Slashdot Mirror
Intuit Drops DRM from Future Products
MisterKoffee writes "ExtremeTech has a story about Intuit dropping Product Activation and Digital Rights Management for most of its future products, including TurboTax, in response to a customer backlash."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
If your customers threaten you enough, you'll eventually lose bad schemes like DRM.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Their DRM was so potentially dangerous it was silly. Good to see that they are pulling back from their stance. I don't see microsoft taking the hint, though.
...you print FOUR times total!
I usually need at least that many times because of spotting errors and fixing them up!
Good job Intuit! If this garbage is gone then I WILL purchase your product again.
TurboTax 2003: The Quickening, starring Sean Connery as the dead-but-not-really DRM engineer who must again protect Connor from having his head (Tax-)Cut off./
It's all well and good hoping that other companies will follow their lead, but unfortunately some companies can afford to hold out on DRM until their customers are forced to accept it; though Intuit may have gone out of business from the customer backlash if they had kept this up, the same may not be true for other companies.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Thank goodness enough people got pissed about this. Intuit justified the DRM scheme by exaggerating their software losses. They said they sold x copies of TurboTax, yet 2x tax returns were filed using their software, implying that piracy cut their sales in half. They didn't mention how someone might legally do their own taxes and their mom's taxes on the same piece of software.
Ironically, H&R Block, the main benificiary of the consumer ire towards Intuit, is considering adding DRM to their TaxCut software for next year.
Don't forget that Friday is Hawaiian shirt day.
You won't see Microsoft take a hint from Intuit or anyone else. They're far beyond the level of market share where they have to concern themselves with trivialities like consumer satisfaction.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
"Adding digital-rights-management software to the company's tax preparation neither paid off financially in attracting new customers, nor in consumer satisfaction, Intuit spokesman Scott Gulbransen said."
Just how was adding DRM supposed to attract customers and increase customer satisfaction? This sounds distinctly like a marketing/public relations spin attempt.
--Ben
This is excellent news for the paying customers of Intiut products. Unfortunately, this is probably excellent news for software pirates everywhere.
I believe Intuit may see a drop in the sales of TurboTax next year if they remove product activation. Around small offices, I know that the software would be passed around like a bad cold if they didn't have to register the software to actually print out their taxes.
Effective copy protection -- and frankly, theirs was pretty darn effective, compared to most -- at this point has to be intrusive to actually work.
The only way around it would be to patch the code to prevent the lookup, and that's more work than your average person is willing to do.
Theirs certainly was intrusive. Aside from the possible damage to my machine from questionable tactics such as boot-sector munging, their policy of requiring only a single PC being able to use the software is the biggest real objection.
I have multiple PC's at home. I do most of my work in the living room, but it would be nice to be able to alternately work on my taxes from the upstairs office. No can do, without a second license. At least Micro$oft's Activation method lets you have two copies in most cases.
If they really want effective copy protection, the product should come with a USB dongle. That's still annoying, because it may cause you to go out and get a hub and still use your other USB devices at the same time, but I'd live with that.
Would it be fair to then hand my USB dongle to my buddy so he can do his taxes? I'd say yes -- because I would not be able to use it while he has it. Intuit would probably say no. On the other hand, my buddy would probably be more likely to go out and get his own copy for next year.
Ooh! And give a discount to those who have last years' key!
That contrasts with their current policy of offering early versions to registered users, and a price usually $20 higher than BestBuy will have just after XMas.
Design for Use, not Construction!
If you include DRM -- you will sink like a lead balloon. The customers have spoken. Now, we just need to turn the heat up on Microsoft. Why wasn't their a backlash like this for Microsoft? People need to tell companies that they won't stand for this type of behavior. Let's hope that Microsoft is taking notes. Palladium is going to have the same problems as Intuit did.
This is a perfect case of a company bending to the demands of its customers. Intuit is probably not going to kill DRM though. Any idiot can tell that making a product naked before the world will make it much easier to pirate. Probably Intuit will come up with a different way to enforce the license on its software, perhaps something like Microsoft's Product Activation or something equally intrusive. At least they're not dancing in my boot sector any more.
