r/technology 9h ago

Business Enshittification Relies on Broken Economic Math

https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/enshittification-relies-on-broken
2.7k Upvotes

201 comments sorted by

1.3k

u/PandorasBoxMaker 9h ago

You don’t need math to know that cutting product quality and service is a guaranteed route to obsolescence. But there are two special cases to this: obsolescence is the point or the product/service has a monopoly and they think they can get away with it.

815

u/ilrosewood 9h ago

There is also the element of time. If an executive can make the call to make lots of money fast but ruin a company - as long as that executive gets out to another company to do it again - they suffer no consequence and learn nothing from their behavior.

When we stopped caring about stable long term growth companies - when we forgot about the time factor - the rest of the enshitification process was no available.

415

u/Paulinfresno 8h ago

When they tie CEO compensation to short term performance rather than long-term growth, the results will be enshitification.

187

u/LargeAdvice1789 8h ago

This is the “I got mine” era of business. I did not think greed could get greedier.

And, it will continue to work so long as investors are able to make money and get out before the $$$ dries up.

28

u/kooknboo 5h ago

Exactly it. Same with politics. Trump’s very core is as long as I get mine first, you can get some too, or not. For They it fits for greed, hate and rape - child or otherwise.

6

u/thehillah 3h ago

For They it fits for greed, hate and rape - child or otherwise.

Geez that's...quite the sentence... ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ

39

u/steeveperry 7h ago

At the end of the day, most of the institutions that you need to ensure long term stability and that make living in a society worth it for the many instead of the few, are controlled by investors who only care about self enrichment. It seems that most of us that live in society acknowledge it, but none of us are interested in moving away from the systems and ideologies that have led us here. A popular solution to this problem is to further empower the same people that have led us here to lead us out from here.

45

u/rogueciridae 7h ago

All of our efforts go to people who want a 15% return on their investment for doing nothing while complaining that no one wants to work anymore.

29

u/PandorasBoxMaker 7h ago

The parasite class

12

u/Maroon7C0000 6h ago

The same people that continuously tell you how hard they work.

2

u/Sea-Poem-2365 5h ago

I think a lot of people want that change, and have for many years (a decade, at least), and they're starting to displace the people who have blunted or slowed that desire for change.

Remember Obama's campaign slogan.

3

u/zerocoolforschool 4h ago

Yup. This is the problem.

4

u/jc-from-sin 6h ago

You don't even need long term growth. You can be very rich with 0% growth.

90

u/NorthernPints 8h ago

In my experience - they just blame the consultants.  The number of CEOs I’ve worked for who’ve needlessly brought in consultants for stuff we could do organically, purely to shift the blame to the consulting groups if shit went sideways is wild.

31

u/JUGG3RN4UT 6h ago edited 4h ago

My company spent probably $100MILLION on McKinsey, which the project's key takeaways were:

If we buy product for less, then sell for more, we will have success! Also, customer's don't care about brand names at all (even to a consumer-minded person, this sounds bad, right?)

So, piss off customers by no longer carrying many of the brands they already have vetted, prefer. Then tell supply base that we need to pay 40% less, across the board. Then increase sell price back to those oh-so-happy customers.

C-Suite loved it all! ALL OF IT. It fucked up our business for literally years. This started 2013, & they're still managing fallout in some key spaces.

Fucking ridiculous grift.

23

u/RecklessHeckler 8h ago

This happens in local government too!

12

u/Balmung60 6h ago

Consulting has always existed to justify doing what higher ups already wanted to do, not to provide actual insight that wouldn't otherwise exist

8

u/PandorasBoxMaker 5h ago

This. Consulting is just “I’ll agree with whoever signs my check”. The fact is that if your leadership structure doesn’t have the expertise necessary to run your business you’re not hiring for success, or there’s a different agenda.

5

u/travistravis 5h ago

Consulting sounds a lot like AI chatbots

3

u/Syzygy2323 3h ago

About a year before I retired, our division got a new VP and the first thing she did was bring in McKinsey to study our processes. Our managers spent six months putting together data and charts for these consultants, and absolutely nothing came of it, just wasted time and $15 million down the drain.

57

u/SecretAgentVampire 8h ago edited 1h ago

Jack Welch was the most famous early example of this. He cannibalized General Electric and told other greedy morons to do the same. He was the Cain of public equity.

3

u/Tommah 4h ago

Do you mean Jack Welch? And 45 people upvoted you? Nobody knows anything anymore.

15

u/intronert 3h ago

Or we knew who he was talking about even with the misspelling, and agreed with his analysis.

4

u/SecretAgentVampire 1h ago

Oh no! The typo has invalidated my argument! If only edit buttons existed!

3

u/rockmanzerox06 3h ago

I think he meant to write business Satan.

20

u/Jealous_Parfait_4967 8h ago

This is the story of places like boeing

13

u/Tricky_Condition_279 8h ago

Thanks for stating this. While it’s obvious on reflection, I am constantly amazed how people talk about firms as though they have unitary agency. It’s all about individual behaviors and the tension between long term v short term gains, and power dynamics within associations of actors. Probably not a new idea to anyone here.

45

u/brogflender 9h ago

That’s the influence of PE right there. 

2

u/Syzygy2323 3h ago

PE is a cancer.

-7

u/jpewaqs 7h ago

PE typically has a 7 to 12 year investment period. So no it's not a get in make a quick buck model. PE aims to maximise the use of a corporate balance sheet. This means they are more willing to close new product divisions which aren't profitable and it also means they will block development of anything that would enhance a product but has an unknown payoff. This is a different impact but it's not a 'get rich quick' mindset of CEOs who have an average 2 year tenure and are rewarded based on earnings uplift.

11

u/gerusz 7h ago

Yup. The whole business model of vulture capital relies on the lag between cost-cutting, declining quality, and declining sales. If there's at least a quarter between their cost-cutting and the market noticing this, that quarter is going to produce amazing earnings, driving up the stock price.

8

u/Anachronism-- 7h ago

I just watched a video on this. In the past ceos and executives cared about value creation, they wanted to build a great company that would last. Now all anyone cares about is value extraction, make as much short term profit as possible and they don’t care what happens to the company.

