From my point of view, when you read through at all the arguments it seems like everybody makes a good point. Our catalogs are lacking, our resources are limited, we do need more access to API and the database, etc. However, having recently lead a system-wide ILS migration I can also understand the vendor side of things too -- As libraries, we continuously
It's hard to change people's habits (especially when they are in the drivers seat demanding that odd collection code for that obscure 90 day material type status be included in the new system, etc), let alone reverse 20 years of ingrained processes. But in looking at the state our catalogs, I think we should also take a look at many of our circulation and collection procedure oddities that also effect how things appear in our catalog. It's not just all our vendors fault that our catalogs are confusing, it's our fault too!
So... while we may ask more of our vendors in the way of opening up our ILS systems to do more (BTW: I'm 100% for this, I REALLY AM), I think we need to also understand that is becomes our responsibility (not the vendors) -- and that means hiring qualified programmers and developers on our staffs, not just "technie librarians" -- to ensure that it does.
PS: BTW, this mockup If Amazon sucked, like our old OPAC is hilarious -- but I think the copyright line at the bottom is inaccurate. The responsibility should be shared.