Apple Card QFX Import does not work

This issue has now been fixed on Quicken. I don't know what happened but kudos to Quicken Sarah for pushing resolution. Hope that in the future, all Quicken Support is as helpful.

RESOLVED 9/11/20 Web Connect File Import Returns OL-220/221 Error

This issue has been ongoing since around July 20th. It worked fine on July

1st when I imported Junes statement so something changed between the first and the 20th. Even old statements won't import that worked fine before. There's nothing wrong with the QFX format but rather Quicken refuses to honor Apple Card's "active" status. We know this because somone changed the FID in the QFX statement and it worked fine. Both Quicken and Apple card do nothing and point fingers at each other. And Apple continues to advertise that it's Apple Card product allows import into Quicken. This is the worst behavior from both vendors if they cared about the customer experience. I'm at a loss of what to do since neither party seems to care.

No kudos are called for: Quicken Sarah had nothing to do with getting the problem fixed; she's nothing but a messenger.

And it's extremely likely that the cause of the problem was with Apple.

The discussion you linked to is a good example of ignorant users pretending to know what they're talking about, as bogus grounds for making accusations and demands that they haven't the knowledge to make.

In your original post in this discussion, you asked, "I'm at a loss of what to do since neither party seems to care."

Your assumption that Quicken didn't care was totally unsupported by anything posted in the linked discussion (see above). [The only reason I don't have the same opinion about Apple, is that the ability to download to Quicken is virtually always more important to Quicken than it is to the financial institutions from whom the data is downloaded.]

And you yourself answered the question you asked about "what to do" in your original post here, when you posted in that Quicken Community discussion on August 6, "I guess all we can do is wait...".

Had there been but a few posts in the Quicken Community, limited to simply explaining the problem (and possibly at least one user sending a complete Problem Report from Quicken), the solution would almost certainly have arrived just as quickly.

Mr. Pollard,

There you go again. If you actually read and comprehended what Quicken Sarah's post said, this problem was not tied to a particular FI. Indeed, this particular post was not linked to the thread I originally posted about.

"We are investigating reports of Quicken for Windows Users receiving a OL-220/221 error message when attempting to import a downloaded Web Connect (.QFX) file in Quicken. Our Teams are working to resolve this error as quickly as possible. If you would like to be automatically notified when an update and/or resolution is available, please "bookmark" this Alert by clicking the yellow star icon in the upper right. Thank you!"

This post was dated early this morning on 9/11. Then later in the day:

"RESOLVED 9/11/20 This issue has been resolved and Users should no longer receive an error. Thank you!"

No mention of a particular FI. You should know that receiving a OL-220 error is to be expected when a FI is remiss. This post shows that these OL-220/221 were errors which were fixed. I'm sure that 28.28 did not fix the problem. Why? Because after I installed 28.28, I tried to do several QFX imports and they all failed. It was later in the day that they started working. I also examined the OFX logs and have seen that the reply from the Intuit server is now different.

I wouldn't go so far as to call you ignorant Mr. Pollard. I would say that you sometimes apparently talk without do> This issue has now been fixed on Quicken. I don't know what happened but

No kudos are called for: Quicken Sarah had nothing to do with getting the problem fixed; she's nothing but a messenger.

And it's extremely likely that the cause of the problem was with Apple.

The discussion you linked to is a good example of ignorant users pretending to know what they're talking about, as bogus grounds for making accusations and demands that they haven't the knowledge to make.

In your original post in this discussion, you asked, "I'm at a loss of what to do since neither party seems to care."

Your assumption that Quicken didn't care was totally unsupported by anything posted in the linked discussion (see above). [The only reason I don't have the same opinion about Apple, is that the ability to download to Quicken is virtually always more important to Quicken than it is to the financial institutions from whom the data is downloaded.]

And you yourself answered the question you asked about "what to do" in your original post here, when you posted in that Quicken Community discussion on August 6, "I guess all we can do is wait...".

Had there been but a few posts in the Quicken Community, limited to simply explaining the problem (and possibly at least one user sending a complete Problem Report from Quicken), the solution would almost certainly have arrived just as quickly.

There you go; jumping to false conclusions, and (intentionally?) missing my point.

I did read the post you referred to: I typically do a lot of research before I post (which I've been doing about Quicken for 20 years).

The post you refer to does not mean that the problem was a Quicken problem; or that complaining about Quicken was appropriate.

Many financial institutions use the same software/software company to select/format their downloads. If that software has a problem, multiple financial institutions can have the same problem at the same time.

And Quicken is no longer a part of Intuit so Quicken has no direct control over what Intuit and Intuit servers do.

It's hardly surprising that the latest, or any, Quicken release did not solve the problem: it was never a Quicken problem.

The fact that it was also not an Apple problem does not help your case. It would always be a good bet that OL-nnn errors are financial institution errors. Or you could say it's "extremely likely" that OL-nnn errors are financial institution errors; in the previous 20 years I don't recall a single instance when they were not.

I stand by the essence of my comments: a.) that you and the others in that discussion were beating a dead horse, pretending that you were all on some higher ground and that Quicken was not doing their part. b.) that "waiting" was your best approach.

The problem was going to get solved without any of the uninformed bitching and finger pointing in the Community - and Quicken was going to do whatever they were capable of doing to help the problem get solved regardless of what ignorant users said or thought.

Put another way: other than providing an accurate description of the problem, none of the posts in the linked Quicken Community discussion were "very constructive".

There you go; jumping to false conclusions, and (intentionally?) missing my point.

I did read the post you referred to: I typically do a lot of research before I post (which I've been doing regarding Quicken for 20 years).

The post you refer to does not mean that the problem was a Quicken problem; or that complaining about Quicken was appropriate (the points of my earlier comment).

For example, many financial institutions use the same software/software company to select/format their downloads. If that software has a problem, multiple financial institutions can have the same problem at the same time.

And Quicken is no longer a part of Intuit so Quicken has no direct control over what Intuit and Intuit servers do.

It's hardly surprising that the latest, or any, Quicken release did not solve the problem: it was never a Quicken problem.

The fact that it was also not an Apple problem does not help your case. It would always be a good bet that OL-nnn errors are financial institution errors. Or you could say it's "extremely likely" that OL-nnn errors are financial institution errors; in the previous 20 years I don't recall a single instance when they were not.

I stand by the essence of my comments: a.) that you and the others in that discussion were beating a dead horse, pretending that you were all on some higher ground and that Quicken was not doing their part. b.) that "waiting" was your best approach.

The problem was going to get solved without any of the uninformed bitching and finger pointing in the Community - and Quicken was going to do whatever they were capable of doing to help the problem get solved regardless of what ignorant users said or thought.

Put another way: other than providing an accurate description of the problem, none of the posts in the linked Quicken Community discussion were "very constructive".

Note that reading and comprehending are two different things.

For examples where Quicken Sarah posted a solution where an error is tied to a FI, see

I think it is reasonable to assume that since the post did not mention a FI, that this had nothing to do with Apple specifically. All she would have had to say is that "we are working with Apple to resolve this" but she didn't. This is also consistent with the speed at which the problem resolution occurred from the original posting of the problem to the solution.

Unless you have first hand knowledge from Quicken Sarah or someone who works at Quicken, it seems that this conversation has become pointless. But I will say I did not appreciate your opinionated attacks when as a community, we are trying to get to the same goal. As I tried to say before, if you spent the same amount of time trying to come up with a solution with Quicken/Apple instead of disparaging other folks, this problem might have been resolved earlier than the two months it took. And just maybe, you would have appreciated the difficulties of those who tried to do that and were stymied.

There you go; jumping to false conclusions, and (intentionally?) missing my point.

I did read the post you referred to: I typically do a lot of research before I post (which I've been doing about Quicken for 20 years).

The post you refer to does not mean that the problem was a Quicken problem; or that complaining about Quicken was appropriate.

Many financial institutions use the same software/software company to select/format their downloads. If that software has a problem, multiple financial institutions can have the same problem at the same time.

And Quicken is no longer a part of Intuit so Quicken has no direct control over what Intuit and Intuit servers do.

It's hardly surprising that the latest, or any, Quicken release did not solve the problem: it was never a Quicken problem.

The fact that it was also not an Apple problem does not help your case. It would always be a good bet that OL-nnn errors are financial institution errors. Or you could say it's "extremely likely" that OL-nnn errors are financial institution errors; in the previous 20 years I don't recall a single instance when they were not.

I stand by the essence of my comments: a.) that you and the others in that discussion were beating a dead horse, pretending that you were all on some higher ground and that Quicken was not doing their part. b.) that "waiting" was your best approach.

