[deadpannini]

What you say is true, but these companies aren't successful because their products are usable. They succeeded because of their first-mover advantage, lack of alternatives, and compliance requirements that raise the cost of competition. We don't owe them any respect when it comes to UX.

I can see how it gets tiresome reading repetitive arguments, but a solid theory undergirds all the criticism: that one way to beat SAP, oracle, Microsoft, etc. Is to provide a better user experience.

[hbarka]

User experience is fleeting. I like the user experience of manual transmission cars but >80% of new drivers today would scream user experience if you gave them one. Perhaps the complaint here comes from these types of users who expect novelty to their liking.

There was a comical reference to Tesla. If you’ve only experienced the user experience headache that Tesla forces on you every time they have a major software update (at least 2x a year). The muscle memory has to adapt.

[hef19898]

Nefore better UI and UX help you beat SAP and co, you need compliant, and industry specific ERP functions on par with them. And then you need to sway all those existing customers away from them. In market that doesn't value UI half as much as you seem to think.

[deadpannini]

I agree that the enterprise market does not value usability very much, and I would even agree that the enterprise vendors made the right choice to deliver anything at all, in the early stages of ERP (even the first two decades).

None of that means the software is good: we can recognize the smart business choices those companies made and also abhor their products.

They provide what Alan Cooper calls "Dancing bearware" - it doesn't matter how badly the bear dances, they're just grateful to have a bear that can do it at all.