Pure corporate apologist bollocks. Shame on the author. When a business offers something for free there's always and everywhere a commercial imperative behind

Pure corporate apologist bollocks. Shame on the author. When a business offers something for free there's always and everywhere a commercial imperative behind it that is calculated to be to the beneift of the business (any consumer benefit is incidental). Fundamentally the problem with this move is that it's anti-consumer. A corp wears some cost up-front to feed some benefit, and then when the cost to the consumer to switch is high enough, they pull the original deal (and yeah, as someone else said, this often happens sometime after institutional money gets involved). At least drug dealers have the temerity to TELL you that only the first one's free. Corps that bait and switch like this without grandfathering in the people they made the original deal with are straight up exploitative. Put whatever lipstick you want on that pig Joe, you're not a make-up artist, you're a shill.