QB2009 registration torture

Posted by Haskel LaPort on June 29, 2009, 8:30 am

Please log in for more thread options

> Haskel LaPort wrote:

>>> Haskel LaPort wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Also forgot Microsoft Small Business Accounting.

>>>>

>>>>> MYOB, Simply Accounting and Peachtree just to name a few.

>>>>>

>>> ...

>>>>>> Unfotunately, they have an almost 100% share of the market ...

>>>

>>> "A September 5, 2005 Business Week article said that QuickBooks had 74%

>>> of the market. A June 19, 2008 Intuit Press Release said that as of

>>> March 2008, QuickBooks' share of retail units in the business accounting

>>> category reached 94.2 percent, according to NPD Group."

>>>

>>> According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QuickBooks>

>>>

>>> That they have the lion's share is unquestioned; it seems they have

>>> increasingly begun to utilize that circumstance since they achieved a

>>> significant market share to make terms of use far more onerous to the

>>> user and lucrative to Intuit. They obviously have to remain in business

>>> but there's much of what they've done that seems to me to have no

>>> justification _except_ to generate revenue.

>> Given that in the past Intuit gave away the product

> It's been quite some time since that occurred... :)

> The problem generally isn't initial but recurring and upgrade costs.

>> ... using the term "onerous", may be a tad extreme. In any event

>> generating revenue is the reason they are in business.

> Hey, it's usenet--ain't that the spot for hyperbole????

> Sure, forget about service, etc. :)

> I don't have a problem w/ Intuit making a profit; I have a problem w/

> deliberately breaking a product's previous functionality removing

> components in order to increase revenue...

Just what functionality are you talking about? I hope you are not talking
about payroll which was semi decoupled back in in 1999.

> --

Posted by klunk on June 29, 2009, 12:08 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>> I don't have a problem w/ Intuit making a profit; I have a problem w/

>> deliberately breaking a product's previous functionality removing

>> components in order to increase revenue...

> Just what functionality are you talking about? I hope you are not talking

> about payroll which was semi decoupled back in in 1999.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe QB 2009 is the first
version of QuickBooks that does not print Federal 940, 941
and W-2 forums using the lowest payroll level, which
previously could be used without any additional subscription.

Posted by Haskel LaPort on June 29, 2009, 1:10 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>>> I don't have a problem w/ Intuit making a profit; I have a problem w/

>>> deliberately breaking a product's previous functionality removing

>>> components in order to increase revenue...

>> Just what functionality are you talking about? I hope you are not talking

>> about payroll which was semi decoupled back in in 1999.

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe QB 2009 is the first

> version of QuickBooks that does not print Federal 940, 941

> and W-2 forums using the lowest payroll level, which

> previously could be used without any additional subscription.

Many QB payroll users prefer and require that their accountant prepare their
returns. Rather than pay for additional features Intuit, god bless their
hearts, offers a lower priced basic version
that does not include the features that are not needed by these end users.

Intuit, instead of offering the enhanced version could have kept all the
features in just one version call it QB Payroll and make everyone pay the
"Enhanced" price. thank you boys and girls at Intuit.

Posted by dpb on June 29, 2009, 3:33 pm

Please log in for more thread options

Haskel LaPort wrote:
...

> Intuit, instead of offering the enhanced version could have kept all

> the features in just one version call it QB Payroll and make everyone

> pay the "Enhanced" price. thank you boys and girls at Intuit.

...

OTOH, they _COULD_ have continued one version and retained its features
in the base product but chose not to...

One can spin anything anyhow one wishes but it doesn't mean the choice
made was out of altruism to the enduser.

--

Posted by Haskel LaPort on June 30, 2009, 10:30 am

Please log in for more thread options

> Haskel LaPort wrote:

> ...

>> Intuit, instead of offering the enhanced version could have kept all the

>> features in just one version call it QB Payroll and make everyone pay the

>> "Enhanced" price. thank you boys and girls at Intuit.

> ...

> OTOH, they _COULD_ have continued one version and retained its features in

> the base product but chose not to...

> One can spin anything anyhow one wishes but it doesn't mean the choice

> made was out of altruism to the enduser.

All to true but I do belive Intuit loves us.

> --