nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Basic Rip-off

jm22

Just found out the Basic subscription does not allow connection for Fidelity downloads. Can to upgrade to Deluxe that includes other features I will not use. This should be added got the Basic package with a price point t below Deluxe. [Removed - Solicitation]

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rocket J Squirrel

Your profile says Mac but you posted this under Windows. Which is it?

Quicken Starter is documented up front that it doesn't do investments.

https://www.quicken.com/product-selector

You have a 30 day return window if you don't want to keep Starter. Otherwise, upgrade to Deluxe.

Ps56k2

The STARTER version does not include support for --> Investments - if that is what you really meant to say...

https://www.quicken.com/product-selector

NotACPA

First off, there's no such product as "Basic". The lowest level product is "Starter Edition" ... and it definitely allows downloading.

SO, why do you believe that this fictional "Basic" product doesn't allow downloads?

AND, Please do HELP, About Quicken and tell use WHAT Q product you're actually running ... and the BUILD of that product. What Financial Institutions are your unsuccessfully trying to download from?

Chris_QPW

It always amazes me that people believe that something costs less when you are allowed to customize it.

”I’m not using this or that feature, so I shouldn’t be charged for it.”

Clearly they have never had to put any kind of product together. Customizing costs money.
It is far cheaper for Quicken Inc to have just a few configurations than it would be if they allowed everyone to pick and choose only the features they want.

TTSguy

@Chris_QPW Well, I kinda understand your thinking but kinda don't Many, good companies don't load their products up with everything and tell you if you want any features, then you must pay for them all. Companies that come to mind include the auto industry, Apple products, Airlines buying-a ticket (Business class) most any product you buy will allow you to downgrade (WITHOUT) eliminating any of the basics. You still get the tires and engine if you buy the cheapest car, also iphone allows you a phone with all the original basic functions on the SE model of which I have - the basics is what I want, got and paid for. With Quicken, not so much.

All I need is the original deluxe to work like it used to, but it doesn't. I use web Connect have my reports including tags and that's all I need, yet I pay for deluxe model, with features I never use, yet pay for. I don't use the whistles and bells, but pay for them and the expensive (very expensive) resources that they require. If fact I pay the same a lot of users do that tax the hell out of the resources to support them.

When I have a simple idea that would help me with Quicken for and how I use it, my ideas are always downplayed, because quicken needs more whistles and bells, and all the expensive resources to develop, maintain, and support them, however it should not be at the expense of the ones that don't need or require that. I pay what others pay yet never tax those resources in the process in fact, I feel like it's users like me that finance a good part of the new ideas.

Since all those came about, the basic functions have deteriorated some of the basics especially since the introduction of web and mobile and the debacle with Sync. My web express connect worked without a sneeze back in the 2017 days. Splits worked everywhere always, you could rename your data file easily, and renaming rule instructions were easier to understand and use If users want new whistles and bells and technology, give it to them but don't make the "simple" user have to foot the bill for their use!

Quicken doesn't work as well as it used to back in the pre 2017. Now there's missed transactions, repeat transactions, even never had to use a bank statement to try to find them. Splits worked great, even renaming rules were better, easy to set up were easy to understand. So those of us that use Deluxe as a checkbook register, are footing more of the bill for all this new technology. I just believe Quicken business model is lacking. I believe in the following, Starter Edition- $25, Basic Edition-$30, Deluxe Edition-$45, Supreme Deluxe Invest. Edition-$60. If we could see who is actually using what, I kinda suspect what I propose above might be more in line with the resources, technology, and support required to pay for Quicken! I feel those using less resources should pay less, those who require more resources pay more.

When another company introduces another financial program, the first ones to leave will be the basic users, leaving the high end users to foot the high cost of the expenses required to support it's necessary resources. People like myself should not be paying for the expensive resource laden program as it currently is. I know you'll disagree, but it's common sense to me. the only smat user in Quicken Is Volvogirl. Now she's got it figured out!

Chris_QPW

@TTSguy but basically everything you said doesn't make any sense.

