| ▲ | baq 11 hours ago |
| > It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate. this is in general how the market for pretty much everything works (sometimes 'users' are replaced by 'the regulator', but it doesn't matter too much). lesson in there is 'majority of users don't care nearly as much as you think', usually. |
|
| ▲ | Draiken 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think "care" is the right word here at all. We simply don't have options. This is capitalism's biggest flaw: it's based on the assumption that there will be competition, but competition eventually leads to winners that then consolidate their positions and we end up with no real choices. You're telling me people would pick a worse OS because they don't care even if they had real options? I don't believe that for a second. |
| |
| ▲ | account42 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Right, and even when there are options that doesn't mean you actually get to choose what you want for all things you care about, e.g. there might be option A with feature a (e.g. no ads) and option B with feature b (e.g. no vendor lock in) but none with both a and b - so you only really get a choice for the things you care most about. Which is effectively why gradual enshittification is effective: Most users will put up with minor anti-features rather than jump to a different platform that will require new programs and/or relearning. | | | |
| ▲ | Vegemeister 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Stop trying to blame capitalism for your failure to jump out of the pot when they put ads in Windows 8. We very much do have options. I haven't had Windows on a personal machine since 2011. | |
| ▲ | ekianjo 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > This is capitalism's biggest flaw: it's based on the assumption that there will be competition The fact that governments allow Microsoft to abuse its position to force OEMs to install Windows is the biggest problem. This would never happen in a market where regulation ensures healthy competition. | | |
| ▲ | piva00 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That version of capitalism sailed 40 years ago in the USA, antitrust enforcement has slowly disappeared which creates a race to the bottom for other countries who would like their companies to compete against USA's companies. If they enforce antitrust then the behemoths created in the USA by absorbing competitors without antitrust enforcement can eat their lunch, even though it's better for consumers. Unfortunately this also allowed the USA to have companies so large that they basically control the government, changing this now will require massive political will and a political body untethered from corporate interests. I really don't see that happening in the USA, it's been thoroughly captured after so many years driving on that path. | | |
| ▲ | PxldLtd 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I totally agree. There seems to be absolutely zero focus on Glass Steagall or Citizens United so I can't see how this actually happens without political revolt at this point. |
| |
| ▲ | PxldLtd 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, the neo-liberal economy we've ended up with has drifted quite far from well-regulated Capitalism. I'd still argue that we owe a lot of our rights to hard-fought socialist policy though. |
| |
| ▲ | charcircuit 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If people truly cared then there would be a high enough expected value to invest into building competitor to be financially worth it. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Sometimes companies will make more money by refusing to give consumers what they want. Collusion is also extremely profitable. A competitor that isn't interested in playing along can be bought out, but once shareholders get involved they're going to insist on screwing over their customers just like everyone else does anyway because they'd be leaving a huge pile of cash on the table otherwise and short term profits are all shareholders care about. | | |
| ▲ | charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | "by refusing to give consumers what they want." in practice consumers don't really want that, that much. The companies do similar things due to the similar ways consumers react to them. That's the point of this rely chain. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are lots of things consumers want. They'd love a cell phone that didn't spy on them, they want a smart TV that isn't full of ads, they want an ink jet printer that doesn't refuse to print when there's still ink available. These aren't huge asks but because subjecting customers to them make companies money it's difficult, if not impossible to avoid. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nicoburns 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What makes you think a competitor that "plays fair" can compete with a competitor that takes advantage of the system and extracts as much value as they can? | |
| ▲ | Silhouette 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That argument doesn't really hold when the barriers of entry are so high. Believing that one of the biggest tech firms in the world is doing something undesirable and having a better idea that many people would in fact pay for is not the same as having the resources to become a unicorn with a huge global customer base that can practically implement that idea. | | |
| ▲ | thewebguyd 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Plus, specifically for Microsoft, competing doesn't mean an alternative to Windows. It means an alternative to the entire enterprise stack, especially Office & M365. Google hasn't enticed the big entrenched MS orgs to move over to Workspace, so if Google can't how can a smaller startup ever hope to accomplish that in the face of these behemoths that can just outlast them in a race to the bottom until they are insolvent or get bought by said behemoths? Microsoft doesn't just sell an OS, or some services, they sell "IT in a box" |
