Something I really dislike about modern consumer products is that companies simply don’t care if their decisions leave their customers embittered and feeling negatively about their decisions. It seems like that used to be a salient factor in how firms designed, sold and pitched their wares.
I think this is the single biggest change making everything worse. Lots of businesses used to care about their own products, since quality and brand image seemed like obviously important things. As the machine ran, and we got better and better at collecting and analyzing data, it became clear that the customer's view of you and your product didn't matter as much as we thought, and in fact it matters less and less the more businesses converge on that idea. But businesses still mostly cared about their own products, because they are run by humans, who tend to care about what they make naturally. However, eventually market forces pushed out normal humans.
Lately I've been helping my mom downsize. She's got boxes and boxes of household goods that she held on to because it belonged to her mother or grandmother or great aunt or whoever. Basically just, when the time came to clean out the old house, dump the kitchen cabinets into a box, put the box in the basement, and leave it there for 40 years.
And the thing that's struck me is how much of this stuff is cheaply made and barely holds together. Sure, there's the occasional well-built item that resembles the stuff I'm used to seeing in antique stores. But mostly I'm just getting a lesson in how much survivorship bias informs my perception of 20th century consumer products.
If anything the real trend is the shift to plastic, which can be more durable but is also more prone to complete instead of partial failure and generally isn't repairable. e.g. a tin measuring cup might dent easily, but can also be bent back into shape. A plastic one probably won't suffer anything more than a scratch when you drop it, but when it finally does crack that's the end of it.
Speaking of plastic, so many people nostalgically remember Tupperware as a quality product that's much nicer than what you can get nowadays. But the truth is it was a multi-level marketing scam and their products were often contaminated with heavy metals. It used to be a lot easier to prop up a brand image in the pre-Internet days, when consumers largely couldn't talk to each other en masse like we do nowadays.
Say what you want about tupperware, but I just bought a set of ancient tupperware from a thrift store and even the second hand quality of it beats anything I have bought in the last 20 years hands down.
Those cases are high-profile, and much more common than they should have been, but not common in the context of all products. They are examples of the type of decision-making that I am claiming has increased across the board. Also, those cases are mostly enormous-harm-vs-enormous-profit, whereas now that the same attitude is everywhere, most of the cases are just "make the thing worse", which is way less dramatic but ten thousand times more common.
There was much more than just the high profile egregious cases though.
Most food adulteration is a quality issue more than a safety problem.
Buy old peas but put a little green coloring in is almost the exact same thinking as let’s replace the metal gears with plastic ones to save a dollar per item. The vast majority of companies doing that didn’t kill or seriously injure anyone.
They've done the calculation. They'll lose X income because of subscribers who leave, and they'll get Y extra income from the ones who remain. If X < Y then implement policy.
Companies increasingly no longer even care about income.
They care about what boosts investor confidence.
So even if implementing a policy lowers operative income, if the growth in stock value offsets this, aka. number-go-up == true, the policy is implemented.
It's almost as if making companies responsible for performance of their stock backfired to the tune of "a measure that becomes the goal ceases to be a good measure".
The irony is, the PE of lots of tech companies implies 30+ years to earn back your money. Some of these companies enshittify at a rate higher than being in existence within 30 years. So I am curious how this will end up.
30 years doesn't matter; 90 days does. If you can make enough money back over that period by enshittifying the company, you do it, even if that means selling the thing whole.
It's not meant to be idealistic at all. There very much should be a whole lot more that goes into the decision to raise prices or introduce ads or whatever that might upset your customers.
It used to be that the goal of a company was to compete in a market and gain value through performance in that market over the long term.
In the 1990s, several CEOs, including Jack Welch, realized how exactly things work. Namely, most shares are held by retirement and pension plans who employ entire companies' worth of people to find a way to diversify and hedge, and the reporting period for their earnings is 90 days. You had major chunks of corporate capital held by people who couldn't really care less about anything other than the line going up, and any way to do so within three months was valid.
Once a company has achieved a certain market position, the long-term and non-financial aspects of holding shares (pride in the company, an interest in the market they competed in, etc.) are unimportant, and the customer's opinion stops mattering as much. You can assume that enough customers will stay around through sheer inertia no matter what you do, and that includes breaking up the company and selling it for scrap.
