21 ms·

It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate. Especially with sof

• mschild 7mo ago
  The other thing is availability of alternatives. Most standard users simply dont have an option. Mac Neo brought Apple into a lower price range, but requires a new device. Linux is there (and frankly fantastic at this point) but good luck getting the average person through the setup process.
  • chii 7mo ago
    > good luck getting the average person through the setup process. an enterprising hardware manufacturer can take on the mantle, and be the trail blazer with a no-setup machine that works. Personally, i would imagine something like framework laptop, and steam machine, are the best candidates.
    • Ekaros 7mo ago
      How long would it take for some MBA to come there and say hey if we install this full of crap we could make multiple euros per unit... And then fill it with crap, spying and other things?
      • bmn__ 7mo ago
        Purely hypothetical, hasn't happened yet. The reason is that Linux system vendors are lead and staffed by people who are idealistic like the average Linux system customer. They know their clientele, they know it would be bad for business.
    • Gigachad 7mo ago
      This is what the Steamdeck is. But it took an absolutely massive amount of work over a decade from valve just to get gaming working. No laptop manufacturer could afford to do the same for fixing wine for desktop software since they aren’t getting a cut of the software sales like valve does.
      • jacquesm 7mo ago
        That's mostly because they didn't care before. It also took a massive amount of work to get gaming to work on windows.
  • ineedasername 7mo ago
    Good luck getting the average person through the setup process AI is part of the problem with what MS has shoved in to things but it may be part of what can help with the underlying issue of this behavior by corporations. The average user increasingly will not need to be walked through in certain ways, they’ll only have to be aware something, some way, is possible. Because we are most of usthe average, meaning outsider to knowledge and understanding of things their functioning on a computer. I can strip out tired windows behavior to some extent and certainly stand up a Linux desktop. But I didn’t know how to easily manage retrieval of data from an old disc image that refused to mount. But I knew it was there and not impossible so I asked Claude. A one shot prompt that a few minutes later had Claude reading raw bytes in someway and finding the location of a few files I needed. So there is potential for AI to fill some gaps in this way and make some things easier and more in reach of average users. It’s potential only though, so continuing to work and ensure open models remain a thing, it’s important. Just like the Internet enabled a lot of things previously out of reach of people. And yeah, that was not an un mixed blessing with the rest, so all the more reason to move forward thoughtfully.
• dude250711 7mo ago
  I think managers were promoted for infecting their features with Copilot, and developers for infecting them with React, and here we are. OneDrive managers on the other hand are one step away from inventing some way of adding a gacha mechanic.
  • mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
    Blaming React is absurd. Its like blaming the screwdriver instead of the person using it.
    • etiennebausson 7mo ago
      He isn't blaming React (or Copilot), but those who used them in context they had no place in.
      • mexicocitinluez 7mo ago
        "developers with infecting then with React" is 100% blaming React
        • edgyquant 7mo ago
          No it’s directly putting the blame on developers
          • anthonylevine 7mo ago
            "I'm on HN and whenever I see React mentioned I'm constitutionally incapable of not saying something dumb"
            • shmeeed 7mo ago
              Seen in the context of the thread, with the both of you never addressing the actual problem at hand but instead reflexively and vigorously defending React against an alleged attack, I'm sorry to say this reads like an admission.
• baq 7mo ago
  > It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate. this is in general how the market for pretty much everything works (sometimes 'users' are replaced by 'the regulator', but it doesn't matter too much). lesson in there is 'majority of users don't care nearly as much as you think', usually.
  • Draiken 7mo ago
    I don't think "care" is the right word here at all. We simply don't have options. This is capitalism's biggest flaw: it's based on the assumption that there will be competition, but competition eventually leads to winners that then consolidate their positions and we end up with no real choices. You're telling me people would pick a worse OS because they don't care even if they had real options? I don't believe that for a second.
    • ekianjo 7mo ago
      > This is capitalism's biggest flaw: it's based on the assumption that there will be competition The fact that governments allow Microsoft to abuse its position to force OEMs to install Windows is the biggest problem. This would never happen in a market where regulation ensures healthy competition.
