this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)

Technology

4901 readers
416 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 21 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

Brand identity.

Corporations, and even some open source groups, hate highly visible customisation; they behave as if your computer shouldn't look like your computer, it should look like their software's computer.

Of course, this conflicts with what users want. So sometimes they're forced to provide you at least some highly visible customisation. More at the start, as they advertise their software as "flexible", "powerful", "customisable", whatever. Then they remove it later, when they believe the loss of the customisation won't make users leave.

But then people ask why. And they can't simply say "it damages our brand identity", or "you computer is not yours; it's our billboard for our software, that you paid for". And sometimes they can't ignore the question either, because that would make them look distant and uncommunicative and user-hostile.

The solution is bullshit galore. You disguise the removal as necessary, telling users things like:

  • "We had to redo it from the scratch, and we couldn't readd the feature"
  • "The feature gets in the way of another feature we're planning to add"
  • "The feature wasn't popular, so it was bloating our code"
  • etc.

Sometimes they aren't even lying that they redid it from the scratch, or that the feature wasn't popular. The truth doesn't matter here; that's why it's bullshit instead of a simple lie. The goal was always to get rid of that bit of customisation, and if you keep using their software without it, mission accomplished.