I was a bit surprised to see the the "software" criteria in your reply, as I'd always thought of enshittification's inevitability as a capitalist phenomenon whereby a quality brand is wrung out for near term gains by management incentivized to get their cut before riding off into the sunset.
But after reading up a bit, I've found that software platform lock-in was important in enshittification's original formulation — it's not just that quality goes to crap, but that users have nowhere else to go.
Thank you for that second paragraph. Really hate people throwing that word around without understanding what it actually means. Was about to get inflamed.
Makes you wonder how open software car platform could look like and why nobody is making one.
Probably because if you and me would write one and install it on our cars it would void all certifications and make the car not legal to drive. That doesn't mean that manufacturers could not band together and make a common OS for cars, or a company in that market could not sell its software to everybody (like MS or Google) but I believe that manufactures don't want to completely commoditize cars and go the way of gas brands or smartphones. A car is 4 wheels, steering and brakes to me, so I don't care much about what I'm driving as long as it handles well and brakes strong, but that's not the case for most people so manufacturers want to add their own bells and whistles.
That's a phenomenon that can be blamed on low-IQ or disengaged owners.
Some companies have owners that are locked in, who know where the true value of their business lies (usually this involves a high quality product), and holds the management to account to keep the golden-egg-laying goose alive.
But other companies are owned by index funds, ETFs, and/or dumb people who don't know or care how things work. These have no defense against enshittifying.
I've bought some products that are of almost egregiously high quality, and nearly 100% of the time there's family ownership, or it's still run by the founders.
