> Where did we make the wrong turn?

We force companies to grow, I guess.

All of the bullcrap the banks are doing mostly serves one purpose: get you to buy more of their products at terms that are bad for you.

All the complaints I have against the UX of the banking websites and apps I use can be attributed to this: they do a shitty job on purpose, because the site/app is primarily a vector to upsell you loans, credit cards and insurance.

(All complaints except one: the bank I used for my business accounts when contracting decided to make an SPA with one of the trendy JavaScript frameworks. Well, they botched it. This failure doesn't even help them sell anything, it's just the usual webdev incompetence.)

Why would a shitty app promote more sales?

The only reason I use MegaBank and its obnoxious but functional app is that Local Credit Union can't afford to build a decently functional app.

> Why would a shitty app promote more sales?

Because part of it being shitty is obnoxiously advertising you financial products, making it hard to perform the tasks you want with your money without being upsold something, and making it near-impossible to use your account without going through the app/webapp (or a visit to the bank, or the ATM - which is also pushing ads).

Line. Must. Go. Up.

> As an end user, I view a bank as a box to keep my money so I don't have to deal with cash. That's really it.

I personally like features such as savings accounts (which require a treasury department), a brokerage, lending, mortgages, wire transfers, detection of fraud, and so-on

a bank does far more than provide a safe place for your cash to sit

I believe the point is that all those services have existed for Quite Some Time, don’t need consumer-facing changes, and any additional consumer-facing software changes are bunk.

the point was:

> A bank doesn't need a full-time development team for example.

all of the areas I mentioned are subject to constant change, mostly from regulators

implementing the Payment Services Directive, Solvency II or MiFID II all require developers

the developers working on the app/website that you interact with are always going to be a small fraction of the developers that work for a bank

and if you think this isn't the case (in a very cut-throat industry), I would suggest you start a bank and put the rest of them out of business with your vastly reduced costs

Yes. And they somehow existed even before computers were invented. Computers sure did help streamline the processes tho.

Computers allowed the development of ACH, debit cards, and ATMs. They gave us the ability to bank by phone, and by web. But, I think your general point, sans snark, is correct in that I can’t think of any significant, novel banking service that’s been introduced since about the 1970s. (I count ACH as novel, because it enables you to do things you couldn’t do before. Banking at home in your pajamas isn’t any different than waiting until Monday morning and physically going to the bank.)

Sure did. Did. As in already done. What else, aside from security fixes, needs to change software-wise?

Edit: I realize this can be read with a pile of snark that I didn’t intend. Apologies.

Modern payment support; Keeping up with regulatory changes; Keeping up with regulatory report of the year; Updating risk systems to account for modern mortgage risks; Expanding integrations to other countries; Keeping up with OS changes for existing apps; Responding on court data requests

You’d think so, but my wife uses a bank that spent a good 12 years without a substantial change to their website. It finally got a major refresh a few years back and everything just FELT better. It was like fixing up the lobby- it might be secondary to the primary purpose of being there, but it made it a better experience for the customer.

That’s ignoring things like online bill pay, mobile banking, and roll outs of new financial products that really are innovations from the last 10-15 years.