Portfolio Columns

Unknown

When will Quicken add Cost Basis/Share, Dividend (Annual), Dividend (Yield), ROI (%), Return to the portfolio columns. These columns are available on the Quicken 2006 version why aren't they on a" NEWER" version. Seriously, I would not have purchased this software if I had known this.

smayer97

Quicken was rebuilt from the ground up in 2010, then stalled, and restarted in late 2013, so a lot of the old features still have not been added back in.

Consider adding your list of columns and add your VOTE to Add ability to customize the portfolio view.

First, click on the underlined link above to go there, then click VOTE at the top of THAT page, so your will vote count for THIS feature and increase its visibility to the developers by seeking to have the features you need or desire end up in the latest version.

While you are at it, you may want to add your VOTE to related IDEAS found on the List of Requests Related to Investments. Click on the underlined link, then follow the instructions to add your vote to more related ideas. Your VOTES matter!

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)

davekr

haven't upgraded due to subscription & cloud based format...
seems as if customers are being asked to pay more for less features?

davekr

I guess my comment touched a nerve? 
when will the features mentioned by OP
be incorporated into Qmac 2017? 2018?

jacobs

davekr said:

I guess my comment touched a nerve? 
when will the features mentioned by OP
be incorporated into Qmac 2017? 2018?

@davekr: First, this is mostly a user-to-user forum, and none of us here have any advance knowledge about future Quicken features. And the Quicken moderators here also don't typically discuss possible future features.

It's also unlikely that new features like this will be added to Quicken 2017 at this point. That product will continue to get bug and security fixes for the next two years, but typically not significant feature enhancements.

And that all said, the product manager has hinted that more investment performance features will be added at some point for Quicken 2018 Premier users. We just don't know what or when.

davekr

davekr said:

I guess my comment touched a nerve? 
when will the features mentioned by OP
be incorporated into Qmac 2017? 2018?

jacobs, I am painfully aware of all you have reported.  perhaps it's just me, but by normalizing these missing investment performance features of previous quicken builds and asking for users to vote to get them back? well, let me turn it around, how do you view that?

jacobs

davekr said:

I guess my comment touched a nerve? 
when will the features mentioned by OP
be incorporated into Qmac 2017? 2018?

You asked a question (when will these features be added to Quicken Mac 2017 and 2018), and I answered. Then you say you already knew the answers, so I'm confused why you asked.

So you are already likely aware that Quicken Mac today is a work-in-progress, a long-term re-write of the legacy Quicken Mac product which reached a dead end with Quicken 2007 more than a decade ago. Years were squandered and lost, and then a very small development team slowly started building out features in the new generation product. Only in the past year has the development team been beefed up, but they have a wishlist of many hundreds of features, large and small, users have asked them to deliver. And it takes time to build features; they can't do them all at once, or even in a short period of time. The voting on features here is one of a number of factors the developers use to determine the priority of which things to tackle.

Of course users want investment performance features. I certainly do. But I'd rank enhancing reports and adding more reports as a higher priority. And probably a number of other issues. You might think the investment reports should be the top priority. That's where the voting for features helps give us at least a little say in influencing which things get done sooner.

davekr

having been a quicken user from ~1995, I'm aware of features included in the previous builds. I am also aware fo the question the OP asked, when will these previously included features return. I am aware of the voting process to influence what & when. I am also aware of other software that offers identical products on either side of the win/mac os line, with common exchangeable file systems, feature identical. ! asked how you viewed the voting requests for previously included features, because I know of no other software that cripples one side v the other.

smayer97

davekr said:

having been a quicken user from ~1995, I'm aware of features included in the previous builds. I am also aware fo the question the OP asked, when will these previously included features return. I am aware of the voting process to influence what & when. I am also aware of other software that offers identical products on either side of the win/mac os line, with common exchangeable file systems, feature identical. ! asked how you viewed the voting requests for previously included features, because I know of no other software that cripples one side v the other.

