Private Equity destroys everything.

These companies that they bought were not doing so great to begin with otherwise they would not be for sale for a price where this makes sense.

▲

havaloc 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

In general, I would agree, but I think some small businesses are romanticized.

I have a house and have been with every small/medium local landscape company in town, finally settled on a landscape company that was bought by private equity.

The pricing is about the same, but they actually do a good job, the employees are nice, and they answer the phone. You don't have to beg them to come do work and hunt them down, and they can usually come out pretty quick.

▲

sph 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Fingers crossed it destroys the SaaS rent extraction model and we’ll go back to purchasing software.

▲

dewey 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That made sense in times where you packaged software and sold it in a store, once. Now people barely run local-only software any more, most people live in Google Chrome and only use permanently online software.

SaaS is the perfect model for software that's permanently being worked on.

▲

ginko an hour ago | parent [-]

>Now people barely run local-only software any more, most people live in Google Chrome and only use permanently online software.

Yes, because they were conditioned to do so by rent seeking companies.

	▲	dewey 26 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No because technology advanced and now everyone has a permanent online mini-computer with them at all times and we want to have the same documents we have at home/work also available on our phones.

▲

metalliqaz 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

yes it does, but this kind of abuse is also inherent in the system we have built

I remember fondly the time when computing was build on common interfaces and open formats. A abusive software supplier would be fired and replaced.

Now we have closed platforms and enshitification.

▲

NitpickLawyer 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> A abusive software supplier would be fired and replaced.

Oracle has joined the chat :) (and them joining the chat is an additional clause to the initial contract, billed at 300% hourly rate, with a minimum block of 900 man-hours)

▲

happyopossum 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> abusive software supplier would be fired and replaced.

Rose colored glasses much? We've never had the environment you're describing.

Do you recall the 00's and '10s? It was cluttered with closed systems that had ridiculously high costs to move away from. Look at Oracle, or 15-20 year dominance of MS Outlook and Exchange that was so difficult for many customers to deal with it forced the creation of the hosted exchange business model. Heck, go back another decade and look at Novell and WordPerfect.

We've always had closed platforms, and we've always had alternatives. Some businesses choose between them based on priorities that don't align with yours...

▲

toomuchtodo 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is why generative AI is great imho, it allows us to rapidly replicate capabilities that might experience enshittification without the historical moat of capital for investment in bespoke software engineering time.

Find use case, find stakeholders, wrangle stakeholders, build application with tokens, manage it in a non profit, coop, or similar model. License it in a way that prevents capture by commercial interests. Private equity (or rather, capital driven operating models in general) cannot enshittify what they cannot capture. If models continue to improve, this cycle can accelerate if generating "good code" continues to become more efficient and less resource intensive over time.

TLDR Building an anti-enshittification software factory.

▲

A_D_E_P_T 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I agree -- and I think that the applications should be open-sourced and in general provided to the public commons.

Some people won't like AI no matter what, but it's hard to argue with results that clearly benefit the public good and empower the little guy vs. public equity or the megacorp.

▲

metalliqaz 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I understand this kind of thinking was the driver behind the so-called "SAS-pocalypse" in the stock market.

I believe this is a very flawed way of thinking that misunderstands why companies actually pay for software services. What you have described is essentially to hire an AI to provide the service. Our current LLM-based systems are not capable of this and probably won't be with the currently used technology. Software services is not the code. The code is frankly the least important part.

	▲	preg_match an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I disagree, most off-the-shelf software is so generic that it sucks to use. It doesn't meet anyone's needs because it tries to meet everyone's needs. Custom built in-house solutions are much less complex, while being higher quality. You can make it do EXACTLY what you need, instead of spending unbelievable amounts of time doing configuration wrangling to get it to almost work. It doesn't work for every software, but when it works, it works.
	▲	toomuchtodo 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I believe this is a very flawed way of thinking that misunderstands why companies actually pay for software services. What you have described is essentially to hire an AI to provide the service. Our current LLM-based systems are not capable of this and probably won't be with the currently used technology. Software services is not the code. The code is frankly the least important part. I think you are mistaken. You still need to pay someone to host the service, but that someone can be a non profit or coop who operates the open source software for you. For example, Karakeep is open source (https://github.com/karakeep-app/karakeep/) but I pay monthly for it so I don't have to maintain an instance. At any time, I can dump my data, startup the open source software elsewhere, and I'm off to the races. Another example is OpenTofu and OpenBao (part of the Linux Foundation) replacing Hashicorp's Terraform and Vault commercial offerings, if your org has the appetite to operate those open source infrastructure offerings. If the code is open source, I/we can pay anyone willing to run it to run it, either as an individual or a corporation. I can incorporate a non profit or B Corp to run it. The code belongs to anyone, not an entity to be passed around for future potential cashflows by squeezing the customers who require the software it has ownership of. Certainly, maintenance of the subject software and its operation will still require resources and people, but those consuming the software have the control instead of a for profit entity. Organize software starting with the most profitable and start building with the software factory. For profit software industry margin is software consumer and user opportunity. Someone will still need to operate the open source outputs of this process, that is the economic opportunity. It is no longer "Who will build this?" The question is now "Who will operate this open code for me?" (i have both worked as an early employee at a SaaS startup and currently have a budget for buying software and SaaS products in the context of risk management and cybersecurity, and also am encouraged by my org to build solutions using AI whenever potentially more advantageous than purchasing a product or SaaS solution, so I am very familiar with this topic) Edit: Similar vibes to https://huddleup.substack.com/p/the-savannah-bananas-just-co... \| https://x.com/JoePompliano/status/2085007330748383441 > The Savannah Bananas spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building their own secondary ticketing platform. > No fees, every user is verified, tickets can only be sold for face value > In just 5 months, it's already saved fans $13.69M.

▲

paulcole 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your alternative is that companies shouldn't be allowed to change because the changes they want to make will make some people upset?

Raise prices 1500% and you'll find out that you were way underpriced, you'll create an opportunity for a competitor, etc.

This isn't cancer medication we're talking about here, it's some dumb SAAS product.

Edit: Appreciate the haters as always but can somebody please explain what they believe a company should be forced to do?