[pc86]

When is the "get better" step? I've only ever seen two things happen mid- or post-enshittification:

    1. The company builds a moat and just remains shit.
    2. New entrants either displace the company entirely (most likely) or competition slows the enshittification process (distant second) or reverses it (almost never).

It's not clear to me why "get shitty" is a necessary step to this. What part of GitHub's executives' grand plan is "have a barely-functional service that randomly prevents people from working"?

[frevib]

> What part of GitHub's executives' grand plan is "have a barely-functional service

What about lock-in, being a monopoly? Why wouldn’t you maximize on saving costs? Sure some people leave, but the majority is not going anywhere. And if the platform dies they’ve made more money than to keep it alive.

[BizarroLand]

The enshittification process milks the current product of all of the money that can be wrung from it by any means just shy of immolation.

Companies aren't getting cheap loans right now so they're desperate to juice their stocks so that upper management can secure their bonuses.

That's why "get shitty" is necessary.

When they've wrung it dry, pocketed all of the crumbs of raw cash they can get, then they'll either collapse due to overmilking their products or they'll realize that the only way to refatten the calf is to bring in new customers, so they'll unshittify it for the fresh infusion of customer money.

It's a cycle, and one I predict will inevitably lead to many of these companies' collapse.