They lost my money and my future business because of the tax software registration/lock down fiasco. They showed the software industry about how much the general public will take in terms of software liscensing.
I'm shocked that the so called backlash has caused Intuit to do this. It flies in the face of yesterday's earnings news. According to the news Intuit sales on its tax preparation software increased dramatically over the same period last year. My assumtion being that the copy protection was indeed effective and caused many more people than usual to fork out their $14~$35.
This Slashdot story comes as a real shock after yesterdays market news. I'd really like to know some more accurate details on the decision.
Am I the only person who feels that this entire argument should be moot? The IRS is perfectly capable of allowing consumers to file online tax returns. Several states, including DC (my home is in the district) allow online tax forms to be filled out. All are quite advanced, allowing deductions and the proper calculations to take mere seconds. Most are relatively error-free.
The IRS though, caving to groups like Intuit and full-service prepares like H&R Block, has taken the novel approach of allowing people to submit taxes online, but only if approved through a private company. Yes, there are a few folks who can use telefile, but for anyone making any decent wages, there's no free equivalent to telefile for federal forms. I'm don't itemize my deductions, yet even taking the standard deduction makes it "impossible" to use telefile.
This is one area that the government could step in and provide a useful service for free, just as the states have done so. There's no reason for them not to, except for frantic lobbying by certain interests.
There constant marketing to me and cross-marketing over the years already let me know Intuit viewed me as a profit center not a valued customer.
This DRM silliness was the straw that broke my back. I tried H&R blocks software and found no real difference. Now H&R has me as a customer. And, I strongly frightened my family and friends awy from TurboTax.
The big problem is that Intuit, H&R et al aren't bound by the same sacrosanct statutes as the IRS. So, there is no legel provision stopping them from selling/giving away your person informaiton and your income statements.
With them treating me as a profit center (as opposed to a customer) I have lost faith that they're not (at least capable of) storing and selling my info either when I use electronic filing or when the software silently phones home.
I always accepted that such behaviour was technically possible, but not something they would do, until the DRM coupled with excessive cross-marketing.
My relationship with them was based on trust and now they've lost that.
I'm one of those people who protested to Intuit. I had purchased the software, so I used it, but never again.
While I am very glad they have seen the light, there is still their implicit accusation that every single one of their customers is a thief (which, IMHO, is what DRM implies). I'm glad they're dropping DRM, but they should be groveling to their customers. Until they do, I'll be buying from their competitors (that don't use DRM, of course). Intuit should be made to feel pain, and I mean deep hurting where it counts, their bottom line. While the RIAA and MPAA are out there making examples of people, it is time we made an example of Intuit. Despite this turnaround, they should be made an example to the whole corporate world that technologies of control are unacceptable to consumers. If Intuit's revenue were to drop 50%, believe me, it will chill the market for DRM products.
Here's what I suggest if you, like me, are a user of Intuit software:
1. If you are a TurboTax user, switch to a competitor next year (one that doesn't use DRM either).
2. If you are a Quicken user, either switch to something else, MoneyDance, GNUCash, etc., or at least DO NOT UPGRADE. If you seriously think about it, what could a new version do for you that the current one doesn't?
Hit 'em. Hurt 'em. Teach 'em a lesson.
No more Intuit products for me. And I have NEVER copied a single product of theirs. EVER. In fact, that's why I'm so angry with them.
Software companies that offer real value for money have little need to resort to copy protection. It's the ones that don't that always wind up resorting to nonsense like copy protection. But, of course, the copy protection lowers the value of their product even more, which simply makes the decision to jump to a competitor even easier. Even Microsoft is starting to see this.
Something tells me that Intuit isn't going to see continued growth and profits next year, though.
I'm glad to see that Intuit finally came to their senses. Too bad they did it so late, as I've already switched to H & R Block's TaxCut. Now all my data has been switched over, I see no reason to go back. Who should I support: The company that changed it's mind about screwing me, or the company that never tried to screw me in the first place?
The tragedy is that anyone with half a brain could have told them their scheme wouldn't work. Moreover, they've aliented not only millions of potential customers, but millions of formerly loyal customers as well. I had used MacinTax (the Mac version of TurboTax) for seven to ten years. Now, unless H&R Block does something stupid or discontinues the product, I have no compelling reason to switch back.
It's good to see Intuit come to it's senses, but the damage is already done.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Another reason why copy protection will never really exist.
Don't you just love the way they call it "copy protection", rather than "copy prevention", a more accurate term?
The reasons why are clear - "protection" makes it sound like a feature that the customer will benefit from, whereas "prevention" makes it more obvious to the average Joe that it's not their interests that are being protected but that of the software/CD/whatever vendor.
Yes, I respect a company's (or an individual's) rights to prevent me from mass redistribution of their work but, where the copy prevention mechanism is sufficiently complex as to require user interaction and/or impacts on reasonable customer expectations, I think it would be more honest if the relevant details were made clear up front so that customers could make more honestly informed decisions.
I'm not just thinking about the DRM used by Intuit here but of DRM in all shapes and sizes. A prominent warning on the box that a software product may require the user to do x, y and z in order to work properly, or that a "CD" does not adhere to established standards and thus won't work in any PC, Mac, games console, most in-car stereos or any newer hifi system that is sufficiently advanced (and why this is so) would be more preferable than the current situation.
A tiny, obscure little message in 10 point font hidden on the reverse of the packaging somewhere near the copyright notification just doesn't cut it. If companies are really interested in the rights of the consumer (which is something that they always say but rarely ever show) isn't honesty up front the least that we can expect from them?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I wonder if US/Canadian tax software is something more than an plain electronic form
what, they where supposed to read your mind before the institute a new capability?
Hell, this is a company that is responding to customer complaints. they also posted a removal of the boot sector 'feature' pretty damn quick.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I read them the riot act about this via email. I finally recieved this reply today ..
Dear Valued Customer:
In response to your comments on the implementation of product activation technology in tax year 2002 TurboTax® software, I wanted to let you know that Intuit will discontinue product activation in next year's TurboTax desktop products purchased at retail or direct from Intuit.
We are absolutely committed to listening and learning from our customers. We clearly need to better understand all of our customers' tax preparation needs and how they use TurboTax.
While we remain committed to protecting our intellectual property, going forward, we will only introduce digital rights management technologies that maximize customer experience and preserve customer satisfaction.
Again, thanks for your feedback.
Regards,
Tom Allanson, Sr. Vice President
TurboTax
Well - they saved me as a paying and happy customer!
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
While the QNX stuff is generally of excellent quality the FlexLM thing is a persistent source of problems. Installation and upgrade have never gone smoothly, with obscure services not starting or being misconfigured by the installer, client authentication going wrong more times than it should (i.e. ever), and occasional file-locking problems that require a reboot. At least in my case, licence management seems to generate as much traffic with the QNX support folks as does their actual product (host and target) in its entirety.
Worryingly, the licence is bound specifically to one licence server. I _imagine_ that if the machine (a laptop) were destroyed, lost, or updated, then there would be some means whereby I could persuade them to issue another licence, but it's bound to be a sticky point.
I wouldn't care if everything worked properly and transparently, but it doesn't. My vendor is essentially treating me like a thief and simultaneously making himself look like a bozo (which he isn't - the rest of the QNX stuff is great).
On the last occasion it took several days to resolve the licence manager issues - had this been at a more critical time then this would have been a dealbreaker. It leaves me with a rather bitter taste in my mouth, and I'd think twice before recommending QNX to another client, purely for this reason.
So is their bizantine DRM saving them money, or costing them? I think Intuit can answer that for them.
## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
.. they said that though they've taken it out, they might put it back in in the future if they felt they needed to.
Obviously they WANTED to keep the DRM, but the market pressure forced them to do otherwise. They said that there was no financial incentive to keep the DRM in the product. We have to assume that their interest in DRM was driven by other concerns, since as they've taken it out and said that they might put it back in in the same breath. Evidently some of the people at that company are still strongly in favor of DRM, or this somewhat ambiguous statement wouldn't have been made in the first place.
To those people, the consumers of the world have an announcement of our own to make: "DRM is poisonous to future sales. Don't put it in your products, don't use it, don't even hint at it, because we're not buying it!"
