undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjacquesm13y ago0 comments

You really should have a look at how Simple bills itself. They bill themselves expressly as a replacement for your bank. The whole idea is that you absolutely rely on simple to do their thing or you might as well not use them.

http://simple.com/

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.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

gojomo13y ago· 2 in thread

And as noted in my other comment, my giant banks have failed in similar ways, leaving my to my own other options or simply shit-outta-luck for a few hours. You seem to have a similar complaint above about 'Rabobank'.

I don't see any marketing claim on the Simple site that they'll have fewer outages than the Rabobanks/BofAs of the world. (Where do you see that claim, or actual delivered level of service, from any actual existing bank?)

jacquesmOP13y ago

For me their homepage has text on it like this:

'get ready to leave your bank'

'unmatched security and support'

'replace your bank'

'use the simple card for all your purchases'

Those set the stage for some pretty high expectations, they make it plain simple expects to be your sole provider.

Rabobank fucked up once in 20 years, and then only on a peripheral part of their service (ATM and point-of-sale still worked). If they had dropped the ball on either I'd be out of there for sure.

gojomo13y ago

Not one of those implies "fewer brief outages" than traditional banks.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse