Explain that to Goldman Sachs. I'm sure you can convince them to continue their Apple Card relationship.
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 Ending Apple Card Partnership With Goldman Sachs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Explain that to Goldman Sachs. I'm sure you can convince them to continue their Apple Card relationship.
Never understood why Apple wanted to be associated with Goldman Sachs in the first place (yeah, I still remember their role in the 2008 global financial crisis)...
It wasn’t apple, though, it was GS. They were the first to say a few weeks ago that they were bleeding money and wanted out of the apple card. Apple didn’t say anything at the time, but now they’ve said they want to end the partnership too.
Ever since the WSJ article GS sped up and we have consistently moved money out in 1/2 to 1 day (if not on weekend but also sometimes on weekend).
Probably the only partner who would agree to all of Apple's terms. Which in all fairness are some consumer friendly terms... Like no fees for example. other established credit card providers make a ton of money on these fees so they wouldn't have gone for it.
I don't think Apple can go it alone unless they also develop a financial banking arm which they currently don't have.
I did read other rumors from I think AppleInsider that Chase may be a potential partner. Selfishly and not knowing much about the banking industry, I'm hoping Chase will be the next partner, or at least some partner that will keep the Apple Card a Visa or MasterCard. I definitely don't want Discover or AMEX, both of which have very limited utility abroad (except in some cases, as a UK poster reminded me of, where apparently in the UK they are common; but they're still not common in continental Europe or Asia!).
Hazarding a guess, the Apple Card can't be offered outside of the US unless a bank local to that area or authorized to practice banking in that area issues the card.
Apple Card, like many of credit cards that I see in the US, is a partnership between a non-banking institution (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Delta Airlines) with a banking institution.* So, Apple Card is not issued by Apple, but by the banking institution under "contract" (is that the term?) with the non-banking institution. I'm sure I'm butchering some verbs here, but the rough idea of how I'm thinking about this is here.
So for the Apple Card to be available for Australia, a bank authorized to provide such services in Australia would be needed. That's me hazarding a guess
* Yes, there are credit cards issues by banking institutions in the US that are not partnered with a non-banking institution. I recognize that. In fact, I have one myself! ;-)
Hazarding a guess, the Apple Card can't be offered outside of the US unless a bank local to that area or authorized to practice banking in that area issues the card.
Apple Card, like many of credit cards that I see in the US, is a partnership between a non-banking institution (e.g., Amazon, Apple, Delta Airlines) with a banking institution.* So, Apple Card is not issued by Apple, but by the banking institution under "contract" (is that the term?) with the non-banking institution. I'm sure I'm butchering some verbs here, but the rough idea of how I'm thinking about this is here.
So for the Apple Card to be available for Australia, a bank authorized to provide such services in Australia would be needed. That's me hazarding a guess
* Yes, there are credit cards issues by banking institutions in the US that are not partnered with a non-banking institution. I recognize that. In fact, I have one myself! ;-)
That’s exactly how it is, and the banking institution is Goldman Sachs. Likewise for Apple Cash, where the baking institution is Green Dot. And yes, that’s what has made it difficult to expand both services outside the USA.
I still say the despite what people think, Apple is still seriously considering Capital One as their next partner for Apple Card. After all, Capital One has massive experience working with consumer credit cards (the Apple Card is a consumer credit card), and Capital One wouldn't financially suffer working with Apple.
It would be nice to have Capital One issuing the Apple Card too. Am I wrong or is it that Capital One is less "evil" than Chase? (or maybe they're all "evil"....).
As I recall, ING Direct was the first or one of the first to popularize online-only banking in the US. I remember having an ING Direct account and it was the first bank that I ever had that could set up an account all digitally without going to a physical branch. ING Direct didn't have physical branches in the US anyways. They later sold ING Direct USA to Capital One and that was known as Capital One 360 for a while. Seems like Apple Card is in the right product category for Capital One if they intend to further their direct banking features/spread.
Last edited:
I think the issue here is/was largely the terms of the agreement. It seems unlikely Capital One would be willing to agree to all of the reported terms of the GS/Apple agreement e.g., not get a cut of the fee that merchants pay to Apple to accept the Apple Card, not be able to collect late fees, not be able to earn money from loans issued to cardholders who split Apple purchases into installments, etc. If they were, Capital One would be facing some of the same type of financial "suffering" that GS is.
Whomever agrees to be the next issuer of the Apple Card will likely want more favorable terms for themselves which means Apple will have make some "sacrifices" on their side and/or the Apple Card won't be able to offer the same types of perks.
I think the issue was more likely that GS wasn't committed to a consumer business. They were reportedly internal divisions from the start. Losses are blamed on Apple as a media scapegoat. By all reports, it wasn't simply their Apple business that was losing money. They just weren't willing to stick with their consumer business through the growing pains.
It says this in the OP, but it doesn't make much sense. Merchants don't pay Apple directly to accept the Apple Card, so which fees are they referring to? How does the Apple/GS arrangement compare to other branded cards as far as these fees?
Note that MERCHANTS DON’T PAY APPLE ANYTHING specifically for accepting the apple card or even apple pay. They just pay their bank a fee for accepting all credit cards, and it’s the same fee whether a payment is made via chip, contactless with a physical card or apple pay.
