Enshittifcation, as a term popularized by Cory Doctrow, has for many become a catch-all term for things generally getting worse. I've found it useful (unsurprising if you know me) to think about it in two categories.
There's the popular definition of how very large, dominant platforms change [to get worse] over time as business/organizational priorities change.
I think there's a second-order version of this that follows as a response.
I'd sum it up like this:
"If [big company] doesn't have to focus on quality, we can cut corners there too."
What happens when "everyone" takes this approach is that things get continually worse. Not all at once and not always in the immediately obvious ways. More in the million paper cuts way.
From a software perspective, it's the increasing number of small bugs that no one seems to care about fixing. This teaches people to not bother reporting them. After all, "what's the point? They're not going to fix it even if I [you] do report it."
With fewer known or reported bugs, the company thinks everything is fine, or worse still, thinks skipping on quality is an approach that works.
And a self-reinforcing cycle continues.
I prefer to think of it another way.
Software exists to help people and to make their lives "better". This could be in one or in many ways.
When people are constantly being interrupted, frustrated, and disappointed by the software they use, it's very hard to argue that it is making them better, happier, or more productive.
This is part of the reason I think that QA, customer service, and fixing bugs are among the most important things that those in software development can focus on.
With AI making copying software easier, it's focusing on how it relates to people that can be the real differentiator.
Yes, AI may mean you can vibe code a copy of something that exists, but does it include support for all the non-obvious edge cases? Do you even know all the features that exist in what's being copied? How (and?) will you handle any bug reports?
Yes, building software can be fun for you, but high-quality software that works reliably benefits many more people and, in a small way at least, makes the world a better place.
And this can also lead to mediocrity
A small company tries to compete with a large one. They try to do everything because that's what the large company (or their software) does. They try hard, but as they're stretching themselves so thin, everything suffers. "Never mind", they say, "at least we're trying our best." But, for what? Who benefits? The company's staff exhaust themselves producing a mediocre product, and it's no better than the alternatives.
Trying to compete with a large company and basing goals on the perceived [low] standards of another company doesn't produce a great product, happy customers, or happy staff.
_This was written many months before posting--to avoid anyone thinking I'm responding to a single person, company or incident_
