> I'm quite sure that nobody is happy about that fact. Indeed. I think the original post may have mistaken effect for cause. We can look across the course of h

> I'm quite sure that nobody is happy about that fact. Indeed. I think the original post may have mistaken effect for cause. We can look across the course of human history at many cases of authority figures and those who interact with them, but generally, forcing any kind of lock-in has weird second order effects, and sometimes "the cure is worse than the ailment" -- so too I think it could be here. What would be needed to show this? Portability, for one. The open-core model exists for a reason. Software lock-in needs to be voluntary to be defendable. If you don't make it easy for your users to switch, you have no proof that they are staying with you because you are the best option, not just what they are forced to use. This can be very dangerous for an organization which takes its incumbence for granted, which is basically every large B2B sales-led SaaS org, almost by default. It means that when an upstart figures out how to out-execute you, you will have ossified into a living fossil whose organs they will consume from the inside out all in one go, rather than getting advanced notice ahead of time while you can still course correct. Convenience is great and all, but on a long enough corporate lifecycle/lifespan (and they seem to be getting shorter and shorter these days), un-sustainability eventually takes its toll.