Similarly, Apple knows what happened with the finance and banking divisions of GE and BA, as well as the regulatory difficulties WMT and FB have been facing with their financial services ambitions.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Developing In-House Payment Processing Technology for Future Finance Products
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Those companies had totally different models. Finance isn’t inherently dangerous unless like GE you don’t keep your mainline businesses and financial health healthy.
As for FB, since when was Apple ever a “move fast and break things company”? FB is run by sociopathic adult children. Neither of these apply to apple.
Why? Unless Apple captures 30% of the finance sectors it tries to compete in the EU anti-trust authorities won’t even be roused.
Sure, as soon as Apple starts peeling a few percent off from the profits of traditional banks, those banks will invent bogus anti-trust reasons to push lawsuits to slow down apple.
But without significant market share capture, or apocalyptic lobbying from banks, the anti-trust boys won’t move.
Agreed.
I was not keen to contribute anything to the GS bottom line but I held my nose and ordered an Apple Card.
Never had any complaint about GS support but would be happier to not have toco tribute to them. (As it is my contributions are minimal as I only use the card for iTunes and iCloud payments.
Since the AC/GS/MC supplemental coverages are non existent, I use my AMEX for all major purchases.
I had to take a seminar once where we had to read Neutron Jack’s (Welch’s) book about how he ruthlessly ran a great company dedicated to being 1st or 2nd in its business segments under the fix/sell/close philosophy.
Blah blah blah greatest talent development program built to last forever. Blah blah blah.
That lasted until his hand picked successor ran it into a hair’s breadth of bankruptcy.
They only survived by dumping assets Jack had starved of investment for years and deleveraging their over dependence in finance.
I have both the Apple Card and Apple Pay. What I don't like about the Apple Card is you do not receive the extra benefits such as extended warranty, travel insurance and other perks offered by other card vendors. If they included Apple Care it would be make up for some of the extra's it's currently missing.
Yes, I have some personal experience in that regard. Jack was not as bad as it may have seemed from the outside, but it's a complex story. Would be a worthwhile discussion in a different thread.
Yes and I don't see antpy probkem here, if apple wants to guve me 6 months time to oay down a $1200 phone with no strings and at no extra cost to ne, that's a rather sweet deal esp with inflation eating a but if tge value if thise future payments, or am I missing something here?
When the EU forces Apple to allow other app stores, Apple may be able to compete or quickly adapt on rates with a complete in house payment processing team and system
Or this could be the backbone for the peer-to-peer Apple Pay on iPhones?
The feature where Stripe is going to be the first third party provider but my guess is that this will roll out in a future update (to avoid “antitrust” legal minefields)… no longer need Venmo or Paypal or Cash app or anything. Just tap your iPhone to my iPhone and boom. So simple.
The feature where Stripe is going to be the first third party provider but my guess is that this will roll out in a future update (to avoid “antitrust” legal minefields)… no longer need Venmo or Paypal or Cash app or anything. Just tap your iPhone to my iPhone and boom. So simple.
This is a fantastic point. I bet margins would be similar with a drastic slash in commission rates if they didn’t have to pay third party payment processing fees.
So you’d basically like a version that comes with an annual fee.
that's what he says but I bet he doesn't mean what he says. I do not have a card I pay a separate fee to use other than the build in charges.
What is the incentive for entering a hostile market with a product you have invested millions or even billions in to develop a platform to be a profitable leg of your business.
Apple avoids markets that don’t make business sense.
If they start going into banking services like underwriting credit cards they will be heavily regulated by the federal government. Payment processing is one thing but making loans will make them a bank and they will have to deal with OCC, Federal Reserve and FDIC regulations and examinations.
I'm thinking Apple will announce some form of crypto into Apple Pay at its World Wide Developers Conference in June. The timing seems right. Additionally, Apple already has "Bitcoin" in the San Francisco character set.
If Apple's current attitude towards regulators in the EU and individual EU countries is any indication, Apple is pretty unlikely to enter one of the most highly regulated sectors worldwide, banking and financial services. The amount of secrecy and information paranoia baked into Apple's DNA also will make an in-house bank, credit bureau, stock brokerage, money transfer service, or retail lender extremely difficult to operate anywhere other than frontier or possibly emerging markets.
So, my guess is that Apple is working to decrease its reliance on outside providers for some support tasks, such as reporting data to credit bureaus or loss prevention, but we shouldn't hold our breath for an entirely Apple owned and operatedBank or
----------
ETA: Goldman Sachs may not add much to
All tech companies that are developing fintech products are dealing with regulatory requirements. There are professional service offerings specifically developed for tech companies to deal with financial regulations. This is not a very high barrier for entry. It would purely be a decision based on will, financials and capability.
Regulatory reporting would only be over the financial service business, and so would not impact secrecy on product side of their widget or other service businesses.
As a public company, they already are subject to fairly strict reporting requirements.
Regulatory capital requirements can tie up capital but apple is famous for maintaining large piles of the most liquid of assets - cash. And even if they did have to hold additional capital at a lower return than currently deployed, to the extent that difference is less than the fee they pay GS, then it still makes sense. They also get control over the financial service side which again apple is famous for.
They would also (presumably) not be deposit taking, which generally gives rise to the stronger regulation.
No idea if this is real, and you do raise really good points, but I dont think any are fatal.
Why do you call Apple a future monopoly because of in house financing? You do realize they will still take the big 4 credit card companies (visa mc amex and discover) as well as going to your own bank if you think Apple is not the best in rates or length and take out a personal loan, pay your bank off and away you go and Apple was never involved in anyway part of the transaction period.
If Apple came out and all stupid like and said all transactions are bound to be through Apple and Apple alone then I would agree with you in a heartbeat.
