avon b7

hill60 said:

avon b7 said:

Banks are generally evil but I have to admit that my  bank doesn't charge me anything and has really pushed into the technological side (although it doesn't support AP).

Spanish banks have also taken a battering recently from the courts. First with the so called 'preferentes', then the floor clauses and now with mortgage formalization costs. I stand to receive up to 5,000€ as a result of that last one.

All in all it's costing the banks billions and that's one of the reasons I'm not paying any kind of fees.

It's not going to happen here under our current government, the party in power receives way too much in political donations, they block any attempts to bring some of the bank's more reprehensible behaviours to account.

They even want to give them a $A7 Billion tax cut.

The Prime Minister is an ex banker who worked for Goldman Sachs and was almost jailed for his role in HIH/FAI, Australia's largest corporate collapse for publishing a misleading prospectus when shares were floated, a secret settlement believed to be $500,000,000 is the only reason he avoided it.

Thousands of people lost their life savings, the building industry ground to a standstill as HIH was their main insurer.

Not only evil but unjust.

My bank was also taken to court (mortgage floor clauses) and would have tried to wear claimants out in court but a Spanish judge escalated the issue to the European Court of Justice and from there they had little chance of winning the case. The bank, and all other Spanish banks that applied such clauses in the same way, will now have to return an estimated 4 billion euros to consumers. And quickly.

The EU has also forced Spain to modify its mortgage laws to bring them into line with EU legislation. 

adm1 said:

so it's not "iphone based" at all, it's code/pin based and could theoretically be used on android/windows phone too if they have apps for this bank. several other banks already have this but you get the code over the phone or by text. write an article about it when they are NFC / apple-pay compatible, thats news. 

At least at my bank, that's how it works. I just need the phone number of the other person and the amount to be sent. Of course, I can use the service to take out cash without a card for myself.

payeco said:

Anyone know if you can make deposits with this method as well or if it's withdraws only?

Not sure I follow you. For deposits I just transfer the money from account to account using the phone or the web. In my case its all commission free. I just select the account to take funds from, the IBAN to send the funds to and the amount. After that I put in my authorisation code and it's done.

starwars said:

Not exactly an upgrader, but yet to jump onto the ipad wagon since ipad was born. Love apple and been eyeing. But haven't found a compelling reason to own one, given its limited ability in its own class. Still choose iphone and laptop.

I would never use an iPad as a main computer(iOS hampers what can be done) but as a secondary machine it is very handy to have available, especially if you are on the go.

Given the option of drafting documentation on an iPhone or a tablet, the tablet would be your choice. For consultation (web, pdf etc) the difference is smaller but most people would still opt for the tablet. For entertainment consumption (reading, videos etc) the tablet experience wins out again.

Both iPads and iPhones suffer the same weaknesses: iOS. You will always be better off with a traditional computer. iOS and the ecosystem it sits in is very unflexible. You have to adapt to it and use workarounds for tasks that were resolved years ago on traditional computers but as you have an iPhone already, you're well aware of these issues.

My biggest (minor) gripe is the lack of an IR blaster. With the right software, a retired iPad could become a great universal remote at little or non extra cost.

This article has so much spin on it that it seems to suffer from giddiness.

"The firm stated that Samsung Mobile posted operating profits of $8.3 billion, despite shipping more smartphones than Apple over the entire year. In the fourth quarter, Apple sold more iPhones than Samsung's entire range of smartphones, largely as a result of the massive recall of defective Galaxy Note 7 models."

Apple shipping more phones in one quarter than 'Samsung's entire range of smartphones' is of little value if during the year Samsung still outsold Apple (and probably by a handsome margin), even with an unprecedented product recall. However, the information is presented in such a way as to plant the lingering idea in the reader's head that Apple far outsold Samsung. Of course, the real information is there, just conveniently obfuscated.

In spite of the recall, $8.3 billion operating profits from the mobile division is still good business and let's not forget that Samsung also makes a profit out of every iPhone sold through the components it supplies to Apple.

The article feeds on Apple's lion's share of the profits in detriment to other brands whose business goal isn't even the same.

No manufacturer of low or mid tier phones has even the slightest intention of massive profit. Comparing those profits to those of Apple serves little or no purpose.

The article tip toes around the Android market space plucking out information to serve its purpose and ignoring anything that might reduce the rpm of the spin:

"Xiaomi, the third largest Chinese phone maker, has struggled with profitability. 

...

ZTE, which has been shipping a similar volume of phones compared to Xiaomi, was poised to report about a half billion dollars in profit last year but ended up reporting losses of $342 million "

Consecutive paragraphs. The first plants the idea of 'struggling with profitability' and singles out Xiaomi. Then it connects Xiaomi directly with ZTE in the next paragraph to continue the 'struggling with profitability' theme. It doesn't matter that the Xiaomi claim is based on little or no real financial information (at least the article doesn't offer any) and IIRC Xiaomi is a private company and doesn't have to publish such data. It just hangs off a claim that the company isn't even in the business making money off its handsets but seeks instead to monetise alternative revenue streams connected with the phone. If that's the case, why is it in an article on profitibility? The ZTE reference clearly states that it was a one-off charge that led to losses but that isn't too much of a problem as the 'struggling for profitability' hook had probably been swallowed already by the reader.

Then Huawei gets thrown into the mix.

Huawei is a newcomer to the handset market and if Apple has historically had an eye on Samsung, it now surely has the other on Huawei. And for very good reason.

Initially Huawei made handsets for others, then under its own name, then under its own sub brand. It has met every challenge it has set itself in this short time. No mean feat.

The article attempts to dampen the success of Huawei:

"An even greater contrast is apparent in China, where Huawei, despite being the largest phone maker in China, reportedly posted profits of only $929 million, which Strategy Analytics said represented 1.6 percent of global profits"

As I stated earlier, low and mid tier Android makers aren't even in the business of making large profits so that isn't really newsworthy, but Huawei has moved into the premium end and has publicly set its eyes on Apple as a reference point. That's newsworthy as it's a declaration of intent but it is still gearing up for action. The recent premium releases have been nothing more than a toe dipping exercise.

Given its 'new kid on the block' status, "only $929 million" is a clear misrepresentation and understatement.

Huawei hasn't set a foot wrong in its short time in the handset market and it hasn't even had a real presence in one of the world's top premium handset markets: the US.

The latest P10 line won't even be officially available on the US so it's clear that there will be some financial underperformance from Huawei in the premium segment. However, that looks like it could change soon. I hear that a deal is on the cards with a major US carrier and if it doesn't  get shot down by the US government, Huawei will implement exactly the same successful strategy it has implemented elsewhere in the world. That should cause noticeable disruption to the  US premium market and if that happens, Huawei should see profits grow.

MWC closed last week and most US correspondents commented on (and were openly surprised by) the overwhelming presence of Huawei in terms of handsets and marketing. In the fair itself, Huawei wasn't only pushing handsets but also its 5G proposals and that's where Huawei does its real business, selling its promotions to carriers that can later pickup huge discounts on Huawei handsets if they implement Huawei 4G (and later 5G) infrastructure solutions. The carriers then push those (very often premium) phones to attract customers. If those customers like the experience (remember that Huawei phones play very well with Huawei infraestructure), they have more chance of upgrading to another Huawei down the line.

It is too early to tell how this will pan out and it could all unravel, but that could happen to Apple too.

It's good for Apple shareholders to see the mobile division performing so well but that is its goal. They do not really compete in the low/mid tier. However, there are many other handset makers that simply do not have that same goal and are geared towards far lower margins. Comparing them to Apple serves little purpose.