All of the examples are commercial products. The author doesn’t know or doesn’t realize that this is a capitalist problem. Of course, there is bloat in some open source projects. But nothing like what is described in those examples.
And I don’t think you can avoid that if you’re a capitalist. You make money by adding features that maybe nobody wants. And you need to keep doing something new. Maintenance doesn’t make you any money.
Sometimes, I feel like writers know that it’s capitalism, but they don’t want to actually call the problem what it is, for fear of scaring off people who would react badly to it. I think there’s probably a place for this kind of oblique rhetoric, but I agree with you that progress is unlikely if we continue pussyfooting around the problem
It’s just about convincing investors that you’re going places. Customers don’t have to want your new features or buy more of your stuff because it has them. Users certainly don’t have to want or use them. Just do buzzword-driven development and keep the investors convinced that you’re the future.
Capitalism’s biggest lie is that people have freedom to chose what to buy. They have to buy what the ruling class sells them. When every billionaire is obsessed with chatbots, every app has a chatbot attached, and if you don’t want a chatbot, sucks to be you then, you have to pay for it anyway.
Sponsors maybe? Adding features because somebody influential wants them to be there. Either for money (like shovelware) or soft power (strengthening ongoing business partnerships)
All of the examples are commercial products. The author doesn’t know or doesn’t realize that this is a capitalist problem. Of course, there is bloat in some open source projects. But nothing like what is described in those examples.
And I don’t think you can avoid that if you’re a capitalist. You make money by adding features that maybe nobody wants. And you need to keep doing something new. Maintenance doesn’t make you any money.
So this looks like AI plus capitalism.
Sometimes, I feel like writers know that it’s capitalism, but they don’t want to actually call the problem what it is, for fear of scaring off people who would react badly to it. I think there’s probably a place for this kind of oblique rhetoric, but I agree with you that progress is unlikely if we continue pussyfooting around the problem
But the tooling gets bloatier too, even if it does the same. Extrem example Android apps.
So, um, who buys them?
It’s just about convincing investors that you’re going places. Customers don’t have to want your new features or buy more of your stuff because it has them. Users certainly don’t have to want or use them. Just do buzzword-driven development and keep the investors convinced that you’re the future.
Capitalism’s biggest lie is that people have freedom to chose what to buy. They have to buy what the ruling class sells them. When every billionaire is obsessed with chatbots, every app has a chatbot attached, and if you don’t want a chatbot, sucks to be you then, you have to pay for it anyway.
Sponsors maybe? Adding features because somebody influential wants them to be there. Either for money (like shovelware) or soft power (strengthening ongoing business partnerships)
A midlevel director who doesn’t use the tool but thinks all the features the salesperson mentioned seem cool
Stockholders
Stockholders want the products they own stock in to have AI features so they won’t be ‘left behind’
“Open source” is not contradictory to “capitalist”, just involves a fair bit of industry alliances and\or freeloading.
“Open source” was literally invented to make Free software palatable to capitol.
It absolutely is to the majority of capitalists unless it still somehow directly benefits them monetarily