Yes, much like the profound ignorance of business fundamentals that caused the dot-com "geniuses" to think that profitability didn't matter. "Don't worry about revenues, and we can keep on spending like drunken sailors, because our plan is working as long as the click count for visiting eyeballs keeps going up. Forget the old fuddy-duddy ways of thinking. This is how the magic of the Internet works!" The only difference between these airheads and snake oil salesmen is that they actually believe their claims.
Let's hope that somebody uses that advantage. As much as I'd like to see this moron get derailed, I'm not making any bets that cooler heads will prevail before this train wreck unfolds. However, maybe some Intuit execs who actually know what they're doing will form their own company, buy the rights, and keep it going. Or an existing company could do the same with a White Knight rescue.
With a baseball bat out behind the woodshed. That's the only kind of advice he's going to listen to.
I don't think that Quicken desktop generates enough revenue to satisfy Intuit. Certainly, MSMoney did not generate enough to satisfy Microsoft and so the poor thing was executed last year. I know that I am being terribly pessimistic today, but I really doubt that any new desktop product will emerge. I have certainly enjoyed using both Quicken and MSMoney, but I don't expect Intuit or Microsoft to operate these projects out of charity. I don't expect charity from any other software publishers either.
The younger folks will flock to Mint.com or another system in the cloud. We dinosaurs will not. It makes sense, just think about it. Dinosaurs have little piles of savings that have been accumulated over the years. We do our best to protect them. No cloud computing for us! The young folks only have piles of debt, and who gives a shit about that. Mint.com suits them just fine.
I suppose Quicken will get hacked someday. I have not heard of Mint, Yodlee, or Geegeo getting hacked and that is the model you are worried about. Still, everything happens if you wait long enough. I think Intuit is looking to go online because there is a huge demand for it plus it will enhance the revenue stream.
If they get 50% of what we pay in the store, I would be surprised and the distribution model is dreadful. All those disks. I will be sorry to see them go because I tend to give away my old copies but I can see the subscription model doing nicely. Assuming it is as robust as Quicken offline.
They will keep the disks as long as people buy them. When people don't, they will move away. That isn't arrogance, that is commerce.
Well that may be true, but I have a feeling Intuit's Quicken generated much more revenue and was more successful than MS Money, which never could really take off causing it's demise. I still think someone else will probably come to the forefront , someone that is hungry, and fill that eventual void. I hope anyway.
The issue isn't the distribution method of the software. The issue is the architecture. The current Quicken product manager wants to migrate the Quicken base from an architecture where the data and processing is performed on a local computer to a cloud based solution where data and processing is done at some central location.
The cloud model has two huge benefits for Intuit - it eliminates distribution costs and it locks consumers into a monthly/annual subscription model. The arrogance comes from believing that consumers want this kind of architecture and business model when the evidence to date is pretty clear they don't. It also ignores the very real security/reliability issues with cloud based processing for sensitive/critical functions.
Intuit could eliminate the majority of their distribution costs by going to 100% electronic distribution. They proved that by the "emergency" release of the QD2009 patch late last year. That wasn't a patch - it was a complete full up version of QD 2009. They also distribute electronically on Amazon if you look hard enough.
They apparently feel the benefits of sharing revenues with retailings on CD distribution outweigh the costs. My bet is that we'll be seeing Mint CDs in stores at some point that follow the World of Warcraft model. Essentially a token CD that includes a trial online subscription.
All good points. Some of the venting here is just whistling in the dark to ward off the inevitable trends for as long as we can.
But I wonder if there isn't a middle ground between the tech laggards like me who want to hang on to what we have exactly as it is (totally under my ownership and control), and at the other extreme, those who tell us that all software functions will be performed in the cloud on your data stored in the cloud, so in the future all you'll need is a PDA-type device to access and use it.
If Quicken were to put a 1-year drop dead limit on its software instead of the current 3-year cycle, there's no reason why we can't still pay to have our software (and data) "locked down" in our computers after we've downloaded it and receive free updates during that period. That's basically what happens when you buy software that is supported by free online updating. When Version 2.0 comes out, you have to pay the regular price for a full upgrade and the cycle starts over again.