|
| |
| ▲ | tsss 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | This is about markets. It has nothing to do with capitalism. And in fact, it is usually _because_ of healthy competition that this type of enshittification happens everywhere because quality is hard to compare for the buyers and so the sellers are forced to compete on cost. | | |
| ▲ | Draiken 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | How the hell can healthy competition breed enshittification? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Take an industry with healthy competition like restaurants. You can compete in price, quality, format, service and probably a lot more. Now tell me how that competition enshittified eating at restaurants? For me, nothing stands out. If a restaurant charges nonsense fees, under-staffs to increase profits, reduce portions with the same value, etc. I can simply go to another one. Restaurants that enshittify will almost inevitably close. But if we look at a closely related industry like the food delivery apps, we see the same exact signs of enshittification we see on the tech world due to monopolies (or oligopolies to be more exact) like:
- Increased/hidden fees - Increased delivery times - Crappy apps with ads everywhere - Ineffective review systems - Pay-to-win search - Dynamic pricing They can get away with it because realistically, you don't have any other options. The cost to entry might not be that high but the network effect all but prohibits competition. | | |
| ▲ | tsss 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Take an industry with healthy competition like restaurants. You can compete in price, quality, format, service and probably a lot more. Yes, and you correctly point out: On the average restaurant visit, nothing stands out. A good restaurant only needs to provide not-terrible food and not-terrible service to be almost indistinguishable from all others. Quality of a restaurant visit is hard to measure and compare. Price is easy to measure. Thus, the rational consumer will prefer the cheaper option (and even at the same price, a restaurant with lower costs will be more profitable, thus expand more easily). The same thing happens on Amazon and other market places: When it is difficult to compare quality, price always wins out. Some products are interchangeable with well defined specs, like a 16GB RAM stick is obviously twice as good as 8GB RAM and so it can be twice as expensive and still sell. But when I'm looking for a new light for my bicycle there are no standardized specs to compare. All the product descriptions and pictures are exaggerated. I have no reliable information to tell if the lamp that is twice as expensive is really twice as good (and from personal experience: they never are), so I'm buying the cheapest one cause I expect all of the products to be equally crappy no matter the price. It's not Amazon's fault. This happens everywhere. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | surajrmal 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A single product meant for all the users will inevitably be a poor fit for most of them. We need more variety of products for the different segments of the market. Alternatively we need more knobs to tune things to user needs. One promise of AI is enabling folks to personalize product experiences, but so far it's all been surface level. I think the desktop Linux ecosystem is an example of something healthier, but it goes too far in the other direction. There are too many options to choose from that it's hard to find the one for your needs. |
|
| ▲ | Henchman21 3 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > lesson in there is 'majority of users don't care nearly as much as you think', usually. How can this be your takeaway when there is no channel for communication with the users? There is no signal at all so you assume what is convenient for you. But this has no bearing on actual user sentiment, its just convenience for you. Part and parcel of the “problem” with tech people is they assume they can just fill in the gaps with their preferences and pretend they’re actually user preferences. In the rest of life this is called “bullshit”. |
|
| ▲ | awakeasleep 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If a regulator is effective at protecting the users, that regulator becomes a target for the industry |
|
| ▲ | BloondAndDoom 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s an option issue, I use an extremely modified version of windows, and same one for the last 5 years I think with the updates, local accounts, no ads, no telemetry, tweaks etc. I still don’t like tons of things about windows but compared to Linux desktops it’s heaven (for me). Don’t even get me started on macOS desktop experience it’s a fucking miserable (again for my personal taste). A lot of windows UI design decisions are pretty good. They mess it up now and then like windows 8 (tablet design mess) disaster, especially now with WSL 2.0, it delivers everything I need. Do I still hate it , yes for the reasons explained in this article and other stupid designed features like search index, windows defender , mix of legacy and new dialogs, for the shitty design of powershell and then the mess of mixed shells, terminal etc. List goes on, but comparatively I’ll pick windows desktop over anything out there at the moment. It’s a personal choice but I assume majority of windows user feel this way (or cannot afford macOS :)) |
|
| ▲ | mihaaly 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Things forced on you is not market. You are not talking about market rules at all. This is not it! |