Haven't we already talked about the difference in power between a company with a monopoly on the market and one that is in a competitive market?
I'm a die-hard GNU/Linux and Free Software advocate (even to the point of occasionally prefixing "linux" with "GNU"), but seriously, what alternative to Microsoft exists in the marketplace?
The home user gets a copy of Windows on the PC s/he buys through virtually every common outlet. (Wal-Mart on line offers Linux based PCs, but not in their stores yet). The games they want to run are Windows-only.
In business, it is hard to find OEMs pushing Linux for desktop machines. Sure, you could go to one of the Linux-friendly VARs, but most of them aren't geared up to provide sales and support to large corporations.
I'm not saying this situation is forever. Linux is gaining ground in all markets. But, for the present, Microsoft still has their effective monopoly power. They're strongarming the motherboard OEMs into implementing Palladium. They'll have it in a future version of Windows. And what choice will consumers have? There won't be a choice. And that, my friends, is what monopolies and cartels do.
A plan for consumer friendly computing:
1. Educate. Talk to your friends about DRM and what it means.
2. Agitate. Join the EFF. Write your congressional delegation. Boycott companies (like Intuit) that use DRM.
3. Have integrity. Don't violate copyright. Don't copy software illegally. Don't copy music illegally. Don't copy anything illegally. This is the least popular thing I have to say, but it is IMPORTANT. Every copy is bullet in the other side's arsenal. Evey copy is an argument for them to push legislation that takes away our freedoms. We must not be hypocrites if we want to have the moral ground to expose their hypocrisy.
4. Exercise the rights you have. Rip every single one of your CDs to mp3 or ogg files. Copy them onto every kind of media you have. Make use of your fair use rights. Return hardware that doesn't let you do this. Return (or better, don't buy) copy protected media. Even if that Macrovision protected DVD is your favorite movie (here you are hampered by the fact that products are not labeled adequately -- that's where writing congress comes in -- lobby for consumer protection laws. Our opoonents have lobbyists -- be one yourself for our side. Believe me, letters make a difference).
5. Talk. (Actually a variation on item 1, but it is really important, so I'll repeat it). Spread these ideas. Put up a web site. Join in onine discussions here and elsewhere. Get the "idea" of digital freedom into the popular conciousness at every opportunity. True, this isn't slavery or Jim Crow, but this is a civil liberties issue, and it is time we started drawing people's attention to it.
shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
They lost me as a customer. Taxcut did just as well for me and I have no reason to go back to TT from Intuit.
BC
It correlates with one of the Liberatarian things ESR says that actually makes sense. Monopolies are unstable in a free marketplace, because, eventually, people will find new options or new ways of doing things. Microsoft can piss off only so many people and so many nations before, well, they either wise up or go out of business completely.
I have always said that a free market/capitalist system is a self regulating system. I *know* MS will lose marketshare and be a shadow of its former self in 10 years because EVERY other monopoly has done the same. IBM was busted for monopolistic policies in the 70s. By the time it was over, IBM did more damage to itself in the marketplace than the courts did. Now, they are a responsible corporation, perhaps party due to the fact that they have been humbled in the past. They are even the biggest corporate contributor to OSS now.
The self correcting aspects may not be instant, or even fast, but it happens. Most 'monopolies' from 30 years ago are no longer, courts or no courts. Xerox, AT&T, all US car makers combined, the big 3 tv networks, CNN, etc. They are all still viable businesses that at one time had near or total monopolies. The market place decided they should no longer be, NOT the courts.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Right, but I think they misread the consumer response, which is unfortunate. They think people are telling them to get copy-protection off their products. Actually, most of us (I think) were saying, "Stay off our boot sector."
Problem there is that those of us who don't like software that screws with boot sectors and AV protection get lumped in with software pirates in their eyes. They've said that they think there were ulterior motives behind the "no bootsector" complaints, sort of in the same way that pot smokers support the hemp fabric industry - and it ain't because they have any vested interest in rope.
It would be nice for somebody like the EFF or whatever to really sit down with companies like Intuit and convince them that most of us don't at all have a problem with copy protection that doesn't reduce the functionality of the software or cause security/stability problems.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat