Reply to post: Re: This one has lost me!

Linux 5.17 debuts after 'very calm' extra week of work

MJB7

Re: This one has lost me!

It's complicated, but it's really not unethical (at least in my view). It becomes sensible when the cost is predominantly in the development, not the manufacturing. Say there are two features A and B. There are X people who will pay x for both features, and an additional Y people who will pay y (y < x) for just feature A, but who won't pay x. It is quite often the case that Xx > (X+Y)y. If you _don't_ give the Y people feature B, but disable it somehow, you end up with just charging the higher price for the full featured option and the Y people get nothing.

Of course, it is _always_ the case the Xx + Yy >= (X+Y)y, (and equality only if X=0) so this is also a way for greedy manufacturers to extract every last penny - but people _do_ get the benefit of what they pay for.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon