I once sent this https://ibb.co/XpwGwrK https://ibb.co/XpwGwrK to Satya, but never got a response. It was absolutely a racket that you couldnt connect Windows

I once sent this https://ibb.co/XpwGwrK https://ibb.co/XpwGwrK to Satya, but never got a response. It was absolutely a racket that you couldnt connect Windows Pro Defender to the cloud to track threats without renting Win E5. Everyone in this thread is very defensive, but putting the security features all at the top of the licensing chain is exactly the behavior the author is accusing them of. The author however wrote a puff piece that was nearly devoid of any useful information. You could have deleted the entire article and kept just: "So, with one hand, the company ships vulnerabilities and hosts malware, and with the other, it charges to “protect” users from those same vulnerabilities and threats." What the article did not do, was make a convincing argument that a third party alternative was a better threat protector. They could do a worse job while also having a lesser conflict of interest.