Talk:Intuit

Intuit Canada & Criticism

Its relation to Intuit Canada must be described. Also, the two articles contain contradictory information. Mikkalai 02:51, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I believe I have added the information shortly after your request.

On a related note, I've noticed that a user from IP address 67.174.76.243 has repeatedly and removed references to public criticism of Intuit. I believe he is a Lacerte (i.e. Intuit) employee and should explain his actions. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool for commercial self-interests. Jbetak 07:43, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• The same applies for Qwiki. I have now readded the critisism section. --Sleepyhead81 09:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms in context are fine. A good example is the mention of the product activation flap described in TurboTax and the subsequent actions of Intuit in response. However, rants for the sake of criticism are as antithetical to neutral reviews as are blatant commercial explotation of the site to post self-serving hype. I have removed this section accordingly. IP address 67.174.76.243

If you have some changes that you think would make the section better fit the WP:NPOV policy, by all means, make them. But removing the criticism section entirely is not appropriate here. -- Norvy (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I can see where IP 67.172.76.243 is coming from and thought that perhaps rephrasing that section would help. I'm glad that we are at least discussing it now - instead of endlessly reverting it ;-)

For the sake of comparison, I'd suggest reviewing the article on Microsoft. I'd assume that it's of higher quality since it attracts more contributors. Microsoft also comes to mind due to its overwhelming market position -- not unlike Intuit in its own market. Please note that this article also contains a criticism section. Jbetak 05:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the critisicm section should be removed. As Norvy says; removing the criticism section entirely is not appropriate. The section should be kept until a discussion at this talk page results in a decision to remove the section. --Sleepyhead 07:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Some the criticism seems exaggerated. The issues with the upgrade policy are mere restatements of a common policy. Many software companies like Intuit are sending older versions into de-support. This may be a criticism of software vendors in general vs. Intuit specifically. The criticism regarding Vista compatiblity applies to a large number of vendors as well, and would be better placed in an article on backward compatibility.Cander0000 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

POV: Puff Piece?

There is a very rudimentary criticism section in an article about a company that is the target of a tremendous amount of vitriol (try to find a review of a recent version of Quicken that doesn't involve the words "class-action" in at least 3 of the comments. What's left is very fluffy and pro-Intuit. It makes sense if the allegations above are true that an Intuit employee is actively trying to promote the company in the article. --Robb0995 09:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just because people rant online (via comments) about "class-action" doesn't mean anything has proceeded to anything approaching that level, so it's not a real measure of criticism. Apart from a "gripe line" comment that "a class action lawsuit can't be far behind" from 2005, and some discussion of a 2000 class action to do with information and privacy.

Personally, I don't consider what's left to be pro-Intuit. It seems to me to be basically factual and neutral. Perhaps the criticism could be expanded (or, if it's big enough, it's own topic like Criticism of Microsoft), but it should not just become just a collection of complaints, as that's not particularly encyclopedic.

"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

--Bdoserror 06:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I didn't mean to suggest it should be a rant section, but what criticism is there does seem very rudimentary--thrown in as if to say "Look we showed the other side." On the other hand, the description of the products, for example, is peppered with words like "advantage", "discount", "popular", "free", and other breezy, positive language. Sorry, I didn't mean to focus on the criticism section exclusively. It just feels like they wrote it; doesn't it? --Robb0995 08:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

True enough, it does have a bit of positive spin there. Not quite sure how to neturalize it though. Might be worth trying to compare it to Microsoft to see how to word things better. --Bdoserror 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

From Rani.... Reading the text left no doubt in my mind that Intuit employees or salespeople were heavily involved in its content. Completely one-sided representations that fail to touch on many serious problems including the terrible tech support, serious privacy risk, the way they basically blackmail people into buying new products that cost hundreds of dollars but are only minimally different from previous versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rani Lueder (talk • contribs) 01:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to add documented issues to the Criticism section. I removed the one you added to the TurboTax section as it was 4 years old. -- Bdoserror 06:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry for adding an old link, hadn't noticed. Rani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.98.58 (talk) 19:09, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

A few comments about your latest edit (which I have removed):

1. Please sign in when editing so we know who is making the changes, otherwise we can only see an anonymous IP address. And then please remember to sign your comments on the Talk page with ~~~~, which Wikipedia will automatically convert to you login ID.
2. Your edit, as "personal experience", was removed as it violates the no original research policy of Wikipedia. If you can find independent, verifiable citations to back up your edit then feel free to re-add the change. Also, the tone of your comment seemed to violate the neutral point of view policy, so it should be re-written without language like "force-feeds". Thanks. -- Bdoserror 01:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

