Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Very likely Apple made the decision to allow payment and interest deferrals." Of course they did. They decided that Goldman Sachs can get by with less profits and made a decision for them. I am sure that in this partnership Apple is the one setting the policies and interest rates (even though as a non-bank entity they do not have any right to do it). And now let's look how non-Apple centric media reports the same news. For example, Reuters:
Goldman Sachs lets customers delay March payments on loans, credit cards

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N) told customers of its online bank, Marcus, and its Apple credit card on Monday that they can take an extra month to make payments, with no penalty or additional interest, if they are financially stretched due to the coronavirus.
Goldman's announcement followed similar moves by lenders like Citigroup (C.N), which rolled out hardship assistance to customers last week, and automakers, which offered customers the chance to reschedule car loan payments.
Marcus customers who defer payments will not be charged additional interest and the terms of their loans will be extended one month.
[automerge]1585790829[/automerge]

It's just your opinion and assumptions. They are absolutely baseless and non-sensical. I just posted a Reuters article that clearly explains that the decision was made by Goldman Sachs. Stop with your Apple fantasies. I understand that AAPL was hit hard today once again but that is not a good reason to post BS.
Like I said, very likely Apple made the decision to allow payment and interest deferrals. They’re also probably subsidizing those costs, if not covering them completely.

And yes, Apple sets many of the policies for its Apple Card. That’s why they chose GS to be the issuing bank in the first place: because Goldman had never had a credit card operation before, and they were willing to accept Apple’s terms.

Big card operations like Citibank had no interest at all in going along with what Apple wanted. Like no late fees. No over limit fees. No annual fees. No international fees. No fees at all. All while having interest rates at the low end of industry rates.

Apple wanted instant approval, and instant issue. Apple wanted end-of-month statements and support through iMessages. Interest-free installment loans for certain purchases like iPhone.

Goldman gave them all of that, and more. Apple set the privacy policy. They don’t know what you bought or where you bought it. Neither Apple or Goldman shares or sells your data to third parties for marketing or advertising. Try getting that from any other issuer—not gonna happen. That’s how other issuers make a lot of their money, telling your insurance company where you eat and shop.

And yes, Apple has every right to negotiate for (and get) the policies they want for their card. As the issuing bank, Goldman is responsible for the credit underwriting and running the actual card operation. Basically the mechanics, the nuts and bolts of making everything work. That’s nothing Apple’s interested in doing themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
Like I said, very likely Apple made the decision to allow payment and interest deferrals. They’re also probably subsidizing those costs, if not covering them completely.

And yes, Apple sets many of the policies for its Apple Card. That’s why they chose GS to be the issuing bank in the first place: because Goldman had never had a credit card operation before, and they were willing to accept Apple’s terms.

Big card operations like Citibank had no interest at all in going along with what Apple wanted. Like no late fees. No over limit fees. No annual fees. No international fees. No fees at all. All while having interest rates at the low end of industry rates.

Apple wanted instant approval, and instant issue. Apple wanted end-of-month statements and support through iMessages. Interest-free installment loans for certain purchases like iPhone.

Goldman gave them all of that, and more. Apple set the privacy policy. They don’t know what you bought or where you bought it. Neither Apple or Goldman shares or sells your data to third parties for marketing or advertising. Try getting that from any other issuer—not gonna happen. That’s how other issuers make a lot of their money, telling your insurance company where you eat and shop.

And yes, Apple has every right to negotiate for (and get) the policies they want for their card. As the issuing bank, Goldman is responsible for the credit underwriting and running the actual card operation. Basically the mechanics, the nuts and bolts of making everything work. That’s nothing Apple’s interested in doing themselves.
Are they also subsidizing Goldman Sachs for deferring payments for their online bank customers? What about Citigroup? Does Apple subsidize them too? Very generous. I am surprised the press decided to conceal this important fact from us and reported this as a straight Goldman Sachs decision. But I am sure we here at MR know it better. BTW, all the policies that you say Apple forced upon GS have very little to do with money and profitability so I do not see why would GS even care about this? In case of this card business, GS and Apple objectives are identical - to rip the customers as much as they can. As you know very well, it's every public company responsibility to maximize the profits for their shareholders. I hope you are not suggesting that Tim Cook is neglecting his responsibilities.

