23 ms·

Sometimes I hear people say that to succeed in our economy you need to offer the best product for the lowest price--or rather, the right balance between the two

Sometimes I hear people say that to succeed in our economy you need to offer the best product for the lowest price--or rather, the right balance between the two. But so often in my career and in general, I have seen the most successful companies doing extra work to make their product worse. It's both obvious and subtle how bad this is; if the people who implemented this feature had instead spent their time doing nothing, it would have improved the product. "Competition is fierce, so let's spend time and money making our product worse"--is this the winning strategy from the company at the forefront of technology? Apparently. This is a testament to the health of our free markets.

chii 2y ago
> This is a testament to the health of our free markets. no, it's not. it's a statement that applies to a monopoly. And software is a monopoly - because each piece of software is unique enough, that there's no replacement possible.
- Buttons840 2y ago
  If there are monopolies everywhere, and a lack of competition (which is the definition of a monopoly), how does that not reflect on the health of the free market and competition?
  - chii 2y ago
    It's still a free market, and each new entrant attempts to create their software such that it turns into a monopoly.
- armchairhacker 2y ago
  This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). While in some cases (like YouTube vs alternatives) there are clear advantages to the former, in this case I don't even think that holds (I imagine most people only use JsFiddle to interactively build client-side webpages then share them via a link). That people pay for JsFiddle (although do they? Maybe this is another "unprofitable" company) is a testament to...the fact that humans are not rational actors. Even in a "perfect" (competitive and easy to enter) market, a brand's quality can tank and they'll continue to get sales, despite objectively superior alternatives, simply because of brand recognition. I doubt regulation can solve this. Try to imagine a ban on "enshittification". How do you measure it? How do you enforce it? How much does it cost to measure and enforce it? What if a company has "enshittify" because they're losing money? What if that company deliberately entered the market losing money, to gain brand recognition so they could recoup via "enshittification" later? What about small would-be companies that decide not to enter the market because this regulation is too complex and potential consequences (they think may someday apply to them because it's so complex) are too severe? Instead, I believe the best solution is to try to be a smarter consumer yourself, and convince others to if possible; and if you can, start a company where you deliberately try to maintain quality even though it will sometimes directly contradict increasing profit (because humans aren't rational actors, enshittification won't lose you too many customers; and yet, there are companies that seem to avoid it and still make $millions+).
  - 9rx 2y ago
    > This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). The other two don't even have sidebars... They are suitable replacements in the same way that crickets are a suitable replacement for beef: It'll get the job done. But usually the customer wants more – the whole experience – and jsfiddle does have a monopoly over that. Attempts to truly compete against them will be marred with legal challenges.
jeetoid 2y ago
Such a great observation. I find this broadly applies to every aspect of humanity but especially government, more so than corporations could ever manage. Corporations at least have SOME competitive pressure, much less scope, many more constraints and far less power.
- kibwen 2y ago
  Governments are actually less nefarious by this metric because they don't have a perverse incentive to make things worse. If a government wants more money out of you, it just raises taxes. If a corporation wants more money out of you, it needs to induce demand, which at the limit means actively working to make the product worse. Our modern world is proof that relying on competition isn't enough to save us from the enshittification.
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    Enshitification is not something that happens to customers. Free software is not free to the advertisers, and as such, the companies will go to great lengths to meet their needs. And this makes sense. Why would a company do anything for you if you aren't paying? If people preferred a good paid solution over a shitty free one then Kagi would be a trillion dollar company and nobody would ever have heard of Google. But that's not what people want. They want shitty but free. This is the market working as it should. Enshitification is not something done to us. It's something we do to ourselves.
    - kibwen 2y ago
      Sure, I agree that people suck. But it takes two to tango. Greedy corporations don't get to divest themselves of their share of the blame.
  - disqard 2y ago
    > Governments [...] don't have a perverse incentive to make things worse. I hate to break this to you, but in the USA, this has happened multiple times: for instance, allowing Govt to shutdown due to spending limits, to push some extra pain + score political points, and then paint oneself as a savior when the shutdown is eventually lifted. You could argue that they're not making things worse for the folks that actually matter (and you'd be right), but there is immense hardship and pain inflicted on ordinary people routinely (esp. of late), so I didn't want to leave your comment unchallenged.
9rx 2y ago
> Sometimes I hear people say that to succeed in our economy you need to offer the best product for the lowest price--or rather, the right balance between the two. That statement is for where you are able to compete. If you produce, say, wheat, the best quality product at the lowest price is going to win over the marketplace. But the tech industry doesn't allow competition thanks to patents, copyright, etc.

chii 2y ago

> This is a testament to the health of our free markets. no, it's not. it's a statement that applies to a monopoly. And software is a monopoly - because each piece of software is unique enough, that there's no replacement possible.