My letter to Mr. Patzer (and copying CEO and COB Mr's. Smith and Campbell as well) is written. I am also going to quote some of the comments in this thread. But I'd LOVE to have a reference to back up this statement Robert. It certainly is true for me, but is it true as you state for the general consumers? (Facts needed, not opinions or anecdotal evidence--this isn't a criticism, I am on your side, but I'd love to be able to prove it.).
It is a reasonable argument, and I hope that you are correct sir! I know of at least two such hungry individuals, they develop products named Money Dance and Ace Money.
It will be interesting to see what actually happens vs what they are saying. It wouldn't shock me if that 5 years stretched to 10 and beyond.
I am a long time Quicken user (and still use it), but recently have been trying out Mint. It's nice in some ways, but if I had to start paying for it by subscription or whatever with its current feature set, I would most likely drop it. I mean, I like it, but it doesn't give me enough added value beyond what I already get with Quicken to justify actually paying for it. So they do have some work to do...
Mint is pretty basic. It is very good at telling you account balances and I sometimes use it to verify my daily activity but it is pretty basic. The current incarnation of Quicken Online, the one they are eliminating, is very very basic. Plus Mint has Yodlee as a competitor at no cost. Geezeo is also coming along nicely and is free.
So, they have to improve or they won't be able to charge.
I know Quicken ends support after 3 years and part of that is force you to buy another version but they also have to support the banks and financial institutions to support Quicken also. I can see where they would have to upgrade to keep up with the financial institututions.
Quicken can support both the disks and the online version. Why not? Still, I can see them making much more money with the online version.
"Mr.Jan" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@b10g2000vbh.googlegroups.co m:
I have not tried Mint, so don't know how it is presented to the user. One thing I can see for sure is the screen real-estate on Mint being sold to advertisers. This potentially can bring in more revenue to Intuit than Quicken desktop does today. That added to smaller support costs for Mint results in huge profitability, which is the metric of the day. Advetising that doea not stand a chance to be shown on our desktop screens. Would you accept advertising in a product you paid for? Not in my case.
The profile of a Mint user, in my mind's eye is that of a younger user that deposits only that part of the paycheck to pay rent and utilities (those bills that are best paid by check), and the rest goes into the pocket for day-to-day expenses and fun. These users want a quick means of check book balancing and not much more. The proper ads on the Mint screen could generate a lot of business for theose advertisers. This may be over simplified, but it certainly doesn't fit the profile of most of us.
Good analysis. However, instead of the WOW CD model, I'd like to see them follow the slightly different security apps model. Buy the inexpensive disk or download (the "razor") and you get full, locally stored functionality plus the frequent updates over a subscription period. Then you pay annually to keep it going (the "blades").
That's basically what they're already doing with Quicken, except that some of the features stop working after three years. Change that to a 1-year drop dead cycle and they can have us on the annual upgrade treadmill just as the security vendors do. And of course it's all done cheaply through downloading. No need to sell us a new box or mail us an unlockable CD every three years. Some users would abandon Quicken but as long as the annual "upgrade" subscriptions are reasonably priced, most would just grumble a bit and stay with the program.
It's understandable where the Intuit VP is coming from. Top executives are under a lot of pressure to keep growing the enterprise. Desktop Quicken is a mature market, both in the business sense and figuratively because of the age of its customer base. There's no more headroom for double-digit growth. That's when you start hearing talk about "new paradigms" and "taking it to the next level".
The flaw that I see in his thinking, though, is the difference between functionality and content. The app provides the functionality. Any competent team of coders can write that and it can be distributed cheaply online almost as a commodity. If Quicken as we know it goes away, someone will fill the void. It may not be as slick or comprehensive as Quicken, but it will suffice for the trailing adopter crowd.