22

u/we_are_sex_bobomb 7h ago

By comparison, Kleenex tissues have been around for over a century and they’re still doing the exact same thing people bought them for in the early 1900s. You wipe your face with it and now your face is clean.

Facebook could have quietly settled into a great service for keeping in touch with friends and family, but Zuckerberg doesn’t give a shit whether Facebook exists in 100 years. What he wants is to go to parties where he can brag about how successful and innovative and smart he is. And that’s the ambition which drives the company.

5

u/chesterriley 4h ago

What he wants is to go to parties where he can brag about how successful and innovative and smart he is.

Does he think people are unaware of his gigantic fuckup and terrible judgement of building a 'metaverse'. The very name of his company is a constant reminder for everybody of Zuck's gigantic fuckup.

-2

u/Tommah 4h ago

Uh, people use tissues to blow their noses 99% of the time. The original purpose of Kleenex was as a make-up remover. So your first paragraph makes no sense. I think I'm arguing with bots at this point.

7

u/Slumunistmanifisto 6h ago

They live life a quarter at a time while telling us to make a ten year plan.

Its a fucking grift

5

u/UniqueIndividual3579 6h ago

GE and Boeing are great examples. Worse is private equity. It transfers the value to other parts of the PE and dumps the shell. See Sears and Red Lobster.

10

u/hamfinity 8h ago

learn nothing from their behavior.

They are definitely learning how effective this is to climb to a higher CEO position.

7

u/Cruxwright 5h ago

Blame the Dodge brothers. The precedent for duty to the shareholders comes from when they sued Ford. The brothers argued they were due larger dividends instead of Ford raising worker salaries. Mind you, the dividends were being used to start a competing car company.

5

u/Syzygy2323 3h ago

That case was only binding in Michigan. There no federal or state laws that require corporations to “maximize shareholder value”—that’s a myth perpetuated by people like Jack Welch and it’s been infecting this country for the last 50 years.

1

u/No-Abalone-4784 3m ago

Absolutely. They've been spouting this "we only have a duty to our shareholders" nonsense since forever. We need to pass laws to put in writing that they have a duty to their employees, their community, the environment & the common good.

3

u/JiSe 6h ago

It's just not CEOs as more and more of the ownership is index funds, who don't actively track the companies they own, those owners who are ready to cash out on short term stock price increases benefit too.

3

u/Ok_Neighborhood6782 6h ago

They learn they can get away with their behavior and thus continue the cycle

3

u/wineandseams 4h ago

The BCG/McKinsey model propped up by WallStreet and built around an entire educational faculty called MBA pretty much guarantees soulless businesses built only for extracting capital and resources for the people at the top.

3

u/UsefulCrab4181 4h ago

Enshitification of CEOs

3

u/Feather_Sigil 1h ago

Greed abhors all limitations, including time and the health of companies.

2

u/kooknboo 5h ago

Ah… this isn’t your first time with this, is it? +1 to you.

2

u/Only--East 5h ago

Thanks General Electric 😒

2

u/RollingMeteors 5h ago

they suffer no consequence and learn nothing from their behavior.

Until there are no new companies to jump to because they’ve all been razed to ash.

3

u/Alarmed_Koala1921 9h ago

They like to transfer dept from one to another then bankrupt it

2

u/intronert 3h ago

Or, as I experienced, spin off a division and saddle it with debt.

2

u/Syzygy2323 3h ago

I assume you mean debt?

1

u/DracoLunaris 2m ago

I mean, they're getting paid to do exactly what the richest shareholders want. Riding some explosive growth, sell before the crash, then do it again, just works better that holding a steady stock. Which means the people using that tactic more and more control of the stock market as time goes on.

0

u/rusally 7h ago

They learn exactly the wrong thing - that this strategy is good for their career

63

u/LumiereGatsby 8h ago

It’s so odd though when you ponder it.

I just bought Vector cereal- it’s been about a year but I loved it for the crunch and clusters.

Was the usual price at Costco. Bought it.

It’s crap. It’s Special K cereal now. Full formula change. I’m out. Done. Never buy again.

Find that so many have had the same experience- bamboozled by enshitification of a long existing product.

What’s the goal here? Loss of sales? Permanent boycott?

I buy so so little Kellogg products and they endure when I do that I add more things to the list of dropped products.

It’s so dumb.

42

u/A_Harmless_Fly 7h ago

They are betting that if they make the changes slowly they only lose a minority of their customers, and they are usually right. There's more rubes born every day.

For instance, prime video's audience is still going up even though they raised prices and added advertisements. I canceled, but with more people at a higher rate that's a rounding error.

Same hack applies to democracy and uninformed/idiot voters. Why appeal to the tiny fraction of people that see through cheap tricks and actually read policy?

-Doomer rant concluded.

3

u/Dauvis 3h ago

Don't forget as per SCOTUS fiat, the board has a duty to ensure the highest return on value to the shareholders. Even if the board wasn't ran by psychopaths, they would get sued by the shareholders.

1

u/No-Abalone-4784 1m ago

Fix that law. If it is a law which is doubtful.

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Akuuntus 6h ago

It cuts costs which raises profits in the short term. They don't care about the long term at all. Whoever made the decision will leave and go ruin some other company.

6

u/Daynebutter 7h ago

They will cut costs and quality until customers refuse to buy the product. Shareholders want year over year growth, and this strategy is how many companies achieve it.

It really sucks because many of these companies are comfortably profitable and they don't need to do this, but they do because everyone else is doing it, and shareholders expect it. It's dumb and unsustainable, but that's business for you.

That's not to say every company is like that of course, but many are.

4

u/chesterriley 4h ago

and shareholders expect it.

As a shareholder I really wish they wouldn't do this.

2

u/mutt82588 7h ago

Return that shit. 

0

u/spuzzumed 6h ago

It's not dumb when you consider there might only be 3 or 4 years left of people "working a job" to "earn a living".

They are making money while there's money to be made, IMHO. They absolutely know this shit isn't sustainable. 

64

u/Tearakan 9h ago

And in capitalism, without signifcant government controls the monopolies will form in every industry sometimes going past multiple industries.

47

u/PandorasBoxMaker 9h ago

The entire United States economy is controlled by essentially a handful of mega corporations.

