4 ms·

Another step in corporations moving form just selling us goods and services, to controlling how we use those goods and services. They'd price tickets based on o

Another step in corporations moving form just selling us goods and services, to controlling how we use those goods and services. They'd price tickets based on our surplus income if they could. They already try with various proxies, like showing different prices based on browser agent. Is this the kind of innovation we want?

gruez 3y ago
>Another step in corporations moving form just selling us goods and services, to controlling how we use those goods and services. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to accept some limitations on the goods/services I buy if it means I'm saving some money.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > I'm happy to accept some limitations on the goods/services I buy if it means I'm saving some money. Even when the value lost exceeds the savings?
  - gruez 3y ago
    If I'm just going from point A to point B and don't intend on any "travel hacks", what value am I losing?
    - drekipus 3y ago
      Money. You just said that you're happy with limitations if you can save some money. The article is about them imposing limitations so that you cannot get a cheaper flight. They will set the price and the route, and you do it. Sure you can argue for convenience for you, but why would you take away freedom from others?
      - gruez 3y ago
        >You just said that you're happy with limitations if you can save some money. >The article is about them imposing limitations so that you cannot get a cheaper flight. They will set the price and the route, and you do it. How is this any different than the airlines selling tickets with two prices: the high one that allows you to get off at any point, and a discounted one that's conditional on you promising flying all the way to the final destination?
        drekipus 3y ago
        Right. We're talking about the same thing. Some people want to save money going to the intermediate stops. If you want to go to X, the flight A->X is $1000, or A->X->B is $700. People are saying you should be able to go on the second flight and ditch. They are saving $300.
        gruez 3y ago
        Right, and what if you were buying a ticket from A -> B, you were offered two options: 1. $1000 "regular" ticket, you could skip any time you want 2. $700 "discounted" ticket, but the airline makes you promise that you won't get off at X In this case you can't really complain about how airlines are "imposing limitations" or whatever, because you willingly agreed to it as a condition for receiving the discounted ticket. If you secretly wanted to go to X, it'll be even better if you could receive the discount and get off at X, but that violates the agreement you had with the airline, and the airline was only willing to offer the cheaper ticket to you because they thought you were going all the way to B.
- gmerc 3y ago
  It’s a less than zero sum game. you don’t actually save money across.
- SenAnder 3y ago
  You think they're doing this so they can earn less money?
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Nicely asked. Although that phrasing fails when there are win-win options. This does not appear to be one of those cases.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ryaneager 3y ago
  [flagged]
gmerc 3y ago
Capitalism. I know. I know. but hear me out. Current dynamics for publicly listed companies doom them to provide growth every year - but not only does growth get harder every year - especially when the demographic curve tilts downwards, it also becomes more expensive. 3 nm chips are orders of magnitude harder to improve upon them 5mn chips for example. VW Dieselgate, Explosing Samsung Phones, CPU Branch prediction vulnerabilities, Boeing planes dropping from the skies, all have things in common - large industry players that have reached serious growth limits and act under pressure to deliver it anyway. But shareholder doesn’t care. So your only choice eventually for businesses that can’t be improved upon effectively enough to maintain growth (eventually all of them) is to be innovative with fees and, if you’ve monopolized something, exploit that. Enshittification is built into the system. All good things must become shit over time.
- FreshStart 3y ago
  Unless socialism holds it at gunpoint.
- yummypaint 3y ago
  Enshittification is built into the system. All good things must become shit over time. All commercial things are subject to these pressures. Open source projects are not. We need to decomercialize everything that we can.
  - linguae 3y ago
    It depends on the open source project. Not all open source projects are community-driven or are controlled by benevolent dictators; there are some open source projects that are developed by companies selling products and services using those projects (e.g., Red Hat, various database companies before they started switching to non-FOSS source-available licenses), and there are open source projects that are supported by academic institutions and public-sector laboratories. The open source world is not immune to economic pressures. Even the hobbyist donating code still needs to make a living. Thus it’s possible for some open source projects to still undergo “enshittification” if economic pressures influence the maintainers of these projects accordingly.
ncr100 3y ago
Yes and no. It feels there is always a give and take with controlled systems involving humans. Too much control and the humans rebel. Too little and they humans stagnate. And you ask about innovation. There's also financial involved in this situation. In so far as innovation creatively identifying ways to make money, of course it is. This is not the destination, it is merely a waypoint on the path of commerce. In so far as our relationship to sellers, who are shaping the market, no. I appreciate sellers expressing intention of how their products could be used to derive the most value. Though I also want the freedom to use products in a way that I think might benefit my unaddressed interests. A really simple answer but yeah that's it.

