206
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by Hammocks4All@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

Sometimes I’ll run into a baffling issue with a tech product — be it headphones, Google apps like maps or its search features, Apple products, Spotify, other apps, and so on — and when I look for solutions online I sometimes discover this has been an issue for years. Sometimes for many many years.

These tech companies are sometimes ENORMOUS. How is it that these issues persist? Why do some things end up being so inefficient, unintuitive, or clunky? Why do I catch myself saying “oh my dear fucking lord” under my breath so often when I use tech?

Are there no employees who check forums? Does the architecture become so huge and messy that something seemingly simple is actually super hard to fix? Do these companies not have teams that test this stuff?

Why is it so pervasive? And why does some of it seem to be ignored for literal years? Sometimes even a decade!

Is it all due to enshittification? Do they trap us in as users and then stop giving a shit? Or is there more to it than that?

(page 2) 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Good enough 90% of the time makes 99.9% of the money so why bother making things perfect for the power users?

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Sometimes it's a solution in search of a problem. Usually that'll be some startup that really wants Google (or somebody) to either buy them out or shovel millions of venture capital money at them. VC that would be better used for anything that housing homeless people, feeding the hungry, or hell just burning to stay warm.

[-] stealth_cookies@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

This is a topic that could be a novel for how much there is to consider, but in the end it comes down to resources and companies trying to choose what it best for the company overall. For a company to do anything, they are giving up many other things they could be doing instead. Whether it is limited budgets, limited personnel, or company priorities every decision made is always a tradeoff that means you aren't doing something else.

Most companies prioritize releasing new product so they can start getting revenue from it as soon as possible. A new product has the largest potential market, and thus makes shareholders happy to see revenue coming in. The sales from a new product are the easiest ones in most product's lifecycle. Additionally. releasing new products helps keep you ahead of competitors. So ongoing maintenance work is de-prioritized over working on new things.

The goal of testing is to simulate potential use cases of a product and ensure that it will work as expected when the customer has the product in their hands. It is impossible to fully test a product in a finite amount of time, so tests are created that expose flaws within a reasonable search space of the expected uses. If an issue is found then it needs to be evaluated about whether it is worth fixing and when. There are many factors that affect this, for example:

  • How much would it cost to fix?
  • How much time would it take to fix?
  • Does it need to be fixed for launch or can it be a running change?
  • How many customers are actually going to see the issue? Is it just a small annoyance for them or will it cause returns/RMAs?
  • Is it within the expected use case of the product?
  • Can we mitigate it in software/firmware instead of changing hardware?
  • Is it a compliance/regulatory issue?
  • Would this bring in new customers for the product?
  • Was this done a specific way for a reason?

Unfortunately, after considering all this the result is often that it isn't worth the effort to fix something, but it is considered.

[-] Didros@beehaw.org 4 points 1 month ago

Tge problem is money. The incentive if to make as much money as they can, not the company. Company loyalty has completely been blown up by companies, so now not even the ceo gives a fuck, he'll be running another company with a 10% raise this time next year.

[-] nicerdicer@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think that manufacturers of tech products test their products only with a few standard configurations - but in reality there are too many possible combinations of different configurations:

Take a bluetooth mouse for example. Generally, it connects to a computer and it works. Now imagine that you have a different configuration - a logicboard in your laptop that has not been tested by the manucacturer of the mouse or an obscure model of the bluetooth reciever, that also hasn't been tested to work with that mouse. Your mouse works well in the beginning, but disconnects at random times. You can't pinpoint the issue, and when you are looking for help online, nobody seems to have the same problems with that mouse.

In this case, said mouse sucks, because it doesn't function reliably. A different person with a different configuration of their computer (different logicboard, different model of the bluetooth unit) might have no problems at all with the same mouse.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

enshitification is based on the ease of moving profits from users to creators then from creators to shareholders in a digital service economy all the while degrading the service for the users and then the creators as the profit fulcrum.

so enshitification might be a different thing than the reality around manufacturing items in an international environment which requires design decisions that later require revising because not all materials are available from everyone in the way a design is called for. and finding people that can assemble things while receiving a wage that they can live so that a company can make a profit requires compromises. and that is just two tiny points in not including shipping and workspaces and insurance et cetera

it is hard, yo. in a not a one part is inconceivable hard but in a it gets complicated pretty quickly type of hard.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The proliferation of competing mutually incompatible standards.

[-] a4ng3l@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

We tend to forget that all of that is to support people. Tech shouldn’t be an end goal, merely one of the ways to achieve it. And not always the best one at that.

[-] Retro_unlimited@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

I feel that best tech comes out when the economy is doing great, lots of development and creativity.

[-] I_Miss_Daniel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

A bit like Motorola phones killing messenger e even if you tell them not to, or losing photos if you press home too soon after a night shot.

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

CEOs wanna cosplay Steve Jobs and unvail their crazy new features. They've already "trimmed the fat" to appease shareholders.

They just can't make fixing old issues sexy.

[-] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Leveraging technology is a lever of power. Whenever you use technology, you are acting in a submissive manner and that will be used to exploit you.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
206 points (96.8% liked)

Asklemmy

43750 readers
1239 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS