> I think of enshitification primarily as an organisational/business phenomenon rather than a technical one. The other two important criteria implied by this n

> I think of enshitification primarily as an organisational/business phenomenon rather than a technical one. The other two important criteria implied by this new term are that it is deliberate and that it is taken for the benefit of the “author” (company) at the expense of the user. Bugs are inadvertent and have no intent so don’t match either criterion. Google’s so-called “integrity” system is DRM for the benefit of advertisers (and thus Google), not users. Intel’s on-chip security manager isn’t for the user’s benefit and adds security risks. Encrusting photoshop or Word with a million features or back-compatibility with a mistake made decades ago may make the program worse, but are in service of giving customers what they want. It may make the application worse in some ways but the motivation is pro-customer, regardless of the ultimate result. (Note: I chose these two programs bc I don’t even like either)