4 ms·

Because „value“ is defined relative to the competition. If someone manages to sustainably build and sell a car for $100, a used beater suddenly isn’t worth $100

Because „value“ is defined relative to the competition. If someone manages to sustainably build and sell a car for $100, a used beater suddenly isn’t worth $1000 anymore. The value decreases because I can get a better thing cheaper now. A Mainframe that was worth a million in 1980 would be worth about 10k as a museum piece now, because nobody would use it seriously anymore (even if it works exactly the same as in 1980). Some software had a high value at some point but is pretty worthless now because there is cheaper or even open source competition now.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
That's not the kind of value that matters to the user. Software is not supposed to have value, it's supposed to deliver value. And that is not subject to rot through competition. If some program from 2000 delivered me $100 of value yearly then, the existence of an enshittified competitor from 2020 that produces $100 of annual value for me today doesn't make the 24-year-old program suddenly deliver less value.
- 9dev 2y ago
  It can also become a liability and introduce cost, though: For example, if your old program requires emulation to run on a modern OS, or some file conversion process, or network isolation. All these things fall under maintenance costs that you probably don't factor into your calculation. Your "enshittified" competitor won't have these, and may very well deliver a higher net value, all considered.
- echoangle 2y ago
  In the point of the original comment, it absolutely is. They said: > Thing is, I don’t believe in owning software forever anymore. Things loose their value too quickly: what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now, other than the need to run an ancient VM to produce files nobody else could work with? Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. The point as I understood it was: why would I pay a high fixed fee to own a software “forever” if I am not really going to use it forever? At some point, a subscription will be cheaper overall. Because people buying an office suite in 2005 for a fixed fee aren’t using it anymore, they can also use LibreOffice now. So if they had a choice between “one time $500” or “$5 per month”, the monthly option would have been better. Software not degrading because it’s digital doesn’t change that.
globular-toast 2y ago
It's a mistake to conflate value with "market price" or liquidity. I have plenty of assets like books, kitchen equipment, and even electronics that would fetch a mighty sum of approximately zero on the market yet still provide me with enormous value (as much value as they did the day I acquired them). If cars were like software then they wouldn't wear or rust, the only reason they'd "lose value" is if the roads or fuels changed. But the roads haven't changed fundamentally since the invention of the car and newer fuels can usually be used with minor tweaks rather than starting from scratch. It's completely irrelevant if I could buy a "better" car. I wouldn't be on the market for one because my current car continues to deliver value. The "roads changing" can happen to software too, it's true. If the x86 platform became obsolete then clearly a bunch of software that is too intrinsically tried to that platform would be less valuable (because you can't run it). But that hasn't happened. In fact, we can't even seem to change the "roads" when we want to (see IPv4). Much of the change in software is artificial and created by those profit from it.
- echoangle 2y ago
  > If cars were like software then they wouldn't wear or rust, the only reason they'd "lose value" is if the roads or fuels changed. No, and that’s exactly my point. A car with technical specs from 1970 wouldn’t be worth as much today as in 1970 because the standards are higher today. I wouldn’t want a perfectly restored house from 1600, just because it was the greatest way to live in 1600. Because I am used to stuff from now.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    That sounds like the hedonic treadmill to me. The existence of something "better" does not reduce the value of what you already have. I have a 1080p projector. I enjoy it just as much as I always have done. You might have a 4K projector but that doesn't affect me at all. This is not to say a newer model can't deliver more value than my current one. But that's not the same as saying my current model suddenly delivers less.
    - echoangle 2y ago

TeMPOraL 2y ago

That's not the kind of value that matters to the user. Software is not supposed to have value, it's supposed to deliver value. And that is not subject to rot through competition. If some program from 2000 delivered me $100 of value yearly then, the existence of an enshittified competitor from 2020 that produces $100 of annual value for me today doesn't make the 24-year-old program suddenly deliver less value.

9dev 2y ago
It can also become a liability and introduce cost, though: For example, if your old program requires emulation to run on a modern OS, or some file conversion process, or network isolation. All these things fall under maintenance costs that you probably don't factor into your calculation. Your "enshittified" competitor won't have these, and may very well deliver a higher net value, all considered.
echoangle 2y ago
In the point of the original comment, it absolutely is. They said: > Thing is, I don’t believe in owning software forever anymore. Things loose their value too quickly: what would an Office suite from 2005 yield me now, other than the need to run an ancient VM to produce files nobody else could work with? Am I ever going to play the copy of Dungeon Siege again that I bought in ca. 2002? No. It looks unbearable today. The point as I understood it was: why would I pay a high fixed fee to own a software “forever” if I am not really going to use it forever? At some point, a subscription will be cheaper overall. Because people buying an office suite in 2005 for a fixed fee aren’t using it anymore, they can also use LibreOffice now. So if they had a choice between “one time $500” or “$5 per month”, the monthly option would have been better. Software not degrading because it’s digital doesn’t change that.

globular-toast 2y ago

It's a mistake to conflate value with "market price" or liquidity. I have plenty of assets like books, kitchen equipment, and even electronics that would fetch a mighty sum of approximately zero on the market yet still provide me with enormous value (as much value as they did the day I acquired them). If cars were like software then they wouldn't wear or rust, the only reason they'd "lose value" is if the roads or fuels changed. But the roads haven't changed fundamentally since the invention of the car and newer fuels can usually be used with minor tweaks rather than starting from scratch. It's completely irrelevant if I could buy a "better" car. I wouldn't be on the market for one because my current car continues to deliver value. The "roads changing" can happen to software too, it's true. If the x86 platform became obsolete then clearly a bunch of software that is too intrinsically tried to that platform would be less valuable (because you can't run it). But that hasn't happened. In fact, we can't even seem to change the "roads" when we want to (see IPv4). Much of the change in software is artificial and created by those profit from it.

echoangle 2y ago
> If cars were like software then they wouldn't wear or rust, the only reason they'd "lose value" is if the roads or fuels changed. No, and that’s exactly my point. A car with technical specs from 1970 wouldn’t be worth as much today as in 1970 because the standards are higher today. I wouldn’t want a perfectly restored house from 1600, just because it was the greatest way to live in 1600. Because I am used to stuff from now.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  That sounds like the hedonic treadmill to me. The existence of something "better" does not reduce the value of what you already have. I have a 1080p projector. I enjoy it just as much as I always have done. You might have a 4K projector but that doesn't affect me at all. This is not to say a newer model can't deliver more value than my current one. But that's not the same as saying my current model suddenly delivers less.
  - echoangle 2y ago