technology

unshittification:-3-tech-companies-that-recently-made-my-life…-better

Unshittification: 3 tech companies that recently made my life… better


Enshittification is not the only option.

I’ve been complaining about tech a lot recently, and I don’t apologize for it. Complaining feels great. That feeling of beleaguered, I-against-the-world self-righteousness? Highly underrated.

But a little righteous complaint goes a long, long, loooong way. (Just ask my wife.) Too much can be corrosive, it can make you insufferable to others, and it can leave you jaded, as many people, myself included, have become about technology.

I had three recent experiences, however, that were each quite small in their way but which reminded me that not everything in the tech world has fallen victim to the forces of “enshittification.” Once in a while, technology still feels easy and—dare I co-opt the world from Apple’s marketing department?—even magical.

Call it “unshittification.”

Better DRM

Ars has complained about DRM since our founding over 25 years ago. As writers and editors ourselves, we certainly get the desire not to have one’s work ripped off or repurposed without payment, but even effective DRM imposes annoying costs on those who actually paid the money for the thing.

Case in point: I’ve been teaching myself songwriting, audio production, and mixing for the last 18 months, and part of that process has led me to invest some decent money into Universal Audio products. I bought its stellar and rock-solid-reliable Volt 2 audio interface and then spent much of 2024 snapping up high-quality plugins like Topline Vocal Suite, the Manley Voxbox, and the Electra 88 Rhodes piano. Terrific stuff—but not necessarily cheap.

So it was just insulting to find out the hard way that Universal Audio used a variant of the iLok DRM system—itself unfortunately common in the audio industry—that required constant Internet connectivity to function.

The iLok ecosystem can be configured in three main ways, authorizing your plugins 1) to a custom iLok USB dongle (which costs $50–$70 and requires a USB port—plus, you have to remember it at all times), 2) to the local machine you are working on, or 3) to the cloud. Universal Audio allowed only dongle and cloud authorizations, but I figured this wouldn’t be a problem because, surely, the system would only need to check in semi-regularly.

In fact, the system checked in constantly. Go even a few minutes without Internet access, and all your plugins will disable themselves, leading any mix that uses them to fall apart immediately. Want to work on your laptop during a power outage? Edit some audio on a flight? Use a studio computer that—for stability, performance, and security reasons—is not generally online? Well, I hope you like dongles.

(Some users do—though others have complained that they too can be unstable, they cost extra, and they permanently take up a USB port on your machine.)

Universal Audio is a big name in the business, and their users have complained endlessly about this situation, but the response has generally been that machine-based authorization is less secure and therefore not supported.

So it was a surprise and delight when, on March 25, Universal Audio saw the light and announced that “by popular demand” it was shifting to local machine or iLok USB authorizations. The cloud option was gone, and a company rep even admitted that cloud monitoring “requires a constant Internet and server connection. [In other words], more resources.”

In addition, Universal Audio now allows “up to three” simultaneous authorizations of each digital tool, while before you could only have two.

The online response appears overwhelmingly positive. As one commenter put it, “Ok, I admit: I thought the ‘submit feedback’ feature was just there so users would vent without any serious change occurring… I was wrong on that front. Glad to see UA is listening. Good job!”

Others stressed just how beneficial the move was for touring musicians who may use various bits of Universal Audio tech on stage or on tour. “For touring musicians and all other people that often work in an offline environment this is awesome!” wrote one commenter. Another added, “iLok dongle on stage is scary and glad that’s over with. Power move!”

I concur.

Better customer service

Let’s stick with the “musical” theme for example No. 2.

I purchased Native Instruments’ terrific piano library Noire, which sampled the specific grand piano used by Nihls Frahm in both standard and felted formats—and all of it capturing the ambience of Saal 3 in the East Berlin Funkhaus recording facility where Frahm works. The library is one of my favorites—evocative and gorgeous. But I was apparently the victim of fraud.

See, I purchased the library secondhand. This is completely legal and explicitly allowed by Native Instruments, though the company needs to get manually involved in the transfer process. I purchased Noire from a UK user who already had a “transfer code” approved by Native Instruments, indicating that the software in question was genuine and available for sale.

So I purchased Noire, completed the transfer, and the software showed up in my Native Instruments account. Everything went smoothly, and I was (very gently) rocking out with Noire’s felted piano.

A few weeks (!) later, I received a note, completely out of the blue, from Native Instruments support. They had removed Noire from my account, they said, because the seller had committed some unspecified fraud, and Native Instruments had transferred my copy of Noire back to the original purchaser.

This was extremely uncool. Not only did I have nothing to do with any fraud, nor any reason to think fraud had occurred, but Native Instruments had vetted the software and approved it for transfer, which gave me the confidence to move forward with the purchase. So why was I now the only person to suffer? The original buyer got the plugin restored, the scammer had my money, and Native Instruments hadn’t lost anything.

There appeared to be little I could do about all this. Sure, I could file a dispute with PayPal and try to claw my money back, but Native Instruments is a German company, and—let’s face it—I wasn’t going to do anything if they decided to screw me out of a purchase they had helped me make. (Well—I was going to do something, namely, never purchase from them again. After all, who knew, when they awoke in the morning, if their purchased products would still function?)

