91–100 of 280 posts
I compare this mentally to: * autotesting music for 'hit worthy' == music blandifies to the bangers and you never get interesting voices any more. but .. it works (for profit) * kindle genres like 'in the style of' and the tendency to more and more but worse and worse in fiction because.. it works (for profit) * politics descending to the lowest grab, not the highest goal.
so what kind of algorithm would lead to the best outcome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this a product of the way modern MBAs are taught? Seems to be a standard playbook of building reputation, scaling and then aggressive optimisation and cost cutting.
Surely people realized profits can be increased by cutting expenses before “modern MBA” education came around.
I've been thinking about how enshittification, venture capital, shareholders and the life cycle of a company are in some ways related. Any company that has external investors is bound to go through this cycle of - building a great product - taking in external funding money - growing and then either being acquired or going public (or more commonly shutting down) - then all the head scratching decision making starts It…
I compare this mentally to: * autotesting music for 'hit worthy' == music blandifies to the bangers and you never get interesting voices any more. but .. it works (for profit) * kindle genres like 'in the style of' and the tendency to more and more but worse and worse in fiction because.. it works (for profit) * politics descending to the lowest grab, not the highest goal.
Ted Gioia the music critic has made a lot of good observations on these issues. In particular, artists, intellectuals and politicians of old used to lead, persuade, and pull their audience along with them. Today, everyone simply panders.
I've been thinking about how enshittification, venture capital, shareholders and the life cycle of a company are in some ways related. Any company that has external investors is bound to go through this cycle of - building a great product - taking in external funding money - growing and then either being acquired or going public (or more commonly shutting down) - then all the head scratching decision making starts It…
This only happens when the users are the product or its a marketplace. Most business models dont suffer from shittification. But VCs love investing in the ones that do.
It is a constant struggle to convince people that your higher quality product/service is worth the extra cost, and obviously, many times it is not.
But the formula for operating a successful, long term business is not as simple as “output the best quality product or service you can, and you will be rewarded”. It is more like “output the best quality product or service you can relative to prices of competing sellers, and at prices your clientele can afford”.
Which may or may not include sellers that have access to much cheaper money (VC, bigger companies with other revenue streams, etc), or sellers operating in different jurisdictions with lower costs.
There is a possibly more general phenomenon where a brand gets good reputation and then begins cutting cost and people will still buy at the high price. I don't know if that one has a name or if it's the same concept as enshittification.
There is a possibly more general phenomenon where a brand gets good reputation and then begins cutting cost and people will still buy at the high price. I don't know if that one has a name or if it's the same concept as enshittification.
Value engineering is the art of making almost the same thing, but cheaper. That could be it. See also: muntzing.
There was a book with that name, years back. Saw a relative reading it and browsed it briefly myself. Probably are more books by now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The perceived significance of the reward is irrelevant Completely false. A vanity badge that's based on some effort, has a value equal to the effort required. Unlike increasing requirements for core functionality where you have increased effort for the same reward, increasing requirements for an effort-based vanity item increases its value in exact proportion to the effort.
I think it's completely reasonable to describe the user-perceived degradation of a feature, regardless of its importance, for the purpose of benefit to the business and its profits, as "enshittification". Your opinion differs, but my opinion is not "false". I mean, believe what you want, but you're trying to invalidate my opinion by simply sharing your own, which I'm not sure has much purpose at all in a conversation…
If they have a different opinion that's fine too. Discussion shouldn't have a first mover advantage.
I've been thinking about how enshittification, venture capital, shareholders and the life cycle of a company are in some ways related. Any company that has external investors is bound to go through this cycle of - building a great product - taking in external funding money - growing and then either being acquired or going public (or more commonly shutting down) - then all the head scratching decision making starts It…
It is some sort of scam I think. The shareholders don't have the detailed knowledge and insight into the everyday work so the managerial class can squeeze out a dime for a dollar of some hard to measure asset like consumer trust or whatever. Also, I got this feeling bigger shareholders might think they are smart and part of the scam and that they will jump ship (sell the stock) before smaller shareholders notice. I g…
Absolutely. Decades of “you can’t beat the market” propaganda has created a large class of “investors” whose only strategy is buy all of the stocks and hope for the best.