From --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC) The first POV should be removed at once. It cites no source is easily shown as slanderously wrong. Google has 8,730 links to Quicken + reviews + comments, excluding ones with 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2008 (robo said "recent" in 2007). Only 135 (1.5%) mention class action even once. Robo says, "try to find a review of a recent version of Quicken that doesn't involve the words "class-action" in at least 3 of the comments" As this shows, I quickly got not "a review", but 8,595 (98.5%) Quicken reviews, with comments, that did not mention class action. Moreover, no one who reads [software license agreements], to which we agree when installing major programs, should make class action threats. You specifically waive damages if programs do not work or damage data. --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I only would add this paragraph in a Talk section. You cannot please all the people all the time. We also interpret facts to support opinions and change opinions over time. I am a very independent CPA, but usually pro-Intuit. Despite this, I twice publicly tried to get users to protest Intuit decisions and boycott, while threatening class action suits (once hiring an attorney to sue). Both times Intuit quickly backed off. A well known writer said, "this major victory... was almost certainly caused by... Block... led the battle against the new fees." [1] I estimate this cost Intuit $40 million, but I got on an Intuit Advisory Council in time to protest again. Instead of dumping me, the CEO wrote, "Keep raising hell when Intuit does something wrong!" He tripled revenue and quadrupled earnings in 8 years, partly due to continuing the constant Intuit pro-customer approach.[2] The new CEO soon wrote, "You're fantastic Mike. Absolutely fantastic!" Other sections here show most are pro-Intuit. --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FACTS SHOW the main Intuit article is no puff piece or insignificant, so disputes on it should no longer appear. This relates to Net Promoter scores. "Net Promoter is a discipline by which companies profitably grow by focusing on their customers... One simple question - Would you recommend us to a friend or colleague? - allows companies to track promoters and detractors and produces a clear measure of an organization's performance through its customers' eyes.[3] One question can determine your business' future.[4] Many successsfully used Net Promoter, including Intuit. http://www.netpromoter.com/np_conference/agenda-highlights.php] The Economist said this about the author of a related best selling book, "the "high priest" of loyalty." http://www.netpromoter.com/book/index.php] This is the most important single metric determining future success. Intuit has a Net Promoter score that is more than 35% higher than others in its field.[ Therefore, critics are a smaller minoriity for Intuit than for other software companies. In addition, the probable Intuit success is important, rather than insignificant. --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is one more FACT justifying limiting Intuit critic posts, and ending puff piece and significance notes, is market share. Intuit product market share shows actual votes of all Intuit and comparable software consumers, who tend to vote every one to three years. If you pleased all the people al0l the time you would have a 100% market share. In March, 2008 the QuickBooks share, of small business accounting software sales at retail, was 94.2%. [5] Quicken had an a 80%+ market share, [6][7] before retail sales ended for its main competitor, Microsoft Money.[8] TurboTax also had around a 70% market share. Therefore, in the way it matters most, this too says that Intuit critics are, as a mater of fact, far less relatively significant than the critics of other companies. People do not simply use Intuit products, but often love or hate them.[9] --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Material in this paragraph and the Inside Intuit book proves that Intuit, as opposed to one of its 8,000 employees, never knowingly mistreats customers. Unless a user can say they properly got a case number and repeatedly asked to have a problem "escalate" they cannot say Intuit did anything. The Inside Intuit book begins, "Intuit is tale of missionaries, not mercenaries. It's about a founding team that prevails through tenacity, frugality and an obsession with the customer experience." Its 9 page Intuit Vision, Mission and Operating Values, says, "Intuit was founded on strong principles and has always acted on them ... WOW! Many companies say their most important job is satisfying the customer. We don't. We believe that satisfying the customer is simply the minimum requirement for staying in business. Therefore, we don't seek merely to satisfy our customers, we seek to wow them... Integrity Without Compromise. Intuit is built on integrity. In all we do, we maintain the highest standards, never approaching what could be considered questiona--MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)ble behavior... Afterword. What about results - things like market share, growing our revenue, profits ... Don't we care about results. We do. Market share is a measure of how well we are serving customers ... What's more, if we do our jobs right, its a chain reaction, not a series of tradeoffs ... Simply put, living and working by our operating values will create customer wow and shareholder value." page 291 I most respectfully submit that this is very important to understanding Intuit relative to its critics, puff pieces and significance. Intuit top executives are far easier to reach, and to convince to make changes, than those in any company I have ever seen. I often see where I or Intuit people quickly turn critics into friends. One former critic promptly invested his entire retirement fund in Intuit stock. That is why I believe Intuit critics are those who have not yet gotten to the right Intuit person. --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Puff piece and insignificance thought end with the Inside Intuit book subtitle, "How the Makers of Quicken Beat Microsoft and Revolutionized and Entire Industry." The book shows this is true repeatedly, so it would be hard to write a puff piece overstating favorable Intuit facts or significance. Intuit tested venture capitalists with, "What should Intuit do if Microsoft entered the personal finance market to compete with Quicken?" When Microsoft did enter it did so badly that its then CEO ended up on Intuit's Board. The 9 or more major Microsoft defeats, without a win, include the recent dropping of Microsoft Money retail sales, so Quicken will go much higher than its prior 83% market share at retail. This [Intuit] - [Microsoft] war now includes Intuit, [Amazon], [Apple], [Adobe], [Dell], [Google], [HP], [IBM], [Sun], [Torvalds] / [Linux], [Yahoo] and others against Microsoft. One key is Intuit Chair [William Campbell (business executive).] Noted industry veteran and venture capitalist [L. John Doerr] said Campbell “is the single best mentor and coach of CEOs, teams, and talent” (The CTO Forum). The Best Story About Google Yet (Silicon Beat) covers, "The heroic role played by Bill Campbell ... Doerr would say Bill Campbell saved Google ... God bless that man ... I don't know where the company would be without him." The Secret Coach (Fortune Magazine) covers many such Campbell jobs. Campbell came from Apple and he or Doerr are on the Board of many of these companies. It will take a book to describe all that these companies have done to work together against Microsoft.--MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The Intuit - Microsoft war may soon enter a decisive stage. Scott Cook, Intuit founder, long ago wrote me that Jefferson, Lincoln and Torvalds (inventor and mentor of [Linux]) were three of our greatest minds. Google long almost shared a parking lot with Intuit and Google now has the biggest Linux server farm. [Sybase] created [SQL Server] and licensed it to Microsoft. In 2004 QuickBooks adopted a Sybase cross-platform database, with excellent Linux benchmarks. It also produced an Apple Mac version with a 4 man team. The Mac can run Linux and uses a variant of Unix (which gave rise to Linux) as its primary operating system. How to Face Off Against Microsoft (Business Week, 2005) says, "Intuit has repelled the software giant six times." It also says Intuit began to fight the ($2 billion dollar) Microsoft QuickBooks-killer when QuickBooks had 74% of small business accounting software at retail. It now has 94% and Microsoft is not even #2, so this is a seventh time Intuit beat Microsoft. The Microsoft Money produst dropped retail sales after Quicken has 83% of the home finance market at retail. In 2006 Intuit released a Linux database server that ran 10% - 25% faster, more reliably, in less memory, that its Windows server. In 2008 Intuit created a website for Linux QuickBooks add-ons. It quickly released articles like, "Linux is the future." It is now making QuickBooks browser independent.--MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

