A few comments on IB, and to Nate's note:
"It seems IB took the advanced route and never implemented a simple route. "
They do have a simple webtrader interface which is what you propose, I don't think you used it. It's not great, but more SCHW like, no Java application involved. I think in general folks that *need* a simpler UI (not saying that is folks here), demand more customer service, and I think it's a conscious trade off by IB to focus their business on high volume, but fewer accounts. To that point Nate, I think your comment about 90%+ of *users* just wanting to buy MSFT, you are right... but 90% of IB's trade volume is done by the minority of clients, and I think those are the MM and automated trading funds, so again, I think you can use the webtrader interface if the TWS interface is too complex (by the way, I'm not throwing stones, I used webtrader interface for the first 4 years I had an IB account, it was fine... only starting using TWS when I moved my RIA to IB).
Also note for those that thinks IB charges a $10 / month minimum... they have eliminated this for $100k+ accounts, they did it last year. Agree that IRAs have $7.5 / quarter fee, and real time quotes are extra, so those obviously should be factored in. I think the big things for IB over Fido are real easy to quantify:
1) If you trade internationally (online, not by phone)
2) If you short
3) If you borrow on margin
4) If you trade options
5) If you trade futures
6) If you trade foreign exchange
7) If you are an RIA / HF
If you meet any of the seven, I think IB is clearly better. If you don't, then I think IB is probably on par for most folks, and more complex than Fido.
Again, I don't think it's the best for everyone, but it's pretty good. I think the characterization of the UI as super complex is pretty amusing. Yeah, it has a two hour learning curve and it's made by Java programmers and option traders, not by Steve Jobs, but it's functional and easy to use... it's not like some black box.
Ben