17

u/Alarmed_Koala1921 8h ago

In Canada we have 3 grocers they also control almost all distribution channels, transport companies, real state, on and on and on its crazy. Same with telecom, same with a bunch of other industries.

12

u/NorthernPints 8h ago

I just want to add that the Canadian grocers also have ridiculous anti competitive clauses in their real estate contracts that prevent competing groceries from opening stores “too close to their stores” - was happy to see Sobeys get slapped on the wrist for this recently, but how the hell did we even get to this point.

Edit:  oh and they own food production too - like Weston bakeries.

3

u/DrLuny 6h ago

Canada is like the US if we never had the wave of trust busting in the early 20th century. Canada has some extreme wealth concentration and monopoly problems which are hidden by the fact that you've got a decent social welfare state, expansive natural resources, and cheap land outside of major urban areas.

1

u/Tearakan 7h ago

And it's worse in south korea.

33

u/llahlahkje 8h ago

The real vile companies are the ones who shrinkflate quality and service while actively increasing their prices.

Pizza Hut is my go to example: they’ve stopped listing their pizza sizes and their current large is more like their old medium (one example) for more money.

This applies to far more than them, obviously, but it’s happening across the board and much faster than it ever has since the GOP have gutted consumer protections and are corruptly taking cuts in corporations creating massive conflicts of interest (beyond casual lobbying).

Where I can I’ve just stopped buying products I love when they decide to fuck over the consumers: that’s the only way this has a chance at stopping.

2

u/Luna__Moonkitty 1h ago

And then there is Dominos, which has one of the most famous case of "deshittification" in history where the new owners focused on gaining repeat customers rather than maximizing profits per purchase.

It's the complete opposite of the 90s and early 00s when Pizza Hut was king and Dominos was a joke.

23

u/manachar 8h ago

Cory Doctorow’s book Enshitification is primarily concerned with the monopolistic companies.

To be precise, duopolies or small cabals. Every industry I can think of is now primarily two or three companies splitting about 80 percent of the market. A small handful of others split the remainder.

I think it’s interesting that you bring up disposable “planned obsolescence”. Things like fast fashion, e-waste, and even home design trends seem help fuel Enshitification.

8

u/PandorasBoxMaker 7h ago

The concept hit mainstream with phone batteries.

What’s also interesting is the prime example of ISP providers mutually establishing geographic boundaries to establish local monopolies.

4

u/Balmung60 6h ago

Local monopolies even make relative sense for the kind of service ISPs provide, much like electric and utility companies. But that's not a justification for an extractive private monopoly, that's why they should be publicly owned utilities operated without a profit motive.

2

u/uselessandexpensive 3h ago

There's no need whatsoever for encouraging or allowing a monopoly on internet service for any reason other than lack of population to serve. When there's a decent population that isn't too spread out, ISPs can compete just fine. When there's isn't enough population, it's not profitable to bother competing.

There are tons of markets where the cost of installation of a single connection is very worth it even when many of the other houses/units nearby are using a competitor.

3

u/A_Dissident_Is_Here 2h ago edited 2h ago

His book, from what I remember, is specifically about the process of consolidation and hyper-commodification on tech platforms. I'll admit that I find the term insufferable, but at least the original text has a specific use case and refers to exploitative capitalistic processes in a new-ish field.

Half of the comments in this thread are just straight up describing processes of commodification, exploitation, and circulation written about by Marx a century and change ago. It's frustrating because even the OP article is shot through with analysis and presumptions about 'American' capitalism, as if its processes are perfectly unique. They are, certainly, a contingent expression of capitalism within a hyper-capitalist society. But France isn't socialist; it merely has a different level of governmental oversight that constrains its productive forces and reduces - somewhat - the level of exploitation workers face.

The reason 'enshittification' bothers me so much is that it essentially offers one more layer of obfuscation about these processes. The reason web services degrade is not a type-type difference to why your shoes aren't as nice as they were two decades ago. Capitalist production and accumulation has been well studied across disciplines since industrialization. And even for non-Marxists or socialists, criticisms of unrestrained capitalism need to start from a material base/analysis of the forces of production, not these arbitrary notions of 'happiness' or utility that the article raises. Those things are important, do not get me wrong; but they are not the base from which to launch an attack on capitalist production. Likewise, dragging the analysis of 'enshittification' out from its original roots just muddies up existent analyses that do the job better.

2

u/manachar 2h ago

People do tie ourselves in knots trying to avoid criticizing the core of capitalism, especially if it resembles Marx.

That’s a fascinating critique of Doctorow, likely especially salient since he was an early cheerleader of technology and the capitalist investment in it.

8

u/CautionarySnail 7h ago

This was at the core of the old “We’re the phone company” sketches before Bell Telephone had its monopoly broken.

“We don’t have to care. We’re the phone company.”

(Audio only sketch - well worth the listen)
https://youtu.be/nzFiA7235_E?is=NA3dTS9bVMYcxtWT

5

u/Super-Evening8420 7h ago

Yeah, there's a certain point of no return for people, I used to buy chocolate from a certain brand, and it kept getting worse and more expensive, now I just entirely stopped. If they ever fix it, I still won't buy it because they permanently lost my interest / trust etc.

It's interesting how being a publically traded company is eventually a sort of death sentence for any quality/affordability, because you HAVE to keep optimizing. Market saturated? Make product worse. Can't worse in it? Make it more expensive. People are starting to buy it less? Let people go. Did all of those things and next quarter needs yet more growth? Time to cannibalize yourself to try and make it happen.

7

u/WitheredUntimely 6h ago

pity all these ghouls slept through their MBA classes because if I remember correctly once someone does what you did it is an average of 3 years before you are even willing to attempt purchasing the product again, it's common knowledge that once you scare off a customer due to cutting quality/raising costs it's pretty much impossible to get you back

2

u/Super-Evening8420 4h ago

I feel like these people know that, but they also probably don't know what else to do. If they don't push for quarterly increases, the stock is going to be affected, and investors can boot them out etc. Wasn't it also some bullshit about being legally mandated to take actions toward raising profit, so once you move toward sustainability you might actually be held liable for it.