End Runs Around Vista is a good 2008 article, but Business Week left out critical information and had little comment space. Intuit revolutionized accounting, while its usability tests revolutionized software development. Intuit is the expert in creating drop-dead-simple programs, which it can use for Linux. Bill Gates initially paid Intuit to use Internet Explorer, but Cook testified against Microsoft in the anti-trust case. Intuit had big problems with Vista and a bad .Net Framework upgrade. This was either bad Microsoft product testing or a modern version of "DOS ain't done 'til Lotus won't run." It seems inevitable that a simple convertible Linux should be on QuickBooks and Quicken install disks, along with Google-Sun Star Office. This will save many users $500 on Microsoft Vista and Office. It also will save lots of time and money spent on virus and spyware programs and checking.--MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The remaining missing section relates to a major topic on Wikipedia, usability testing. There is clear evidence that Intuit was the first to really use it, revolutionizing the use of personal computers, the software industry and accounting (all with cited facts, not opinions). It did these usability tests long before those credited in the Wikipedia article, which I will supplement. I must leave now. I hope critics will give me a few hours to finish. The missing part could change minds. --MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Zipingo

I moved the link to contractor disambiguation to independent_contractor. If you think that general_contractor is a better bet, please correct the link. Please don't link back to the disambiguation page! LeeG 17:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Featuring Google Products?

[10] I didn't read too much into the article; just putting it here if anyone wants to add it to the article.

I'm not surprised. I took the photos of the Googleplex and Intuit headquarters and I noticed that they are very close to each other (the northernmost Google building is across the street from the southernmost Intuit building). It would have been very easy for their execs to bump into each other while jogging around the block or visiting local restaurants. --Coolcaesar 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those are old Google buildings. The main Googleplex is a few more blocks away. Still in the area, but not as neighbourly as they once were. --Bdoserror 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign my name. That Jason 22:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Intuit - Google relationship is not simply a matter of location. L. John Doerr, the noted Kleiner Perkins venture capitalist, helped Google and Intuit. An associate of his said that Doerr would say that William Campbell (business executive), Intuit Chair and former Intuit CEO, saved Google while acting as its top management consultant.[11] MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Culling criticism and controversies section

I'm culling some of the "Criticism and controversies" section as it flows pretty oddly. Trying to take a look at from an outsider's perspective, if I cracked open an encyclopedia to a page on Intuit, what would I want to learn about them. that "The Microsoft Money converter for Quicken does not convert Money data files to Quicken 2008"?...pretty obscure. Instead, suggest looking at it through this lens:

• Does each side of the 'criticism' or 'controversy' have Verifiable, reliable sources?
• Is the 'criticism' or 'controversy' relatively unique to Intuit and not the broader software/financial service industries?
• Has the 'controversy' (as well as the individual positions) itself been discussed in a reliable source?

The company profile and product list seem fairly objective to me, I don't think the goal is to have a promotional article for Intuit. Many of these criticism belong on someone's blog. If they reach such a mindshare that 3rd party source begin to cover them, they will be added to the article, perhaps even in the lead area about the company. Cander0000 (talk) 06:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your deletions. Much of that text seemed to be in violation of Wikipedia policies, particularly Wikipedia:No original research. If and when those issues actually receive coverage from major news sources (e.g. Facebook's strange account deletion policy was covered today in the New York Times) then they can be restored to the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The second intro paragraph opens with "Intuit has lobbied extensively against the IRS creating its own online system of tax filing (in most wealthy countries, governments have simplified tax filing for its citizens, thus making software such as TurboTax unnecessary for most citizens)." That whole paragraph doesn't belong in the intro, because it's not a fundamental part of "what is Intuit?" and, specifically, that second half "in most wealthy countries..." is irrelevant to this article, not to mention pretty misleading if you're familiar with international tax--tax return filings are an opportunity to offer up exemptions and deductions; a system of pre-filled tax return filing in the US would, as with those other countries, minimize your ability to, say, write off your medical or school or business expenses. Anyway, that's not a clean enough or notable enough point to justify being in an Intro section rather than a Lawsuits & Controversies section. --Mrcolj (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

• The article is written like an advertisement: "sales of Quicken grew explosively", "Quicken became a best-seller in its market", "customer support in its early years was legendary.", "with a vast array of features", etc. Spam and weasel words should be removed (nothing new so far, it was already tagged)
• Notability of the products: The list is too long and notability of each product has to be established. It should not be a list of all products made by the company, but only of those that are notable (all others could be just mentioned on a separate paragraph). If all of them are notable, consider moving the most important ones to separate articles.
• Criticism section in list format: It could be appropriate to write this section as a paragraph, explaining what the activation scheme from Macrovision is, and why it's use is considered controversial.
• Citations: Statements like: "It has significant R&D activity", "company wasn't a major success until the advent of Windows 3.0 in early 1990s, when sales of Quicken grew explosively", etc need reliable, third-party sources. Iunaw 16:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Valid, points, all - what are the thoughts on splitting the products list to a seperate article - 'List of Intuit products'? The list o' products has seemed to overwhelm discussion of Intuit the company. This might provide a balance between judging whether each of the products is notable in of itself (and deserves an article), and retaining the details of the products Intuit has produced over the years Cander0000 (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest to rewrite the product list rather than moving it. Moving the whole list to a separate article is no improvement if it's still a list of products, but it could be used to improve the article in an encyclopedic way. I believe the best solution would be to put them in the article's context, giving information about the history of the company and their products, the targets they have, how these have changed over time, the success or lack of success of these products, etc. Notable products could have their own article. Look at Apple Inc or Microsoft, their products are mentioned, but from the historical perspective. Iunaw 15:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• My opinions: (1) It cite sources os many things. The "don't cite sources" should be removed. (2) The article looks like an advertisement. It should be worked to be more NPOV. (3) The POV issue is caused by the advertisement issue. So there is no need of this tag too. (4) Many of Intuit products are notable, and should have their own article. Quicken for example is one of the most used Finance Tool in the world (besides Money). It is a big shame Wikipedia only have a poor, brief, description of it. SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{05:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)}.

