Is it FOMO if for $100 a month you can build things that takes months, and then refine them and polish them, test them, and have them more stable than most non-AI code has been for the last decade plus? I blame Marketing Driven development for why software has gone downhill. Look at Windows as a great example. "We can fix that later" is a lie, but not with a coding agent. You can fix it now.

> Is it FOMO if for $100 a month you can build things that takes months

It is the very definition of FOMO if there is an entire cult of people telling you that for a year, and yet after a year of hearing about how "everything has changed", there is still not a single example of amazing vibe-coded software capable of replacing any of the real-world software people use on a daily basis. Meanwhile Microsoft is shipping more critical bugs and performance regressions in updates than ever while boasting about 40% of their code being LLM-generated. It is especially strange to cite "Windows as a great example" when 2025 was perhaps one of the worst years I can remember for Windows updates despite, or perhaps because of, LLM adoption.

"We can fix it later" is not the staple of Marketing Driven Development. It's not why Windows has been getting more user-hostile and invasive, why its user experience has been getting worse and worse.

Enshittification is not primarily caused by "we can fix it later", because "we can fix it later" implies that there's something to fix. The changes we've seen in Windows and Google Search and many other products and services are there because that's what makes profit for Microsoft and Google and such, regardless of whether it's good for their users or not.

You won't fix that with AI. Hell, you couldn't even fix Windows with AI. Just because the company is making greedy, user-hostile decisions, it doesn't mean that their software is simple to develop. If you think Windows will somehow get better because of AI, then you're oversimplifying to an astonishing degree.