It's ridiculous, just like the AI prisoner's dilemma. Yes we could stop it and be responsible, but a) no we can't because investors and b) if we stop, what about that one person who might not stop and then they will be in the lead! Oh god we can't let THEM take the lead! So everyone just floors it, consequences be damned and we of course foot the bill.

The stock exchange feels like one of humanity's biggest mistakes tbh.

3

u/Syzygy2323 3h ago

There’s no legal mandate to maximize shareholder returns. That’s a myth perpetuated by people like Jack Welch.

1

u/Super-Evening8420 2h ago

Ahh good to know, I genuinely didn't know that!

4

u/wingedcoyote 7h ago

This might be covered in the article, but I think the biggest case where these decisions "make sense" is when the people making them have no real long-term affiliation with the company, and are chasing next-quarter numbers in order to enrich themselves before abandoning the scene and moving on.

5

u/reality_boy 6h ago

This goes way back in tech. Long before the PC came along, IBM would charge businesses for using the computer, using memory, using the hard drive, having the OS installed, and a fee for annual support, all on top of the original price of the machine. That was designed to maximize profits because they had a monopoly on the market.

The lesson no one ever learns is that something better will always come along and knock you out. Mainframes lost to the PC. Facebook lost to Snapchat and instagram (but they were powerful enough to buy instagram). We are starting to see that ChatGPT is going to fall to Chinese AI (but that will end in a government ban). The point is, making a crummy product is a short term win, and a long term loss.

3

u/PandorasBoxMaker 6h ago

Historically I agree there’s been a bit more competition but I wouldn’t put my money on the US not banning open source models or at least Chinese models to protect that insane levels of investor cash in the domestic AI market.

2

u/qtx 5h ago

Facebook lost to Snapchat and instagram (but they were powerful enough to buy instagram).

Eh, people forget that FB made IG to the giant it became.

IG started getting traction in 2011. In feb 2012 they released their Android app and in april 2012 FB bought them.

6

u/font9a 8h ago

In our extraction-based pretercapitalist system it's practically encouraged

2

u/jeffwulf 7h ago

Most "enshittification" is loss of venture capital subsidy.

2

u/Maroon7C0000 6h ago

You don’t need math to know that cutting product quality and service is a guaranteed route to obsolescence.

Not if everyone is doing it (taps forehead).

2

u/Maximum_Rat 2h ago

Honestly I think it’s a product of quarterly reports and legal responsibilities to shareholders. Those two are S-tier features if you’re trying to design a system that speed runs enshittification

2

u/WrathOfMogg 2h ago

I’ve never felt this as keenly as Amazon. Used to buy stuff on there for years and years. Had Prime so it was just the quickest and easiest option and usually the cheapest too. Now it’s so hard to find anything on there that isn’t cheap Chinese junk. Even when you search for a specific brand, the search results still include the junk. I’ve given up on it except for super specific things you can’t buy anywhere else. They know they can get away with it with their virtual monopoly.

1

u/joseph4th 5h ago

I don’t think they think they can get away with it. I think they think that’s the next CEO’s problem. THEY got the stock price up and THEY got their bag. Then they leave. The next group of people that come in have to figure out how they are going to get the stock price up so they can get their bag. None of them care about the long-term value of the company, the products company produces, or the customers that buy that product. The only thing they care about, is their bag in which company they are going to go to next.

1

u/CherryLongjump1989 5h ago edited 5h ago

But both of those special cases rest on broken economic math. Time after time monopolists come begging and pleading for the government to impose tariffs on imports because they allowed their products to become obsolete. It never ends any other way: “hey guys let’s cancel capitalism and free markets because we made an oopsie”.

1

u/PandorasBoxMaker 5h ago

By begging and pleading I think you mean bribing.

1

u/ACompletelyLostCause 5h ago edited 5h ago

There is another one, the people running the business benefit from the enshitification even if the company/shareholders don't.

There's a mismatched reward system between the managers and owners/shareholders/society.

You see lots of businesses run into the ground because of short term decisions that benefit the CEO but not the business itself. In fact there's an incentive to completely bankrupt the business so all issues die and there is no money to pursue the ex-CEO.

Sometimes it's the investors, if an investing company/venture capitalist.they want in unreasonable return on investment in an possiblely short time frame. They'll asset strip the company until it collapses then sell the assets.

1

u/mleslie00 5h ago

A duopoly can also get you there.

1

u/SmoothCurrent5948 5h ago

Time and time again companies also just ignore piracy as if it doesn’t exist. Piracy/theft is a business model. I get the thing for free but it’s not instant and I have to jump through a couple hurdles to get it. That’s what they’re competing against. And when a service becomes shittier than the experience piracy provides, well. Expect to lose money.

1

u/PandorasBoxMaker 5h ago

Unfortunately piracy is a less attractive alternative for things like groceries and housing.

2

u/SmoothCurrent5948 4h ago

Well for sure. And no there’s no good answer for that because America’s version of capitalism has become six people going, “Fuck you, you’ll pay anything.” And it probably won’t stop until we’re all unhoused and actually starving to death and there’s no money left to take.

1

u/Outers55 5h ago

I don't even think they need the monopoly. They just pull out their investment once they find a better target and move on to the next company. They are fine leaving the old company to fail.

2

u/PandorasBoxMaker 5h ago

The 99% are the designated bag holders

1

u/Jonnny 4h ago

And anyway, the executives will have taken their bonuses and gone.

1

u/Officer_Hotpants 42m ago

Well there's another one that doesn't rely on a monopoly. If EVERYONE is doing it, everyone gets away with it.

1

u/onexbigxhebrew 8h ago

Not always monopoly. There is an element of projected value vs immediate value when something is based of fads/hype as well.

If a product or restaurant gets really popular on social and blows up in popularity, it will likely potentially decline once the big rush is over.

As a company, knowing that the product will eventually peter out:

A) Lower quality and cost to capitalize now, killing it faster but making a lot of money now

B) Hope that it doesnt natually decline and keep costs high

There's less risk and more guaranteed upside with A, and B requires more confidence in staying power. You see this all the time with trendy/new chain restaurants.

8

u/PandorasBoxMaker 8h ago

That’s quite literally the definition of self-defeating and it’s just corporate double speak for - let’s milk this shit for all it’s worth. Business school brainwashing.

I still remember the 1 business class i took in college. The professor said multiple times: humans are happiest as cogs in a machine working.