gruez 3y ago

>Another step in corporations moving form just selling us goods and services, to controlling how we use those goods and services. I don't know about you, but I'm happy to accept some limitations on the goods/services I buy if it means I'm saving some money.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> I'm happy to accept some limitations on the goods/services I buy if it means I'm saving some money. Even when the value lost exceeds the savings?
- gruez 3y ago
  If I'm just going from point A to point B and don't intend on any "travel hacks", what value am I losing?
  - drekipus 3y ago
    Money. You just said that you're happy with limitations if you can save some money. The article is about them imposing limitations so that you cannot get a cheaper flight. They will set the price and the route, and you do it. Sure you can argue for convenience for you, but why would you take away freedom from others?
    - gruez 3y ago
      >You just said that you're happy with limitations if you can save some money. >The article is about them imposing limitations so that you cannot get a cheaper flight. They will set the price and the route, and you do it. How is this any different than the airlines selling tickets with two prices: the high one that allows you to get off at any point, and a discounted one that's conditional on you promising flying all the way to the final destination?
      - drekipus 3y ago
        Right. We're talking about the same thing. Some people want to save money going to the intermediate stops. If you want to go to X, the flight A->X is $1000, or A->X->B is $700. People are saying you should be able to go on the second flight and ditch. They are saving $300.
        gruez 3y ago
        Right, and what if you were buying a ticket from A -> B, you were offered two options: 1. $1000 "regular" ticket, you could skip any time you want 2. $700 "discounted" ticket, but the airline makes you promise that you won't get off at X In this case you can't really complain about how airlines are "imposing limitations" or whatever, because you willingly agreed to it as a condition for receiving the discounted ticket. If you secretly wanted to go to X, it'll be even better if you could receive the discount and get off at X, but that violates the agreement you had with the airline, and the airline was only willing to offer the cheaper ticket to you because they thought you were going all the way to B.
gmerc 3y ago
It’s a less than zero sum game. you don’t actually save money across.
SenAnder 3y ago
You think they're doing this so they can earn less money?
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Nicely asked. Although that phrasing fails when there are win-win options. This does not appear to be one of those cases.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ryaneager 3y ago
[flagged]

gmerc 3y ago

Capitalism. I know. I know. but hear me out. Current dynamics for publicly listed companies doom them to provide growth every year - but not only does growth get harder every year - especially when the demographic curve tilts downwards, it also becomes more expensive. 3 nm chips are orders of magnitude harder to improve upon them 5mn chips for example. VW Dieselgate, Explosing Samsung Phones, CPU Branch prediction vulnerabilities, Boeing planes dropping from the skies, all have things in common - large industry players that have reached serious growth limits and act under pressure to deliver it anyway. But shareholder doesn’t care. So your only choice eventually for businesses that can’t be improved upon effectively enough to maintain growth (eventually all of them) is to be innovative with fees and, if you’ve monopolized something, exploit that. Enshittification is built into the system. All good things must become shit over time.

FreshStart 3y ago
Unless socialism holds it at gunpoint.
yummypaint 3y ago
Enshittification is built into the system. All good things must become shit over time. All commercial things are subject to these pressures. Open source projects are not. We need to decomercialize everything that we can.
- linguae 3y ago
  It depends on the open source project. Not all open source projects are community-driven or are controlled by benevolent dictators; there are some open source projects that are developed by companies selling products and services using those projects (e.g., Red Hat, various database companies before they started switching to non-FOSS source-available licenses), and there are open source projects that are supported by academic institutions and public-sector laboratories. The open source world is not immune to economic pressures. Even the hobbyist donating code still needs to make a living. Thus it’s possible for some open source projects to still undergo “enshittification” if economic pressures influence the maintainers of these projects accordingly.

ncr100 3y ago

Yes and no. It feels there is always a give and take with controlled systems involving humans. Too much control and the humans rebel. Too little and they humans stagnate. And you ask about innovation. There's also financial involved in this situation. In so far as innovation creatively identifying ways to make money, of course it is. This is not the destination, it is merely a waypoint on the path of commerce. In so far as our relationship to sellers, who are shaping the market, no. I appreciate sellers expressing intention of how their products could be used to derive the most value. Though I also want the freedom to use products in a way that I think might benefit my unaddressed interests. A really simple answer but yeah that's it.