RTM

While some people won't read the text of this the article and comment here - what he's actually saying is true. And he doesn't dis on Apple, despite how this headline might think it is. He's simply stating the reality of the banking industry. And in fact, he even gives Apple credit. As always, reading matters. Understanding words matters.

What Apple did *was* add just a *few* new innovative features. They didn't overhaul the credit industry, as the last week as most certainly proven. They didn't offer some fantastic new thing that everyone needs to go out and get. They added a few things that some people find useful. As much you or I would like to dismiss this as just a random Putin dude (and he is of course), it doesn't make the content of what he's saying incorrect.

And, if you're into banking enough, there's some solid nuance into it too. For example, the inclusion of wanting to get folks to put money into FDIC insured places is directly a ding against Cryptocurrencies (setting aside banks desire to keep money in their banks).

Just because Apple/Goldman claim something is the "most successful card launch ever", doesn't mean it's the most innovative or the best card. It just means they signed up the most people (assuming they did). In fact, for a lot of people, they'd be far better off choosing cards with more/better rewards (albeit without the Apple privacy restrictions).

qwerty52 said:

RTM said:

While some people won't read the text of this the article and comment here - what he's actually saying is true. And he doesn't dis on Apple, despite how this headline might think it is. He's simply stating the reality of the banking industry. And in fact, he even gives Apple credit. As always, reading matters. Understanding words matters.

What Apple did *was* add just a *few* new innovative features. They didn't overhaul the credit industry, as the last week as most certainly proven. They didn't offer some fantastic new thing that everyone needs to go out and get. They added a few things that some people find useful. As much you or I would like to dismiss this as just a random Putin dude (and he is of course), it doesn't make the content of what he's saying incorrect.

And, if you're into banking enough, there's some solid nuance into it too. For example, the inclusion of wanting to get folks to put money into FDIC insured places is directly a ding against Cryptocurrencies (setting aside banks desire to keep money in their banks).

Just because Apple/Goldman claim something is the "most successful card launch ever", doesn't mean it's the most innovative or the best card. It just means they signed up the most people (assuming they did). In fact, for a lot of people, they'd be far better off choosing cards with more/better rewards (albeit without the Apple privacy restrictions).

It is not his business to brakes down what Apple is doing, but to bring some innovation himself (if capable at all)

But he wasn't attacking Apple's model. It seems like you didn't read what the article said. Or didn't understand it. In fact, the entire article (aside from the headline) actually does a good job of talking about what they're doing.

That's the problem with taking quotes out of context (as the title did). The rest of the article does explain the context, and what they're doing. But I'm not aware of magical rule (internet or otherwise) that says you can't talk about other products in the market. After all - didn't Apple just do that last week with Chromebooks? It sounds like they should stop doing that based on your comment. After all, if they were to only talk about things they were doing - then using your comment they shouldn't discuss it until they can match the Chromebooks on price, no?

My point is simple: Read. Understand what's written, and provide meaningful commentary.

I'm just as happy as the next guy to make Russian jokes here - but what was actually said is rather truthful, and it wasn't actually a knock on Apple.

I'm confused by the usage of "sketchy" in the title here. The entire post here basically says that this data matches every other leaked bit of data, and then the post ends with the fact that the company may simply be using their own lingo. Why is it somehow sketchy?

Wait, you actually deleted my comment because I asked why you titled it sketchy? C'mon, really? I read this site daily, just because I don't comment every time doesn't mean my comments are less valuable. I even use your B&H links for my last Mac purchase.