Except for the expensive and lucrative accounting suites, what really is going to distinguish mass-market personal financials vendors and keep the cash rolling in is providing the additional content, i.e., all the outside data like stock prices and interest rates and market trends that gets used by the app and is interfaced with your locally held personal data. Online, content is king. We already know that any kind of website can crackle with fancy bells and whistles, but if the content isn't there, the eyeballs ain't gonna go there. And they're definitely not going to pay for the privilege.
So the real challenge for Intuit/Mint under their new model is whether they can get a commanding market lead in furnishing paying users with financials content that is usable by some form of front-end software. Any competent web surfer already can get virtually all the data he needs for free. So tying all the functionality and data together in a pretty, convenient package at mint.com may or may not get them where they want to be. One smart thing that Intuit is doing - if we ignore the gaffe of announcing the end of life so soon - is they're giving themselves a long lead time to let users catch up to their vision of how it's supposed to work. Whether it will work remains to be seen.
Having said that, I still see a long-term usefulness in continuing to offer discrete "you own it" versions of Quicken as a gateway to pull in new customers and keep the ones they have. They already use Quicken as a gateway to additional paid financial services. There's no reason that the package can't be refocused to a big array of mint.com services.
Given the much bigger cost of providing and maintaining the over-arching system, plus what they dole out in advertising and PR to attract new customers, the incremental cost of continuing to offer desk-top versions of Quicken as a gateway channel seems like it would be money well spent. They would do well to remember how Bill Gates initially blew off the Internet browser market because the Web wasn't a core part of MS business strategy at the time. Now it's the massively dominant gateway between MS and its customers - and they are now the 800-pound gorilla in the browser market. (Well, maybe down to a 600-pound gorilla now, but the point still stands.)
Right - but that's what MSMoney tried to do. The last few versions of Money were tightly integrated with the web - it wasn't optional like Quicken.com. The only argument you can make for that being a sucessful model was that MS didn't have enough of a critical mass with Money to make the hybrid strategy work. Maybe Intuit does, but I don't think so.
Second try to Robert Neville - trying to get facts to back up the claim (which I personally do subscribe to, but a factoid that shows it's not just MY or YOUR opinion would go well with my letter): " The arrogance comes from believing that consumers want this kind of architecture and business model when the evidence to date is pretty clear they don't."
Agreed. It isn't "older" users, it is "sensible" users who won't put their finances on line. Especially with Quicken. It is pretty poor software, even if it is the "best" available, which says a lot about the competition. And it isn't older user can't learn how to work on line, they understand the risks where apparently younger users don't, or don't care. Intelligent users do care, and don't want to take the risk.
[We are sorry to inform you that our data was cracked, and someone else now owns your home and has bought themselves a Ferarri. We value you as a customer, and apologize for the inconvenience. Please provide us a new, working credit card number, as your current ones have been frozen, so we can continue to fleece you with our crap, I mean service you in the manner to which you are accustomed...]
I have a Mac, tried iBank, and it may mature in five or more years, but it is a joke right now.
Is there any decent local financial program for Macs? (I refuse to run the Windoze emulators because they are just more crap on top of crap that open you up to all the viruses, updates, license requirements, etc. of Windoze).
Well, I decided to buy the Home and Business EDition 2010 anyway.
Why?
Because several years ago I realized that I could not justify paying for Quicken to do the tasks I needed. I could do them all in Excel. Not to mention I noticed at least the following problems with Quicken Premier 2007 Trial:
Could not download more than most recent 90 days of data.
Transactions were not always reported correctly.
I also, realized that, as a programmer, I could easily write programs to enhance my use of Excel in particular areas.
When I mentioned this to the reps at my broker, they encouraged me to make the program available to others. I am in the process of finishing up the supporting programs. I hope to finish up this year. I expect that all but 1 of the programs will be free for others to use.
I purchased Quicken yesterday, so I could compare results with Excel and the output options. Otherwise I have no need to use Quicken.
It does seem obvious that one "should" be able to do everything in Excel, The problem is few of us are expert enough to duplicate how Quicken does it including the downloading capability and easy interface.
If you know how to do everything pretty much in Excel you could either make a fortune selling how you do it or share it with the rest of us who do not know how. :-))
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.