Banks and other card issuers that let their customers add their cards to apple pay do pay a fee to apple for that.
I think that is part of it too (I commented in other posts about GS wanting to unload the GM card) but wonder if they would have been as anxious to exit the consumer business, assuming that is their goal, if the Apple/GS agreement terms were more favorable to them.
I assumed it was referring to the interchange fee charged to merchants when they accept the Apple Card as customer payment. This fee is typically split one way or another between the issuing bank, the card network company, and potentially (when applicable) the retail partner of a co-branded card. Based on the article, it appears Apple is getting a cut but GS is not.
By "accepting", I took that as referring to merchants accepting the Apple Card as a customer payment. As I stated above, I was further assuming the "payment" was referring to the interchange fee paid by merchants which, based on the article, it appears Apple is getting a cut of but GS is not.
If a merchant accepts Apple Card and they pay an interchange fee and part of that fee goes to Apple, that would result in merchants paying Apple to accept the Apple Card for customer payment. Are you saying it means something different and/or Apple doesn't get part of the interchange fee?
That’s how I understood it, except that the part where you said merchants paid apple sounded like you thought they paid a fee directly to apple, which they don’t, but you weren’t clear enough about it. Proof of it is that one other person in this forum replied to you with the same response as I did.
Also, you’re making it sound like accepting the apple card represents an additional cost for merchants, which it does not: even though apple gets a cut of the fee, the merchants are paying exactly the same exchange fee for taking apple card as for taking any other mastercard.
Last but not least, not always does part of the interchange fee paid by merchants go to apple. That only happens if the merchant’s payment services provider is also a card issuer who lets its customers add their cards to wallet. You’re assuming that all payment services providers are card issuers too and let their customers add their cards to wallet, and that’s simply not true. There are companies that only offer payment services for merchants but don’t issue cards (or if they do they don’t support using them for apple pay), and those companies don’t pay any fees to apple. Examples of this are clover or square in the US. Yet merchants using their services can still accept apple card and, if contactless is supported, apple pay without incurring any additional cost to the usual interchange fee and without any of that money going to apple.
Last edited:
I was taking it to mean "pay Apple" in a similar way a consumer may "pay a state" sales tax on a purchase i.e., not a direct payment but still a payment that ultimately goes to the particular party.
I never thought or was trying to suggest that it was an additional cost. As I've stated, I assumed it was part of (not in addition to) the interchange fee.
My only assumption here was that Apple was being paid by merchants via a cut of the interchange fee and GS was not. If the author of the MR article can provide clarity, perhaps that would help.
Ok gotcha. Still ‘pay apple’ is a bad way to put it because it assumes apple always gets a cut of the interchange fee paid by merchants and that’s just not true. As I said before, whether apple gets a cut depends on who provides the merchant’s payment services and whether that provider is also a card issuer AND lets its cards be added to wallet for use with apple pay. Again, Apple only gets paid by card issuers who let their cardholders add their cards to the iOS wallet app.
Doubtful. Only a third of their claimed consumer losses were associated with the Apple Card.
Sure. But why assume that a sentence that is clearly wrong is otherwise correct?
Source for your claim that interchange fees are typically split with the issuing bank on a branded credit card? What is the typical split?
That's a nonsensical response to the irrefutable point that losses and disappointing profits are definitionally different things. GS would not assert otherwise, and GS doesn't claim that it's losing money on the Apple Card. GS's gripe is just that it isn't making enough money. Exactly as I said in the first place. I'm not here to convince GS of anything - I simply assert that it is greedy. And I suspect it would agree: when you're in the banking business, "greed is good," as Gordon Gecko said.
Another article (linked below) also used the phrase "pay Apple":
"But Goldman Sachs also doesn't collect standard credit card fees in its Apple partnership as it doesn't get a portion of what merchants pay Apple to accept the Apple Card."
Will a soured Goldman Sachs-Apple deal leave bad taste for Apple Card users?
If Tim Cook can't get an Apple Card, what does that say about the problems between Goldman Sachs and Apple? Here's what you should know if you have an Apple Card or are considering applying.
www.zdnet.com
I can't say for sure the sentence is right or wrong. Another source of the information is ZDNET (linked below) which states, "Goldman Sachs doesn't collect annual, late, or foreign transaction fees because the Apple Card doesn't charge its customers these fees. But Goldman Sachs also doesn't collect standard credit card fees in its Apple partnership as it doesn't get a portion of what merchants pay Apple to accept the Apple Card. This was done largely because Goldman Sachs was new to consumer banking and motivated to close a deal with a high-profile partner like Apple."
Will a soured Goldman Sachs-Apple deal leave bad taste for Apple Card users?
If Tim Cook can't get an Apple Card, what does that say about the problems between Goldman Sachs and Apple? Here's what you should know if you have an Apple Card or are considering applying.
www.zdnet.com
Sure you can. All of us are aware that merchants don't pay Apple directly.
Actually, Goldman Sachs has claimed that they’ve lost money on the Apple Card.
Apple Card Has Cost Goldman Sachs Over $1 Billion in Losses
The losses stem from the vast investment that Goldman Sachs has funneled into Apple Card, reported to be somewhere between $1 -3 billion.