We get that from a short term perspective, it may make sense to keep it too complicated for the end users, but efficient markets will prevail short of forced intervention.

If that is how Intuit thinks, I cannot wait for the day when they get displaced.

Another example...Intuit has wanted to transition customers away from the desktop version of Quickbooks for many years now. If you think Quickbooks online has it's learning curve, just spend some time using the desktop product. It's a maze that takes years to learn to navigate and many of the "features" are horribly buggy from years of neglect. But pry it from their cold, dead hands Intuit cannot, so you can still buy new versions of Quickbooks Desktop.

That's why what you guys are saying is so ridiculous. You're denying a reality in a field you're not familiar with. You're saying something should be different because it's inefficient or other industries work differently. But you haven't done the user research. You don't have decades of experience dealing with the people who actually spend money on the software. You're in no position to critique the way that Intuit thinks.

I am all for being brutally aware of reality...but, there is also a time horizon to these things. Most great startups had to break through resistance. Maybe the resistance you guys saw was simply resistance to change...

Maybe tweaks to UI isn't what wins this game...maybe its tools like Pilot or services like bench, or maybe its something like the car solving the horse manure problems of the turn of the century...

And to be fair, there are some studies that show cognitive strain being linked to better focus or something like that (Disclaimer: I have no idea what im talking about, but am pretty sure Thinking Fast and Slow discusses it.) so, maybe a harder UI is better...

What I do know is that I want software to make my life easier and more efficient. And I don't mind if that takes away part of a means of my livelihood, I'll figure out the next step the same way I got to where I am today.

If I understood you correctly, the folks in charge of this are very good at their jobs and I am sure they are optimizing for their quarterly earnings, or bonuses, or whatever else they are incentivized to do...and I get the idea that they see bookkeepers as their customers, not business owners, and are serving them as best they know how... but this feels like the lazy way out of innovating.

- government managers are evaluated on budget and headcount because the core services they provide are hard to measure. Thus they don’t want new software to help them be more efficient, unless the alternative is catastrophic, visible failure to provide their service.

- Lawyers charge by the hour. They don’t want new software to dramatically reduce the time spent in discovery. Then they would have to bill for outcomes (cases won) and there are too many things out of their control.

Basically nobody wants to charge for value, because value is hard to quantify accurately and quickly. You wind up showing costs to prove value, so nobody wants to reduce costs.

That’s... untrue. Government managers are judged (in terms of evaluation of job performance) largely on minimizing both costs and negative public attention.

OTOH, managers generally (and not just in the public sector) like to have big budget and headcount numbers on their résumés as proof of scope of responsibility.

The GP's point isn't that software can simplify bookkeeping but that bookkeeping itself is not simple.

Any company (especially startups) that gets to scale eventually outgrows Quickbooks. You don't see any F500 or any large scale startup ($100M+ in revenue) using QB because it simply isn't built for those type of needs. But there are swaths of bookkeepers who understand how it works and how to migrate their profession to NetSuite/SAP/Intacct/etc.

QB is the bookkeeping equivalent of Excel. It does it's job well and power users benefit massively from it. Pitch and Bench are competitive, but the aren't great fits for someone who will eventually need more professional finance or uses a tax accountant that is more efficient with their tool of choice.

Indeed. Perhaps you're familiar with our habit of picking a random country to blow up and then flood with contractors every couple years.

1) Using QuickBooks I can keep 1 clients books in an hour. I charge the client $100/hr

2) Using a Competitors software I can shave 10 minutes off that.

Assuming I work an 8 hour day, I'd be making $120 more a day if I switched off Quickbooks, minus the time it would take me to learn new software.

Small business fundamental goals indeed.

By shaving off the time it takes to keep the books, a percentage of clients will decide that the time it takes to keep the books isn't worth outsourcing. The shorter you make the time commitment, the more the cost/benefit analysis leans that way.

You've also made it easier for other bookkeepers. Now they have more room in their day for more clients, plus the barrier of entry for new bookkeepers is powered by the easier software. All of a sudden you have negative pricing pressure driving your rates down and next thing you know your client base has gone up but your rates have gone down and you're making the same amount of money but with more client management overhead due to additional clients being serviced.

Then at some point, the ease of use shrinks to the point where a critical mass of the client base have decided to do it themselves, and you start finding it hard to source enough clients to fill all 8 hours a day, and have yet more negative pricing pressure to make up for it. What started as making your job more efficient evolved into making your job so efficient you weren't needed.