This may sound like a complaint, but here’s the thing: When I made my case to Native Instruments over email, they got back to me in a day or two and agreed to put a free though “not for resale” copy of Noire on my account as a goodwill gesture. This was all conducted politely, in impeccable English, and without undue delay. It felt fair to me, and I’m likely to continue purchasing their excellent sample libraries.

Customer service can feel like a lesser priority to most companies, but done right, it actually ensures future sales.

Better money-taking

Finally, an almost trivial example, but one that worked so smoothly I still remember my feeling of shock. “Where’s the catch?” pretty much summed it up.

I’m talking, of course, about March Madness, the annual NCAA college basketball tournament. It’s a terrific spectacle if you can ignore all the economic questions about overpaid coaches, no-longer-amateur players, recruiting violations, and academic distortions that the big sports programs generate. And my University of North Carolina Tar Heels had juuuust squeaked in this year.

Ordinarily, watching the tournament is a nightmare if you don’t have a pay-TV package. For years, streaming options were terrible, forcing you to log in with your “TV provider” (i.e., an expensive cable or satellite company) account or otherwise jump through hoops to watch the games, which are generally shown across three or four different TV channels.

All I wanted was a simple way to give someone my money. No gimmicks, no intro offers, no “TV provider” BS—just a pure streaming play that puts all the games in one place, for a reasonable fee. When I looked into the situation this year, I was surprised to find that this did now exist, it was easy, and it was cheap.

The Max streaming service had all the games, except for those shown on CBS. (You can’t have everything, I guess, but I get CBS in HD using an over-the-air antenna.) It was $10 for a month of service. There were no “intro offers,” no lock-ins, no “before you go!” pleas, no nothing. Indeed, I didn’t even have to create a new account or share a credit card with some new vendor. I just added Max as a “subscription” within Amazon’s video app and boom—tournament time. It took about four seconds, and it has worked flawlessly.

That something this simple could feel revelatory was a good reminder of just how crapified our tech and media ecosystems have become. On my expensive LG OLED TV, for instance, I have to go out of my way to literally prevent my TV from spying on everything that I watch. (Seriously, you should turn this “feature” off. Otherwise, your TV will watch your screen and try to identify everything you watch, then send that data back to whatever group of zombified MBAs thought this was a good idea.) Roku, which provides streaming services to my basement television, is toying with new ads. Every streaming service I’ve subscribed to has jacked up rates significantly over the last year or so.

So just being able to sign up quickly and easily, for 10 bucks, felt frictionless and magical in the way that tech used to do more often. As a bonus, I’ve been able to watch full episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm, which I have never seen before.

Magic?

“Unshittification” is not always the result of “innovation”—sometimes it’s just about treating people decently. Responding to feedback, personal customer service, and non-gimmicky pricing aren’t new or hot technologies, but they are the sort of things that make for satisfied long-term customers.

So much tech has fallen victim to algorithms, scale, and monetization that it can be a surprising relief to connect easily with a Real Live Human, one empowered to act on your behalf, or to make a purchase without being part of some constantly upselling “sales funnel.” But when it does happen, it feels good. Indeed, in a cynical and atomized age, it feels a tiny bit magical.

Listing image: Getty Images

Photo of Nate Anderson

Unshittification: 3 tech companies that recently made my life… better Read More »

bob-dylan-has-some-dylanesque-thoughts-on-the-“sorcery”-of-technology

Bob Dylan has some Dylanesque thoughts on the “sorcery” of technology

We might expect someone like Dylan, immersed as he has always been in folk songs, old standards, and American history, to bemoan the corrupting influence of new technology. And he does offer up some quotes in that vein. For example:

Everything’s become too smooth and painless… The earth could vomit up its dead, and it could be raining blood, and we’d shrug it off, cool as cucumbers. Everything’s too easy. Just one stroke of the ring finger, middle finger, one little click, that’s all it takes, and we’re there.

Or again:

Technology is like sorcery, it’s a magic show, conjures up spirits, it’s an extension of our body, like the wheel is an extension of our foot. But it might be the final nail driven into the coffin of civilization; we just don’t know.

But Dylan’s perspective is more nuanced than these quotes might suggest. While technology might doom our civilization, Dylan reminds us that it gave us our civilization—that is, “science and technology built the Parthenon, the Egyptian pyramids, the Roman coliseum, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Eiffel Tower, rockets, jets, planes, automobiles, atom bombs, weapons of mass destruction.”

In the end, technology is a tool that can either decimate or stimulate human creativity.

Keypads and joysticks can be like millstones around your neck, or they can be supporting players; either one, you’re the judge. Creativity is a mysterious thing. It visits who it wants to visit, when it wants to, and I think that that, and that alone, gets to the heart of the matter…

[Technology] can hamper creativity, or it can lend a helping hand and be an assistant. Creative power can be dammed up or forestalled by everyday life, ordinary life, life in the squirrel cage. A data processing machine or a software program might help you break out of that, get you over the hump, but you have to get up early.