But with that, it seems you do not at least acknowledge the disparate histories of the 2 platforms (Mac vs Win) vs the competition (which started MUCH later and could benefit from a different approach from the start). Having been around the longest, Quicken has more baggage to work through, as it were, and with Intuit not dedicating the needed resources, the products floundered...now they are playing catch-up...I too wish it were different and faster but it is a long road...so we either stick around for the ride and do what can be constructive to directing that or we have the choice to look elsewhere...

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)

mshiggins

davekr said:

having been a quicken user from ~1995, I'm aware of features included in the previous builds. I am also aware fo the question the OP asked, when will these previously included features return. I am aware of the voting process to influence what & when. I am also aware of other software that offers identical products on either side of the win/mac os line, with common exchangeable file systems, feature identical. ! asked how you viewed the voting requests for previously included features, because I know of no other software that cripples one side v the other.

Feature identical? Humm.

davekr

I do recognize where qmac is, I don't know how it was ever looked upon as an acceptable strategy? how did quicken's ceo look upon different platforms for win/mac?  didn't the quicken ceo sit on AAPL's board for over 10 years. the original poster asked "when" not if. I too am in the "when" camp, not the if they get around to it and feel like it camp. but given that I've had posts removed on this thread, seems I have touched a nerve? I too want a FULLY FUNCTIONAL qmac but share his frustration!

jacobs

davekr said:

I do recognize where qmac is, I don't know how it was ever looked upon as an acceptable strategy? how did quicken's ceo look upon different platforms for win/mac?  didn't the quicken ceo sit on AAPL's board for over 10 years. the original poster asked "when" not if. I too am in the "when" camp, not the if they get around to it and feel like it camp. but given that I've had posts removed on this thread, seems I have touched a nerve? I too want a FULLY FUNCTIONAL qmac but share his frustration!

@davekr, you say you understand the past, but your comments indicate otherwise.

"Didn't the quicken ceo sit on AAPL's board for over 10 years." Sort of; it was the CEO and then Board Chairman of Intuit, which owned Quicken. And back at the time he joined Apple's Board in the 1990s, Quicken for Mac was undoubtedly the top selling and best personal finance program on the Mac.

But that is long, long ago history. At that time in the 1990s, Apple nearly went under, and Intuit, like many other software developers, had pulled back the resources they were devoting to Mac development, but the Mac program was mature and didn't need major development. By the middle of the 2000s, Intuit realized that the core of database and other code in Quicken for Mac could not continue to be developed under the Mac shift to a Unix core, a new graphics engine, and entirely new development tools and frameworks. They decided they needed to start over, building a new quicken for Mac. It was almost certainly the right decision back in 2006. But what happened in the ensuing years was a disaster. The first planned re-write for the Mac bombed in beta testing and never made it to market in 2008 as planned. Then Intuit bought Mint and put the Mint CEO in charge of Quicken, which radically changed development plans. The developers worked on a "Mint-ized" version of Quicken for Mac -- what came to market as Quicken Essentials in 2010 -- but before they could fully develop it, the ex-Mint CEO left, the management team completely changed, and the Mac development team was largely disbanded. Not much happened for several years, until *another* management shakeup and a commitment to finish development of a new Mac product. But the commitment came with only funding for a handful if programmers, so it took more than two years to build on the Essentials code to bring out the bare-bones Quicken 2015. Security changes in the financial services industry then forced them to spend a lot of time changing the networking code and behind-the-scenes servers, so progress on user-facing features was slow. And Intuit had lost interest in and focus on Quicken, which resulted in the decision two years ago to sell it off. 

"I know of no other software that cripples one side v the other." But they *didn't* intentionally "cripple" the Mac version. They started from scratch to build a new, modern Mac product, and five years later, it's still an incomplete work in progress. Nothing was crippled or taken away; every desired feature in the legacy Quicken 2007 for Mac had to be created again, from scratch, with a new database and new programming tools. Each new release every month or two brings that task closer to completion. All of us would like to snap our fingers and have them finish all the features we all want, but of course it doesn't work that way. And different Mac users value different features, so your top priority might not matter much to me and visa versa.