      • piva00 7mo ago
        That version of capitalism sailed 40 years ago in the USA, antitrust enforcement has slowly disappeared which creates a race to the bottom for other countries who would like their companies to compete against USA's companies. If they enforce antitrust then the behemoths created in the USA by absorbing competitors without antitrust enforcement can eat their lunch, even though it's better for consumers. Unfortunately this also allowed the USA to have companies so large that they basically control the government, changing this now will require massive political will and a political body untethered from corporate interests. I really don't see that happening in the USA, it's been thoroughly captured after so many years driving on that path.
• jeppester 7mo ago
  The only way this get better is if the user gets to choose between an OS with ads, lock-in, telemetry etc. and then one with none of that. As it is now, buying a laptop in a store is a "pick your poison" situation.
  • jacquesm 7mo ago
    What bugged me for years is that I ended up paying the microsoft or apple tax that way. In the end I figured out a more efficient way around that than any of the rebates/refunds: just buy second hand hardware. Someone else paid for and used the windows license, I just need the box.
    • raddan 7mo ago
      If you don’t need a laptop, you can also build a machine from parts. This is probably the best way to run a desktop computer.
      • jacquesm 7mo ago
        Anybody on HN that didn't know that you can build a machine from parts or isn't capable do doing so is probably on the wrong website ;)
        • tmtvl 7mo ago
          I have two left hands (and one of them is backwards) and components spontaneously disintegrate when I touch them. I know I'm not capable of building a computer so I bought mine from Tuxedo computers, who sell computers running GNU/Linux. I might be the GNU/Linux whisperer who manages to not have any major issues, but that doesn't correlate with the type of technical aptitude which would let me turn a heap of components into a working machine. I even managed to break a laptop by trying to replace the CMOS battery.
          • jacquesm 7mo ago
            Hah! You're like one of my family members. We keep her away from anything electronic because the failure rate in her presence can not be accounted for by accident alone. Oh, and laptops are nasty. They are put together in ways that can easily confound you when you have plenty of experience. Lots of it revolves around little pieces of plastic that are marginal when new and that just want to break by the time the device needs service. It's a conspiracy! Anyway, at least you know it can be done. The conditional still holds.
• yfw 7mo ago
  Like that windows recall feature which they keep pushing
  • Gigachad 7mo ago
    Because Microsoft makes far more money on enterprise and ai products than they do selling windows licenses to consumers.
• h1fra 7mo ago
  That's how the world works for everything: software, politics, social stuff (good or bad), war, etc. People are bad at judging gradual/slow changes but when you push a bit too far, you have already gained so much that you can usually just say sorry and move on
• HexPhantom 7mo ago
  The rollback only ever applies to the thing people noticed. Everything else quietly becomes the new normal.
• kiicia 7mo ago
  Too late now. Multiple people having anything to say when choosing hardware and software, including me, will no longer advise or approve buying windows machine or using windows in general.
• dmos62 7mo ago
  I think private interests should not run what is effectively public infrastructure, like Windows. Or, put another way, infrastructure of national importance should be publicly controlled and governed with transparency and public interests in mind. Either that, or true capitalist competition has to be reenabled aggressively: forbid walled gardens, split up the Googles, etc. This centralization of public utility and power in the hands of private individuals, coupled with an uncompetitive market, is nonsensical. Competition or nationalization.
  • apetresc 7mo ago
    Windows is not public infrastructure. If the government's reliance on it has reached the level of "national importance", then that's the problem that needs to be addressed, not Windows' ownership. Public infrastructure should be built on open-source, period.
    • dmos62 7mo ago
      Why is Windows not public infrastructure? Because it's privately owned, or because it's not relevant to enough of the public? I argue that it is public in function. My thinking matches yours as regards OSS.
      • Am4TIfIsER0ppos 7mo ago
        The government haven't yet mandated you use windows. Yet. It will be soon, like with androids and iphones, for user identification so the government knows who sends every network packet.
