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.
Goldman Sachs Makes Apple Card Customer Agreement Available Ahead of Upcoming Apple Card Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I mean, 2-3% of what you're paying a store does end up going back to the bank that issues the card, so he's not wrong. Plus, when the EU capped interchange fees, card rewards (whatever ones existed) stopped being a thing.
However, the assumption is that stores will lower their prices if interchange was restricted or eliminated here as well. IMO, that assumption is likely incorrect, at least as a general rule.
This thread has brought out the CRAZY in people. I honestly am in disbelief at the replies. I can’t even continue to argue with anyone lmao. It’s soooo weird.
They do.
They can tell the difference. Canadian banks are known to being incredibly risk averse. They make a choice to decline Apple Pay transactions over CA$100. Most terminals in Canada with updated software can process a transaction via contactless over $100. I've used US Visa cards to make Apple Pay transactions for ~$300 before. AMEX Canada allows high-value transactions.
Apple has always intended One Apple ID = One Person. That's what family sharing is for.
I may get this card simply to support Apple and CEO Cook, especially the commitment to privacy and to encrypted data protection.
congrats on your plan to upgrade to a computer that hasn't even been confirmed, but when you do consider the b&h credit card.
Well if the 16” isn’t happening oh well. Then I’m getting the newest 15” with next gen CPUs. Either way I’m upgrading and I don’t want the Coffee Lake chips.
Maybe that's a recent change. A few months ago I read a question from someone in the Apple support communities asking why he couldn't add his Chase United Explorer Club card to Apple Pay, and it turned out it wasn't supported by the bank. At least not at the time he was trying.
Last edited by a moderator:
And chances are, whether I use an Apple Card or not makes no difference as to whether those organisations receive that aid or not.
The privacy the Apple Card offers isn’t from the bank, but form POS theft and fraud. Apple Pay may provide some of this for all cards when you use Apple Pay, but the Apple Card allows for resetting of the virtual number you use so you are at less risk of theft there. Even if you have to use the physical card, there are no numbers on it.
There are a lot of different types of credit card fraud, and the Apple Card protects you from more of them than any other card out there. That is worth a percent or so of reduced cash back rewards for some people.
If you want to go there, I am pretty sure that for the majority of stuff you own and use, some scandal can be dug up with regards to the companies you bought them from.
And personally, I don't think people care about the history of Goldman Sachs by and large. The only time their dirty laundry gets trotted out is when you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel for things to criticise said company (and us Apple users by extension).
As the saying goes - let he who has no sin cast the first stone.
Thank you! People only care when there’s a huge story surrounding said company. Just about every company has done something unethical and have unethical people running the show.
The fact that Goldman Sachs is the issuing bank is not stopping me nor thousands of other people from applying for Apple Card.
To each their own, but with that logic you should stop buying a LOT of the products/services you currently use.
In early 2016, my sister bought a new Honda using her Apple Watch and her AMEX, 21,000$; there was no limit besides the 25k$ we raised the card credit limit to prior to the event, and no need to enter a PIN.
[doublepost=1564931802][/doublepost]
I read the terms, and must admit I need to read them again, as the first reference looked as though it prohibited cash advances, but a later reference made it look ok.
You may be mistaken. Because for this issue, wouldn’t that be part of the point of a different number being issued to a device?
[doublepost=1564932538][/doublepost]
Those are Plus prime rate.
[doublepost=1564932691][/doublepost]
Not true. Agreement says supplemental benefits are defined by card network (but we haven’t seen that yet.)
I tend to doubt your speculation When I see this: https://www.goldmansachs.com/disclosures/australia-new-zealand/
Also citi dropped some of the supplemental travel protections.
[doublepost=1564934480][/doublepost]
Thx!
Your scenarios are based upon standard merchant fee arrangements.
Keep in mind that Apple may have a reconciliation agreement with GS, where Apple throws a percent or 1.5% back to GS for Apple purchases. Apple could do this to draw folks into to its own more profitable product sales channels and services.
[doublepost=1564935162][/doublepost]
LoL on you. Sure, cost of credit is factored into purchase prices. This means the suckers are the ones not using a cash back card and the fools are the ones trying to negotiate a discount for cash on a pack of gum.
[doublepost=1564935314][/doublepost]
GS is the creditor. It’s just a cobranded card that GS is paying Apple for access to the Apple ecosystem, customers and good name.Do any of you really want to list apple as a bankruptcy creditor?
Skip this card. Just another credit limit for you to use up.
I think the impression is that, with their Apple partnership, all the information they can skim on your buying cannot be sold. People seem to focus on all the rewards they get from other cards, but just like with Facebook, that "cash back" and those "points" ARE paid for via reselling information. It's NOT free money.
Nothing is for free, while you get free money others have to pay up, they make everything more expensive so in the end prices are higher for you too, you don't seem to get that.
I leave it at that.
So, essentially I am right, it's a scam, or in other words, a stupid system.
To be fair, it’s unlikely the issuing banks would pass on the cost savings from eliminating cash back offers by reducing merchant fees. And even more unlikely that reduced merchant fees would be passed on to the customers as price reductions.