Quicken is one program. Starter, Deluxe, ... are "conditional code". If "starter" do this, if "deluxe" do that kind of thing. The complexity of the code goes up every time a program has to make a choice. The less choices the less cost. And the products that you state that are "flexible" are in fact highly "controlled". You choose between a slower CPU or a faster one, and some other very basic controlled options, you don't get to tell the manufacture what ports it should put on the motherboard. I looked a buying a Mustang E, and all of the configurations are "package A or B". I certainly didn't see anywhere that a could tell them exactly what features I wanted and "not pay for the rest".
Supporting different editions doesn't come at no cost. People have to be trained or pick things up by experience of what the differences are between the different editions. It is hard enough for the people to keep that straight for a few editions. And you want to basically an unlimited number of combinations. That would be a nightmare to support. And think of this. Quicken Inc decided to combine the Rental property features into the Home and Business edition for no extra cost. They decided to do that because the cost of maintaining another edition was more than the increase in the price for it vs how many people wanted it.
Then you launch into stating how your needs are this and that, which don't even line up with the person starting the thread wants, and you don't see anything wrong with the fact that your needs might not be what everyone else wants. You equate "simple needs" with "simple to make" and that just isn't true.
And you finish that up with "When another company introduces another financial program, the first ones to leave will be the basic users". I'm sure Quicken Inc is quaking in their boots. People have been saying that for 30 years, what's more you claim to only need basic functionality. Well, there are several programs out there that have that. Why haven't you switched? Once you answer that you will probably have the answer to why Quicken Inc doesn't have to worry about it.

Ps56k2

yeah - it's amazing that certain folks continue to complain here about this and that - threaten to leave - and never do...

Quicken is a mess, a house of cards or software Jenga - and it is getting worse with each release.
As I've said - I believe it is the overall culture... being allowed to chase new shiny features that somewhere create a new bug in the years worth of spaghetti code. I have never seen or used another piece of software that continually corrupts its own data files. And the only canned response from Support is "restore from a backup" - Has that ever happened with MS Word, etc...
Like others, I have stayed very far away from the Cloud Sync features... which appear to cause their own errors.

BUT - I still carefully use Quicken to manage ALL my financial record keeping - it is GREAT - and well worth the $5/month

Chris_QPW

@Ps56k2 the lack of quality, and that people have to learn "what not to use in Quicken", is a whole another subject! And one that I doubt there is anyone that is going argue about, we all know it is bad.

BTW based on the original request, I should be getting huge discounts on Excel, Word, and Outlook. They have tons of features I don't use, but I still pay the same price as the people that doe use those features!

Right?

TTSguy

@Chris_QPW I haven't changed because it might have a hint of simple bait and switch. You get hooked, then it's changed with some functions that might not be reliable anymore. The price is raised and there might be a somewhat of a "like it or lump it" attitude". We must keep in mind that businesses are not in business to please people, but rather to give only what is absolutely necessary in their product at the least possible cost.

A lot of your previous posts raved about the technology used to improve the product, Really? Downloading transactions was simple and worked well. Quicken gave the users what they wanted in web and mobile, thus creating sync, which created a lot of problems, to the point that even superusers suggest not using sync., thus making web and mobile a moot point. Then there was Schwab issues. The community was overrun with users having problems, and or Quicken having new, never had before problems. Thousand and thousand of of posts about them! I'd be curious how many users stopped using web because sync was messing lots of other things up by rendered other functions inoperative or unreliable.

I'd be curious how many users stopped using web because sync was messing up lots of other things up by rendered other functions inoperative or unreliable. The irony is that unless you're a quicken user, it's difficult to get on the community to read about the questions users have about the product so you can make a definitive decision if it will work for you.

You mentioned buying a Mach E. Technology made it possible and created an electric car. Problem is their high tech electric car and its engineers got the electric part right, but structural engineers made a car that had the glass top fly off along with the windshields as it cruised down the highway. Everyone expects the top to stay on no matter what drives the car. The top is a simple basic part of the car that you expect to work. The joke now is that it can spontaneously become a convertible on the road. They've been recalled to reseal the top glass and windshields. So you have a high tech device, but the basics in just staying together fail. It doesn't matter what model you buy or options you get, you expect the top to stay on, a basic feature and expectation. That car produces so much torque that the chassis and frame flexes breaking the bond on the glass and it will come off. The chassis needs more structural integrity to prevent it, but Ford will never recall them for that, but rather create work around that they hope will work. And if they can make that work for a few years, then the car will be out of warrantee. Testla has had this same problem for years, and haven't fixed it yet. There are a few short coming on EV's and that's is why I won't buy one yet. We bought a 2021 Acura RDX with everything on it. There's 700 pages of technology in the owner manual. It's got a glass roof with no recalls of them flying off on the highway! That is what I expect ... the basics to work! I doubt you'd buy a Mach e for the EV aspect if Ford can't fix the problems of the glass roofs flying. Tat's what I call a given basic part of the car that I'd expect to just exist without issues.