Since most shareholders aren't really attached to any one company's holdings, they plan for customers to leave when companies do anti-consumer things, and if a company is broken up, they just take the earnings per share on that break-up and plow it into something else that sounds like it'd be profitable.
You have to do business with people who are operating in a spot below that market position if you really want them to care about pleasing you as a customer.
Even with the lack of competition, shouldn't you have at least some pride on the product your offering? That's really what gets me every time, the fact that many companies actually don't really care about their product and clearly doesn't take any pride in it.
The people making the movies and shows, writes, actors, production crew, all of those, probably do care, but in the management layers at Disney, Netflix, HBO, you name it, they don't seem care about the actual product. While the hell would you work at e.g. Disney, if you don't care about movies, cartoons and stories?
No, why should they have pride? Having pride is more expensive than not having it, and the ones with pride have been naturally selected out of the market. The people making the movies don't care either, haven't you seen all the complaints about Hollywood becoming a slop factory?
I don't think it's that. Most people simply don't care.
I'd stop paying them, but it always amazes me just how unbothered the average person is to watch 3 minutes of ads for 10 mins of content. Especially when it comes to platforms like YouTube.
I think this might be a miscalculation on disney's behalf unless they don't turn it on, on the childrens profiles. Like, I'll watch 5 sections of gaming adds on the last episode of reacher because I'm too cheap to pay the extra 29 dkr before I cancel my subscription anyway, but I canceled Disney the monent they added the advertising to things my children were watching. It wasn't even real advertising, just testing the waters where they'd put a 40ish second add for one of their own movies that you could skip, but I don't want that for my children.
There's always competition for the consumer dollar, unless you are the only business selling necessities for survival such as electricity, gas, food, and such.
Without copyright, almost none of the content would get produced, especially in this digital age of zero-cost copying, and “they” (the companies) wouldn’t exist.
I don't think that's true. Copyright isn't more than a few hundred years old. Humans have been making and performing creative works for thousands of years.
Did Shakespeare or Chaucer need copyright? What about da Vinci? And the cave painters of Lascaux?
Sure you may argue that copying had costs back then and doesn't today. Maybe that's the only difference but maybe it isn't. I think creativity and art are human compulsions. Not mere commercial endeavors.
All this to say: it would be a very different industry. But it wouldn't cease to exist.
We had way, way less, and less polished, entertainment a few hundred years ago. Without copyright, you would mostly only get productions like what now exists as fan/amateur projects. Virtually no creator would be able to make a living from it, other than from stage shows (theater/opera/music concerts).
Copyrights are such constrained monopolies, though. More or less on the same level as how Nike has a monopoly on Air Jordans, but not on shoes in general.
One of the most interesting things about media consumerism is the extent to which people fail to realize that watching something else is always an option.
That's beyond hyperbolic. Yes there has been consolidation in the mainstream media industry, but I still have better access to more distribution channels than I did in the early 2000s. Especially when it comes to indie stuff.
It depends on the product though. The problem with streaming is that structurally, you have competition (other streaming services) but content wise not so much. If you want to watch Foundation, you need Apple tv. Netflix might have another good SciFi series, but it's not foundation... same for any other movie or series... in a way, people are more open to accept these terms because they want to watch their favorite show. So there is no real competition. And they get away with it because customers accept it.
Of course there is competition: "piracy". The thing streaming was supposed to (mostly) eliminate by being "legal", easy, not too expensive, ad-free and easy to use while offering a wealth of things to see and hear. It even worked, for a while, in some places. Then they limited what could be seen and heard because of corporate politicking. Then the price went up, just a bit. Then more movies and artists suddenly went dark. Prices were raised again. Terms of use were changed allowing "limited" advertising where there was none before. Prices went up again while disallowing that TV upstairs to partake without buying another subscription. More ads, fewer things to see and hear, price rises, rinse and repeat.
What is that I see in the distance? A ship, right? They hail me, "Ahoy matey, come aboard, arrrrrrrrrrr...."
