Back then, the focus was on optimising for the user. Now, however, companies prioritise their own interests over the user.

▲

gjm11 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think companies always prioritized their own interests.

A company can increase its profits (1) by improving their products and services, so that they'll get more customers or customers willing to pay more, or (2) by increasing how much of their revenue is profit by (e.g.) cutting corners on quality or raising prices or selling customers' personal information to third parties.

Either of those can work. Yes, a noble idealistic company might choose #1 over #2 out of virtue, but I think that if most companies picked #1 in the past it's because they thought they'd get richer that way.

I think what's happened is that for some reason #2 has become easier or more profitable, relative to #1, over time. Or maybe it used not to be so clearly understood that #2 was a live option, and #1 seemed safer, but now everyone knows that you can get away with #2 so they do that.

▲

turtletontine 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

We even have a name for this now…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification?wprov=sfti1

▲

vladms 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed, the good old days when "optimizing for the user" got us... Windows 3.1 (release date April 6, 1992 , ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Microsoft_Windows_vers...) or the first version of Linux - which I did not have the honor to use but I can imagine how user friendly it was considering what I ended up using couple of years later (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux)

▲

linguae 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We can have stable user-friendly software. We had a nice sweet spot in the early 2000s with Windows XP and Mac OS X: stable operating systems built on workstation-quality kernels (NT and Mach/BSD, respectively), and a userland that respected the user by providing distraction-free experiences and not trying to upsell the user. Users of workstations already experienced this in the 1990s (NeXT, Sun, SGI, HP, and PCs running IBM OS/2 Windows NT), but it wasn’t until the 2000s when workstation-grade operating systems became readily available to home users, with both Windows XP and Mac OS X 10.0 being released in 2001.

▲

ndriscoll 10 hours ago | parent [-]

We do of course still have this in modern computing with Linux/KDE. Stable, snappy, and does exactly what you ask. The computer doesn't get in your way, nor does it try to get you to do something else. It just does what you tell it to do, immediately.

	▲	linguae 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yup, desktop Linux and other FOSS systems like ReactOS and Haiku are the last bastions of personal computing that haven’t been made into platforms that nag and upsell us.

▲

noir_lord 16 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are myriad ways to optimise for the user, user friendliness is only one of them.

As the old joke went "Unix is user friendly, it's particular about who its friends are".