for an issue of your own invention. The article may not be well written but it doesn't say users will be auto enrolled or that it will be the default payment options that users have to override manually with every purchase. Those are baseless claims.
I get it, no one likes to be wrong but it's way easier to just admit a mistake then twist yourself in knots in a misguided attempt to save face. See my opening paragraph on this comment for an example.
There is also a certain irony in you making accusations of high horses and fury given the alarmist tone of your initial comment.
For the record, [Deleted User], I didn't say that "Apple Insider does an abysmal job" of anything, so you're not "absolutely agree[ing]" with me. I just said that the article here was unclear regarding the proposed program's implementation.
When someone else said I had misinterpreted how it would work, I read the linked Bloomberg article and revised my comments. Apparently users will have to apply for the program, so it would not appear that an "off" or opt-out button is required. I wrote that upstream. As for my initial comment, I would say it might have been mildly snarky, but alarmist? I don't think so.
Tying it in with Apple Pay opens it up to potential anti-trust problems as the competitors don’t have access to the low level Apple Pay features to offer a competing product.
(Not commenting yea or nay on this — just pointing out the potential legal issues that may, wrongly or rightly , come from this)
Not true at all. Nothing stopping PayPal/Venmo or anybody else from partnering with a financial institution to offer the same options and functionality through their existing apps.
It is unclear from the AI article but it sounds like this is actually built-in to Apple Pay and not just another service/car you can attach (I did not read the underlying news article yet). That does not mean that it is on be default, or that you don't have to apply, or anything. Merely that it is baked into Apple Pay at a level only Apple has access to. This is the basis for all my previous comments.
Here is the line that makes me think this:
When a purchase is made through one of the two plans, consumers will be able to choose which of their payment cards will be used for their payments. It would also potentially apply to practically any Apple Pay transaction, as it wouldn't be limited to just Apple products.
This implies "which of their [Apple Pay registered] payment cards will be used for their payments." Only Apple has access to this. While PayPal or any other buy now/pay later (BN/PL) plan could offer an account that could be linked to Apple Pay, it wouldn't have the feature of being able to choose which of your Apple Pay registered cards is being used to make the payments on this plan. Again, only Apple has that level of access inside Apple Pay. That is why I said this potentially opens up Apple to anti-competitive / anti-trust complaints.
For the record, this is how it appears the service works to me based on the description in the AI article:
1. Consumer signs up or otherwise asks to have these plans made available through Apple Pay. 2. Once approved, the consumer can choose to pay with one of these plans instead of one of their other Apple Pay linked accounts. 3. When using one of these plans to pay, the consumer is THEN offered a choice of which of their linked card accounts Apple/GS will use to charge the installment amount against at the appropriate time. You will auto-pay your Apple/GS BN/PL plan payment through a charge against one of your other cards. This is based on that line I quoted above.
The AI article says they don't think it requires a credit check and the reason for this is that you are backing it up with a real credit card of your choice so they are pretty confident they will get the money. (Yes there are ways to perpetrate fraud with this).
if this or something similar to it is NOT the way it works, and it is just another payment method in Apple Pay, and it doesn't have deeper knowledge of your registered cards in Apple Pay, then my thoughts about it being anti-competitive etc. would not be true.
I also am not giving any of my own opinion on whether it should be considered anti-competitive/anti-trust worthy no matter how it is structured. My personal opinions on that don't mean a lot in the discussion of how it potentially works and what could potentially be the outcome of this product being introduced from a legal standpoint given the current world state of anti-business and anti-competitive investigations, etc.
I love the anti competitive nonsense always coming up about Apple by armchair business law trolls.
But Only Apple has access to the Apple Pay network. You live long enough you hear it all.
I have an Amex card that gives me huge cash back on certain purchases. It should be stopped because Amex only has access to the Amex network and only they’ve fifer the discount!
But, but, but the NFC chip! Hey geniuses, an NFC chip isn’t a proprietary Apple thing. Other payment forms use NFC and shockingly you can even use the NFC on an iPhone to make payments that are not Apple Financial.
it’s painful reading the few low IQ posting responses.
I don’t use this but this Pay Later sounds like the Plan it feature by American Express. Plan it allows payment over multiple months for a lower than interest flat fee. The difference is obvious - AmEx is credit while Apple Pay may be linked directly to a bank. It will be interesting to see how Goldman inserts itself in the transaction.
Comments
Taken in aggregate, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that there will be some sort of option that pops up when you use Apple Pay.
That isn't being fair, it's bad critical thought. Burden of proof is the responsibility of the person making the claim, Applezulu. A lack of contradictory evidence is in no way evidence or support for their claims. I can't prove unicorns don't exist but that isn't proof that they do.
