If these are random blogs you've signed up for, it probably won't matter too much if someone is able to log in as you. But if you used the same password for your banking you'll probably want to change it.
Honestly, I don't understand this rebranding. Are they making things other than banking simple? I love the idea of making banking more simple and easier, and that's why I thought their previous name, BankSimple, was better. Can someone help me understand this?
I think this is just a PR (over-)reaction to the current negative image of "banks" and provides some space between Simple and the "banking" practices it skewers in its marketing. (It is somewhat problematic to say "banks are bad for you" and "we're not a bank" when your name screams "we're a bank")
I guess it's also somewhat logically defensible, since FDIC-insured credit unions are just as qualified to be Simple's back-end partners. Though it still feels like a dodge, given how foggy the relationship is between Simple and their partner institutions. It feels like they want people to not think about Simple accounts supporting places like BofA, while still being free to partner with BofA in the background.
That said, I wonder if they've considered a "community-focused" account option, where people can specify that they only want their funds to be deposited with credit unions, accepting whatever slightly worse terms come with less competition.
It's extremely unlikely that we'd ever partner with an institution like BofA. We chose bank partners who are comfortable with our vision, and that includes not charging outrageous fees and engaging in other customer-hostile practices. The big banks have shown time and again that they're not in business to act in the best interest of their customers, and that makes them poor partners for us.
We don't currently have plans to allow customers to select the institution with which their funds reside, but it's something we'll take under consideration. Thanks for your thoughts.
> "We chose bank partners who are comfortable with our vision, and that includes not charging outrageous fees and engaging in other customer-hostile practices."
I don't mean to snipe, but you did partner with Visa, right? I understand that real life doesn't always present ideal choices, but that was rather part of my point. That people might switch to Simple with the idea that they won't be supporting those kinds of institutions, when via a partner deal, they may still be.
Or, in other words, if BofA woke up tomorrow and offered Simple a great customer-friendly back-end deal, while remaining customer-hostile to individuals who deal with them directly, would Simple's philosophy prevent a deal? And how happy would a customer be, if they switched from BofA to Simple only to find out that their money is technically in a BofA account?
And please don't take the criticism as something that it's not; I'm only posting because Simple sounds interesting and I'd like to see it do well.
We're focused on banking right now, but one of the things we like about the Simple name is that it gives us room to grow.
Another thing the new name gets us is freedom from both legal issues around the term "bank" and negative associations with the retail banking industry.
Plus, people kept mixing up "BankSimple" and "SimpleBank". That was driving me nuts :)
Unless I'm misreading something, this has prompted the competition to work with a different material (some kind of fiberglass). So even though the competition can't use the same material they have an alternative that is cheaper and readily available. I don't see the problem.
As a mental exercise, consider the thought process behind the perspective that this is "anti-competitive".
1. Apple has taken a technology- metal milling- that has existed for at least half a century, and used it to make a nicer laptop case.
2. Apple uses the modern manufacturing method to do this, requiring expensive CNC machines.
3. Apple introduced popular products that, when you open them, look like they were hand crafted by master metalworkers in the 1940s (I'm serious!) while their competition is still shipping cheap plastic cases.
4. Even though there are dozens of suppliers of CNC Mills of all type, Apple's requirements contain the market for a particular type (this is speculation on my, and the articles part.)
5. Therefore, this is "anti-competitive" because Apple's competition can't just copy the unibody case idea and order machines and make their own unibody cases?
6. So, what could possibly be the remedy? To fine Apple for being successful with an innovative new case design? To institute some government board of allocation to allocate the (currently, and only temporarily) limited supply of CNC machines?
If Apple hadn't been competitive-- that is, if Apple hadn't innovated and come up with a new case design-- there would be no demand for these machines from non-Apple people. So, this is a result of competition on Apple's part.
Sometimes I imagine that people think that if Apple is successful by doing something better, that this is "unfair" and that Apple should be punished.
Hell, I wish I could make a crapy video editor and then force Apple to give me some of their final cut profits, because, really, it is so unfair that apple makes such a good video editor, I'm just one guy and I can't hope to compete with that, right? (Just kidding, forcing Apple to do that is aggression, and is immoral. I'm just being illustrative. While I've thought about making a video editing app, I've not done that, actually.)
I don't think the article is suggesting that this activity is anticompetitive... I think, rather, it's being held up as an example of the genius of Tim Cook and Apple's lesser-appreciated operational excellence.
