Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal? • Hacker News Board

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#31

Post by RK » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 11:31 AM UTC

sachinag wrote: post #26

ComputerGuru wrote: post #21

The reason Mint is doing so well is quite simple: it's so damn easy to use. I just signed up now, and I was expecting to have to go through a number of loops to get it to grab the data from my multiple bank accounts, but it was a breeze. Just another step in the sign-on procedure - truly great work on minimizing the number of people that default from linking their bank accounts. And the UI is goal-oriented with a dee…

Everyone, pay attention here. Mint doesn't have any technology. They're just an unbelievably well-designed front end for Yodlee. "[T]he UI is goal-oriented with a deep understanding of common tasks people want". Is your site doing the same?

Is that why they can make dubious security/privacy claims like:

Mint uses only your account login credentials for access to your account information and Mint does not store these credentials.

Clearly that information needs to be stored somewhere, but Mint can make it sound to the users that it is magically not stored (because it's technically not stored by Mint).

I haven't actually used the service. I have a general aversion to services that ask me for my password to a 3rd party account. The import-your-contacts types are bad enough, but bank account access is just too much for me to potentially give up.

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#32

Post by josefresco » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 12:47 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #5

I don't know if it's normal, but it's certainly an unbelievably fucking dumb marketing move; your dad knows Quicken, but might not have known about Mint --- until Quicken made sure he did.

I'm a geek, a business owner, a dad and a Quickbooks user. I've known about Mint for a long time but never seriously considered using them ... until now.

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#33

Post by jimbokun » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 1:13 PM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #28

One of the best days I've had since starting my current company has been receiving an email from a C-level at our largest competitor, pointing out a flaw in the product comparison table on our website (due to the fact that they had released a new version that added one of the features we had that they didn't). I imagine the guys at Mint must have been downright giddy receiving this letter. On another note...Whenever…

"market leaders get eaten from the bottom"

Textbook Innovator's Dilemma.

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#34

Post by jimbokun » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 1:20 PM UTC

sachinag wrote: post #26

ComputerGuru wrote: post #21

The reason Mint is doing so well is quite simple: it's so damn easy to use. I just signed up now, and I was expecting to have to go through a number of loops to get it to grab the data from my multiple bank accounts, but it was a breeze. Just another step in the sign-on procedure - truly great work on minimizing the number of people that default from linking their bank accounts. And the UI is goal-oriented with a dee…

Everyone, pay attention here. Mint doesn't have any technology. They're just an unbelievably well-designed front end for Yodlee. "[T]he UI is goal-oriented with a deep understanding of common tasks people want". Is your site doing the same?

Maybe not a bad division, from a business model perspective. Some companies are better at developing the "tech", that then can be licensed to multiple user facing companies whose expertise is customer relationships and UI.

But the risk for the back end company is that the user facing company owns the customer relationship. It is probably easier for them to replace the tech than for the tech company to replace the customer relationships.

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#35

Post by krschultz » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 2:23 PM UTC

adsyoung wrote: post #29

So annoying we don't have mint in Australia I hate doing the finances manually. Is anyone here able to describe how their interface to your bank account works in more detail? I haven't heard a great explanation of it. Part of me is still amazed that many people have happily typed in their banking passwords.

There really isn't an interface. Mint uses your login to get the state of your accounts but does not allow you to transfer money or anything else, it is read only. Then it tried to catagorize all the transactions you have based off their database of companies. You can track your spending over time in different categories. It sounds like nothing but unifying all your accounts in one place is very useful.

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#36

Post by krschultz » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 2:27 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #17

dkokelley wrote: post #14

I love mint. I actually caught fraud on my credit card while checking my balances on my iPhone through mint's app while at work. I was thinking of writing them a thank you letter. I would have been tempted to reply something like this: "At Mint, we have an algorithm to calculate the number of users we have. This function is defined as follows: mint users = (average logins during the past 7 business days / (registrati…

I actually caught fraud on my credit card while checking my balances on my iPhone through mint's app while at work. Don't you read the charges on your statement before you pay it?

I do that but Mint is immediate

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#37

Post by jauco » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 3:15 PM UTC

jupiter wrote: post #22

What about those boxes of Quicken rotting in the shelves of resellers/customers - doesn't Intuit count them as sold copies even if the software was never used?

They'll count them as sold copies as soon as the money is in.

Buyer != user

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#38

Post by angstrom » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 3:56 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #5

I don't know if it's normal, but it's certainly an unbelievably fucking dumb marketing move; your dad knows Quicken, but might not have known about Mint --- until Quicken made sure he did.

What should really scare Quicken is that I could actually see paying $5-$10/mo to use Mint. With 17 accounts and over a year's worth of data I've found it more convenient to use than any Quicken solution. I could never get all my accounts to sync in any of Quicken's products.

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#39

Post by pwk » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 4:15 PM UTC

SwellJoe wrote: post #28

One of the best days I've had since starting my current company has been receiving an email from a C-level at our largest competitor, pointing out a flaw in the product comparison table on our website (due to the fact that they had released a new version that added one of the features we had that they didn't). I imagine the guys at Mint must have been downright giddy receiving this letter. On another note...Whenever…

One of the sadder examples for me is Polaroid, they were doing some strong work in digital imaging but supposedly it didn't receive internal support because "it would undermine our film business". It's one thing to turn a blind eye to upstart innovation, it's another to intentionally stifle it within a company.

Any examples of companies that have done this right? Succeeded at replacing their own obsolete technology with upstart technology?

Re: Intuit tries to call Mint's bluff? Is this normal?

#40

Post by mronge » Fri, Feb 20, 2009, 4:36 PM UTC

pwk wrote: post #39

SwellJoe wrote: post #28

One of the best days I've had since starting my current company has been receiving an email from a C-level at our largest competitor, pointing out a flaw in the product comparison table on our website (due to the fact that they had released a new version that added one of the features we had that they didn't). I imagine the guys at Mint must have been downright giddy receiving this letter. On another note...Whenever…

One of the sadder examples for me is Polaroid, they were doing some strong work in digital imaging but supposedly it didn't receive internal support because "it would undermine our film business". It's one thing to turn a blind eye to upstart innovation, it's another to intentionally stifle it within a company. Any examples of companies that have done this right? Succeeded at replacing their own obsolete technology w…

Apple is really good at this. They are always willing to obsolete their products if there is something else better. A great example is the iPhone. They didn't care that it would cannibalize iPod sales, because they knew the iPhone was the next move. If they didn't do it, someone eventually would shrewdly combine music + phone and beat them to the punch. By trying to constantly out do themselves, and make a better "iPod", they stay ahead of the curve, and make sure the sales always come back to Apple.

Steve Jobs is a big advocate of this. In hindsight it seems so obvious, but most companies just don't get it.