Buttons840 2y ago
If there are monopolies everywhere, and a lack of competition (which is the definition of a monopoly), how does that not reflect on the health of the free market and competition?
- chii 2y ago
  It's still a free market, and each new entrant attempts to create their software such that it turns into a monopoly.
armchairhacker 2y ago
This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). While in some cases (like YouTube vs alternatives) there are clear advantages to the former, in this case I don't even think that holds (I imagine most people only use JsFiddle to interactively build client-side webpages then share them via a link). That people pay for JsFiddle (although do they? Maybe this is another "unprofitable" company) is a testament to...the fact that humans are not rational actors. Even in a "perfect" (competitive and easy to enter) market, a brand's quality can tank and they'll continue to get sales, despite objectively superior alternatives, simply because of brand recognition. I doubt regulation can solve this. Try to imagine a ban on "enshittification". How do you measure it? How do you enforce it? How much does it cost to measure and enforce it? What if a company has "enshittify" because they're losing money? What if that company deliberately entered the market losing money, to gain brand recognition so they could recoup via "enshittification" later? What about small would-be companies that decide not to enter the market because this regulation is too complex and potential consequences (they think may someday apply to them because it's so complex) are too severe? Instead, I believe the best solution is to try to be a smarter consumer yourself, and convince others to if possible; and if you can, start a company where you deliberately try to maintain quality even though it will sometimes directly contradict increasing profit (because humans aren't rational actors, enshittification won't lose you too many customers; and yet, there are companies that seem to avoid it and still make $millions+).
- 9rx 2y ago
  > This specific example, https://jsfiddle.net https://jsfiddle.net, is not a monopoly and has many suitable replacements (e.g. https://livecodes.io/ https://livecodes.io/, https://liveweave.com https://liveweave.com). The other two don't even have sidebars... They are suitable replacements in the same way that crickets are a suitable replacement for beef: It'll get the job done. But usually the customer wants more – the whole experience – and jsfiddle does have a monopoly over that. Attempts to truly compete against them will be marred with legal challenges.

jeetoid 2y ago

Such a great observation. I find this broadly applies to every aspect of humanity but especially government, more so than corporations could ever manage. Corporations at least have SOME competitive pressure, much less scope, many more constraints and far less power.

kibwen 2y ago
Governments are actually less nefarious by this metric because they don't have a perverse incentive to make things worse. If a government wants more money out of you, it just raises taxes. If a corporation wants more money out of you, it needs to induce demand, which at the limit means actively working to make the product worse. Our modern world is proof that relying on competition isn't enough to save us from the enshittification.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  Enshitification is not something that happens to customers. Free software is not free to the advertisers, and as such, the companies will go to great lengths to meet their needs. And this makes sense. Why would a company do anything for you if you aren't paying? If people preferred a good paid solution over a shitty free one then Kagi would be a trillion dollar company and nobody would ever have heard of Google. But that's not what people want. They want shitty but free. This is the market working as it should. Enshitification is not something done to us. It's something we do to ourselves.
  - kibwen 2y ago
    Sure, I agree that people suck. But it takes two to tango. Greedy corporations don't get to divest themselves of their share of the blame.
- disqard 2y ago
  > Governments [...] don't have a perverse incentive to make things worse. I hate to break this to you, but in the USA, this has happened multiple times: for instance, allowing Govt to shutdown due to spending limits, to push some extra pain + score political points, and then paint oneself as a savior when the shutdown is eventually lifted. You could argue that they're not making things worse for the folks that actually matter (and you'd be right), but there is immense hardship and pain inflicted on ordinary people routinely (esp. of late), so I didn't want to leave your comment unchallenged.

9rx 2y ago

> Sometimes I hear people say that to succeed in our economy you need to offer the best product for the lowest price--or rather, the right balance between the two. That statement is for where you are able to compete. If you produce, say, wheat, the best quality product at the lowest price is going to win over the marketplace. But the tech industry doesn't allow competition thanks to patents, copyright, etc.