This is, however, part of why we're trending towards mandatory ID verification to use the internet+ attempts to illegalize encryption and consumer VPNs.
VPNs only help you with Bittorrent piracy. The kind where you buy a set-top box is still most easily caught by a police officer seeing you using the box, or selling you the box, not by anything they can do on the internet.
That is the internet equivalent of fare dodging. Some people are doing it? Not that much of a problem. More people are doing it? See, they'll say it's not worth it anymore to produce expensive shows and movies. And that's it.
I'd rather see a healthy physical media culture again. Hard to enshitify that.
The fare-dodging example is valid for recent movies and music but it falters for older stuff where "older" means "older than the original copyright term", i.e. between 18 and 21 years. Beyond that it is more comparable to charging a wind-fee to sailing boats or a current-fee to river runners: taking money for a common good. Copyright has been extended and extended again just to keep people from drawing a cartoon mouse or singing a birthday song and that makes current copyright terms just as piratical as the self-styled internet pirates who have no qualms about releasing movies the day they are premiered.
Here's a fix: bring copyright terms back to something sensible, say 15 years. After that point copyrighted material is free to use for non-commercial purposes. For commercial purposes you still need a licence for another 10-15 years. Beyond that it becomes public domain, no licence required.
This is an argument for not pirating indie games or books from smaller authors. There's no way Disney sees people pirating and just stops making content. It is all they know how to do
They should start making good quality products and charging a price people are willing to pay then. Do you realise piracy is just about the only leverage consumers have here?
It's not unprecedented either. Basically every time in history that the common people got rights, it was a reaction to the common people ceasing to give the nobles what the nobles needed, forcing them to the bargaining table.
But there will still be demand for content, and people who are willing to pay for a non-enshittified experience. Piracy is essentially the consumer bargaining chip in an era of unprecedented centralization and monopoly power.
Totally false. The competition is in what shows people watch. The Pit not available on Netflix? Oh well, I’ll watch something else. There’s plenty of content. People are not subscribing to BritBox just to watch one show the heard was good.
The Pitt does get a lot of people to subscribe to HBO Max just to watch the show. Producing at least one compelling TV show each quarter has been HBO's business model for several decades.
Companies are profit machines that chase where money is. They grow like weeds in fertile spots.
It's on consumers to chose where to water, and consumers consistently chose the cheapest most immediately convenient shit. The Yin to "Corporations are all about profit" is the Yang of "Consumers are all about minimizing spend"
I can tell you with confidence that if you leave the consumer market and go to the commercial market (and especially the defense market), where they worship quality and reliability instead of "absolute cheapest option", the amount of enshitification and deceit drops dramatically, and you end up with some really solid (and expensive!) products. Consumers want an oven that costs $600. Restaurants pay $6,000 for theirs.
That doesn't really make sense here. This whole issue is about the more expensive options. "Consumers are all about minimizing spend" right, and that's why they have a cheap option with ads. That's fine. I don't approve of advertising, especially in paid products, but they tell you exactly what they're selling. But they also have a more expensive option with "no ads." And guess what, that's a lie!
Why do I buy the cheapest oven possible? Because I have little defense against oven manufacturers doing the same thing Disney is doing with its higher-end subscriptions, and giving me expensive crap. I'm often happy to pay more for quality. But that's becoming more and more difficult as reputational signals get hacked. When I sort by price and buy the cheapest option, it's not because I prefer price to quality. It's because I have no way to judge or discover the quality of the more expensive options. For all I know, they're just as bad, or worse. So I choose the cheapest option because there's nothing else that distinguishes them.
I don’t agree with this characterization of the article at all. What you see as clickbaity I see as using a reductive idea to set the stage for a more complex one. I just think this is good, engaging writing.
I’m a heavy KOReader user and absolutely adore it, but I think it definitely trades user-friendliness for power and flexibility. The Kindle proprietary store has a far more user friendly UI imo, though it’s getting progressively worse (and the fact that kindles now default to showing you the store pisses me off to no end). KOReader plugins really close the gap though.
> I think it definitely trades user-friendliness for power and flexibility
A tale as old as time with OSS software from what I've seen. So far the only exception that I've seen of a FOSS piece of software with great UX is Blender[1]. With UX not being a first-class citizen on Linux, exposure to a solid universal tooling to create great UX also exacerbates things.
