Isn’t that a prerequisite for enshitification? Publicly-traded companies are required (by law, I think) to maximize profits for their shareholders, even if that means utterly ruining their original product (Reddit, Boeing, etc.), yes? What do you think?

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
    8·
    8 months ago

    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…”

    • the w@beehaw.orgEnglish
      4·
      8 months ago

      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

      • "don’t worry you favourite thing will stay the same - we don’t want to mess with a winning formula!
      • “these changes will benefit users!”
      • “we have to comply with industry standards and best practices. please read our updated terms of service.”
      • "in order to compete in a dynamic marketplace, we’re introducing an add supported tier!
      • “we’ve made changes to our subscription model!”
      • “we’ve made changes to our subscription model and we’re introducing adds on paid tiers! suck it!”
      • “sure, you paid for it, but our agreements are expiring and we don’t value you as a human being!”
      • “really, where else are you going to go? lololololol”
    • Corroded@leminal.spaceEnglish
      5·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.orgEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        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

        • Corroded@leminal.spaceEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          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

      • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
        1·
        8 months ago

        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.