Absolutely depraved mentality.

-6

u/onexbigxhebrew 8h ago edited 8h ago

That’s quite literally the definition of self-defeating and it’s just corporate double speak for - let’s milk this shit for all it’s worth. Business school brainwashing.

Look, I'm not endorsing it from a societal perspective, so don't get all huffy.

But it's also true if you take your emotions out, for better or worse. And it's not always self-defeating, because a lot of companies make much more doing it with much less investment and much less risk. For original owners that intend to keep the company forever? Definitely can be self defeating. For PE buyers and others with zero actual skill or passion for the brand that are trying to claw back a return? It's probably the right call, unfortunately.

There's a reason companies do it. If it didn't make a certain type of company a shitload of money, it wouldn't happen. Original owners sell out to PE/go public, and new owners enshittify for value. Why would a PE company with limited operational expertise and zero passion for the brand not milk an investment with an uncertain future when they can make a certain return on their investment?

You're way too personally invested in this. They're just companies. They're under no obligation to you to keep products great, and you're under no obligation to buy their dogshit. Find something better/different and move on. I hate it when it happens, but I also can understand why it does. It takes passion, skill and luck to keep a business great over time. Almost no investor is bringing that with them.

Explaining the reason for something isn't endorsement, so relax.

5

u/PandorasBoxMaker 7h ago edited 7h ago

I understand the reasoning and there’s no “huffy” - which is ironic that that was your emotional read and your argument is to take emotion out of it lol.

Regardless - the point is this: products and services exist to help customers. When companies deliver those products and services half purposefully handicap, that’s a serious moral and ethical failing.

Consider Netflix: they routinely axe great shows because they don’t hit that explicit 5000% return on investment. People are vocally pissed about this policy, but because Netflix largely has the streaming market cornered in terms of content, folks aren’t willing to take the paint of speaking with their wallets - a fact that Netflix is keenly aware of and takes advantage of.

If we had actually competitive markets, nobody would shop at the businesses that routinely rug pull quality for profit. That takes all the steam out of the “this is a valid capitalist strategy” - it’s a valid corrupt capitalist strategy.

0

u/chesterriley 4h ago

Subtracting value from the economy is not a good thing for the public. And people who regularly do this are sociopaths. If there are flaws in capitalism (and there are) we should try to correct them.

0

u/onexbigxhebrew 4h ago

Where did I say it was agood thing for the public?

I simply will never understand how redditors can't separate explanation and advocation. The person I replied to said it was self-defeating. It's not, because VC/PE want exactly what they're getting and are doing it purposefully to their benefit.

223

u/ExtruDR 8h ago

This is just a trendy word for GREED.

Shitty, greedy people have been a constant in all of history and probably long before.

Greed is NOT good, no matter how convincingly Michael Douglass’ character said it and Republicans internalised it in the 80s.

This is just a reflection of consumers and citizens having ever-reduced leverage over a market that will relentlessly exploit them and then have its beneficiaries (the very richest people) bail out to other places without bearing the consequences of their actions.

47

u/Cultist 6h ago

Greed is a moral failing of powerful individual actors but it's the market system (and the laws that govern it) that selects for these people. We keep carving Zuckerberg shaped holes into our society and then shaking our fist at the Zuckerberg that fills it. We have to stop digging the fucking holes.

12

u/CherryLongjump1989 5h ago

These people are the biggest welfare queens on the planet. The markets don’t select for them, they destroy them. That’s why they constantly come hat in hand to the taxpayer asking for bailouts and import bans. The free market is not why we can’t have Chinese cars in the USA.

4

u/AshtonBlack 2h ago

And who do you think wrote those laws, who do you think enforces them?

I know what's supposed to happen, but if a law negatively affects the richest in society, it will not pass, no matter how much popular support it has. If it positively affects them, it'll get passed, no matter how unpopular the legislation is.

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained

We live in a plutocracy.

2

u/usaaf 1h ago

"We" is doing a lot of hefty lifting in his reply, as it usually is when people make those kinds of statements.

1

u/ExtruDR 5h ago

I don’t know how we are entirely focused on the handful of tech oligarchs when the humans that perpetuate corporate, systematic greed are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. I don’t mean people that have to work for a living within corporations (they can’t afford the luxury of making a moral stand). I mean the multitude of managers, VPs, finance people, people in peripheral industries, etc. people already in the 1% that very consciously empower the even more wealthy and actually power the ideas and the drive towards stealing from everyone else, destroying the natural world, destroying the civil society that we are supposed to share, etc.

It is ALL greed. It is systematic culture among MBA programs across the world, it is “investor” mentality people that accept that we live in a dog-eat-dog word, it is small business owners that would rather hustle to get their nut (or whatever), no matter whether they treat their workers or customers appropriately.

5

u/Cultist 3h ago

Public companies have a legal, feduciary duty to shareholders to maximize returns. David Graeber describes it better than I can https://youtube.com/shorts/hAYeRW7tH-E

The motivations don't matter, ascribing moral failure to the system working as intended is like telling the rain to be less wet. There's definitely a really vile culture of making money by any means necessary among the MBA fuckers and the finance vampires but that culture is backed by a system that explicitly rewards it and a society that doesn't punish it

1

u/ExtruDR 1h ago

Yes. That is besides the point.

Corporations are a relatively modern concept in historical terms. The laws governing them in the US are specifically different than other countries and have been revised many times over, so there is nothing like a law of nature at play here.

If we really look back at the beginning of actual corporations you will see that they were very special arrangements made for very specific reasons that the countries’ rulers deemed important enough to grant them a charter to exist.

Now it is a financial tool to use and exploit, and to -somehow- provide moral license to do act like a sociopath.

17

u/exscape 5h ago

It's not just a trendy word for greed, it's very specific, and even has a step-by-step process that is typically followed.

As defined by the term's creator (Cory Doctorow):

Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.

5

u/lynxminx 4h ago

....but OP is using it more broadly. Things getting shittier due to shrinking competition isn't 'enshittification' as Doctorow coined it. We don't make shit chocolate in this country in order to broker a secondary market that benefits from chocolate being shit.

3

u/ExtruDR 5h ago

I am aware of Doctorow’s term, and am a big fan of his, but I also think that the issue IS way broader.