I've created Quicken, culling some content from Intuit and inspired by the format of QuickBooks. There seems to be consensus here that some of Intuit's products are notable in of themselves, namely Quicken at the least. Article certainly can use further references, but have strived to make in neutral and avoid some of the debates over whether the article is considered advertising.Cander0000 (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

ditto TurboTax Cander0000 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with article length

I removed the "too long" tag. I don't see any problem. I also don't see any rationale or discussion on the Talk page. The 32K limit hasn't been an issue for year and years, and anyway the article is only about half that length. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Quicken Health Expense Tracker

There's a Quicken Health Expense Tracker application now too. It's web based: http://healthcare.intuit.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.49.160 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates to Intuit Page - For Editors' Consideration

Full disclosre - I work for the Intuit Accounting Professionals Divsion. I have some updated information on products and acquisitions for your consideration for the Intuit Wikipedia page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuit.

Under the Products section:

[edit] ProSeries ProSeries tax software, an Intuit ProLine Solution, evolved from TurboTax and grew over the years to become a full-fledged professional preparer product and a leader in the market. It serves full-time tax preparers. There are two versions: ProSeries Professional and ProSeries Basic.

[add] Lacerte Lacerte tax software, an Intuit ProLine Solution, was acquired by Intuit in 1998. It serves a wide range of full time tax professionals who serve a high volume of individual and business client needs, including highly complex tax returns. Lacerte Tax includes federal and state tax modules for 1040, 1065, 1120, 1120S, 990, 1041, 709, 706 and 5500, as well as services for firms with staff requiring multiple locations and multi-user access.

[add] ProLine Tax Online ProLine Tax Online, an Intuit ProLine Solution, was first released by Intuit in 2009. It is a web-based tax solution for tax professionals, supporting the preparation of Federal and state tax returns for 1040, 1065, 1120 and 1120S and providing multi-user access for tax firms with multiple employees.

There are several other products that Intuit has released in the last year, but I don't know to what level of specificity you'd like to see in the Intuit article.

Thank you for considering these proposed edits, RWalkerSF (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC) Rich W.

Removed criticism

In 2010, Intuit required all users of earlier versions of Quicken to upgrade to Quicken 2011 or they would lose many of the capabilities that existed in earlier versions, such as the dowloading of stock prices. The resulting upgrade lost many of the capabilities of earlier versions.

In 2011, Intuit required all versions of earlier versions Quickbooks to upgrade to Quickbooks 2011 or they would lose their ability to directly connect to Merchant Services for Credit Card processing.

The EULA for Quickbooks requires all users to permit Intuit to electronically obtain and use their financial data for unstated purposes. This applies to all versions of the product, including the personal and accounting versions. Although the information is supposedly anonymized, Intuit's almost exclusive monopoly in the market means that such information can be sold to data vendors and easily linked to actual entities. In addition, the IRS has recently begun demanding quickbooks files in taxpayer audits.

Someone please find some good sourcing for these claims. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD on a related draft

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jakefrdrck/sandbox, for a draft on Chad Frederick, who is mentioned on this page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs and objective notoriety

The intro paragraphs were ported over from the TurboTax article, and are important pieces of context, but they seem to be phrased to push an opinion, rather than relate them to Intuit or other behaviors. Can we get a wording on these which will help readers explain the relation of these pieces to the history of Intuit, or notable features about it, rather than following a timeline. The overview is a sensitive area without much room to give details.

In my opinion it's clear that the notoriety of the reports and other information seems to be on their own. That is, people would know about Intuit/TurboTax from reading or hearing about those. It does not appear that these are centered because they are important to the article on their own.

162.230.224.99 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

(i) If you have an affiliation with Intuit, you need to declare it, per WP:COI. (ii) There's nothing notable about the fact that a company simply engages abstractly in lobbying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, will do, very sorry about that and thanks for bringing up that issue. I have worked for a short time for the company, in a role entirely unrelated to the image, and this is a purely personal decision with zero to negligible impact on me. I've had a problem with this article for quite a while in any case, as I have felt it hasn't maintained a neutral point of view. To me, those paragraphs read like a reddit comment, not Wikipedia, or deliberate WP:Advocacy. I want to find a wording which mentions the important facts but does not try to push an opinion.

Though independently, on the topic of lobbying, I'm not actually certain I agree with it not being notable. It is mentioned later in the article that Intuit lobbies a large amount relative to its size. I'm definitely open to other improvements. I would also question your reasoning about Rent-Seeking, as this hasn't been a viewpoint that seems directly supported by references, so whether or not you and I believe that is the case, I don't believe it merits enough 162.230.224.99 (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: Replying so you actually get pinged. Yafwa (talk) 04:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I have edited this post above after-the-fact, to clean-up up some ultimately off-topic confusions about Wikipedia's COI definition. I've marked myself as having COI here. This is the same account as the IP above, if it was confusing. Yafwa (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Phone number?

Why does this company have their phone nunmber on the name on the first paragraph? 186.18.3.150 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)