That said deferring the payments is a sensible move by GS. Forcing people into bankruptcies in this situation would not do them much good.
 
...Also, in this discussion between Apple and GS, Tim Cook was so convincing that GS decided to defer the payments not only to Apple Card holders but also to Goldman Sachs online banking customers. Moreover, Citigroup somehow got hold of the information about this meeting and decided to let their customers to defer the payments. Not just that, they managed to do it even before Apple talked to GS. Is not Apple amazing?
And amazingly the IRS also got wind of this and decided to defer filing deadlines and payments. And some state governments did so as well. Apple started a real trend here. It seems some of us are all in this together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PickUrPoison
it would be nice if we could buy Apple product in installment for a period of 24 to 36 months interest fee, instead of the standard 18 months.
 
When will they finally enable the feature to add an authorized user?

they said they would in Nov or Dec and here we are in April and nothing yet.
 
"Very likely Apple made the decision to allow payment and interest deferrals." Of course they did. They decided that Goldman Sachs can get by with less profits and made a decision for them. I am sure that in this partnership Apple is the one setting the policies and interest rates (even though as a non-bank entity they do not have any right to do it). And now let's look how non-Apple centric media reports the same news. For example, Reuters:
Goldman Sachs lets customers delay March payments on loans, credit cards

Not only are they letting people delay payments but they made some other nice moves as well. If you have a CD with Goldman Sachs they are waiving the penalty fee if you need to break the terms of the CD and access your money early.
 
  • Like
Reactions: konqerror
Are they also subsidizing Goldman Sachs for deferring payments for their online bank customers? What about Citigroup? Does Apple subsidize them too? Very generous. I am surprised the press decided to conceal this important fact from us and reported this as a straight Goldman Sachs decision. But I am sure we here at MR know it better. BTW, all the policies that you say Apple forced upon GS have very little to do with money and profitability so I do not see why would GS even care about this? In case of this card business, GS and Apple objectives are identical - to rip the customers as much as they can. As you know very well, it's every public company responsibility to maximize the profits for their shareholders. I hope you are not suggesting that Tim Cook is neglecting his responsibilities.

That said deferring the payments is a sensible move by GS. Forcing people into bankruptcies in this situation would not do them much good.
To the extent any policies Apple wants—including offering credit to good Apple customers who would not otherwise qualify using Goldman’s normal underwriting criteria—Apple may be indemnifying any losses associated with those policies.

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Apple guaranteed Goldman a minimum level of profitability, as an inducement to enter into a business venture where neither party has specific experience.

And of course you think Apple’s objective is to rip off customers lol. But all the policies I mentioned, including the payment forbearance and interest deferrals newly introduced, are to the customer’s benefit.

I enumerated all those policies that Apple required of Goldman to counter the assertion you made—without any actual knowledge of the subject, which is probably why you were wrong—“even though as a non-bank entity they do not have any right to do it”. Wrong.

Continuing, I do not “know very well” anything about Apple/Goldman trying to rip customers off in some misguided attempt to “maximize shareholder value”. Because there is no such thing. No requirement, legal or otherwise, for corporations to maximize profits to shareholders. But I understand you think you know they do. Wrong.

Far from “neglecting his responsibilities”, Tim Cook is doing exactly what the board wants him to do: run an insanely great company in a highly profitable manner, which rewards employees and shareholders, while maintaning excellent customer satisfaction.

btw, you may notice my continual use of “probably“, “likely” and “may” in both this and my previous posts. That's because I’m not an arrogant know-it-all who thinks I’ve got everything figured out. It’s my opinion. You’re free to disagree, but your arguments continue to be so easily deflated, so try harder?
[automerge]1585805216[/automerge]
What's bad about it? I definitely could use a three year no interest plan for a $2K computer. Would not you?
I definitely could use a five year interest-free plan for a $5,000 computer. (And a pony.)

That doesn’t mean that Apple’s going to serve that up for me, and I’m not so entitled as to think Apple should oblige.
 
Last edited:
What's bad about it? I definitely could use a three year no interest plan for a $2K computer. Would not you?

absolutely not. As a German (I guess it’s in our dna and the word SCHULDEN already sounds scary) I would never ever buy anything besides a house and MAYBE a car on a plan. Either I can afford something „small“ like a computer or iPad right away or it just has to wait.