"The original poster asked 'when' not if. I too am in the 'when' camp, not the if they get around to it and feel like it camp." And I've explained that the delay in getting all the old features into the new product are not because they don't care but because, while they are working as fast as they can to get there, they have requests for literally hundreds of features and enhancements users are asking for. It's a long road. I also said that the financial analysis tools are definitely in the "when" and not "if" category. Product manager Marcus has stated on this forum: "Our goal is to get to parity with Quicken Windows investments this year.  We added explicit lot assignment and ROI, IRR to Mac in 2018 and will most likely continue to work through the feature list this year." That's definitely "when," not "if." And it provides a ballpark idea of "when" to boot.

@Daniel Pletcher: Hopefully the information above helps offer at least some background and context as to why these features aren't present yet in Quicken 2018 for Mac. Meanwhile, if you purchased Quicken 2018 recently and don't want to wait-and-see when these features get added, Quicken provides a full refund within 30 days of purchase.

davekr

I fully understand that after quicken decided to create a new program architecture for mac v say ms office's path to create a mac program equal to and interchangeable to it's win version, arguably ms taking a much bigger risk, given ms basically financing the mac life line, yet they chose to not cripple one side v the other.

so here we are 20+ years later asking and excusing why there is such a vast difference in capability and no interchangeability? sorry, I agree with the OP, when is a better question than if, and a timeline shouldn't be the result of a vote, not to mention "don't hold your breathe for an interchangeable quicken file" between win/mac.

I'm going to unfollow this thread, as majority of posts here are explaining why qmac isn't equal to qwin, instead of asking why the qmac version was orphaned and developed separately yet marketed as the same?

admitting the error is the first step to making a correction, h3ll I still don't understand why my daily portfolio value change is skewed continuously when the qwin version without mistake reports accurately?

I don't get it?

smayer97

davekr said:

I fully understand that after quicken decided to create a new program architecture for mac v say ms office's path to create a mac program equal to and interchangeable to it's win version, arguably ms taking a much bigger risk, given ms basically financing the mac life line, yet they chose to not cripple one side v the other.

so here we are 20+ years later asking and excusing why there is such a vast difference in capability and no interchangeability? sorry, I agree with the OP, when is a better question than if, and a timeline shouldn't be the result of a vote, not to mention "don't hold your breathe for an interchangeable quicken file" between win/mac.

I'm going to unfollow this thread, as majority of posts here are explaining why qmac isn't equal to qwin, instead of asking why the qmac version was orphaned and developed separately yet marketed as the same?

admitting the error is the first step to making a correction, h3ll I still don't understand why my daily portfolio value change is skewed continuously when the qwin version without mistake reports accurately?

I don't get it?

maybe reading some historical and technical background might help, see the following compilation:  
https://getsatisfaction.com/quickencommunity/topics/quicken-mac-faq-why-is-the-current-version-of-qu...

(If you find this reply helpful, please be sure to click "Like", so others will know, thanks.)

jacobs

davekr said:

I fully understand that after quicken decided to create a new program architecture for mac v say ms office's path to create a mac program equal to and interchangeable to it's win version, arguably ms taking a much bigger risk, given ms basically financing the mac life line, yet they chose to not cripple one side v the other.

so here we are 20+ years later asking and excusing why there is such a vast difference in capability and no interchangeability? sorry, I agree with the OP, when is a better question than if, and a timeline shouldn't be the result of a vote, not to mention "don't hold your breathe for an interchangeable quicken file" between win/mac.

I'm going to unfollow this thread, as majority of posts here are explaining why qmac isn't equal to qwin, instead of asking why the qmac version was orphaned and developed separately yet marketed as the same?

admitting the error is the first step to making a correction, h3ll I still don't understand why my daily portfolio value change is skewed continuously when the qwin version without mistake reports accurately?

I don't get it?

@davekr: You write "I don't get it," and I've been trying to answer your questions and the issues you've raised. 

"So here we are 20+ years later asking and excusing why there is such a vast difference in capability..." First, no one is *excusing* either the current state of Quicken Mac, nor the path that led us here. Multiple different management teams at Intuit botched things. As for *why*, well, if you read my response above, I've explained why things are the way they are.

