Worse on Purpose – How Corporate Greed Killed Product Quality
Consumers are increasingly frustrated that once-reliable brands now quietly cut quality while maintaining prices, exploiting reputations built on earlier, better products. Commenters link this “worse on purpose” trend to weakened antitrust enforcement, market consolidation, and information asymmetries that make it hard to distinguish durable goods from lemons, even for motivated buyers. Some see hope in independent review efforts, niche or family-owned manufacturers that still prioritize quality, and high‑value upstarts (including Chinese tool makers), but argue that meaningful change would also require stronger regulation and a cultural shift away from disposable consumerism.
Market Structure, Competition, and Antitrust
- Many comments blame high barriers to entry: large incumbents have economies of scale, cheap capital, and can undercut or acquire upstarts.
- Weakened antitrust and permissive merger policy are seen as key drivers of consolidation and “IF SUCCESS THEN SQUISH” dynamics.
- Some argue antitrust failure is an effect, not cause; others note its role is also to block harmful mergers, not just break up existing monopolies.
Information Asymmetry and Brand Degradation
- Users highlight that consumers lack insight into how/where products are made, so brands become crude proxies for quality.
- Once a brand earns trust, owners allegedly “value engineer” products down while prices stay high, extracting reputational capital until the brand is spent.
- Quiet SKU changes and “big-box-only” versions (tools, fixtures, clothing) with cheaper internals are recurring complaints.
Consumer Behavior vs Corporate Greed
- One camp says cheap, low-quality goods reflect consumer preference for low prices over durability.
- Others counter that consumers cannot coordinate, often don’t even have high-quality options, and face broken signals (brands sold to PE, misleading packaging, fake “Swiss/German” branding).
- Affordability pressures and stagnant wages push people toward short-term bargains, even if long-term worse.
Concrete Examples of Enshittification
- Stories include drills and appliances downgraded over time (e.g., a newer Bosch dishwasher losing useful features and gating delay start behind an app), Walmart packaging tricks, and downgraded “exclusive” versions for big-box retailers.
- Similar criticisms target clothing/luxury brand tiering and private-equity-gutted staples (e.g., kitchenware).
MVP, “Worse on Purpose,” and Cycles
- Several distinguish MVP (early dev stage) from deliberately degrading established products for margin.
- A “cycle of disruption” is proposed: upstart wins on quality, grows, investors demand returns, quality drops, new upstart emerges.
Counterexamples and Alternatives
- Some see high-quality Chinese tools and brands (and specific Harbor Freight lines) as proof markets can self-correct when incumbents over-extract.
- Others note privacy/security concerns with some Chinese electronics.
Quality Signals, Reviews, and Remedies
- Unit pricing laws, long warranties, and independent review organizations are seen as partial defenses, but quality is hard to measure without years of use.
- Many reviewers are criticized for superficial tests; long-term, expert evaluation is rare.
- Suggestions include buying fewer but better items, supporting “good” ownership structures (family/employee/trust-owned), restoring strong antitrust, and even taxing in ways that favor durability.
- Some praise the site’s “good brands” ledger; others are skeptical, claiming much of its text appears AI-generated.