• fsflover 7mo ago
  > It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate. It's called "enshittification": https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/ https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/
• ruszki 7mo ago
  > It’s quite common for companies This is not general. This is true only on markets which are full regarding available customers, and there is no foreseeable growth. What we can see in IT in the past 10-15 years (especially after around 2015) is the slow progress towards this state from a rich and competitive (and personally I think a way more fun) one. I worked for dying companies (e.g. Ericsson), for slowly moving ones (e.g. Santander), and for several now dead startups, and what happened with Google, Microsoft, etc is that they slowly moving from the "startup" market - there is still available non conquered market segments - to the dying, slowly moving one - where there are a few large players, and it's not possible to grow in any meaningful way with your own skills. The only difference now compared to the decades until the 90s is that antitrust checks and balances are dead, and they can artificially inflate their own power, which haven't happened in this scale for at least 100 years. And it caused world shattering problems back then, and it will now too. I would leave this field happily, even when I'm exceptionally good in it, because it's more and more disgusting. Only if there would be any good alternatives, which wouldn't require me to loose at least a decade of my life. But unfortunately, the balance is way more fucked up to easily change my lifestyle at this point. And it will be just worse than this.
• nicoburns 7mo ago
  > I think the only way this gets better for consumers is if customer response more often insisted further roll backs than just the last straw if a company crosses the line. I think consumers have little power here. Our economic system fundamentally chooses to reward such behaviour. Until we change that, the power will always be with these kind of companies. Perhaps governments could levy punative fines in such situations. But that seems like a bandaid (and ripe for corruption). Ideally we'd have structural change that prevents this behaviour in the first place. Perhaps worker representation on company boards. Or progressive corporation taxation that more strongly encourages smaller companies and more competition.
  • maerF0x0 7mo ago
    > I think consumers have little power here. Our economic system fundamentally chooses to reward such behaviour. Consumers have the final say, our economic system fundamentally is consumer spending. (Ok, save for most recent year(s) of mag7 AI buildout. But generally that's the case for USA economy). We have to stop taking out our wallet and just accepting things like sheep. (nearly) Every one of the "scrapped" computers could have run a *nix OS and been a middle finger to microsoft.
    • thunderfork 7mo ago
      You can do that, but the companies and institutions built on Windows will still keep paying whatever it costs for Active Directory, and thus all the bundled software that comes with it. Individual consumer action does not a monopoly break.
    • thewebguyd 7mo ago
      I think consumers largely have stopped taking out their wallet for Microsoft, at least enough of them to cause Microsoft to start walking back a little bit. Nearly 1 billion PCs have stayed on Windows 10, 42% of the global desktop marketshare is still on 10 despite EOL. Linux has been showing consistent growth on the steam hardware survey as well, and time will tell but I have a feeling the MacBook Neo is going to put another nail in Microsoft's consumer coffin. The problem for us is that's such a tiny margin of Microsoft's customer base. They aren't a consumer company anymore. For Microsoft to feel the pain, we need the big legacy enterprises to start ripping out Windows (and by extension, rip out Windows Server, Azure, M365). Us here on HN are in a unique position to help, with many of us having influence on or even the authority to make technical decisions for the companies we work for. Its not enough to stop buying Microsoft at home, we all need to stop buying Microsoft at work.
• deaux 7mo ago
  >It’s quite common for companies It's quite common for megacorps, FAANG and friends, NASDAQ bigwigs. It's rare for small companies, and extremely rare for independent developers.
• GolfPopper 7mo ago
  Speaking only for myself, this sort of behavior is a great way to break the Trust Thermocline [1]. The point where I am so frustrated, so fed up, so expectant that said company will abuse me again, that I refuse to do business with them at all, under any circumstances, no matter if it is inconvenient to avoid them or not. 1. https://x.com/garius/status/1588115310124539904 https://x.com/garius/status/1588115310124539904
  • willis936 7mo ago
    Exactly. This behavior is blindly driving to "line go up" without realizing they just dug their own grave. 2025 was a series of existential missteps for Microsoft. This is a historic moment. These suits would rather die than try to build trust.
    • Henchman21 7mo ago
      Time to let them die then!
• SilverElfin 7mo ago
  > It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate. Yes, when there isn’t real competition. And that’s in part due to a long history of anti competitive practices but also simply because Microsoft is too big and should be broken up.