I rode in my brother in-in-laws Mach e last week. Impressive 0-70 in just over 3 seconds, and you can feel the blood rush to the back of your head on full acceleration. None the less I expect the glass top to stay intact. He told me he had to take it in for have roof and windshield removed and resealed. Poor engineering that increases the cost of the product because of reworks to the original product that weren't engineered correctly or tested for issues, especially after Tesla has been plagued with same problems. Are you picking up any of what I'm trying to say here in an analogy?

If the basics worked when the product emerged, shouldn't they continue to work as well after a company improve the product? Spin it any way you want, but after Sync with web and mobile. after Schwab, resources were stretched to a point where it will increase the cost of the product. Business keeps putting their money for the product in the bank until the money slows coming in then and only then will their business model change. Back to the saying , money talks, not reviews or communities!

I lost over 4 years of transactions because Quicken was unaware of the Sync crisis. Because support denied it was their issue and that it was mine, I kept trying to restore backups per their instructions until all my backups were corrupted, and my data sets were all used up and I had no more backups. How many tops would you replace on a Mach e until you had had enough because they told you that their design forgot to include a interior pressure vent that would not allow equalized air pressures inside when the heat or air conditioning was on, or tell you to open a window to equalize pressures, when in fact it was a breakdown of their adhesives that is causing the problem? Interesting .. you bet and I would encourage you to be vigilant about owning a Mach e until they figure out what's wrong with them causing the problems!

Chris_QPW

TTSguy said:

A lot of your previous posts raved about the technology used to improve the product, Really?

I would love to see those posts. Because I certainly don't remember raving about any of the new technology to improve Quicken.

At best I have stated I understand why they have done what they have done. That is far from raving about them.

And like I said in my last post, which I'm sure you didn't see before your post, the quality of Quicken has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The subject of this thread is the idea that one should be able to pick and choose what features they want, and the prices should be discounted based on that. This purely about the misconception that dropping feature equates to less cost for Quicken Inc. And the opposite is true. The more they make Quicken customized, the more it will cost them. And it won't only cost in money and time of development and support, which I mentioned before, it will also result in a more complicated program, which equate more likely having more bugs.

Chris_QPW

@TTSguy maybe you are talking about the fact that I think the new interface between Intuit servers and Schwab has some good technology in it.

That interface is using OAuth2 which means that it is using a rotating token instead of the username and password for "logging in". And that is a good thing. It would be nice if the financial institutions supporting Direct Connect would use it too (it is in the standard to allow it).

But that is just one good piece in a terrible system. Because the financial institutions didn't adopt a good standard like OFX we are left with "aggregation". There isn't anything good to be said about this system, it is used because there isn't any other choice.

And then you layer on top of that where you have Quicken -> Quicken server/syncing -> Intuit -> Financial institution. And there are all these "points of failure", which makes for a complicated terrible system. So, yes, I can say this small part of this terrible system got a bit better, but you will never know that from using it. It does mean though that there is less chance of hackers getting access to your accounts then before if you are using Express Web Connect.

Note I don't use Express Web Connect (or +), way too much trouble in my book.

Other than that, I can't think of any "technology" that Quicken is using that is anywhere near "new" or "improved", especially in the way they are using it. For instance, the new home tab dashboard I assume is a newer API. And in some ways, I guess it looks somewhat nicer, but to me it is an unfinished feature that lacks even the basics of the "classic dashboard", and it doesn't fix some of the fundamental problems the old one has like the lack of ability to size them as needed.

It is sort of like Windows 11's new GUI. It looks pretty, but at the cost of a lot of functionality that was in Windows 10. To me that isn't a good tradeoff. But Windows 11 has a leg up on Quicken. Windows 11's "guts" have been improved. Quicken's hasn't, all that has happened is more junk layered on top of the old fragile system. But make no mistake, I believe most of the reason for adding that junk is a direct result of requests from the users (They had to have a "billing system" for instance). And the other is that the financial institutions like Schwab are saying "we are changing, either change with us or else your users will have no possible way to get their transactions, or whatever feature".

Past that yes, I do believe that their marketing comes up with "let's put this in and see if it will sell more" features. But that doesn't seem to be the major driving force that I see.

TTSguy

Thank You, I respect and appreciate your comments. I'm spoiled after being with IBM for 30 years. I saw them step over a dime to pick up a nickel, and the customer was always first and most important.

Chris_QPW

TTSguy said:

Thank You, I respect and appreciate your comments. I'm spoiled after being with IBM for 30 years. I saw them step over a dime to pick up a nickel, and the customer was always first and most important.

It seems to me that others were working for much better companies than I worked for.