Surprised this article mentioned chat only once. The secret sauce to Bloomberg's stickiness is their collaboration features via what's know as Instant Bloomberg.<p>Here's an article about a bunch of banks actually working together to unseat Bloomberg's chat: <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/banks-back-rival-to-bloomberg-messaging-system.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/21/banks-back-rival-to-bloomberg...</a>
"Most [job candidates] don’t know a lot about us"
That's a disgrace, as a geek I would love to put my hands on a Bloomberg Terminal! Although at $24,000 per year, it won't be any time soon I guess :-)
Here's an interesting alternative viewpoint about the Bloomberg terminal interface published in 2010.<p><a href="http://uxmag.com/articles/the-impossible-bloomberg-makeover" rel="nofollow">http://uxmag.com/articles/the-impossible-bloomberg-makeover</a><p>From the article:<p><i>"Simplifying the interface of the terminal would not be accepted by most users because, as ethnographic studies show, they take pride on manipulating Bloomberg's current "complex" interface...The more painful the UI is, the more satisfied these users are.<p>The Bloomberg Terminal interface looks terrible, but it allows traders and other users to pretend you need to be experienced and knowledgeable to use it."</i><p>Dare I suggest that this tendency to keep software unnecessarily complex is something quite common, particularly in the open source community where attempts to improve ease-of-use are often met with resistance and claims of 'dumbing down'?