A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
I don't think that it's a prerequisite but it's definitely a catalyst.
Another catalyst is one company buying another. I cannot think of one example where the acquired company's product/services got better after a M and A. OTOH, I can think of many examples of it getting worse. Confirmation bias? Absolutely. But still makes you go "hmm..."
Another catalyst is one company buying another. I cannot think of one example where the acquired company’s product/services got better after a M and A.
I feel like there have been some positive outcomes of mergers and acquisitions but I am having trouble thinking of them. What comes to my mind is Meta acquiring Oculus, Activision merging with Blizzard, and Microsoft acquiring Minecraft. All of those have led to a shitty Russian nesting doll of launchers and DRM.
The positives might be harder to note though. There must have been a couple times where some kind of acquisition has brought a series into the mainstream.
I know a lot of people prefer the classic Fallout games but I do wonder how people would be aware of the series if it weren't for Bethesda buying the right to Fallout for example.
That's true, and also why I added that last part about it being confirmation bias on my part. Definitely not saying there aren't good examples, but like you said, I'm also having a hard time coming up with any.
Has Valve ever bought any other company? lol They're one of the few I could see actually making the child company better xD
I'm not sure. Portal and Team Fortress both have really interesting back stories that I think have a bit to do with Valve acquisitions
Meta acquiring Oculus
As someone with industry experience working with VR, I can tell you it's a mixed bag. I think there's certainly no way Oculus (and consumer VR in general) takes off the way it did without Facebook's dollars behind it, and it's certainly paved the way to the outstanding quality of standalone HMDs that are on offer today. However, it killed the initiative for PCVR hardware with the non-consolation that Meta, Pico, and HTC offer "Link mode" on all their headsets and it's iffy on good days, which makes B2B PCVR very difficult to facilitate without some serious legwork on lowering latency over the air connections. Would that we could revive the Rift S, that headset was perfect for our needs.
After being acquired by Google, YouTube got better for years (before getting worse again). Android really improved for a decade or so after getting acquired by Google.
The Next/Apple merger made the merged company way better. Apple probably wouldn't have survived much longer without Next.
I'd argue the Pixar acquisition was still good for a few decades after, and probably made Disney better.
A good merger tends to be forgotten, where the two different parts work together seamlessly to the point that people forget they used to be separately run.
I recently discovered the excellent suite of Affinity Photo, Publisher and Designer. Not open source, but very good and they sell them at a reasonable price with no subscription. Seemed pretty ideal. Then a week or two ago they sent out an email saying they had been bought by Canva. I kind of hate Canva because it functions like one big infuriating ad for their subscription service. They promised Affinity would not change, but I have never known such promises to be kept after an acquisition. It's pretty disappointing.
I think there can be an intermediary step where things get a little better before they get much worse. I'm thinking of Youtube, which pre acquisiton, iirc, was getting slow and bad. Google infrastructure made it faster, but then, well...
This is really just the first step of enshitification - first they make things good for users, then introduce advertisers, then claw back all the value for themselves.
Or put another way
Every single comment here is describing symptoms but not the cause.
Enshitification is the evolution to the final form, only possible after the company, thru merger/acquisition or stock manipulation (leveraged buy outs, acquiring controlling stake, shorting a company into insolvency, etc), has achieved a commanding monopoly.
Then it flexes it's monopoly powers, the buttons fly off its shirt and the monster shows it's true colors.
We have laws to prevent this. Lina Khan is the first FTC chair to start holding these companies to meaningful account in my lifetime (yea, Microsoft/netscape is exponentially smaller than todays issues). Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon all need to be broken up into a thousand different companies, same as we did with AT&T. Uber, Angieslist, homeaglow, all the contractors pretending they're just networking hubs (like some union hall) need to busted up and gigwork made to contend with employment law, which it can't, because it's all bad faith exploitation.
And for fucks sake we need to make the fine for white collar crime that extends state lines to necessitate the forfeiture of the entire C-suite's and board of directors assets, both domestically and internationally, upon threat of seal team 6. Empty their bank accounts and leave them with nothing, like they regularly do to employees. They're so fucking smart they can earn it all again, right? Right!? Corporations are the largest thief in the land, just in WAGE THEFT. Everything else they do that's slimy is all BONUS. The 2nd largest thief in all the land? the fucking Police force. The lunatics have taken over the asylum, democracy doesn't work in mental institutions. We don't need to defund the police, we need to fire all of them and start over with transparency. If casino employees can be video taped all day, so can cops. Fuck em.
What America truly needs is another Teddy Roosevelt. We need to revive the Progressive party with the Bull Moose as the symbol. Protect the environment, protect the family by protecting the workers, end legal loopholes and trustbust the 1% back down into the 10%.
And if we don't? The path ahead is obvious, I for one, don't want to live in Blade Runner, but that's where we're going until we stop fucking around and right ship.
