When “Improvements” Make Things Worse
Who Are These Decisions Really For?
Large technology companies love the language of progress.
They talk about improving the user experience, increasing choice and making systems more flexible. On paper, these changes sound positive and well intentioned. In practice, they are often anything but.
More and more, platform upgrades are being rolled out that look impressive at scale but actively undermine the people whose work, data and intellectual property sit inside those systems. The problem is not innovation itself. The problem is a lack of thought about who is affected and who is excluded from the decision-making process.
That raises an uncomfortable but necessary question.
Who are these changes actually for?
Big brands talking to big brands
When companies such as Amazon, Apple, Adobe and Microsoft make system-level decisions, they are rarely speaking to independent publishers, creators or rights holders. They benchmark against competitors, consult internal product teams and prioritise speed, scale and market positioning.
The people working at the sharp end of these systems are rarely part of the conversation.
Publishers, authors and content owners are expected to adapt after the fact, often without warning and sometimes without realising anything has changed until damage has already been done.
Amazon’s EPUB and PDF decision is a clear example
Recently, I spoke on LinkedIn about Amazon introducing the option for consumers to download ebooks as EPUB or PDF files. On the surface, this appears to be a customer-focused improvement, offering flexibility and accessibility.
From a publishing perspective, it is far more complicated.
EPUB and PDF files are significantly easier to copy, redistribute and share once they leave a closed ecosystem. That has direct implications for copyright protection, unauthorised distribution and loss of income for authors and publishers.
The issue is not whether customers want choice. The issue is how that choice is implemented and who gets to decide what happens to rights-managed content.
Digital rights management removed without consent
Today, while reviewing one of my authors’ KDP files, I discovered that digital rights management had been switched off. This change was not made by me, nor by the author. There was no notification, no prompt and no request for approval.
The system had been altered so the ebook could be downloaded freely as an EPUB or PDF.
That decision overrides my original publishing settings and ignores the fact that I am the rights holder responsible for protecting that content. This is not a minor technical adjustment. It fundamentally changes how copyrighted material can be accessed and distributed.
If I had not checked manually, my authors would already be exposed to unnecessary risk.
This is not resistance to technology
This is not about rejecting progress or clinging to outdated systems. It is about responsibility.
System upgrades can’t be designed in isolation from the people whose livelihoods depend on them. Platforms cannot claim to empower users while simultaneously stripping control from publishers and creators.
Changing default settings, redefining permissions or altering rights management without explicit consent crosses a line. It removes agency from those who legally and ethically carry responsibility for the content.
The real issue is consent and control
The core problem here is not innovation. It’s power.
When platforms decide they can reinterpret ownership, access and rights without consultation, they fundamentally misunderstand the ecosystems they rely on. Publishers are not passive participants. We are not data points, we are not an inconvenience to be worked around.
We are custodians of intellectual property.
We are accountable to authors.
We are responsible for protecting creative work.
Those responsibilities cannot be overridden by a platform update. Certainly not at the very least, without notification that this is happening.
This approach has to change
If technology companies want trust, they need to demonstrate respect for the people whose work underpins their platforms.
That means clear communication before changes are made. It means explicit consent when rights-related settings are altered. It means acknowledging that convenience for the end user cannot come at the expense of ownership and protection for creators.
Progress that ignores consequences is not progress. It is disruption without accountability.
Right now, too many system upgrades are solving problems for large organisations while creating new ones for everyone else.
I truly understand the need for innovation within this sector - giving away rights is not it!
If you are on KDP, I urge you to check your e-book files.