mayfly

M68000 said:

Would be interesting if Tim Cook and other leadership work at some stores for a couple days.  Let them see what goes on, what it’s like.  Of course they won’t though.  The people who work in retail are on the front line so to speak. 

I work for a big company, but not in our stores. There was one year the office staff had to work at the stores on black Friday in attempt to have staff understand how retail is.  What an experience,  you get a new respect for people in retail.

timmillea said:

mayfly said:

Other than that, you're right, I'm probably unqualified to opine about the resources necessary to advance AI to pass the Imitation Game.

Yes, Alan Turing is considered the father of computer science, created the first actual computer, shortened WW2 by at least a year and set the goals and tests for artificial intelligence before he was convicted of homosexuality, chemically castrated, shunned by society and committed suicide.

Even now, the mathematical proof required to demonstrate that something is a 'computer' is if it can implement the purely theoretical 'Turing Machine' - published decades before any actual computer existed - 'Turing Machine Equivalence' is the necessary proof. In AI, the 'Turing Test' is whether a human cannot discern whether they are interacting with a human or a computer. 

The adage regarding computers goes, "junk-in, junk out" and that is precisely what current machine learning is - it learns from junk. ML is a tiny branch of AI which can at its very optimum, perform at an average level but is very unlikely to ever get even to that level. There is so much more to AI that can theoretically do so much better than ML. Let the big corporates exploit rather ancient tech for profit but they will never produce a Beethoven, a Shakespeare or a Da Vinci. AI theoretically can but not with neural nets and big data. 

mpantone said:

mayfly said:

eightzero said:

vtvita said:

eightzero said:

mayfly said:

eightzero said:

OK, I really don't get this. How does GS lose money on a credit card? Are they paying Apple a disproportionate amount of their rake from the cardholders? The article says "credit losses" so somehow more Apple Card holders are welching? 

Or...it is possible GS thinks they just aren't making the billion they planned? Not sure that's a "loss."

Nope. They're losing plenty. Their customer acquisition cost is $350 per account. In addition, the Apple Card attracts a much more affluent demographic who pay their balances every month, depriving GS of interest charges. On top of that, there is the "buy now, pay later" program that allows customers to pay over 4 months without interest charges. That's how they're losing money. I wouldn't cry for GS, though. They made $10.9 billion in the second QUARTER of this year, even with the Apple Card losses.

OK, so I understand: GS pays Apple $350 for each new account, and since those new accounts generally don't pay GS interest (affluent customers) GS can't make back the $350? And who gets the swipe fee from merchants (that I am always asked to reimburse the merchant for)? Is there no swipe fee charged to a merchant on the Apple Card? GS doesn't get a cut of each transaction?

I am sure GS has overhead on these operations. They have to pay staff to provide customer service; and other infrastructure like IT and the like. But a billion in losses to that? Really?

eightzero, you "understand" nothing. mayfly did not say "GS pays Apple $350 for each new account." Go back and start over.
BTW, this card from GS is the most miserable credit card experience I've ever had, for many reasons, which I've written about before. I've simply made it dormant, seldom—if ever—to be used again.

It is clear I understand nothing, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. Go back and read again. I am very confused about what is being reported and how it happened. I'm not clear on that $350. Is it some sort of overhead estimate? Licensing to Apple? In any case, it seems like someone majorly blew this. A GS shareholder should be outraged...and this is clearly not of Apple's doing.

So a $350 per customer acquision cost could described this way: GS spends $3.5 million dollars advertising the Apple Card. One out of every 10,000 people get the card, making the per customer acquision $350.

It's not just advertising.

GS has their own processes in approving applicants. Credit reports aren't free. And credit reports don't reflect other financial aspects of an applicant's life. Time at current employer, salary, time at current residence, court records, whatever. GS isn't just pulling a VantageScore from a database and rubber stamping the application.

Even the physical card mailout costs money. A new customer acquisition is more than some ads on social media.

mpantone said:

mayfly said:

eightzero said:

vtvita said:

eightzero said:

mayfly said:

eightzero said:

OK, I really don't get this. How does GS lose money on a credit card? Are they paying Apple a disproportionate amount of their rake from the cardholders? The article says "credit losses" so somehow more Apple Card holders are welching? 

Or...it is possible GS thinks they just aren't making the billion they planned? Not sure that's a "loss."

Nope. They're losing plenty. Their customer acquisition cost is $350 per account. In addition, the Apple Card attracts a much more affluent demographic who pay their balances every month, depriving GS of interest charges. On top of that, there is the "buy now, pay later" program that allows customers to pay over 4 months without interest charges. That's how they're losing money. I wouldn't cry for GS, though. They made $10.9 billion in the second QUARTER of this year, even with the Apple Card losses.

OK, so I understand: GS pays Apple $350 for each new account, and since those new accounts generally don't pay GS interest (affluent customers) GS can't make back the $350? And who gets the swipe fee from merchants (that I am always asked to reimburse the merchant for)? Is there no swipe fee charged to a merchant on the Apple Card? GS doesn't get a cut of each transaction?

I am sure GS has overhead on these operations. They have to pay staff to provide customer service; and other infrastructure like IT and the like. But a billion in losses to that? Really?

eightzero, you "understand" nothing. mayfly did not say "GS pays Apple $350 for each new account." Go back and start over.
BTW, this card from GS is the most miserable credit card experience I've ever had, for many reasons, which I've written about before. I've simply made it dormant, seldom—if ever—to be used again.

It is clear I understand nothing, hence the question mark at the end of the sentence. Go back and read again. I am very confused about what is being reported and how it happened. I'm not clear on that $350. Is it some sort of overhead estimate? Licensing to Apple? In any case, it seems like someone majorly blew this. A GS shareholder should be outraged...and this is clearly not of Apple's doing.

So a $350 per customer acquision cost could described this way: GS spends $3.5 million dollars advertising the Apple Card. One out of every 10,000 people get the card, making the per customer acquision $350.

It's not just advertising.

GS has their own processes in approving applicants. Credit reports aren't free. And credit reports don't reflect other financial aspects of an applicant's life. Time at current employer, salary, time at current residence, court records, whatever. GS isn't just pulling a VantageScore from a database and rubber stamping the application.

Even the physical card mailout costs money. A new customer acquisition is more than some ads on social media.