The problem was going to get solved without any of the uninformed bitching and finger pointing in the Community - and Quicken was going to do whatever they were capable of doing to help the problem get solved regardless of what ignorant users said or thought.

Put another way: other than providing an accurate description of the problem, none of the posts in the linked Quicken Community discussion were "very constructive".

Since I already addressed your inability to read and understand my comments I find you doing nothing more than proving my point. It is you who keeps pretending that I am talking about something I'm not talking about.

When you say,

"As I tried to say before, if you spent the same amount of time trying to come up with a solution with Quicken/Apple instead of disparaging other folks, this problem might have been resolved earlier than the two months it took."

you not only prove my point. Nothing you or anyone else in that Community conversation did anything to help get the problem solved. As I clearly said: the Community discussion you refer to did NOTHING to help get the problem solved. And the reason is because not one of you, or any other Quicken user, had a clue what the problem was.

But you all pretended to know that Quicken must be at fault - but you were all wrong from the beginning, because you were anxious to draw conclusions when you did not have a clue what you were talking about. And you're still trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about.

And you're damn right that I am opinionated, that's intentional and obviously necessary when addressing you - and it should have been obvious. You keep posting and proving my point.

While my comments here have been replies to your comments, they were never posted with any expectation that you would learn anything from them. I never for a minute thought you would react any other way than you have.

My comments are intended for others who might make the mistake of thinking you actually had anything useful to say; but more importantly, thinking that the approach you and others took in the Community discussion was a legitimate way to address a problem.

You had nothing useful to say in the referenced Community discussion and you have said nothing useful here. At least you're consistent.

"I think it is reasonable to assume that since the post did not mention a FI, that this had nothing to do with Apple specifically."

While you're entitled to your self serving assumption, that does not make your assumption a fact.

Here are some recent Quicken Community posts from the referenced discussion ....

From Bob@25 on Sept 12 at 3:47 am "I confirmed I can import my July statement but not August. The difference being that August statement has new INSTALLMENT payment types. So Quicken's claim that "It's fixed" is only partially true. I wonder how long it will take before some owns this new issue?"

From splasher on Sept 12 at 4:38 pm "I looked up the OFX standard and it does not list INSTALLMENT as a valid transaction type."

From JohnA on Sept 12 at 5:45 pm "My guess is that INSTALLMENT makes sense on a loan account which Apple Card is not. Does the INSTALLMENT OFX entry reference another account which is causing problems?"

From Iscline on Sept 12 at 6:32 pm "Even with the INSTALLMENT hack (which Jordan.Jacob posted a few days ago), my imports are not correct, due to the way the installment "balances" are being specified in the QFX file."

So tell us, sport: if the problem "had nothing to do with Apple specifically", what financial institutions other than Apple Card have experienced the problems that Apple Card is experiencing?

"I think it is reasonable to assume that since the post did not mention a FI, that this had nothing to do with Apple specifically."

While you're entitled to your self serving assumption, that does not make your assumption a fact.

Here are some recent Quicken Community posts from the referenced discussion ....

From Bob@25 on Sept 12 at 3:47 am "I confirmed I can import my July statement but not August. The difference being that August statement has new INSTALLMENT payment types. So Quicken's claim that "It's fixed" is only partially true. I wonder how long it will take before some owns this new issue?"

From splasher on Sept 12 at 4:38 pm "I looked up the OFX standard and it does not list INSTALLMENT as a valid transaction type."

From JohnA on Sept 12 at 5:45 pm "My guess is that INSTALLMENT makes sense on a loan account which Apple Card is not. Does the INSTALLMENT OFX entry reference another account which is causing problems?"

From Iscline on Sept 12 at 6:32 pm "Even with the INSTALLMENT hack (which Jordan.Jacob posted a few days ago), my imports are not correct, due to the way the installment "balances" are being specified in the QFX file."

So tell us, sport: if the problem "had nothing to do with Apple specifically", what financial institutions other than Apple Card have experienced the problems that Apple Card is experiencing?

What facts do you have to back this up Mr. Pollard?

This shows that you didn't comprehend the thread. I know it was a huge thread with lots to understand so skimm Since I already addressed your inability to read and understand my comments I find you doing nothing more than proving my point. It is you who keeps pretending that I am talking about something I'm not talking about.

