Showing posts with label Enshittification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Enshittification. Show all posts

24 May 2026

Quote of the Day

I have been a professional tech journalist for nearly 15 years, and before today, I cannot think of a single time when a Bing search result was more valuable than the Google equivalent. There really is a first time for everything!
Techcrunch reporter Russell Brandom on the discovery that a Google search on the word, "Disregard," will not return the definition of the word.

If this is not end stage enshittification, I do not know what is.

Earlier this week, Google rolled out a completely new Search experience, foregrounding AI summaries and kicking the traditional “10 blue links” far down the page. But the sheer scale of Google Search means there are lots of edge cases that the company doesn’t seem to have considered.

For instance, this is what you’ll now get if you type the word “disregard” into Google Search.

Bing, in contrast delivers the definition as the first link.

This is real end of the world sh%$. 

18 January 2024

Enshittification is Real

Is anyone surprised that  web search engines are complete pants these days?

Google does not care, it doesn't have to, it's the monopoly search provider:

No, it's not just you - search engine results really are getting worse as the internet is flooded with low-effort garbage from SEO farms and affiliate link sites, a group of German researchers has concluded.

The boffins made their determination after spending a year reviewing results for 7,392 product review queries on Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo, which they said is the first systematic review into the question of worsening search engine result quality.

After poring over countless links for the past year, the team has concluded everyone complaining about Google's declining quality seems to be correct, and things are probably only going to get worse with the advent of generative AI - just like we predicted. See the above-linked study for the full details, including comparisons between Bing, DuckDuckGo, and Google.

"We can conclude that higher-ranked pages are on average more optimized, more monetized with affiliate marketing, and they show signs of lower text quality," the researchers wrote. They also found that while a small portion of product reviews use affiliate marketing, the majority of search engine results do use the tactic, which is only adding to the problem of glum search engine results page (SERP) quality.

They got a reply from Google about this, and it's the standard PR bullshit.

"This particular study looked narrowly at product review content, and it doesn’t reflect the overall quality and helpfulness of Search for the billions of queries we see every day," a Google spokesperson told The Register post-publication.

"We’ve launched specific improvements to address these issues – and the study itself points out that Google has improved over the past year and is performing better than other search engines. More broadly, numerous third parties have measured search engine results for other types of queries and found Google to be of significantly higher quality than the rest."
Yes, there are more people who are more aggressively and more competently working to game the system for personal game, but Google hasn't looked beyond its latest quarterly they bought out Doubleclick in 2008.

22 August 2023

Headline of the Day

Tech’s Broken Promises: Streaming Is Now Just as Expensive and Confusing as Cable. Ubers Cost as Much as Taxis. And the Cloud Is No Longer Cheap.
Business Insider

They seem to think that this was not how it was supposed to turn out.

This was the plan all along.

Use massive infusions of venture capital to take over markets through predatory pricing, and by the time that reality hits SoftBank and Masayoshi Son have already cashed out.

Not only is it criminal anti-competitive behavior, it is pump and done fraud:

Sooner or later, everything old is new again.

We may be at this point in tech, where supposedly revolutionary products are becoming eerily similar to the previous offerings they were supposed to beat.

Take video streaming. In search of better profitability, Netflix, Disney, and other providers have been raising prices. The various bundles are now as annoyingly confusing as cable, and they cost basically the same. Somehow, we're also paying to watch ads. How did that happen?

………


Streaming was supposed to be better and cheaper. I'm not sure that's the case anymore. This NFL season, as in previous years, I'll record games on OTA linear TV using a TiVo box from about 2014. I'll watch hours of action every weekend free, and I'll watch no ads. Streaming can't match that.

You can still stream without ads, but the cost of this is getting so high and the bundling is so complex that it's getting as bad as cable — the technology that streaming was supposed to radically improve upon.

………


A similar shift is happening in ride-hailing. Uber has been on a quest to become profitable, and it achieved that, based on one measure, in the most recent quarter. Lyft is desperately trying to keep up. How are they doing this? Raising prices is one way.

Wired's editor at large, Steven Levy, recently took a 2.95-mile Uber ride from downtown New York City to the West Side to meet Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi. When asked to estimate the cost of the ride, Khosrowshahi put it at $20. That turned out to be less than half the actual price of $51.69, including a tip for the driver.

………

Finally, there's the cloud, which has promised cheaper and more secure computing for companies. There are massive benefits from flexibility here: You can switch your rented computing power on and off quickly, depending on your needs. That's a real advance.

The other main benefits — price and security — have been looking shakier lately.

………

As a fast-growing startup, Snap bought into the cloud and decided not to build its own infrastructure. In the roughly five years since going public, the company has spent about $3 billion on cloud services from Google and AWS. These costs have been the second-biggest expense at Snap, behind employees. 

There is a technical term for this, enshittification.

For at least the past decade venture capitalism's model has been little different from a bucket shop.

If we actually enforced the laws against fraud, both Andreessen and Horowitz would be in jail.

 

19 August 2023

Today in Enshittification

Enshittification was defined by Cory Doctorow:

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.


It looks like the enshittification of the streaming services is progressing with breathtaking speed.

It took more than 3 decades for cable to hit this cycle, and streaming has hit it in less than ¼ of the time.

It's more than that though. When Netflix was just distributing DVDs, they could profit and deliver a good service, because once the bought the DVDs, they could rent them out, no muss no fuss.

For physical media, the content distributors have no control over the resale or renting of DVDs and tapes.

Then, Netflix started streaming, they had to deal with the studios, and the nature of IP rules was that the distributors could take most, if not all of the profits, because they had exclusivity enforced through copyright law.

It's why, when Netflix moved to streaming, you constantly had titles cycling in and out of the library.

Every time that this happened, it was a studio turning the screws.

So, Netflix turned to producing its own content, and did so using every possible trick to avoid paying the people who actually directed, wrote, and acted in these productions.

Which is what led to the current writers and actors strikes, and Netflix is the most aggressively rapacious of the content distributors.

OK, after this bit of history, we have Netflix streaming original and archival content.

The legacy content distributors, Fox, Paramount, etc., realize that streaming has little or no barriers to entry, so they can stream their own stuff from their own websites.

What follows is an orgy of distributing content at a loss to pick up market share, which is unsustainable over the long term.

As the old bromide states, "What cannot continue, will not continue," and now the streaming services are raising prices and reducing the quality of the services.

There is an alternative, and it is readily available, and has been readily available for more a very long time.

It only has fallen into abeyance because streaming was more convenient, and worth the cost.

Not any more:

The average cost of watching a major ad-free streaming service is going up by nearly 25% in about a year, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis, as entertainment giants bet that customers will either pay up or switch to their cheaper and more-lucrative ad-supported plans.

Disney last week raised the price of its Disney+ and Hulu streaming services for the second time since last fall, following a string of similar announcements by the owners of Peacock, Max, Paramount+ and Apple TV+.

The recent wave of price increases signals a new phase in the streaming wars. After years of charging bargain-basement prices in pursuit of fast growth, most of the big players face a financial reckoning, with tens of billions of dollars in losses piling up.

Now, in a push for profitability, they are testing the loyalty of their customers, betting that ratcheting up prices won’t lead more people to cancel service, an industry phenomenon known as churn.

Nope.  The issue will not be churn, that was already a fact of life.

Using technology to share content without permission is the issue.  

As streaming services become more expensive and offer less content, this will expand, at the cost of subscriptions.

Expect to see a lot more interest in torrents, or whatever new protocol is in the wings, out there.