Actually I think there's a LOT more to it than that. Mathematically the two "pictures" of the system (Heissenberg and Schroedinger) are apparently equivalent. One is just done with mathematics in a matrix format and the other is done with wave equations.
Because the context is quantum mechanics, we're talking about probability math. What's going on with the wave functions is simply that all possibilities have to be carried forward until an observation is made. At that point, the other previous possibilities that are no longer possibilities have to go away. The wave function "collapses" into the observed result.
Schroedinger apparently proved these two are equivalent.
Heisenberg only cared about how the observation affected the collapsing of the wave function. Hence the disagreement. Heisenberg argued that you can't just collapse the wave function such that as you learn more about a particle's position, you also know more about the particle's momentum. If you don't take into account the extent to which the measurement/observation affects the result, the math will simply render both the position and the momentum.
I assure you, Heisenberg argued the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which does not yield the same results as the straightforward collapsing of the wave function that returns results for both position and momentum.
Of course, if one excludes the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, then both Schroedinger and Heisenberg recognized that the measurement/observation is what it is, and thus regardless of how the measurement was recorded, the math incorporating the measurement/observation would have to be equivalent.
But the underlying technical details are painful as anything.
It's nothing more than statistical math ... which I agree could be considered "painful", but so are differential equations when they become just a few levels deep. I enjoy setting up equations but I HATE cranking out the numbers. I let someone else do that.
