We loved Github as a product when it needed to return or profit beyond "getting more users".
I feel this is just the natural trajectory for any VC-funded "service" that isn't actually profitable at the time you adopt it. Of course it's going to change for the worse to become profitable.
GitHub isn't VC funded at the moment, though. It's owned by Microsoft. Not that this necessarily changes your point.
> Of course it's going to change for the worse
> It's owned by Microsoft.
I see no contradictions here.
I don’t get it. Why making the UI shittier would possibly lead to more profit?
It seems most of the complaints are about the reliability and infrastructure - which is very much often a direct result of lack of investment and development resources.
And then many UI changes people have been complaining about are related to things like copilot being forcibly integrated - which is very much in the "Microsoft expect to gain a profit by encouraging it's use" camp.
It's pretty rare companies make a UI because they want a bad UI, it's normally a second order thing from other priorities - such as promoting other services or encouraging more ad impressions or similar.
Moving to client-side rendering via React means less server load spent generating boilerplate HTML over and over again.
If you have a captive audience, you can get away with making the product shittier because it's so difficult for anyone to move away from it - both from an engineering standpoint and from network effects.