Having recently persuaded my research group leader not to spend >£500 on Endnote licenses, this comment tickled me. It may even be the case that Endnote is now a largely functional piece of software, but its history is too exquisite an exercise in Worse is Better for me to go near it again.
Particularly bench biologists tend to have "The only way to write a paper is Microsoft Word and Endnote". Zotero is considered a bit eccentric and using LaTeX is practically unheard of. As a computational biologist I like Zotero and LaTeX but am often forced not to use them in collaborations.
I wrote my (social science) PhD with LaTex (eventually). Corralling it to BibTeX from Zotero was a bit of a pain, but worked fairly smoothly. What it did achieve was that it made it look like I had paid much more attention to layout and cross referencing than I actually had, which got me through with two nit-picking corrections.
Endnote. Ugh. When I used it a decade ago it was the worst program I have ever used. Try to look up something and nothing happens. Is it thinking? Is it connecting to a server? Did it just not find any results? There's no way to tell because it doesn't tell you anything.
In the interests of nit-picking, back in the day I made some contribution to zotero's back end docs, and I was a bit unhappy with the way the open source project is managed as a potential contributor. But it's still pretty neat stuff.