tommikele

At best, it is a $20-25 item. For $50 there should be quality and this item doesn’t offer quality or value.

AppleZulu said:

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. 

You didn't follow at all correctly. Not even close. Your statement could not be more incorrect. If you wish to utilize this particular "buy now, pay later" program, Goldman Sachs is the bank providing the financing. You may pay for your purchases any way you want, you choose, you decide. Nothing automatic. But if you want this program, they are the bank. Find an offer from someone else if you don’t like this.

your "big off button" would make such purchases more expensive by eliminating competition in consumer lending for those wishing to buy Apple products.

byronl said:

Exclusive to the US, of course

Probably. Banking and financial transaction regulations for cross border consumer financing presents challenges with compliance, reporting, conversion, collection and all kinds of other issues that can quickly make this kind of business unprofitable in a cross border environment. Can you imagine the expense and difficulty of an American financial institution trying to collect a $600 bad debt in a foreign country? Collection practices and regulations are quite varied from country to country. A decision not to offer it outside of the USA would be very understandable.

dysamoria said:

sflocal said:

What a sad state of the human condition when people complain about some temperature numbers not displaying.  Seriously.  Is this part of the new "woke" fad?

What a sad state of the human condition when people reach this far to blame a social equity movement for something that has nothing to do with it.

It is absolutely fathomable that a "social equity movement" as you call it could twist, distort and try to make something out of nothing. We read of multiple instances of it everyday. Besides, if you read the statement in detail you will comprehend that is a secondary part of his comment. He is right. It is reflects a sad state when people care about a number not displaying and suggest some conspiracy might be in play. In the secondary comment he asks if "the new woke fad." Given the behavior, broad swipes and distortion surrounding many things labeled woke or social equity, his question is quite reasonable. You've even invented a term for it “social equity" when what you really mean is making others conform to a society you believe is just regardless of their view or lack of agreement. Cancel everything and everyone that doesn’t fit the woke mold.

focher said:

mr lizard said:

I’m sure that patronising attempt to help the judge reach her decision will go down well. 

It's not "patronizing" in a legal case because the parties are obligated to put everything on-the-record in the event of any appeal.

If you want to talk about legal stuff, go to law school first.

I appreciate your comment. So many people here and places like 9to5 comment about things they know nothing about, but wish to present themselves as experts or highly experienced attorneys with practices focused on the subject at hand. In reality, they are responding with emotional based fanboism and know nothing about the legal aspects of the topic. When you do have some direct experience and read this stuff you want to slap them (not literally) upside the head and let them know they may be fooling themselves, but not you.

In this case, Mr. Lizard is a pretty good example of it. He also spells patronizing with an "s" instead of a "z" indicating he is educated somewhere other than the US and probably a resident/citizen of the UK or Australia  or some other place where the Queen's grammar rules. That makes it highly unlikely he knows anything about the the US courts or the subject other than the articles his fanboism leads him to read. To sum it up, he probably doesn't know squat about this and his comment about the Judge reflects the ignorance and a lack of respect for the law and court system.