It's not. The quality stayed the same, even improved. It's run of the mill monopoly pricing.
So it's not "ensh*ttification", which is when prices go up while the product gets worse.
Nobody can seriously argue that Premiere hasn't been getting better overall. It has been. And it's continuing to.
(Which is totally separate from how scummy their subscription cancellation/renewal practices are.)
> 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. I call this enshittification, (..)
The core point here is "abuse the user", not "make features worse". Price gauging would be included in that definition.
Just because there's a new buzzword, doesn't mean it applies. In fact, it usually doesn't.
Adobe doesn't really run a platform, they're selling a product and finding ways to raise the price.
IMO inkjet printers where the front runner here before online platforms really took off.
That stuff is not new, enshittification was coined to refer to the relatively new ways that platforms started to squeeze people.
Walmart finding the minimum product quality they can sell is no different than Facebook finding the maximum number of Advertisements people will tolerate.
> "I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a "two sided market," where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, holding each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them." (emphasis mine)
All I'm saying is that citing back to the original definition (which is talking about platforms) does not bolster the case that what Adobe is doing counts, because it plainly doesn't fall under that definition. Adobe is not running a two-sided market. For it to be enshittification you need to use a much more expansive definition. Which is fine, but in that case you can't cite the original definition!
In his own words the enshitificstion of Google is: “curse of bigness.”
> With no growth from new customers, and no growth from new businesses, “growth” has to come from squeezing workers (say, laying off 12,000 engineers after a stock buyback that would have paid their salaries for the next 27 years), or business customers (say, by colluding with Facebook to rig the ad market with the Jedi Blue conspiracy), or end-users.
Amazon documenting the fact that users were unknowingly signing up for Prime and getting pissed; then figuring out how to reduce accidental signups, then deciding not to do it because it liked the money too much.
How did a company like Unity — … — turn into a protection racket?
So, while he may describe Enshittification as platform decay he’s not limiting its use to such.
https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/30/go-nuts-meine-kerle/#ich-...
However, because he’s using ‘platforms’ so broadly it’s not just marketplaces but basically any business. It’s hard to draw a meaningful circle around Facebook, Amazon, Uber, Google, and Unity that excludes Walmart’s online store.
It's enshittification. Why defend a multibillion dollar corporation who doesn't care about you one bit?
If enshittification is anything a company does that involves delivering a worse product for more money, that's fine, but then it becomes a less useful concept.
My attitude in general is that diluting useful ideas to the point where they encompass an entire vibe is unhelpful. If anything anti-consumer a company does is enshittification, the causes are so disparate that solutions seem impossible. If you draw a tighter boundary around it, you can try to nail down causes and solutions.