What if you loose your job in the mean time? I don’t want to be stuck with all these payments still due. Just the thought gives me a panic attack
 
absolutely not. As a German (I guess it’s in our dna and the word SCHULDEN already sounds scary) I would never ever buy anything besides a house and MAYBE a car on a plan. Either I can afford something „small“ like a computer or iPad right away or it just has to wait.

What if you loose your job in the mean time? I don’t want to be stuck with all these payments still due. Just the thought gives me a panic attack
As a fellow German, I absolutely agree. If you can't afford, don't buy it. I never understood the American paycheck-to-paycheck philosophy of managing your finances. As much as people think TVs, cars, iPhones and whatnot are essential luxuries, the greatest luxury will always be financial security.
 
To the extent any policies Apple wants—including offering credit to good Apple customers who would not otherwise qualify using Goldman’s normal underwriting criteria—Apple may be indemnifying any losses associated with those policies.

In fact I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Apple guaranteed Goldman a minimum level of profitability, as an inducement to enter into a business venture where neither party has specific experience.

And of course you think Apple’s objective is to rip off customers lol. But all the policies I mentioned, including the payment forbearance and interest deferrals newly introduced, are to the customer’s benefit.

I enumerated all those policies that Apple required of Goldman to counter the assertion you made—without any actual knowledge of the subject, which is probably why you were wrong—“even though as a non-bank entity they do not have any right to do it”. Wrong.

Continuing, I do not “know very well” anything about Apple/Goldman trying to rip customers off in some misguided attempt to “maximize shareholder value”. Because there is no such thing. No requirement, legal or otherwise, for corporations to maximize profits to shareholders. But I understand you think you know they do. Wrong.

Far from “neglecting his responsibilities”, Tim Cook is doing exactly what the board wants him to do: run an insanely great company in a highly profitable manner, which rewards employees and shareholders, while maintaning excellent customer satisfaction.

btw, you may notice my continual use of “probably“, “likely” and “may” in both this and my previous posts. That's because I’m not an arrogant know-it-all who thinks I’ve got everything figured out. It’s my opinion. You’re free to disagree, but your arguments continue to be so easily deflated, so try harder?
[automerge]1585805216[/automerge]

I definitely could use a five year interest-free plan for a $5,000 computer. (And a pony.)

That doesn’t mean that Apple’s going to serve that up for me, and I’m not so entitled as to think Apple should oblige.
Another AAPL shareholder pretending to be an Apple fan. I see.
[automerge]1585827515[/automerge]
absolutely not. As a German (I guess it’s in our dna and the word SCHULDEN already sounds scary) I would never ever buy anything besides a house and MAYBE a car on a plan. Either I can afford something „small“ like a computer or iPad right away or it just has to wait.

What if you loose your job in the mean time? I don’t want to be stuck with all these payments still due. Just the thought gives me a panic attack
As an American, I may take 0% loan and put the cash to work (invest somewhere) in the meantime. I prefer lower price (and paying outright) whenever possible. It works with car buying in some cases but not always.
 
Nice content-free reply. 👏 What does it even mean 🤣

So you’re completely out of gas. Are we done?
Well, you started by praising Apple for their generosity (at Goldman Sachs expense) and ended up saying "That doesn’t mean that Apple’s going to serve that up for me, and I’m not so entitled as to think Apple should oblige." You are trying to have it both ways. It's hard to argue with that.
 
Well, you started by praising Apple for their generosity (at Goldman Sachs expense) and ended up saying "That doesn’t mean that Apple’s going to serve that up for me, and I’m not so entitled as to think Apple should oblige." You are trying to have it both ways. It's hard to argue with that.
Have what both ways? You’re not making any sense.

Because Apple is letting us skip payments, I should think Apple’s going to offer five year interest free loans?

Yes, Apple and GS are awesome for letting us skip payments. No, I don’t think that entitles me to five year interest-free loans 🙄

You’re embarrassing yourself.

btw I never said it was at Goldman’s expense. I said the opposite 🙄
 
I signed up just in case I'll have trouble, but so far I've been able to pay balances in full. I like having the easy option though!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.