Getting up early

I’ve been thinking about these quotes over the recent Christmas and New Year’s holidays, which I largely spent coughing on the couch with some kind of respiratory nonsense. One upside of this enforced isolation was that it gave me plenty of time to ponder my own goals for 2025 and how technology might help or hinder them. (Another was that I got to rewatch the first four Die Hard movies on Hulu; the fourth was “dog ass” enough that I couldn’t bring myself to watch the final, roundly panned entry in the series.)

Bob Dylan has some Dylanesque thoughts on the “sorcery” of technology Read More »

would-luddites-find-the-gig-economy-familiar?

Would Luddites find the gig economy familiar?

Machine Breakers Unite! —

Luddites were hardly the anti-tech dullards historians have painted them to be.

Woman about to swing a hammer at a laptop.

The term Luddite is usually used as an insult. It suggests someone who is backward-looking, averse to progress, afraid of new technology, and frankly, not that bright. But Brian Merchant claims that that is not who the Luddites were at all. They were organized, articulate in their demands, very much understood how factory owners were using machinery to supplant them, and highly targeted in their destruction of that machinery.

Their pitiable reputation is the result of a deliberate smear campaign by elites in their own time who (successfully, as it turned out) tried to discredit their coherent and justified movement. In his book Blood in the Machine: The Origins of the Rebellion Against Big Tech, Merchant memorializes the Luddites not as the hapless dolts with their heads in the sand that they’ve become synonymous with, but rather as the first labor organizers. Longing for the halcyon days of yore when we were more in touch with nature isn’t Luddism, Merchant writes; that’s pastoralism—totally different thing.

OG Luddites

Weavers used to work at home, using hand-powered looms (i.e., machines). The whole family pitched in to make cloth; they worked on their own schedules and spent their leisure time and meals together. Master weavers apprenticed for seven years to learn their trade. It worked this way in the north of England for hundreds of years.

In 1786 Edmund Cartwright invented the power-loom. Now, instead of a master weaver being required to make cloth, an unschooled child could work a loom. Anyone who could afford these “automated” looms (they did still need some human supervision) could cram a bunch of them into a factory and bring in orphans from the poorhouse to oversee them all day long. The orphans could churn out a lot more cloth much faster than before, and owners didn’t have to pay the 7-year-olds what they had been paying the master weavers. By the beginning of the 19th century, that is exactly what the factory owners did.

The weavers, centered in Nottinghamshire—Robin Hood country—obviously did not appreciate factory owners using these automated looms to obviate their jobs, their training—their entire way of life, really. They tried to negotiate with the factory owners for fair wages and to get protective legislation enacted to limit the impacts of the automated looms and protect their rights and products. But Parliament was having none of it; instead, Parliament—somewhat freaked out by the French Revolution—passed the Combination Acts in 1801, which made unionizing illegal. So, the workers took what they saw as their only remaining avenue of recourse; they started smashing the automated looms.

The aristocrats in the House of Lords told them they didn’t understand, that this automation would make things better for everyone. But it wasn’t improving things for anyone the Luddites knew or saw. They watched factory owners get richer and richer, their own families get thinner and thinner, and markets get flooded with inferior cloth made by child slaves working in unsafe conditions. So they continued breaking the machines, even after the House of Lords made it a capital crime in 1812.

Merchant tells his story through the experience of selected individuals. One is Robert Blincoe, an orphan whose memoir of mistreatment in his 10 years of factory work is thought to have inspired Dickens’ Oliver Twist. Another is Lord Byron, who, like other Romantic poets, sympathized with the Luddites and who spoke (beautifully but futilely) in the House of Lords on their behalf. George Mellor, another figure Merchant spends time with, is one of the primary candidates for a real-life General Ludd.

Edward Ludd himself doesn’t qualify, as he was mythical. Supposedly an apprentice in the cloth trade who smashed his master’s device with a hammer in 1799, he became the movement’s figurehead, with the disparate raiders breaking machines all over northern England, leaving notes signed with his name. George Mellor, by contrast, was one of the best writers and organizers the Luddites had. He’d spent the requisite seven years to learn his cloth finishing job and in 1811 was ready to get to work. The West Riding of York, where he lived, had been home to wool weavers for centuries. But now greedy factory owners were using machines and children to do the work he had spent his adolescence mastering. After over a year of pleading with the owners and the government, and then resorting to machine breaking, there was no change and no hope in sight.

Finally, Mellor led a raid in which a friend was killed, and he snapped. He murdered a factory owner and was hanged, along with 14 of his fellows (only four were involved in the murder; the rest were killed for other Luddite activities).

Even as their bodies were still practically swinging on the gallows, the aristocracy and press were already undermining and reshaping the Luddite story, depicting them as deluded and small-minded men who smashed machines they couldn’t understand—not the strategic, grassroots labor activists they were. That misrepresentation is largely how they are still remembered.

Would Luddites find the gig economy familiar? Read More »