• cratermoon 7mo ago
  > It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate I get the impression that many companies are working through this with AI-assisted coding. How bad can the product get before the revenue loss is greater than money saved by firing programmers and deploying AI slop? For products like Windows and Office, the subscription model and enterprise account revenue provides a huge cushion for decreasing quality before they even have to apologize and roll back.
• htx80nerd 7mo ago
  >"It’s quite common for companies to work their way up to the line of the most user hostile version of their product that users will tolerate." developer delusion. devs who barely use their own apps. who dont understand the day-to-day user experience.
  • samrus 7mo ago
    No this is product and finance. Product wants more features because that looks better to leadership. And finance likes ads
• m463 7mo ago
  The answer to all of this has traditionally been robust competition. A framework of just and fair laws and regulations should support this, backed up by open enforcement. but, yeah.
• omoikane 7mo ago
  The underlying philosophy for these companies seem to be "ask for forgiveness, not permission". Some of us are done forgiving, but I am not sure there are enough of us to reverse this cultural trend.
• jayd16 7mo ago
  You'll note that those are both B2B fumbles. The savvy end user usually doesn't have the needed weight.
• kivle 7mo ago
  I've noticed recently that my Windows 11 start menu isn't a 50% gray empty blob anymore. I always disable "recommended apps" (eg. ad supported app suggestions), so 50% of the space in my start menu was unused, yet it was still there of course. Kind of refreshing to have a somewhat normal looking start menu again with something as revolutionary as a list of apps right when you open it. Let's see how long it takes before they mess it up again.
• coffeemug 7mo ago
  A view from my small corner on the inside: taste isn't merely not incentivized, it's actively disincentivized. It's not selected for during the interview process, if you demonstrate a little of it nobody cares, if you demonstrate too much of it you clash with everyone else's priorities which quickly becomes career limiting. So people willing to fight for taste never advance. This isn't some nefarious plot to screw over users. Taste is not prioritized because nobody has it and thus can't recognize it. Can't value something you don't even recognize. This is orthogonal to talent btw. Lots of people there who are insanely good at what they do, who produce the most hideous API specs you've ever seen, as one example. A much more mundane (and almost certainly true) explanation is that people who put all that crap in legitimately thought it's a good idea. Taste is its own thing and it's just not in Microsoft's DNA.
• deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
• justonceokay 7mo ago
  I think about how a successful and robust ecosystem is one in which there are many parasites at every level of the food chain. If your ecosystem doesn’t have parasites then it’s not operating with nearly the amount of interconnectedness or efficiency that it could be otherwise. It’s similar to that idea that floats around where $0 lost to fraud is not the optimal amount. If you over index on removing fraud from your system eventually you will spend more on monitoring and removing it than you save on the fraud itself. That is time you could have spent building more things that make money. The ecosystem is a beast of its own and the optimal state of the ecosystem is /not/the optimal state for any actor within it
• dreamcompiler 7mo ago
  I call this odious practice "profit maximization titration" and almost all companies do it now. They continually enshittify the product a little at a time until they notice a dip in profits and then they dial back the shittiness a bit. Or if they're really sophisticated they will enshittify the product by a large amount and then do a binary search to restore product functionality in logarithmically smaller steps until the balance between profits and customer dissatisfaction re-stabilizes. They 'git bisect' the product's shittiness, as it were.
• naikrovek 7mo ago
  The old “two steps backward, one step forward” routine.
• nineteen999 7mo ago
  This wasn't even the first time for MS .. Win98SE was a similar disaster stuffed full of junk, most people don't remember Vista fondly either. In each case they redeemed themselves temporarily .. XP following 89SE and Windows 7/8 after Vista. History repeats I guess.
• raxxorraxor 7mo ago
  That is power the user loses if he chooses SaaS for the most part. An OS is still a different case, but that part is covered with restrictive update policies. I do believe that Microsoft does bleed users though. This is an effect that isn't easily observed, but users tend to follow developers at some point when the software repertoire begins to get more attractive on other operating systems. The industry still employs a lot of native Windows apps, but more and more get replaced through alternatives and here Windows will be less relevant at some point as well.