I think the issue of bad UX and OSS are comorbid because good UX needs an extremely opinionated mind at the helm and a culture of prioritizing features and saying "No, this is not important" which OSS generally lacks.
I think Libreoffice is easier to navigate than ribbon-era Office.
I think especially Gnome, but also Kde has better settings than Windows, which is spread across a new and a classical view (or more?).
I also think MacOS finder is worse than Windows/KDE/Gnome equivalents. When you strip so much away that people have to remember strange key combinations to jump/navigate to specific directories you have really gone too far.
And mobile UX (android and iphone) seem to me worse than any desktop system. Nothing is consistent (sharing data between apps), nothing ever seems settled (settings move around in the central settings apps every few releases).
We could argue in depth. Let me head it off a bit - taste is absolutely a thing, but consistency across releases is evidently a good thing unless you are constantly in a situation where your existing userbase is dwarfed by the prospective one. There’s a reason we hang on to diskette icons, don’t change from desktop to metro to ios style desktops every release and so on.
Last point: OSS software can be misguided, but it never seeks to bamboozle the user to make some corporate goal succeed. It won’t nefariously stuff files on a cloud or actively make it hard to export data or be incentivized to NOT interoperate with devices or programs shipped by competitors.
People say that and I used to agree, but honestly I use neither MS Office nor LibreOffice heavily anymore. Nowadays I can figure out what to do in MS Office very quickly but LibreOffice's menus are a confusing maze (even when switched into the more ribbon-like mode).
> So far the only exception that I've seen of a FOSS piece of software with great UX is Blender.
Most OSS software favors power users instead of total beginners. And even Blender is not a great exercise in discoverability. You need training to use it.
The stock software in Kobo and kindle can be used within minutes because they don't have a lot of features/options. And it's totally fine if that's what you need. Just like Windows 7's Notepad. But if you need more capabilities, your wish is notepad++/vim level (which does require more learning), which is what koreader is.
> Most OSS software favors power users instead of total beginners. And even Blender is not a great exercise in discoverability. You need training to use it.
I think it’s more subtle than that. I am a power user — I was compiling my Linux kernel in the 90s, I wrote my own SSH tunnel manager 20 years ago, I always fiddle with settings, etc. etc.
However, I am constantly frustrated with a lot of OSS software because it expects you to think like the developer of the tool, instead of having empathy for the user. What feels obvious to the developer of the tool (I am making up a hopefully-representative hypothetical here, but finding the change of font under “Theme” because it’s how “it looks” but finding the font size under “View” because, well, you view it) feels frustrating and nonsensical to a normal human who relates both the font and its size the same way in their mind. Again, generally — I’m making generalizations here and not calling out any specific software, but trying to illustrate the feeling that I get.
When I switched to the Mac in 2002, it is because these sorts of things made sense. Yes, there were and are frustrations because of this sort of opinionated design mentality, but I judged the benefits to outweigh the positives. Unfortunately, Apple squandered this culture and skill and nowadays I often find the platform as frustrating as OSS ones, to the point where I have switched back to 50/50 time split between platforms.
I find this is mostly just a "mindset" difference.
OSS software aligns mentally with "tool". It only exists because someone had a problem to solve, and they wanted a tool to solve it. Generally, people should expect to have to learn how to use tools. Then they solve their problem and move on. It takes effort, and the result is mastery which gives you new capabilities.
Consumer software (and especially anything ad supported or social media adjacent, and sadly in many respects, lots of modern SaaS companies) want to be as glitzy and smooth as possible, but they don't actually want you to solve your problem. Instead they'd really prefer that you simply spend as much time looking at their software as possible. So the experience can be quite pleasant, it feels nice, things feel obvious, you get the dopamine hits quick and fast. But after a while you realize you aren't actually all that productive (or even productive at all) when engaging with them. Because the goal of this software isn't to help you solve your problem. The goal is to keep your attention and extract your money. If it happens to solve your problem... sometimes that's fine, sometimes that's actually counter to the primary mission of extracting your time and money.
