3 ms·

There’s actually some nuance to this. One of Apple’s big requirements was to have quite lax acceptance criteria. They didn’t want lots of their customers being

by CPLX 2y ago

There’s actually some nuance to this. One of Apple’s big requirements was to have quite lax acceptance criteria. They didn’t want lots of their customers being denied for cards and creating a negative brand association. Apparently GS was up for that. Possibly because they didn’t actually know what they are doing. My understanding is the loss rate was way too high for them to be profitable. It was well covered at the time, here’s the first example to come up in a quick search: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/12/goldmans-gs-apple-card-business-has-a-surprising-subprime-problem.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/12/goldmans-gs-apple-card-busin...

CSSer 2y ago
Without simply citing greed, I find this difficult to justify or explain. Apple is a premium, luxury brand. They make opinionated hardware and software that has offended many. They’ve certainly never given a phone away, but they’re afraid of offending someone by turning them down if they have bad credit? Rubbish. Forgive me, I’m not trying to shoot the messenger. Nuance or not, I think GP is right. It wasn’t very customer centric.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > Apple is a premium, luxury brand. People all across the income/wealth spectrum use Apple products, in huge proportions.
  - crowcroft 2y ago
    Apple is worth $3t because both of those things are true. Apple and Huawei both sell smartphones, which one has the margins of Ferrari and which one has the margins of Toyota?
- polishdude20 2y ago
  Is GS though a good luxury "brand"? I don't know much about them but they seem like a Big Name. Maybe that's all they wanted? The prestige of being tied to GS
crowcroft 2y ago
I can understand the surface appeal beyond greed. Goldman Sachs offers good terms, is willing to have higher acceptance rates, has a strong 'luxury'/'high net worth' feel about the brand etc. Even with the benefit of the doubt it was naive. Did no one think, he maybe there's a reason all these companies with a lot more experience than GS aren't giving credit cards to everyone? The real brand risk was never denying people cards – that still happened anyway, the risk was exactly what's happening now.

by CPLX 2y ago

CSSer 2y ago

Without simply citing greed, I find this difficult to justify or explain. Apple is a premium, luxury brand. They make opinionated hardware and software that has offended many. They’ve certainly never given a phone away, but they’re afraid of offending someone by turning them down if they have bad credit? Rubbish. Forgive me, I’m not trying to shoot the messenger. Nuance or not, I think GP is right. It wasn’t very customer centric.

lotsofpulp 2y ago
> Apple is a premium, luxury brand. People all across the income/wealth spectrum use Apple products, in huge proportions.
- crowcroft 2y ago
  Apple is worth $3t because both of those things are true. Apple and Huawei both sell smartphones, which one has the margins of Ferrari and which one has the margins of Toyota?
polishdude20 2y ago
Is GS though a good luxury "brand"? I don't know much about them but they seem like a Big Name. Maybe that's all they wanted? The prestige of being tied to GS

crowcroft 2y ago

I can understand the surface appeal beyond greed. Goldman Sachs offers good terms, is willing to have higher acceptance rates, has a strong 'luxury'/'high net worth' feel about the brand etc. Even with the benefit of the doubt it was naive. Did no one think, he maybe there's a reason all these companies with a lot more experience than GS aren't giving credit cards to everyone? The real brand risk was never denying people cards – that still happened anyway, the risk was exactly what's happening now.