Given the legacy infrastructure they have to deal with I wouldn't be surprised if the code were dropped in their laps that it would still be impossible not to ruin it when wiring it up.
This is very well done. Usually I'm skeptical when a startup elects not to do the Android app themselves; it's often a sign that they don't really care about the platform. But in this case it's obvious that Two Toasters cares deeply, and I'm sure they weren't the cheapest option, so that shows that Simple cares as well.
In the future it might be smart for startups whose care value isn't in the UI, to only do their web apps themselves and outsource the native apps to experts in the platforms, with guidance of course.
I thought the same thing initially. That they did not care about Android as much. After all this app is released over eight months after the iOS and on top of that it's outsourced?
But according to Simple's official blog statement they actually consulted with TwoToasters and have their own Android team.
Hiring really good Android engineers is really hard. I'd say it's easily the hardest set of hires I've approach in a new startup trying to bring people onboard.
Hi Rachit - CEO at Two Toasters here. You're absolutely right, we care a lot creating great user experiences and brought our expertise on Android to the table. We built a trusted relationship with the Simple mobile team and worked closely with them to ensure we stayed true to the Simple experience but with appropriate considerations for the Android platform.
I am going to be in quite the conundrum when I get a Simple invite. On the one hand, I think what they're doing is awesome — for me, namely, the Safe-to-spend feature. I currently keep track of this in a not-so-accurate Excel spreadsheet and in my head.
On the other hand, I currently use Perkstreet's debit card for everything and the 1% cash back adds up in a noticeably short period of time.
I wonder if the 1% cash back is worth the grunt work that Simple would make quite, well, simple.
I've always felt ambiguous about such card features because ultimately the way those features work is by exploiting vendors via interchange and other membership/hardware/transaction fees. Vendors, in turn, have to stay in business so they pass the cost onto the consumer. In the short term with small populations using these types cards, it wasn't a problem. As more and more people use these features, more and more pressure is put on vendors.
The Durbin Amendment capped interchange for debit transactions, but only for banks with relatively large asset pools. Smaller banks can and do charge more, as do other types of cards. Credit cards have much broader license (although arguably, they at least have a reason to charge for using the card; they're taking a risk).
So the money you are getting is not free. We are all paying for it via the increased cost of doing business.
Honestly, I'd rather my bank and card transactions had 0 interest and minimal cost to the vendor to keep overall costs down. Bluntly, every time I swipe I sort of resent indirectly paying the vendor to help pay for everyone else's benefits.
Agreed, but it's hard to argue against the "you're already paying for it; why aren't you benefiting?" line of thought. That's what finally tipped me over to using rewards cards where I can.
Allow me to provide an argument: The current degree of overhead is representative of a relatively small fraction of the world's consumers using these features. Were everyone to do it, the cost (and the perfectly reasonably maintained profit margins of every intermediate) would increase costs substantially more than it is now.
It's easy to take a classic first-world view of the problem, where a relative minority of the world's consumers have much better access to credit (albeit somewhat abusive in terms) than the rest of the world. As countries like India and the African nations modernize, their populations have already shown incredible demand for electronic currency. The current system is entirely too expensive for them.
The problem with credit cards is stuff like hidden (and not-so-hidden) fees, let alone the increased chances of falling into debt.
And before someone interjects, if you're that guy, please spare me the "Well if you don't have the willpower..." or "I pay full balance every month..." arguments.
For what it's worth, the Costco Amex is a charge card, not a credit card, so you have to pay it off every month and it has no annual or other fees, but I totally understand how it can be hard for some people to manage the cash flow.
Simple also don't offer any interest (nor a savings account) which grates a bit. Using Simple loses you money. It's not a "hidden fee", but it's a cost that isn't that clear.
EDIT: There's also no outgoing ACH transfers yet, which I really would like.
The lack of outgoing ACH transfers is what's keeping me from doing the bulk of my banking through Simple. As it stands, I throw money into it every once in a while, but it's a novelty, largely. Once I can transfer to my local bank for large cash withdrawals, I'll switch to Simple for most of my business.
In my experience Simple's main product is customer service (and delight). They're great at leveraging technology to accomplish this, but I'd say they're far from being a technology company.
In an ideal world I'm sure they would have created their app in-house, but it looks like outsourcing the development left them with a quality final product. Seems like a smart enough choice to me.
I doubt anyone who uses the app will ever know it was designed by this firm. The branding will just say "Simple" and people will get hooked on their service.
For anyone looking for an invite to Simple, I've got three available. Shoot me an e-mail (in profile).
I've been using Simple for the past 6 months and I've got to say I don't miss my brick and mortar bank one second. These guys are the perfect example of doing it right.
Just out of curiosity what's the big deal? I received an invite was reluctant to signup because there is an "inactivity fee". As far as I can tell it's just an online bank?
> I received an invite was reluctant to signup because there is an "inactivity fee"
From their site: "After 180 days (6 months) of inactivity, we charge a $5 monthly fee to avoid escheatment,..."
I think if you were to switch to Simple it would be very rare to not use your card for 180 days, but that's just my 2 cents. But yeah, I wouldn't switch to only have an "extra account" that would eventually hit that 180 day inactivity time.
Better account planning (with Safe-to-Spend + goals), excellent UI, instant report generation using searches, humongous network of free ATMs.
The inactivity fee takes a long time to kick in--we're talking a year of not posting any transactions to your account. Their customer support is very open about it.
I have a simple account and the simple app on my Android phone. It's top notch. And while I've run into an issue with them refusing to work with my paypal account (because the paypal account shows a business name and my simple bank account is a personal account) -- the tech support was at least friendly about it. So far I like what they are doing.
Same thing happened to me on a Friday and they locked my account. CS claimed they couldn't unlock the account until Monday... just imagine if they were my only bank. Not impressed.
Minor rant: I requested an invite and got one but they didn't have an Android app and thus wouldn't let me sign up. They were supposed to send out another invite once the Android app was available. I'm probably just being impatient but I am actually really interested in trying their service.
I'm guessing that you'll get one soon. That's not necessarily blind faith, as my communication with them so far has been impressive.
I had the same reply at sign-up, but just happened to have an iphone I use for testing, so I signed up and just left the account sitting while I waited for an Android app.
I received an automated email from them about 2 months ago asking why I haven't logged in. I replied that I was waiting for an Android app (expecting nothing in return). I got a reply from someone within a day letting me know there would be an Android app early this year. He even responded to my follow-up email.
Just got the email from them today about the new Android app (automated, not from the same guy). At least from this history with them, I assume they'll start getting those re-invites out soon.
Simple is explicitly not a bank[1]. It's a financial-experience-as-a-service -- they manage your interactions with depositing, withdrawal, budgeting, etc. Their partner bank takes care of the money itself.
I requested one in September and got the invite in early December so I'm not sure if there is any real rhyme or reason to how the invites roll out. You might check your spam folder as well; mine had somehow ended up there.
It would be cool if banks could license their code (for a hefty fee) because the apps by banks here in thee Netherlands aren’t very good at all.