3 ms·

People may feel that way, and I'm sure in some cases they really mean it. But the reason they always give for why they have to use it is some form of "because

People may feel that way, and I'm sure in some cases they really mean it. But the reason they always give for why they have to use it is some form of "because every one else does." And it had to get to that point because people wanted it in the first place. Otherwise it just wouldn't have sold in the market when it came out.

bluefirebrand 3y ago
You're very close to describing the "enshittification" process. Things start out good quality, high effort. Useful. Then once they achieve a certain amount of inertia they start cutting stuff out. Adding new tiers of payment plans, or injecting advertising into existing plans. Lowering caps. Whatever else they can get away with to cut costs but keep your money. But people have invested in them by that point. Invested enough that changing off is painful and potentially expensive. They want to barrier to leave to be high, even as they give you less reason to stay using their product.
- saltcured 3y ago
  Not sure you even need this product cycle to explain the parent poster's observation. What I see here is your basic Tragedy of the Commons at multiple levels. Consumers adopt the new thing to disadvantage their peers, who then have to do the same, to the detriment of all. And the vendors are doing the same thing. This whole thread reminds me how much "tech" as a meme has come to conflate technology and business. People don't even seem to recognize that "move fast and break things" expressed a business philosophy, not some fundamental truth of technology, R&D, or science.
oasisaimlessly 3y ago
You're ignoring the fact that "it" (the tech in question) can change, and that there's a large motivation to monetize/cut dev spending/etc. once users are entrapped via network effects. Edit: Sibling "enshittification" comment conveyed it better.
JohnFen 3y ago
The costs of a thing are usually not apparent when it is new. All that's apparent is the benefits. The costs rear their ugly head later. So yes, often people jump onto a hot new thing because all they can see are the benefits. The "buyer's remorse" doesn't come in until later, when the downsides become apparent. At that point, it's often too late and people are trapped. By design. The tech industry counts on this effect, and doing that is one of the bad behaviors that encourages people to distrust the industry and become angry at it. All I'm saying is that people are growing increasingly distrustful of, and angry at, our industry for really solid, rational reasons. The most charitable interpretation I can think of for why we allow this to be is that the most visible part of our industry has become so insular and divorced from society in general that they can't even understand the anger or why it's rational. The least charitable interpretation I can think of is that they know perfectly well why people are getting mad and just don't care, because not caring increases short to medium term profitability.

bluefirebrand 3y ago

You're very close to describing the "enshittification" process. Things start out good quality, high effort. Useful. Then once they achieve a certain amount of inertia they start cutting stuff out. Adding new tiers of payment plans, or injecting advertising into existing plans. Lowering caps. Whatever else they can get away with to cut costs but keep your money. But people have invested in them by that point. Invested enough that changing off is painful and potentially expensive. They want to barrier to leave to be high, even as they give you less reason to stay using their product.

saltcured 3y ago
Not sure you even need this product cycle to explain the parent poster's observation. What I see here is your basic Tragedy of the Commons at multiple levels. Consumers adopt the new thing to disadvantage their peers, who then have to do the same, to the detriment of all. And the vendors are doing the same thing. This whole thread reminds me how much "tech" as a meme has come to conflate technology and business. People don't even seem to recognize that "move fast and break things" expressed a business philosophy, not some fundamental truth of technology, R&D, or science.

oasisaimlessly 3y ago

You're ignoring the fact that "it" (the tech in question) can change, and that there's a large motivation to monetize/cut dev spending/etc. once users are entrapped via network effects. Edit: Sibling "enshittification" comment conveyed it better.

JohnFen 3y ago

The costs of a thing are usually not apparent when it is new. All that's apparent is the benefits. The costs rear their ugly head later. So yes, often people jump onto a hot new thing because all they can see are the benefits. The "buyer's remorse" doesn't come in until later, when the downsides become apparent. At that point, it's often too late and people are trapped. By design. The tech industry counts on this effect, and doing that is one of the bad behaviors that encourages people to distrust the industry and become angry at it. All I'm saying is that people are growing increasingly distrustful of, and angry at, our industry for really solid, rational reasons. The most charitable interpretation I can think of for why we allow this to be is that the most visible part of our industry has become so insular and divorced from society in general that they can't even understand the anger or why it's rational. The least charitable interpretation I can think of is that they know perfectly well why people are getting mad and just don't care, because not caring increases short to medium term profitability.