3 ms·

I believe the point is that all those services have existed for Quite Some Time, don’t need consumer-facing changes, and any additional consumer-facing software

I believe the point is that all those services have existed for Quite Some Time, don’t need consumer-facing changes, and any additional consumer-facing software changes are bunk.

grishka 5y ago
Yes. And they somehow existed even before computers were invented. Computers sure did help streamline the processes tho.
- jagged-chisel 5y ago
  Sure did. Did. As in already done. What else, aside from security fixes, needs to change software-wise? Edit: I realize this can be read with a pile of snark that I didn’t intend. Apologies.
  - TuringNYC 5y ago
    Modern payment support; Keeping up with regulatory changes; Keeping up with regulatory report of the year; Updating risk systems to account for modern mortgage risks; Expanding integrations to other countries; Keeping up with OS changes for existing apps; Responding on court data requests
- actually_a_dog 5y ago
  Computers allowed the development of ACH, debit cards, and ATMs. They gave us the ability to bank by phone, and by web. But, I think your general point, sans snark, is correct in that I can’t think of any significant, novel banking service that’s been introduced since about the 1970s. (I count ACH as novel, because it enables you to do things you couldn’t do before. Banking at home in your pajamas isn’t any different than waiting until Monday morning and physically going to the bank.)
blibble 5y ago
the point was: > A bank doesn't need a full-time development team for example. all of the areas I mentioned are subject to constant change, mostly from regulators implementing the Payment Services Directive, Solvency II or MiFID II all require developers the developers working on the app/website that you interact with are always going to be a small fraction of the developers that work for a bank and if you think this isn't the case (in a very cut-throat industry), I would suggest you start a bank and put the rest of them out of business with your vastly reduced costs
topkai22 5y ago
You’d think so, but my wife uses a bank that spent a good 12 years without a substantial change to their website. It finally got a major refresh a few years back and everything just FELT better. It was like fixing up the lobby- it might be secondary to the primary purpose of being there, but it made it a better experience for the customer. That’s ignoring things like online bill pay, mobile banking, and roll outs of new financial products that really are innovations from the last 10-15 years.

I believe the point is that all those services have existed for Quite Some Time, don’t need consumer-facing changes, and any additional consumer-facing software changes are bunk.

grishka 5y ago

Yes. And they somehow existed even before computers were invented. Computers sure did help streamline the processes tho.

jagged-chisel 5y ago
Sure did. Did. As in already done. What else, aside from security fixes, needs to change software-wise? Edit: I realize this can be read with a pile of snark that I didn’t intend. Apologies.
- TuringNYC 5y ago
  Modern payment support; Keeping up with regulatory changes; Keeping up with regulatory report of the year; Updating risk systems to account for modern mortgage risks; Expanding integrations to other countries; Keeping up with OS changes for existing apps; Responding on court data requests
actually_a_dog 5y ago
Computers allowed the development of ACH, debit cards, and ATMs. They gave us the ability to bank by phone, and by web. But, I think your general point, sans snark, is correct in that I can’t think of any significant, novel banking service that’s been introduced since about the 1970s. (I count ACH as novel, because it enables you to do things you couldn’t do before. Banking at home in your pajamas isn’t any different than waiting until Monday morning and physically going to the bank.)

blibble 5y ago

the point was: > A bank doesn't need a full-time development team for example. all of the areas I mentioned are subject to constant change, mostly from regulators implementing the Payment Services Directive, Solvency II or MiFID II all require developers the developers working on the app/website that you interact with are always going to be a small fraction of the developers that work for a bank and if you think this isn't the case (in a very cut-throat industry), I would suggest you start a bank and put the rest of them out of business with your vastly reduced costs

topkai22 5y ago

You’d think so, but my wife uses a bank that spent a good 12 years without a substantial change to their website. It finally got a major refresh a few years back and everything just FELT better. It was like fixing up the lobby- it might be secondary to the primary purpose of being there, but it made it a better experience for the customer. That’s ignoring things like online bill pay, mobile banking, and roll outs of new financial products that really are innovations from the last 10-15 years.