They've done the calculation. They'll lose X income because of subscribers who leave, and they'll get Y extra income from the ones who remain. If X < Y then implement policy.

▲

usrbinbash 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Companies increasingly no longer even care about income.

They care about what boosts investor confidence.

So even if implementing a policy lowers operative income, if the growth in stock value offsets this, aka. number-go-up == true, the policy is implemented.

▲

koe123 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

The irony is, the PE of lots of tech companies implies 30+ years to earn back your money. Some of these companies enshittify at a rate higher than being in existence within 30 years. So I am curious how this will end up.

	▲	lenerdenator 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		30 years doesn't matter; 90 days does. If you can make enough money back over that period by enshittifying the company, you do it, even if that means selling the thing whole.

▲

scotty79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's almost as if making companies responsible for performance of their stock backfired to the tune of "a measure that becomes the goal ceases to be a good measure".

	▲	mrguyorama 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's simpler than that. To a public company, the product is the stock price, and the customers are investors. Consumers exist as a resource to consume. You hold the same mental position in their minds as the cheap plastic packaging they had to purchase.

▲

zmgsabst 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’ve worked in a finance department — and this is a very idealistic view of how such decisions get made.