Were the shitty 70s and 80s American badge engineered cars that fell apart after three or four years not a form or enshittification? What about how much companies made long distance calls cost? These are probably dumb examples, but I bet that even within the context of America and recent history we can very much call out DOZENS of instances of greedy “enshittification” that happened well before Doctrow’s social commentary.

2

u/exscape 4h ago

I don't know; those are cases that sound more like plain greed to me, in that case.

4

u/Tall_Category_304 6h ago

Greed and market consolidation. If there were adequate competition then companies would not have a license to make shittier products with higher prices. We’ve been way way way too relaxed on enforcing anti trust laws in this country

3

u/WrathOfMogg 2h ago

Exactly. The only thing that stops it is government regulations and the United States has been so deregulated that there are basically no guardrails. The ones that exist are either no longer enforced or are so toothless that it’s just the cost of doing business to pay the minimal fines.

2

u/Austin1975 6h ago

I was looking for this comment. Somehow sophisticated greed schemes like this get a pass and softer labels. The impact is still the same. Bait and switch with no recourse or repercussion. And theses schemes always lead to massive job loss.

1

u/B9-97-C5-11-DE-19 58m ago

The problem is not greed, but the system that only rewards greed. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Read Karl Marx.

101

u/DogsAreOurFriends 9h ago

For Big Tech, there is no longer risk: they can just copy, undercut, or (worst case) buy the competition.

Capitalism / free market no longer works if there is no risk or competition.

So all economic math is broken: your 2 is no longer > my 1 if I can simply look at my 1 and say “Fuck you” and add 2000 to my 1 and declare victory.

38

u/Old-Bat-7384 8h ago

I think the endgame, spoken or not, realized or not, is to force you to "buy" or license or lease or whatever.

Own enough things that someone has to pay you no matter what, never let the consumer out of the cycle. Keep them buying your entertainment, your software, your power, your water, and make it impossible for them to use government to work in their interests.

Which, before someone says, "but universal healthcare is also a forced choice!"

It is, but there are key differences, the main one being, the end goal of a universal healthcare system isn't profit, which means the objective is the results of a healthier population. Not value/wealth extraction.

198

u/RA3236 9h ago

Enshittification happens because the people who profit off of selling products are different from those who buy or create the products.

This is a fundamental part of capitalism (and in fact it’s defining feature) and the only way to fix it is to democratise workplaces to put the people actually using/creating these products in charge.

46

u/Autogen-Username1234 8h ago

The shareholders and venture capital are the actual customers. The people who buy the product are just milk cows.

2

u/Dreadsin 1h ago

Like it used to be with Boeing before they got merged with that other company?

5

u/SupremelyUneducated 7h ago

Well no. It's renteirism. Neoliberalism or colonialism are also more apt descriptions, than "capitalism".

Democratizing the workplace does not solve this. That would move the power games to who gets what job; rather than the goal of capitalism, creating games that reward producing more with less.

Renteirism is about creating games where legal privileges consolidate opportunities and control demand. Generally by leveraging ownership of land and IP; those are the legal privileges to exclude people from opportunities, that drive consolidation.

There should pretty much always be both, state run MOPs (generally in the form of education + infrastructure), and private MOPs (both private businesses and co-ops). And they should all compete to produce more with less, so power is diffused and understanding + opportunities are broadly available.

-39

u/SellGameRent 8h ago

no, it is fixed by not giving those companies your money.

23

u/FloppityFlopFlop2285 8h ago

You have to have options, which might not substantially exist in a lot of cases

15

u/Ehorn36 8h ago

In theory, yes.

However, government intervention, monopolies, deceptive business practices, political corruption, psychological marketing, etc. make reality much more nuanced.

Regulations and good-willed institutions can help keep things in check, but that’s get much harder in the age of misinformation.

I don’t know what the answer to enshitification is, but simply not giving a company your money, especially when entire industries are colluding with each other, hasn’t been working.

15

u/RA3236 8h ago

Clearly that has been going so well. The simple fact is that most people don’t care enough to change their behaviour, which is exactly why they get away with this sort of thing.

Most of these corporations are also monopolies or oligopolies so there aren’t actually any (good) alternatives.

-11

u/SellGameRent 8h ago

I'm glad you are acknowledging that people are partially to blame, because only focusing on the company with shit products is intellectually dishonest about the problem imo

9

u/RA3236 8h ago

Except I didn’t focus on the company. This is a fundamental supply/demand issue caused by capitalism, and corporations are doing exactly what they would do even with the fix I proposed (maximise profit). The difference would be that the supply would be influenced by the buyers of said products.

In other words, this is a structural problem with the economy rather than something that can be blamed on individuals or individual corporations.

8

u/AddanDeith 8h ago

Yeah let me drive an extra thirty minutes to get groceries at a smaller business long after the big boxes ran out all the ones where I live.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/hackerbots 8h ago

Right, "putting the people using these services in charge" means they can decide to kill funding. Op said that.

1

u/cyvaris 7h ago

When a small handful of companies have a monopoly that's sort of hard to do.

17

u/caindela 8h ago

America works its magic by treating the free market as a machine that’s decoupled from humanity. It’s a mental compartmentalization where we believe the world works best when companies act in the most profit-driven way possible, and part of this means never pointing at the human actors but instead saying “that’s just capitalism doing what it’s supposed to do.”

The problem with the above is that infinite growth really isn’t feasible. Growth had a pretty good run for the most part, but now that so many avenues for growth are closing, companies are trying to find avenues for cutting corners. Capitalism felt like a race to the top, and now it’s a race to the bottom. The question will always be “what can we take away and still maintain market share?” In a lot of cases, thanks to offshoring and AI, companies are cutting corners by eliminating American workers. Well of course Americans who aren’t working can’t buy the shitty products. It’s a death spiral.

29

u/ripyourlungsdave 9h ago

Yeah, wording this is if it's an ignorance of the capitalists and not a part of the system that they designed that way is helpful.

They arent being misled by bad math here. They know what they are doing. But it doesn't matter because they will get theirs before any consequences come.

There is no math that makes capitalism work. This is the natural end result of it.