Meta, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon all need to be broken up into a thousand different companies, same as we did with AT&T.
And unlike with AT&T, after divestiture there needs to be an order in place that perpetually prevents the divested companies from ever merging or buying each other up. At this point AT&T has almost completely re-formed from the companies it was broken into, and that should never have been allowed.
And for fucks sake we need to make the fine for white collar crime that extends state lines to necessitate the forfeiture of the entire C-suite’s and board of directors assets, both domestically and internationally, upon threat of seal team 6. Empty their bank accounts and leave them with nothing
Absolutely this. We need to abolish corporate personhood, and hold company leadership directly responsible for the company's behavior. Since it is the people who are doing these things. The "company" isn't some autonomous entity that has a will of its own. People drive it, and those people should be held accountable.
I'm really emotionally and mentally exhausted. But what you just wrote makes me think you are my spirit animal. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's nice to see that other people are identifying a major issue and care about it.
I'm flattered. Thank you.
I told my wife if we ever decided on kids (which we won't) I want to name the kid after my hero. She asked "who's that?".
"Mega man"
"What if it's a girl?"
"We can call her Meg"
"Middle name?”
"No middle name. MegaBlake, that's it."
I'm wearing a mega man belt she bought me right now actually.🤓
Enshittification requires two specific conditions:
The company being publicly traded can cause #2, as the investors won't be as emotionally attached to the goal of the company as the founders. However, it is not a prerequisite, with Reddit being an example (it started enshittifying way, way before the IPO).
It's not really direct cause and effect, but yeah. The incentives for a publicly-traded company make enshitification far more appealing then it would be for most other organizations.
Oh, also, it's a common misconception that publicly-traded companies are required to maximize profits. They can have whatever goals their shareholders want. It's just that the way modern publicly-traded companies work, most of their shareholders are people quickly buying and trading shares based on who they think will earn them the most money this month, so that sort of inevitably becomes the goal of any publicly-traded company.
Also the reason they focus entirely on unrealistic quarterly measures and don't value long term stability.
I've worked for a couple startups and you're absolutely right. If you make a profit you pay taxes on that money, so startups like to spend most of the money they bring in. They also want to show revenue growth, since that's what investors like to see. You grow revenue by getting more paying customers. And you do that by doing what your customers want.
When you go public, your goal is to increase shareholder value. So you do this by reducing costs and finding ways to wring customers out of revenue. You find ways to nickle and dime customers out of revenue so much you develop an entire branch of law devoted to you suing your customers
Publicly-traded companies are required (by law, I think) to maximize profits for their shareholders,
The is not true, stop spreading misinformation
They may not have to maximise profits but the shareholders will question every decision that doesn't maximise profits so the result is the same. That's why activist investors that push companies to more ethical behaviour are important.
Not because, no. I think it's greed.
Some false premises in this thread
corporations are not required to maximize profits. Even if maximizing profit was mandatory, this is a pretty subjective topic
is short term profit while pissing off your customers "maximizing profit," or is sacrificing short term gains for long term customer loyalty "maximizing profit"? It's not a rhetorical question, and I think you can find examples of both.
Corporations are also not all pursuing endless growth; in addition to "growth stocks" there are "dividend stocks." Some companies aren't aggressively pursuing growth, but are making profit, and the stock reflects this. It feels almost antiquated in the "to the moon" era, but these companies do exist.
'Member before publicly traded companies? We had dudes like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Company towns, rats in the sausage, kids getting caught in giant cogs...
No, it's not because they're publicly traded. It's because people like money, and if they have enough they can pay to not look at the side effects of getting it - whether that's dead kids or just no privacy and bad content.
You dont have those things not happen any more because of the stock market, you dont have to endure those things any more because regulations prevent it.
I can guarantee you 100% that if corporations could use child labor again, or dump rats in a meat grinder and sell it, they would in a heartbeat.
Yep. No disagreement.
OP was asking whether public trading causes shitty business behavior.
Ah fair enough, that makes more sense then. Read it as an argument for the free market
It wasn't, although it wasn't an argument against per se either. Both were/are markets.
What actually needs to happen with internet enshittification is probably some kind of regulation. People just don't understand the magic boxes well enough to not fall prey. The EU is on it, at least. With Boeing, probably the Enron formula. We'll see how many accidents it takes to create movement on that, considering it's a company that makes the big banks look disposable by comparison.
I don't believe that it's the root cause.
Enshitification is about monetization, getting more money from the same customer base.
If the product you are providing isn't paying for itself with a sustainable margin then the prerequisites are in place for the wheels of enshitification to start moving.
Putting the foot on the accelerator is achieved by going public, selling the company, or pivoting to some random marketing weenie wet dream.