When you say,

"As I tried to say before, if you spent the same amount of time trying to come up with a solution with Quicken/Apple instead of disparaging other folks, this problem might have been resolved earlier than the two months it took."

you not only prove my point. Nothing you or anyone else in that Community conversation did anything to help get the problem solved. As I clearly said: the Community discussion you refer to did NOTHING to help get the problem solved. And the reason is because not one of you, or any other Quicken user, had a clue what the problem was.

But you all pretended to know that Quicken must be at fault - but you were all wrong from the beginning, because you were anxious to draw conclusions when you did not have a clue what you were talking about. And you're still trying to pretend that you know what you're talking about.

And you're damn right that I am opinionated, that's intentional and obviously necessary when addressing you - and it should have been obvious. You keep posting and proving my point.

While my comments here have been replies to your comments, they were never posted with any expectation that you would learn anything from them. I never for a minute thought you would react any other way than you have.

My comments are intended for others who might make the mistake of thinking you actually had anything useful to say; but more importantly, thinking that the approach you and others took in the Community discussion was a legitimate way to address a problem.

You had nothing useful to say in the referenced Community discussion and you have said nothing useful here. At least you're consistent.

I told you before that I read the discussion, and contrary to your ignorant response when I said that, I meant that I also understood the discussion. You keep pretending to have discerned something that exists entirely in your head.

I reiterate: While you're entitled to your self serving assumption (about the original reason for the Community discussion), that does not make your assumption a fact. I already addressed your assumption in an earlier post.

You have provided no evidence that a single other financial institution was experiencing the problem. Reading your wishes into Quicken's comments does not count as evidence.

Further on the phrasing that you believe proves your point: Quicken goes to great lengths to avoid ever giving the impression that the financial institutions are wrong. It's just as easy to interpret Sarah's remarks as providing blanket cover to avoid appearing to point any fingers.

Well, duh. But the point is, those comments are still in the discussion which you claim proves that Apple played no part in the original problem, and which I claim consists of a lot of posts by people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no idea how to get a problem solved, but are pretty sure that Quicken owes them something.

When you say that " ... this was a totally different issue than the one most of us experienced", you just prove the point I keep trying to make and which you keep trying to ignore.

That "totally different issue" belonged in a "totally different" discussion. But some folks just don't like to stop gnawing on the bone they think they have to pick with Quicken (or any entity for that matter, foolish enough to provide a public forum for their complaints).

Just as you keep coming back here, thinking you're making your case, when you're actually making mine. But you can't let go of the bone.

OK Mr. Pollard, then the only conclusion is that you are deliberately misinterpreting a conversation to bolster your ego. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt. But if you insist. Folks can read the discussion and make up their own minds.

Ummm....no they don't as I provided examples showing this canard was false and that they are happy to place attribution on a FI. To make matters worse, you have provided no examples proving your point but proclamations which are worthless. Why am I not surprised?

The only point I made was that there was more than one issue being discussed in the one thread which is pretty common. Both issues had different causes and solutions. And everyone except you knew after a few postings that they were separate issues. Folks in the conversation were helpful unlike your postings on this issue here.

I will make a suggestion Mr. Pollard. If you don't have anything constructive to say about a problem on the Quicken Community Boards, please keep silent instead of disparaging folks behind their backs. Yes, it hasn't escaped my attention that you chose this unhelpful criticism here without adding anything constructive.

*** I'll let you have the last word. ***

I told you before that I read the discussion, and contrary to your ignorant response when I said that, I meant that I also understood the discussion. You keep pretending to have discerned something that exists entirely in your head.

I reiterate: While you're entitled to your self serving assumption (about the original reason for the Community discussion), that does not make your assumption a fact. I already addressed your assumption in an earlier post.

You have provided no evidence that a single other financial institution was experiencing the problem. Reading your wishes into Quicken's comments does not count as evidence.

Further on the phrasing that you believe proves your point: Quicken goes to great lengths to avoid ever giving the impression that the financial institutions are wrong. It's just as easy to interpret Sarah's remarks as providing blanket cover to avoid appearing to point any fingers.

Well, duh. But the point is, those comments are still in the discussion which you claim proves that Apple played no part in the original problem, and which I claim consists of a lot of posts by people who have no idea what they're talking about and have no idea how to get a problem solved, but are pretty sure that Quicken owes them something.

When you say that " ... this was a totally different issue than the one most of us experienced", you just prove the point I keep trying to make and which you keep trying to ignore.

