Allowed: scheduled downtime announced ahead of time for reporting, unscheduled downtime with localized effect due to 'acts of god'. Not allowed: customers can't access their funds when they should be able to.
When you disrupt the banking industry you especially should be doing at least as good as the established parties do in the reliability department.
Let's hope they have it fixed very quickly or it may well kill Simple.
Imagine being in a bar somewhere right now and having just bought a round finding out that you can't pay for it. You'll hear about that one for years.
Easy to say but I think it is unreasonable to expect a company that is couple years old to have as much reliability as ones who have had decades to figure it out.
I think the Simple customers have every right be absolutely pissed. For some, they may even realize that the downside of going with Simple isn't justified by the upside. Hopefully, for the majority of Simple users the upside will make the rare downtime bearable.
My view would change if this becomes a regular occurrence with Simple. But that does not seem to be the case.
Payment systems have an impact that is unlike any other system.
It's very well possible that lives depend on your system working. You may never know about it but you should definitely build as though they do.
You can't build financial software the same way that you build some CRUD site or the latest social fad.
If Simple is used the way they intend you to use them those scenarios are playing out right now. You really can't shift the blame for that onto those that believed the Simple proposition and acted as though simple was going to deliver.
Ordinary everyday people do not do single-point-of-failure analysis on their wallet, they simply expect it to work.