> The stock software in Kobo and kindle can be used within minutes because they don't have a lot of features/options.
Afaik koreader itself does not support stylus while the default reader in kobo does (somebody made a plugin lately but not sure how stable it is). Not to say that koreader is not amazing, but it does not mean that FOSS always has strictly more features. If koreader had strictly more features and I wanted some of them I would choose that. But I also right now want to use the ereader to read books and take notes, not tweak plugins and configurations. I have been in this "power user" loop where I spend more time with configuring rather than doing the thing, and I am a bit more selective with when this makes sense to me.
I love the discoverability of blender in the sense that I can hit space and start typing the name of the thing I want to do and run it from there while it shows me in what menu I could find it and what shortcut to use. And next space it remembers the last thing I ran so to repeat it its even faster.
This requires however to remember the name of the command (or parts of it). I often remember that but not where to find it or the shortcut.
It also requires that you chose the spacebar search option, which is the only correct option if you ask me. (Not a pro. Just messing around with blender sometimes.)
you will spend much MUCH more time as a power law user than as a new user, such that almost any % gain in productivity once familiar is worth almost any months of unproductivity when new.
> I think the issue of bad UX and OSS are comorbid because
I think UX is simply harder when you're not leading the user by the nose to your most profitable features, and removing or obscuring the others. Commercial UX is more akin to advertising than UX, so there's no wonder that it makes very clear the few affordances that it offers (and bizarre when it doesn't, like the "flat" period.)
The other problem with FOSS UX is that millions of dollars haven't been put into it (literally: 5 developers = 1 million dollars/year.) The wonderful benefit of FOSS UX is that you have plenty of time to learn it, because every feature is already there, no one is forcing you to upgrade, and no one is moving things around and deleting things because it is more profitable to them.
Commercial UX had better be good enough to learn basic functionality quickly, because it's going to be completely recycled every year. It also doesn't want you to learn anything too deeply, because then you might become a (gasp) "power user" and make unprofitable demands.
Imagine using the same type of software (e.g. an mp3 player) for a couple dozen years and thinking that it's a hassle to figure out how to learn it. Imagine being boiled like a frog to relearn how your mp3 player works every couple years for a couple dozen years, and dreaming you've saved some sort of time or effort. Imagine you've used mp3 players for a couple dozen years, you still don't know what an mp3 is, you don't know what a file is, and you don't know how to get your mp3s back after switching your mp3 player without rebuying them. Eventually you switch to streaming, give up making any decisions, and take whatever the marketers prefer.
I jailbroke my Kindle and moved to KOReader last year, primarily to get away from the Amazon jail. Just the bare KOReader UX was pretty utilitarian. It lacked polish for sure. I'll have to agree that, as noted elsewhere, the KOReader menus can be difficult to get a grip on.
If you're working at just the most basic level of functionality, I don't think KOReader is necessarily worse than native Kindle. The latter is hampered by being very opinionated about how you should experience it, and that includes pushing their store above the user's own library, and this is a real annoyance.
As you start to demand more capabilities they diverge more. Organizing when you've got many books on the device is clunky on both platforms, but in different ways. The native Kindle options for grouping are simple, but not necessarily easy. They're very generic, and very cumbersome to work with. Bare KOReader's support for folders makes more sense to me, and it's easier to deal with bulk books than is Kindle's.
Getting books onto Kindle is super-easy if you get them from Amazon, but complexity ramps up for other sources. Your best bet is plugging it into USB and transferring via the file system. Native KOReader add to this an OPDS capability (if your book repository supports it), which works but is less than pleasant. If you use BookOrbit as your repository, there's a plugin that gives you the remote BookOrbit UI from the Kindle, which makes things a LOT better.
I experimented with Simply UI for a bit but could never get it to work quite right. About a month ago I found Bookshelf, and this makes the UX pretty wonderful. It has a very attractive and intuitive UI. And it simplifies the interactions needed for group management a bit.
Bottom line is that KOReader + Bookshelf are, for at least a power user, a potentially far superior experience compared to baseline Kindle.
