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.
I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a “two-sided market,” where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.
This is not an exclusive feature of a platform. Rather it’s true of all and any organisations. Eventually the bureaucracy runs it for the benefit of the bureaucracy. There is, after all, nothing at all that explains either the DMV or the Federal Government other than this.
Sigh
It took a while, but I eventually realised Cory Doctorow is basically a bit of a knob.
It’s not of course. My favourite is the US navy, a century ago, pointing out that the Anglo-Japanese alliance was the only thing that could conceivably attack the US.
So the US broke the alliance with the Washington Treaty. And thus dumped its policy of freeloading on the Royal Navy, which it had done since the 13 colonies were founded.
And ended up fighting the Pacific War to make sure that Mao rather than Hirohito ruled China. A bit like fighting to ensure that Satan rather than the Devil ruled Hell.
So now it’s US rather than Japanese blood and treasure that protects South Korea and Taiwan. And Japan as well naturally.
The problem is that he doesn’t understand how this business works.
First, they are good to their users. Yes, this is because there’s some early funding, and it’s all about boosting numbers. Raise the numbers, then you raise some more investment. Repeat. Get a load of companies in as 3rd party vendors, advertisers on great deals. All this time, the company is losing a ton of money.
Missing step: All the people who created it float/sell it to some rubes who think it can make a ton of money
then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers. Yes, someone owns it who would like to make a profit, so they have to try and help those 3rd parties to make money off you.
finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die.. Things get desperate and they chase any way to survive.
The thing with a lot of internet stuff is that it’s bullshit, and you should just enjoy the ride. TikTok strikes me as hard to make money from for the same reasons as Snapchat, that it streams video and video has big costs.
He’s right about Amazon searches. Damn difficult to actually find what you want amongst the dross it throws up.
“the nature of a “two-sided market,” where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.”
Isn’t this what supermarkets and other retailers have been doing forever? The only thing keeping the ever-larger share in check being the competition between them?
“He’s right about Amazon searches”
Indeed moqifen. I only now use Amazon if I know exactly what I want. Otherwise I could spend days searching through all the crap.
There is a school of thought that the British Army in the First World War ( possibly also the Second ) institutionalised warfare. By that, I mean that fighting the war became an end in itself – it was just a never ending logistical exercise – and that by 1918 actually winning was secondary. The war was scheduled to end in 1919 because Germany and Austria would have starved and bled themselves to death and Turkey had effectively started to crack after its attempt to take Suez failed in 1916. The Germans rather spoilt everyones’ fun by losing too soon.
actually winning was secondary
So the British Army spent all that time developing new weapons and tactics so as to not win? Bringing in troops from the colonies to do worse? I’m sorry, that doesn’t even pass the sniff test.
Tanks, ground attack planes, SMGs, LMGs, small-unit tactics of advancing by bounds, advanced artillery techniques and better counter-battery as well, radios, grenades (concussion grenades, smoke, coloured signals). Every feature of the war saw massive advances.
That it was a stalemate for much of the time didn’t mean they weren’t trying to end it as quickly as possible.
If gub-gub didn’t pay farmers would they drive prices negative by out-over-supplying each other?
What about state crapitalism is efficient, again?
Once you learn to visually filter out the random-letter company or product names, which are almost always the cheap chinese shit knockoffs, it gets a lot easier.
CD
There were to be no major offensives in 1918, the US AEF would tip the balance in manpower terms, the naval blockade was still proving itself efective – although Ukraine going to the Central Powers offered some respite – and the Uboat threat had diminished thanks to the convoy system. Haig could even afford to send 80,000 men on leave just before the Spring Offensives started. Technological advance, new tactics, the creation of a true industrial-military complex in UK and USA were all part of this institutionalisation. The British Army in 1918 had undergone generations’ worth of change in 4 years and had become this logistical behemoth for which nothing was impossible supporting a well oiled fighting machine.
He’s right about Amazon searches. Damn difficult to actually find what you want amongst the dross it throws up.
Isn’t this a reflection of how people have come to expect things served up on a plate for them with minimum personal exertion. Before Amazon it was Google searches & individual vendors. Before the internet, TV & publication ads or schlepping your way round physical retailers. All much more work than sorting the grain from the chaff on Amazon. The alternative would be “approved” retailers. Approved by who? Why?
It’s going the same route as the Guardian columnist throwing a hissy fit over there being 48 different varieties of deodorant when only one’s required.
Great thing about Amazon’s the customer’s reviews. Providing there’s enough of them. But beware, there are sellers try to game them. Something I bought, I got e-mail from the seller offering me another item free in exchange for a favourable review. Since I didn’t need another one, I bubbled them in the reviews. Must have cost them more sales than trying to game the reviews. Nothing wrong with the product, though.
@bis
I gave a company a good (justified) review on a product, then they offered to refund me the cost of one of their new products as long as I submitted a review – to drive up the numbers quickly I assume.
When I submitted my review, they asked me to change it and make it stronger, I declined saying it was an honest thorough review and while not 5*, was going to inform potential customers far better than the myriad of other gushing 5* reviews (presumably all getting the same promotion)
To be fair they agreed and a year later is still has the most ‘helpful’ votes on that product listing
I think more mature companies realise honest reviews are obvious and far more influential.
Social media platforms don’t allocate value! It is in the nature of things that if you can’t work out who the mark is, its you. Users are there simply to allow the platform to sell advertising. Thing is, is it worse to be the mark, or the idiot who is watching the con and still can’t work it out?