5 ms·
I assert that it's usually bad when anyone does it, because it is evidence that they have excess market power. If there were enough competition, they couldn't p
by dsr_ 7y ago
I assert that it's usually bad when anyone does it, because it is evidence that they have excess market power. If there were enough competition, they couldn't produce a thing with capabilities x,y, and z and then charge an unlock fee for y and z.
- rat9988 7y ago>it is evidence that they have excess market power. Tesla doesn't and they still dot it.
- ClumsyPilot 7y agoDoesnt it? It has huge brand value, a great niche, mass flowing... it's almost apple of cars.
- bostonpete 7y agoLots of complex software systems are sold this way, allowing customers to add-on features a la carte. I don't see that as a bad thing -- allows people who only need a subset of the functionality to only pay for what they need. Oftentimes, the functionality is sitting there waiting to be unlocked.
- Semaphor 7y agoSo for example LINQPad [0] has excessive market power? It’s a REPL for C#. [0]: https://www.linqpad.net/Purchase.aspx https://www.linqpad.net/Purchase.aspx (Purchase site has the version comparison) edit: I’d actually go as far as saying that by your definition almost every good software tool has excessive market power.
- undersuit 7y agoYour software is all the same quality. The copy one customer has doesn't have a series of bits in it that are mistakes in the production that can't be removed. Everyone's binary is capable of the same actions. Software is malleable, hardware by it's very name is less so.
- 7952 7y agoThe alternative may be that having a single price point would price some consumers out of the market.
- zaarn 7y agoMost mainframe manufacturers will ship you a mainframe that has been configured way above what the customer ordered. Because in most cases the customer will upgrade and changing a license key is cheaper than building and shipping a new mainframe.
- sounds 7y agoSibling comments assert that software with unlocks demonstrates the importance of allowing "locks" on capabilities. That's the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. Specifically, siblings start from the true statement that: people buy software with locks. They then affirm the consequent, that software with locks is the correct market solution.