I've tried hard to make Bookshelf work for me, but I find the UI confusing, going off in unexpected directions, and it's very unintuitive. I've got SimpleUI at the moment and it's comfortable, even though the library interface is lacking.
I don't know what the situation is like for Kindle, but there are atleast two open source alternatives for Kobo. KOReader is the Swiss Army knife, Plato is easier to use.
A few people are suggesting that KOReader is symptomatic if the issues with open source software. The reality is it targets a particular group of users.
Fagles was what I read when I first read the Iliad/Odysseus years ago, and I was happy to see him pop up as my revealed preference via the test. I'm also a big fan of Lombardo.
Forgive my ignorance; I'm not a Sanskrit speaker (Malayalam is my first language) -- but I love the sound of Sanskrit.
I have lots of questions: what's the use case for this? Primarily religious / liturgical? It also seems that the fact that this tool works means that any arbitrary Sanskrit sentence can be translated into a chant by some sort of procedure (dare I say algorithm)? I'm terribly curious and fascinated by this!
I think complex Sanskrit words are difficult to roll off the tongue and pronounce if read in a dry manner specially if you don't already know the words or meaning, which unfortunately is true for the majority out there who want to read them, including myself.
Having a spoken reference that too as a chant makes it easy to recite the verses.
Automating pundits in family functions would be my first guess. Could be more convenient and reliable than having to invite some stranger just for recitation.
You should ask yourself - would most christians prefer baptism in a bathtubs at home or drive in weddings for convenience? No? Exactly.
Hindu Vedic pandits and priests who come in and run priestly events and functions at Hindu homes are usually well known within their communities are not treated as strangers and neither is there an element of inconvenience. If anything their absence adds an element of inconvenience. For one most rituals in sanskrit are available on youtube for those who want to diy. But most discerning Hindus prefer the real thing. Same as Christians.
Come on be so for real right now? I have been to many Hindu events, and the pandit is really just there to make things official and say the words. 90% of attendees don't know what he's actually saying. 80% have never met him or his associates.
Now you can't automate him either. His presence is there because religious rituals and practice and tradition mandate his presence, but if you could just play the chants over a speaker and have people understand and follow the ritual instructions some other way, nothing would really change.
For what it's worth, people can and do use AI visuals and sermons in Christianity as well
You 'could' also play the bible over a speaker and do away with a church father delivering a sermon then?
If you have been to many hindu events you would know Vak (speech) and Prana (breath) are both required to deliver vedic chants. Why do people go to musical concerts when they can turn on spotify? Use common sense.
Priestless hindu functions at your home will get laughed at so save yourself some embarrassment.
Please read my comment again. I mentioned that physical presence is necessary but the idea expressed in the comment before mine that people who hire such priests know them well, or that it's the discernment of Hindus rather than a strict requirement which makes such priests invaluable is false.
Were their presence not required, absolutely people would turn to recorded voice as 90% of people don't know what is being said anyways
Most religious families in India have generational priests. Its a privilege to have one too as those priests can be discerning about who they provide services to. Recordings would lower whatever inconvenience families without access to a generational priest but again, its a privilege of location, having strong roots in one's own community though several generations. If you are an urban nuclear family YMMV - their needs are different and they dont care about Vak, Praana and all other aspects of Hindu prayers. The aspect of '90% of people dont't know what is being said anyways' applies to majority of people around the world accross religions.
Incorrect. 80% of Muslims do not understand spoken Arabic. For Christians, virtually 0% read Latin to access the "original" Bible. They are depend on translations that do not preserve the meaning verbatim. Same with sanksrit.
They understand the very small amount which is used in their far shorter rituals. The original Bible isn't in Latin nor are Catholic masses in Latin anymore
The old testament was written primarily in ancient Hebrew. English version is a translation is not authoritative. The vatican does not use the English version for daily prayers (instead uses latin).
Sankrit is the mother language of a lot of indian languages that Hindu’s speak, and can be reproduced without loss of fidelity in many languages. Sanskrit is also easily understandable and readable
if you know the language you speak enough to be able to write it. I dont think you can reproduce arabic version of the quran in bengali or urdu or indonesian. And again, majority of muslims do not understand Arabic to be able to use it for more than daily prayers.
reply