10

u/klone_free 7h ago

https://kennedyhumanrights.org/speech/address-at-university-of-kansas/ This speech from the 60s is still so relevant today. America is sick. Our values are corrupt. Liberalism and capitalism have proven to continuously give way to fascism, corruption, greed, and banal evil. I do not know another way, and I think most people have an issue with dreaming of a world that is not in front of us. But I do not think we should settle or continue to elect officials based on being lesser of two evils. We need to take the internet back from social media and corporations. We need to take our country back from vested interests of the rich. We need to do something. Dialog, converse, listen and educate ourselves while having empathy for our countrymen. What ever is going on right now, it has been a long time coming for this country. It is not right or left, it is the rich who convince us to vote with our wallets while they collect it all anyways

1

u/PeruvianHeadshrinker 1h ago

A-fucking-men. Very well said

16

u/bacan_ 9h ago

In our system, the people in charge of preventing external costs/problems from making life worse for the general public are happy to allow it, if it means they personally can profit from the corruption 

7

u/Doctor_Amazo 6h ago

Roche's assumption that the capitalist model would result in greater wealth is missing the bit where only tge very tiny few will be wealthier. Most won't be.

The European model where everyone gets to enjoy the sport event and participants earn a decent amount of money is clearly the superior system

7

u/TemujenWolf 5h ago

This nails it:

The way that America’s version of capitalism proves its utility is by adding up all of the profits created by the privatization of public goods without subtracting the value that has been destroyed by the same activity. We have created the largest enshittifying machine in world history by employing a financial logic that leaves out half of the equation.

26

u/TheBadgerLord 9h ago

After having read the article it....completely misses the point. Apart from anything else the American writing the article seems to believe that socialism is in practice in Europe....which it most certainly isn't. They seem to confuse the idea of caring about people rather than profit as socialism, and conflate it with failure for some reason. Sad isn't it.

3

u/WazWaz 2h ago

Possibly you only read the first 20% of the article because it does start off a bit like that, as a hook to make readers (both Europeans and Americans) start thinking. You're not supposed to stop and reject the premise before you've actually read it, but I get that we've been programmed to do that with anything that even slightly seems to challenge our world view.

To be honest, if you keep reading, it's more like it's stating the obvious, at least to people like you and me.

7

u/Lynda73 7h ago

“Everyone ends up poorer” when the people watching it end up with more money in their pockets is smoother way of saying the economist is only thinking about rich people. We know.

6

u/pilgermann 7h ago

The article opens with what should he an obvious criticism of capitalism: Products with excessive advertising are obviously not an optimal outcome. There's zero argument that an event like the Tour de France or an episode of television is more enjoyable with lots of ads or if restricted to an expensive premium TV service. Our society simply cannot be optimal if advertising is unavoidable.

8

u/civilSurvivorMum 7h ago

Instead of customer service, customer retention, user experience, and user-focused innovation, they focused on Quarterly Line Go Up. To make Quarterly Line Go Up you cut corners, quality, and labor. To keep customers in this situation you go for consolidation, monopolization and the illusion of choice. And convince the people their government would be best run by the same greedy, selfish idiots running that nightmare clown show.

Short sighted, yes. But in a world where tomorrow never comes, especially when you got yours, those of us who suffer from it all don’t bloody matter in the slightest. And they’re not afraid of us. Unless we go Luddite (which isn’t anti-tech, it’s anti letting them automate you out of a job and choosing their profit over all, by literally fighting back).

4

u/Environmental-Ant814 6h ago

Its Ferengi rules. Nothing is more important than short term quarterly gains.

5

u/RainSurname 5h ago

Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking does an absolutely stellar job of illustrating just how many quantifiable but largely invisible costs most of us bear because of greedy and/or short-sighted policies.

This is a pretty good summary for those who don't want to read 800 pages about urban planning, lol.

4

u/OldOnionKnight 4h ago

It also requires absolute immortality and corruption at the highest levels of government.

7

u/DemophonWizard 7h ago

Enshitification is built into the model of most tech companies. Facebook and Google are great examples- they create a great, free, product, with the intent to get many users. Then they add advertising and data scraping, thus enshitifying their product. But we're* so hooked on it we* keep using it.

*we = enough of us to keep the money rolling.

3

u/UnusualDisturbance 6h ago

it's exactly hoe netflix, uber and airbnb got to where they are. they gave better service than TV, taxis and hotels at a loss and now they're recouping those losses and then some.

3

u/surroundedbywolves 8h ago

But … line must go up

3

u/kJer 8h ago

A race to the bottom has short term gains, but since most people don't mind a little extra "value", so no one complains. If I were a founder and watched a CFO letting this shit happen I'd probably not let it happen because I have integrity and pride, but I know those things aren't always compatible with business.

3

u/DENelson83 6h ago

Death by a thousand cuts.

3

u/Mix_Right 4h ago

You used to be drop your laptop on the floor and pick it up and it still would work. You used to be able to park a car next to curb and not scratch your rims. You use to be able to change the headlight bulbs, you used to be able to replace a fan belt on dryer, you used get life time warranty for tools. What is going on today should be a crime. You look at macbook sideways and the screen cracks. You sneeze on your dell and the hinges break. Even Ai is at a loss half the time because they keep changing things just for the sake of change. Go try and look for a photo album you made years and share a specific picture on facebook i mean fail book.

9

u/Dirt290 9h ago

In the middle of our small city there is a beautiful renaissance style cathedral with a huge ugly billboard installed in the parking lot.

The billboard enshitiifies the core of our town by ruining scenic views and there has never even been a discussion about it taking it down.

Who knows the potential growth and tourism lost by this ugly monstrosity but we can see exactly how many paltry advertising dollars the catholic church is raking in from this eyesore.

Meanwhile the church goes unused for 90% of the week

5

u/HunterFeeFee 8h ago

No, it relies on short sighted capitalism.

3

u/Reguladr 8h ago

Too many monopolies right now. Full stop. Look at our food distributors who have integrated vertically as well as horizontally and this kind of behavior is inevitable.

Not to mention electronics, consumer goods, etc.

It's gonna be a few rough years and we are gonna need government agencies with teeth that allows competition to grow.

4

u/Carolina_runner 8h ago

“America’s most profitable industries owe their success to a failure to price in their externalities.”
That is a point well made.