Then you mention interchangeability with Windows -- or lack thereof. I'd just note that the OP didn't ask about this, nor did you in your previous posts in this thread. But now that you've brought it up here, I'll address why Quicken Mac and Windows don't share a common file format like, say, Microsoft Word. The short answer to that is that, unlike Word or Excel, Quicken is a database program, and the databases on each platform are very different and tuned to their respective operating systems. The Windows product relies on the Microsoft .net framework, and the Mac product relies on Core Data and a number of macOS-specific technologies.

Making a program that could run on both platforms using the same file certainly *is* possible (for example, look at a database product like FileMaker Pro). However, the key is that this would have required re-writing both the Mac and the Windows product around a cross-platform database. This would mean giving up most of the built-in tools each platform offers and requiring much more coding to build all those tools from scratch. (Simple examples of this are the list view Quicken Mac uses in its registers, or the collapse/expand triangles used in the sidebar and elsewhere -- both built on features the macOS provides, so the Quicken developers don't have to code every aspect of the functionality and drawing on the screen.)

Seeing how long it's taken to get the Mac product as far as it is -- and how far it still is from the "finish line" -- I think it's hard to wish that they had attempted to re-write Quicken Windows and Mac at the same time to achieve interoperability. It would have been a bigger mess and a longer development path.

I would guess that a relatively small percentage of Quicken users want to be able to use the program on both platforms (e.g. on a Mac and a PC in the same household, or at home and work). But they really should fix the conversion process so users could migrate from Mac to Windows (which is pretty much impossible currently) or Windows to Mac (which generally works, but trips up on some data which isn't yet supported in the Mac version). I'd hope this is on their development roadmap once they get the Mac capabilities on par with the Windows program.

That said, I agree with your point that marketing the programs like they are equal all these years has been, well, awful. I understand that the marketing people need to keep selling the program to bring in the revenue that's funding all this work, but deceiving customers about the capability of the product isn't the right way to get there. I think the Mac product manager, Marcus, has been much more candid and open in his posts here over the years about what the program's capabilities are, and aren't, than the marketing team.

As for "when versus if" on the original question of investment analysis tools, I cited above the clearest answer we've ever been given, which Marcus posted a few months ago: "Our goal is to get to parity with Quicken Windows investments this year.  We added explicit lot assignment and ROI, IRR to Mac in 2018 and will most likely continue to work through the feature list this year." Short of giving an exact month, that's a clear and unambiguous answer to "when?".

Then at the end you brought up an issue with the daily portfolio value. I'm not sure what exact problem you're seeing, but if you'd like help on that, I suggest you start a new thread and give details about what the problem is; you're not going to get help on that buried in this long thread don a different topic.

davekr

explaining how the patient got so sick is different


from asking for votes to return to full health!



yes, databases are different from spreadsheets,


however the goals were allowed to be modified when


qmac followed? resulting in the failed marketing...


and subsequent death bed assignment by intuit.



cross platform portability has always been described


as “no problem” yet anyone who has attempted has


seen behind the band aid approach of solutions offered.


I have changed platforms win/mac many times since 1995.


currently I use win for work, mac for personal and I know


of many on both sides, whom migrate due to employment,


and they take their files back and forth to use programs


native to the OS, and we both know how painful that


might be, attempting that with quicken.



I personally maintained a win platform on mac os for


YEARS due to the crippled nature of qmac. new ownership


gave me hope, however excuses enable the past. I also


maintain a parallel financial file on a competitor as I


don’t trust quicken is dedicated to fixing qmac.



as for giving advise to “start a dedicated thread” for results?


not my 1st rodeo, and didn’t get resolution as have most requests


from past years regarding failures? I think I asked to this issue


over a year ago?



https://getsatisfaction.com/quickenco...



I do follow that thread, no joy for over 2 months?


I usually end up giving up as with this subject.



a former ceo jointed a corp I was familiar with, this corp was failing


as a result of multiplemergers, and cultures all chaffing, pulling in


different directions, never changing the motief to the new image.


upon his arrival, he heard the excuses, many similar to why


quicken is at this point. the product of this corp didn’t improve


until the new ceo set definable goals and publicly held the team


responsible. this discussion reminds me of how valuable and


necessary his actions (radically viewed at the time) were.



yet here we are....

jacobs

davekr said:

explaining how the patient got so sick is different


from asking for votes to return to full health!



yes, databases are different from spreadsheets,


however the goals were allowed to be modified when


qmac followed? resulting in the failed marketing...


and subsequent death bed assignment by intuit.



cross platform portability has always been described


as “no problem” yet anyone who has attempted has


seen behind the band aid approach of solutions offered.