What AppleZulu is saying is that somehow this line of credit will just become the default payment option for Apple Pay and users will have to "fumble around with each transition" to avoid using it. Is it really reasonable to think Apple is going to provide every user a line of credit without a basic credit check or having them agree to terms of service? And then in addition to forcing a line of credit on everyone they are going to remove the option to set the default payment in Apple Pay? That just sounds absurd and it certainly isn't how Apple/Goldman's current co-branded credit option works. You have to apply for Apple Card and you can still set another card as the default.
There's an app I regularly use that has a checkout page with PayPal, ApplePay and Credit Card options. What does it matter if a couple of extra Apple Pay Later options get added? I don't care that PayPal is there even if I don't use PayPal, I just don't use it.
Oh, I see. Unclear writing strikes again, eh? Even though that sentence reads as though you are directing your comment to me (in the second person), you meant something else. Herein lies the crux of the problem. When things are not written clearly, it's easy for people to misunderstand. The article above reads as though it's describing a feature that will simply start popping up at the point-of-sale, and says nothing about the required application mentioned in he original Bloomberg article. Particularly when the AI article does mention that this service will be provided without running credit checks, a reasonable person might think this is something that will have to be assertively turned off. Better writing might've cleared that up. One could respond to that sort of misunderstanding by offering additional information and clarifications, or one could take the more unfriendly, high-horse approach, including misquotes ("fumble around with each transition"? I didn't write that...) and unclear writing in all one's fury.
I'll absolutely agree that Apple Insider does an abysmal job of relaying relevant information from source materials. That has been a long standing complaint of mine and I have learned that if I want full details I need to click through and read source.
Anyway, you are leaning really hard into the unclear thing as a way to back peddle on the fact that you made up an issue and then were criticized Apple for an issue of your own invention. The article may not be well written but it doesn't say users will be auto enrolled or that it will be the default payment options that users have to override manually with every purchase. Those are baseless claims.
I get it, no one likes to be wrong but it's way easier to just admit a mistake then twist yourself in knots in a misguided attempt to save face. See my opening paragraph on this comment for an example.
There is also a certain irony in you making accusations of high horses and fury given the alarmist tone of your initial comment.
When someone else said I had misinterpreted how it would work, I read the linked Bloomberg article and revised my comments. Apparently users will have to apply for the program, so it would not appear that an "off" or opt-out button is required. I wrote that upstream. As for my initial comment, I would say it might have been mildly snarky, but alarmist? I don't think so.
It is unclear from the AI article but it sounds like this is actually built-in to Apple Pay and not just another service/car you can attach (I did not read the underlying news article yet). That does not mean that it is on be default, or that you don't have to apply, or anything. Merely that it is baked into Apple Pay at a level only Apple has access to. This is the basis for all my previous comments.
Here is the line that makes me think this:
This implies "which of their [Apple Pay registered] payment cards will be used for their payments." Only Apple has access to this. While PayPal or any other buy now/pay later (BN/PL) plan could offer an account that could be linked to Apple Pay, it wouldn't have the feature of being able to choose which of your Apple Pay registered cards is being used to make the payments on this plan. Again, only Apple has that level of access inside Apple Pay. That is why I said this potentially opens up Apple to anti-competitive / anti-trust complaints.
For the record, this is how it appears the service works to me based on the description in the AI article:
1. Consumer signs up or otherwise asks to have these plans made available through Apple Pay.
2. Once approved, the consumer can choose to pay with one of these plans instead of one of their other Apple Pay linked accounts.
3. When using one of these plans to pay, the consumer is THEN offered a choice of which of their linked card accounts Apple/GS will use to charge the installment amount against at the appropriate time. You will auto-pay your Apple/GS BN/PL plan payment through a charge against one of your other cards. This is based on that line I quoted above.
The AI article says they don't think it requires a credit check and the reason for this is that you are backing it up with a real credit card of your choice so they are pretty confident they will get the money. (Yes there are ways to perpetrate fraud with this).
if this or something similar to it is NOT the way it works, and it is just another payment method in Apple Pay, and it doesn't have deeper knowledge of your registered cards in Apple Pay, then my thoughts about it being anti-competitive etc. would not be true.
I also am not giving any of my own opinion on whether it should be considered anti-competitive/anti-trust worthy no matter how it is structured. My personal opinions on that don't mean a lot in the discussion of how it potentially works and what could potentially be the outcome of this product being introduced from a legal standpoint given the current world state of anti-business and anti-competitive investigations, etc.
it’s painful reading the few low IQ posting responses.