That "totally different issue" belonged in a "totally different" discussion. But some folks just don't like to stop gnawing on the bone they think they have to pick with Quicken (or any entity for that matter, foolish enough to provide a public forum for their complaints).

Just as you keep coming back here, thinking you're making your case, when you're actually making mine. But you can't let go of the bone.

Actually, the burden would be on you to demonstrate where anyone in that discussion had any effect on the eventual fix (other than the one or two minimal possibilities that I referred to earlier - by submitting a post which amount to notifying Quicken of a possible problem, and using "Report a problem" to send Quicken potentially useful specific information.

Those are the default basics, but I found nothing in that discussion that came close to doing anything more than the minimum.

It shows nothing of the sort.

I read the thread thoroughly on more than one occasion. It wasn't that hard to understand.

[You have no idea what the vendor's actually thought: all you knew was the minimum response you got from the front line support people. The support people frequently do not have up-to-the-minute information on the status of an ongoing investigation. One more reason why incessantly posting the same, or nearly same, complaint is a waste of time. Once the ball is rolling, the best bet is to shutup and let the experts do their job.]

The real problem is that virtually none of the complainants in that thread had a clue what they were doing ... and had even less of an idea about what constitutes useful information and what constitutions repeated bitching and looking for someplace to point a finger.

Indeed, if the problem was caused by Intuit, then virtually all of the complainants in the discussion failed to identify the responsible party. Which they should not have even been trying to do in the first place.

The problem was being worked on while you were all bitching, and acting as if you were entitled to a blow-by-blow account of what was going on behind the scenes - something you were not entitled to.

Quicken never provides running commentary on what they're doing, and when there is a possible issue with a financial institution, Quicken is particularly reserved about providing public information.

My comments constitute a critique of the postings in the referenced discussion. As such, my comments do not lose meaning simply because the original issue has been resolved.

It was you who resumed this discussion with bogus kudos to Quicken Sarah. I refrained from commenting when you initiated this discussion; but when you returned to give credit where none was due, I elected to respond.

Sarah did nothing but insure that Quicken developers were aware of the essence of the complaint in the discussion. Something which may not even have been necessary, since the developers have other sources of problem reporting besides the Quicken Community. It's entirely possible that the problem would have gotten fixed had you and the others, never posted a word in the Quicken Community.

Sad that you keep pretending your making a point; first by falsely claiming I did not understand the referenced discussion; now you resort to claiming that I'm lying.

I have no ego problems. More of your false claims, incompetent analysis and ad hominem attacks on me ... apparently necessary, since you have no defense.

I never needed any benefit of the doubt; but giving me the benefit of the doubt is not what you have been doing. You have been trying to defend what you can't defend, so you you've been trying to pretend that your critic is ignorant or lying.

Inded they can.

Hogwash.

Your examples prove nothing about my comment (which comes from some 10+ years of being a super-user in the Quicken Community, during which time I had direct contact with the Quicken employees who post in the Community).

The financial institutions I referred to are the financial institutions that Quicken has legal arrangements with to provide/allow downloads to Quicken.

I was certainly not referring to online billers, such as your cable tv provider (as per your first claimed example) who, as far as I know have no direct relationship with Quicken (and the unnamed problem "financial institution" in that "example" was the software provider who downloads online bills, not the online biller).

And your second example does not show Quicken giving "the impression that the financial institution" was wrong. Merely posting the name of a downloading financial institution does not constitute any indication that the financial institution is in the wrong - and it would be literally impossible to avoid naming a financial institution when providing Quicken users with an alert that there is a reported problem with that financial institutions.

If you're unable to understand what you read, you are allowed to ask to get a restatement.

Too common, but wrong.

Again, duh.

I knew that immediately when I read the word "installment"; once again you're diverting attention.

As I have said from the beginning; virtually all the posts in the referenced discussion are somewhere between ignorant, worthless and unnecessary.

The recent addition of off-topic posts just confirms my point. Users who know what they're doing should not be introducing an entirely new issue into an existing discussion. The referenced discussion certainly is not the only one with that problem; but it does have that problem.

I could not provide help to solve the original issue: I have no Apple card - so that complaint is just another red herring.

You're the one who started this discussion and I'm talking directly to you - are you turning your back to me when you post.

Otherwise spare me your suggestions; you're just not qualified.