I have changed platforms win/mac many times since 1995.


currently I use win for work, mac for personal and I know


of many on both sides, whom migrate due to employment,


and they take their files back and forth to use programs


native to the OS, and we both know how painful that


might be, attempting that with quicken.



I personally maintained a win platform on mac os for


YEARS due to the crippled nature of qmac. new ownership


gave me hope, however excuses enable the past. I also


maintain a parallel financial file on a competitor as I


don’t trust quicken is dedicated to fixing qmac.



as for giving advise to “start a dedicated thread” for results?


not my 1st rodeo, and didn’t get resolution as have most requests


from past years regarding failures? I think I asked to this issue


over a year ago?



https://getsatisfaction.com/quickenco...



I do follow that thread, no joy for over 2 months?


I usually end up giving up as with this subject.



a former ceo jointed a corp I was familiar with, this corp was failing


as a result of multiplemergers, and cultures all chaffing, pulling in


different directions, never changing the motief to the new image.


upon his arrival, he heard the excuses, many similar to why


quicken is at this point. the product of this corp didn’t improve


until the new ceo set definable goals and publicly held the team


responsible. this discussion reminds me of how valuable and


necessary his actions (radically viewed at the time) were.



yet here we are....

You seem to think a quick fix is available, and that Quicken is choosing not to do it. I think that's incorrect thinking.

To you, anything short of major forward progress is written off  as "an excuse." No one's making excuses -- not Quicken, and not me in trying to explain how we got here. But there's no point repeatedly berating today what three management teams ago did under different ownership 10 years ago! We understand why things are not where most people want them to be, we advocate for the things we believe are the most important missing pieces -- that's what voting here helps users do -- and we wait to see progress. For those whose patience is exhausted, they move on to some other product they think will work better for them. 

There is a new CEO and new ownership of Quicken. That doesn't mean they can snap their fingers and make instant changes. They can change policies, define product roadmaps, set internal deadlines, re-allocate budgets -- and my guess is they've done all of that, but it isn't visible to us as users until we see changes in the products. (The move to subscription packages is one of the first visible changes, with a clear goal that has its real payoff  year or two down the road.) Behind the scenes, we've been told the size of the Mac development staff was doubled last year. So unlike you, I do "trust" that they are dedicated to improving the Mac product. But I can't render a final judgment whether they're on a successful new trajectory until more time has passed and more emerges. There have certainly been some pretty significant improvements to Quicken Mac between the first 2015 release and 2018 today. And there's still a long way to go. With the major move off Intuit's servers completed late last year, and a larger staff, my expectation is that they'll chip away at the features users have asked for more quickly going forward -- but the proof will be in what they do (or don't) release over the course of the year.

Finally, regarding your problem with the day gain/loss display, that thread is 10 months old, so no one is following it or contributing to it, and the crashing problem you described may or may not have been fixed in the numerous releases since then. That's why I suggested starting a new thread on the topic. If you're not interested in doing so, that's your prerogative, but complaining about it here isn't likely to be of any help. If you want to vent to Quicken developers, you're probably better using the Report a Problem feature on the Help menu; if you want to vent to quicken management, you're probably better sending a message directly via the link at the top of this page. 

davekr

20+ years by definition is not quick.



I’m suggesting that voting for equality of product function is a failed strategy.


it may be all that’s offer by the manufacturer, but it hasn’t achieved equality.



as for the other thread being 10 months old, well if I look around, I see that’s


what happens, issues get raised, reasons why the product doesn’t perform


are offered, the problem behavior continues and the user shrugs his shoulders,


and the thread goes cold?



oh, yes... I did “send a message”to the team,


same time I started the thread, never got a reply?



at least the OP, myself and you agree “there’s a long way to go” to equality.


until then the mac os version is short of the product for win os,


and as the OP indicated he’s feeling shorted in the exchange.