Who is "beating" someone here? In adult reality, Apple are likely "concerned" rather than "feel amazing" if this isn't sustainable for their strategic partner. If your wife is miserable, you'd be dumb to think "I am better at marriage than she is" because eventually it's going to end.

Also. Businesses make bets. GS made a bet on consumer finance and on this deal in particular. You hope that every bet will work out, you know some won't and that's fine as long as you have more wins than losses. GS seems fine holistically so seems like they are taking a calculated amount of risk.

Are we talking about GS that has direct access to money printer and cheaper credit so they have certain revenue and profit no matter what? In the other hand, Apple creates hardware and software with real world risk. Supply chain risk etc. They are not like they can just manipulate markets to make billions for their staff. That game.

// Are we talking about GS that has direct access to money printer and cheaper credit so they have certain revenue and profit no matter what?

Not sure your overall point but sounds like you're somehow processing the world through both "it's physically impossible for GS to lose money" and "they lost money haha" lens without realizing those things are at odds and one mustn't be true.

If your premise were true, then why would their net income ever decrease?

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GS/goldman-sachs/n...

I would bet Apple's profits are far more resilient than Goldman's.

Net income can be volatile, just like the stock market? They can never go out of business with direct money printer support. They have very minimal risk compared to even lower banks. That privilege applies to very few at top. Whether people realize it or not. After Lehman, things changed. Apple makes their profit with actually creating products and innovation. GS no.

read here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemically_important_financi...

> GS that has direct access to money printer and cheaper credit so they have certain revenue and profit no matter what?

I read that to mean they can decide the revenue/profit, but now I think you meant that they have a certain minimum amount of revenue/profit due to government subsidy, which is probably true.

Do you understand that you're commenting on a story about GS losing money?

Do you understand that they have certain other ways to make more money so this deal which they agreed and calculated, is just part of doing business? And their business at top is protected like few other top institution. So they can make mistakes and then ask the unlimited printer brrrr

Just a lower level of accountability, no matter what. Compared to risks they decíde and keep.