Most of this is fuelled by "free" products that become "fremium" when companies realise that monetizing you isn't nearly as sustainable as the marketing department would have you believe. "You just need to grow!" - nevermind that the costs of running the infrastructure grow faster than the income generated by new customers. This is exacerbated by the silo mentality exhibited in many companies, the marketing department has no insight into the costs of the infrastructure team.
I think that we're going to see much more of this before it gets any better. What better looks like is yet to be determined, since much of this is driven by the likes of Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon and IBM.
I mention IBM in that list because it's been buying up "free" software companies and changing their business models.
We live in interesting times..
I'm a little bit confused by your post. Publicly-traded companies, by and large, place extraordinary emphasis on short term, quarter by quarter profit. Seems like a very strong contender for the root cause if the issue?
Enshitification is about monetization, getting more money from the same customer base.
Doesn't this statement support publicly traded status being a riot cause, though?
I must assume I'm misunderstanding your argument...?
Enshittification happens due to greed and power; It's just the process of removing the false mask of mutually-beneficient business that Capitalism uses to hide its true self.
First you make users think you're beneficial to them, so they get locked in,
then you make businesses think you are beneficial to them, and get them locked in,
then you give up that facade and admit you don't care about benefitting anyone but yourself.
You can enshittify something even as an individual; it's not being publicly traded that makes it easier or more likely, it's that being a large enough business to be able to successfully enshittify without losing all your customers probably means you're publicly-traded.
The ones that are successful at enshitification have captive markets. They're a monopoly, monopsony, or in another kind of inelastic market. https://pluralistic.net/2024/04/24/naming-names/
Enshittification happens because there is a lucrative incentive to sell access to users by cannibalizing the user service itself.
Publicly traded companies are not compelled by law to maximize profits. That's a long standing myth.
Can we talk about the enshittifation of Lemmy. Where everyone seems to be calling everything enshittified?
While I think shareholders can be a driving factor, I see it way more often with VC-funded companies. The "2.5x year over year" growth mantra that places like YCombinator stipulate have disastrous effects on small tech companies. Often, these startups have an incentive to keep taking additional funding rounds, which appears to tighten the grip the VC has over them.
Try growing the next Microsoft or Google or Amazon out of that model. I'm not convinced that it's possible. At least if you bootstrap your own company, you don't have the same binding obligations...even if it takes way longer to get to a place that's self-sustaining.
IIRC most successful VCs invest very early and get out often early-ish too. The real enshittification that dangers the actual position of the company often happen much later. At that point the company is traded publicly and there's a large anonymous body of shareholders - they only care about profits. VCs are actually a little smarter and care about longer time frames as in that early stage often much larger (relative) growth rates are possible.
At a late stage (think Google, Twitter, Facebook, Reddit etc today) growth is much more difficult. How could Google grow today? They've saturated the search market years ago. So the only way of making more money is by sucking more money out of their existing user base. And they absolutely need to do it, as there's huge pressure on the managerial class to do it, because the shareholders demand it. If the managerial class doesn't do this (because often some older idealistic people know it would compromise the quality of the product), or they aren't capable of doing it - they will get replaced by people who are more willing or capable - even if it's detrimental for the company when viewed longer-term. VCs i would argue care all about profits, "but". (they are smart enough to see the big picture. They are also small enough or "few enough" that they can communicate among themselves in order to agree on a more wise plan. That's why they often get out once most of the possible (easy) growth has been achieved. They either know that now growth is much more difficult, or that the company's value is much more stagnant - ow might decrease even. They can get out and invest their money in other more promising endeavours.
The shareholders of large publicly traded companies are not that coordinated as they cannot really agree on anything other than just "growth". More sophisticated strategies would have to be negotiated (and communicated) among thousands. The only unifying bond among shareholders is that they want profits. Think about it: many shareholders often don't even know what companies they own as they are often part of other investment packages. Maybe you're retirement plan has invested in stocks of 50 different companies, or 10 different fonds that have invested in others still. That is a form of dilution (?). It's very difficult to communicate any strategy more sophisticated than "profits". (a side effect is also that many people have invested indirectly or wothout knowing in endeavours that make their life more shitty/expensive when they retire - without knowing it.) There isn't enough nuance in the wants of the masses as to want any more sophisticated strategy than simply "growth". That's why only short term growth can be thought.
Of course sometimes also large companies can grow 2.5x or something like that. But it's rare and takes more time. The exception makes the rule here. Early stage growth that VCs bank on is much more explosive i think. More like 10x or 100x.
EDIT: sorry i typed this on mobile and it shows.
Short answer: No
Long answer: Look into the phrase "rot economy." Basically, enshitification starts MUCH earlier in the process than an IPO or a major buy out. It happens because our financial markets value growth, not financial gain. We always here about how companies only worry about the bottom line, but they don't, actually. They care about demonstrating growth. How do you make growth happen while not worrying about the bottom line? Easy! Operate at a loss on purpose! That way you can capture more of the market in a fiscal year, and then the next year adjust your prices a little bit and operate at slightly less loss and show investors you've grown. Those adjustments? That's enshitification. It all happens from the very first moment when you decide, "We have to capture the market." That's not the IPO. That's the very founding of a business.
