Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
You must log in or # to comment.
Loved it
The story is nearly always the same:
develop service, gain customers, numbers go up.
Gain more customers up to market saturation, numbers go up.
Market saturation is reached, or nearly reached, numbers don’t go up.
Panic.
Try to get more money: add commercials, buying rivals, reducing workforce, raising prices, reducing services, … in short: enshitification for new growth/monetary gain
Numbers go up… for a while, until users leave.
Panic again.
Make it even more shitty for short term growth.
Repeat.
Hence why STOCK is a thing:
S tart up
T rending
O pens to stocks
C ompany buys up
K rumble and enshittifyis a thing. Whenever a succesful company gets bought out by another and/or made public (IPO), it’s bound to eventually enshittify. The former owner then gets to live a life on a luxury yacht and doesn’t give a shit about the original ideals, if he had them.
The problem with stocks is that according to them, the number must always go up. But this can never happen without enshittification for the customer, for that is enhrined in stocks. Profit then will be put before people.
A diversified economy is healthy. Companies diversifying is also good, but if they grow too big and move away too much from their initial focus, the risk grows that they no longer depend on your average Joe customer, who will take much less shit. They can buy up competing companies easily. And then customers are forced to buy at theirs. Result: vendor lock-in.
The answer to that is breaking up large companies. If there are fewer than a dozen competitors, and the company is not a society-owned enterprise (ie., a worker-owned, self-managed cooperative w/ a commitment to abolition of capitalism), then the company should be broken up or reformed.