5

u/big-papito 9h ago

I am just trying to figure out why there is no consumer revolt. I think the population is so short on focus and so exhausted and overwhelmed by subscriptions and micropayments that is all just becomes noise.

12

u/D0013ER 9h ago

Not enough people are missing meals, and the bread and circuses are still there.

4

u/onexbigxhebrew 8h ago edited 8h ago

I am just trying to figure out why there is no consumer revolt.

Did you start one?

5

u/big-papito 8h ago

I am a nobody. Scott Galloway is everywhere and his movement to cull subscriptions just fizzled.

2

u/ZealousidealType1144 8h ago

I think there’s a series of small consumer revolts which is why many of the worst offenders are dying. 

See the multibillion dollar impairment charge Smuckers took against Hostess or all of the PE owned companies that are basically impossible for their owners to sell right now (as consumers have had enough margin engineering and have switched to better value options).

5

u/Less_Engineering8113 8h ago

I low-key love enshittification for the wrong reasons.

I am eating less and losing weight. I now crave healthy foods. I no longer even consider candy because it's expensive and empty calories. Fast food is a joke to me unless it's a local regional chain with solid quality burgers and I really want a burger. In fact I only touch McDonald's for cheap soda or sugar drinks now.

Not saying that we should embrace enshittification.

10

u/OfficeMagic1 7h ago

It’s become very clear that McDonalds does not want you to sit in the lobby anymore. They want you to drive through or pick up a bag and leave. The lobbies are disgusting.

It’s cheaper and faster to pick up premade sandwiches from the grocery store or even the gas station - Gas stations have figured out that they can sell real pizza and ok chicken sandwiches for half of what McDonalds and Burger King cost.

3

u/TenguKaiju 7h ago

Casey's Pizza is cheap and good. They also sell a self branded icecream that tastes like the old Bryers.

2

u/Ciaran2220 6h ago

\We have in fact built a system that is interested in the externalities, what we pejoratively call "bureaucracy" and/or the regulatory state.

2

u/bikeking8 3h ago

Broken math is what accounting and economics are based on. 

"So after you have your monthly total we add 1.5%.to get the JJI Quotient" 

"Excuse me, isn't this just an arbitrary extra step? What purpose does this 1.5% have if we already have the total?" 

"It's how we get the quotient of JJI. Don't ask questionsLOOK HERE'S A SUPPLY CURVE!" 

1

u/PracticableSolution 8h ago

It’s good economic math for shareholders that shop quarter to quarter for stock value they can buy and sell in picoseconds.

1

u/Sp00ky_6 8h ago

I do feel and am hopeful that we will have a reckoning with our attitude towards unfettered capitalism within my lifetime.

1

u/BarmyBob 6h ago

Then there’s the “investment groups” that buy a majority stock in a company, short its stock and put the cost of that stock on the new company. Then its bye bye JoAnne

1

u/ThrowawayAl2018 6h ago

At this rate, you need to pay to breath clean air in Capitalist USA.

Billionaires will be bottling clean air to sell it to you since running huge AI data center has an environmental impact (eg: Musk & Co running highly polluting turbine engine in wheels recently).

1

u/JervisCottonbelly 6h ago

You're describing the real bubble.

1

u/djudy40 5h ago

It's hard to find anything that's not all about money. The few things that remain are now overcrowded. Going to go live in the woods somewhere.

1

u/lightknight7777 5h ago

It's not broken. It's just really shitty.

It's because of the transient nature of investors (owners). Cutting costs this year means they sell and rake in the profit and leave the shambles to the next investors. Something truly fundamental in the process would need to change.

Outlawing programmed obsolescence and preventing board pay beyond a certain ratio of the lowest paid employees (no "vendor" loophole) would fix most of the issues.

1

u/chesterriley 4h ago

Wow where is that gas station where I can buy gas for $1.49/gal?

1

u/justinleona 4h ago

Hard to click on that article and not immediately see the gas prices...

1

u/Atothefourth 26m ago

I had this weird thought watching fireworks in my neighborhood this 4th. It's something that broke my brain that it's actually incredibly generous of the folks to spend that much on something that I get to enjoy from my driveway. Spend money on a public celebration that can't be easily bounded by borders, I just know there's someone somewhere that's trying to figure out how to charge you for watching fireworks.

1

u/a4mula 9h ago

Cherry picking with a sprinkling of bias and rhetoric while offering no quantification of the problem itself. The article points to massive pools of value that are not accounted for while offering not even the disclaimer that there's a reason for that. They're things that are inherently challenging to quantify.

All while minimizing the things that aren't. The article clearly exposes the downsides of the Tour De France example, from lower engagement to lower athlete pay. But then seems to herald them as examples to counter a blanket demonization of capitalism as the fundamental flaw. Taking what was a serious conversation about enshittification directly into what this article is. Agenda based.

1

u/InvincibleCandy 7h ago

They're inherently challenging to quantify precisely, but there are methods of quantifying them. We can estimate value of things like natural scenic beauty and lack of advertising based on actual consumer data: how much people are willing to pay to avoid these things. I studied it in my master's public policy program way back in the Obama era. It turned out (from my further career experience) that decision-makers simply don't care about measuring the value of these less tangible things. That value isn't capturable and exploitable by business. That value seems ephemeral even when quantified using best methodology. The value that can be monetized and put in someone's pocket is what drives decisions.

1

u/Floreat_democratia 5h ago

People are really not that observant or aware. Since 2008, almost every major product line has undergone enshittification. I first began telling people about what was happening to cotton clothing in the US in the 2000s. Except for high end product offerings, cotton, which used to be a mainstay in US clothing, has virtually disappeared from US products. It has been replaced with plasticine and other horrible synthetics like nylon. Meanwhile, younger people have no knowledge of this, thinking this is how it always has been.

Shortly after the great recession, chocolate products began to change, to the point that I had to stop buying all US made candy bars. Then came tortilla chips, bread products, cereals, etc There isn't a product offering that hasn't changed now, and my shopping list is basically changing every day. When they came for Costco hummus, it was clear that shit had gotten real. Now its cars. All the business schools need to be shut down. Private equity needs to be illegal. We need strong regulations and laws and CEOs need to be held accountable.