We need to instead value sustainable businesses. Ones that have higher revenues than losses. And you'll notice something VERY interesting about sustainable businesses: They don't do MASSIVE 3rd quarter layoffs literally every year. Why? Because they don't have to show the investors that they've made a profit, they just need to show they captured more market and then reduced costs
Private companies also seek to maximize profits...
True but they dont have a knee to their neck from share holders to increase profits year over year.
Any organization that's forced to pursue endless growth is going to end up enshittifying eventually, because there's only so much innovation and wow factor that you can do to make a product appealing before you hit a talent/demographic/creativity limit. Not to mention that infrastructure and operating costs are massive when you hit that level of scaling and that needs to be funded somehow. Eventually they'll be forced to start extracting more value out of their existing userbase to keep the revenue growth going. Going IPO is mostly just a telegraph for how things are going behind the scenes.
I think the real root cause is governments allowing corporations to grow so large that any competitive effects are removed. In the absense of real regulation there's no way for competition to occur, allowing corporations to squeeze every dime they can from their customers.
One of the worst companies in recent years has been Purdue Pharma, which worked with the also shitty McKinsey to get as many Americans addicted to opioids as possible, and make billions on the epidemic.
Both Purdue and McKinsey were privately held.
Koch industries is also a terrible privately held corporation.
Being public versus private doesn't make a difference, in my opinion.
I don't think it's required by law for a publicly traded company to increase profits. I think that's a side effect of shareholders voting.
If Microsoft held a vote on whether or not disclose a report covering diversity I feel like the board would recommend against it and a majority of voters would agree because it could mean decreasing their stock's value.
There is a thing called ethical investing but that can mean investing in stocks that will see lower gains.
All-in-all I feel like it depends a lot on the core of the company and what percentage of the company belongs to different people.
To be clear: I am not a professional and am drunk. This is just my two cents on the topic.
I'll let others address the "enshittification" angle but I thought I'd point out that "shareholder value uber allies" is a relatively recent ... "innovation" ... in economic theory, brought about by failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork and Milton Friedman in the last half of last century:
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/what-made-chicago-school-so-influential-antitrust-policy
The rethinking of what the boards of companies are supposed to do (from maximize stakeholder value to maximize shareholder value) and how they can operate (from requiring justification to approve mergers to requiring justification to block mergers) really took off with them, and exploded when former union boss Ronald Reagan found "religion" (because Nancy's pussy was just that good) and ruined the economy for workers.
Lots of other people contributed, including Clinton after he "won" the 1992 election with 40% of the vote due to Perot splitting the Republican vote. His campaign of fiscal conservatism but without less bigotry became the model for the Democratic Party for the next two decades.
Anyway, Biden's FTC is finally working to help workers again, which might even release the death grip of the Chicago School from our economy. We'll see after November I guess.
Nope! My company is private after getting bought last year and they are definitely fucking it up with "ai all the things" and "ai makes us more human" and strip mining out our actual work culture and replacing it with an even more soulless grind
No. Enshittification happens because of venture capitalism.
Startup companies get a lot of money early on with the hopes that, after the investment cash is spent, there will be a profitable company left in its place. That company can become publicly traded or get sold to another company. The key is that the investors make their money off the startup.
The flip side is that, without venture capitalist companies, a lot of these companies wouldn't get the opportunity to grow.
it happens because people have a natural urge to think things constantly need improvement.
Yes, that is the root of many problems facing the general population. Environmental, monopolistic, and enshitification.
Isn’t that a prerequisite for enshitification?
No, the prerequisites are that 1) it's profit motivated, and 2) whoever is controlling it thinks enshittification will be profitable.
Those can certainly be met for a privately held company!
Publicly-traded companies are required (by law, I think) to maximize profits for their shareholders
That's not true in any major market that I know of. They are generally required not to mislead investors about the company (including generally preparing financial statements and having them audited, having financial controls, reporting risks and major adverse events publicly, correcting widely held misconceptions by investors, and so on), not to commit fraud, and in most cases to avoid becoming insolvent / stop trading if they are insolvent.
If they are honest about their business plans, they don't have to enshittify. Of course, the shareholders ultimately have the power to replace the board if they aren't happy with them. Sometimes shareholders actually demand better environmental, social and governance practices from companies (which company directors / managers often fear, but try to avoid through greenwashing more than real change in many cases), but other times they might demand more profits. Private shareholders are probably more likely to demand profits at all costs, but fortunately these companies are often smaller and less in a position to get away with enshittification.
No, plenty of private companies are profit driven