• hoppolito@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Can you explain?

    As far as I can see OP took the original article headline verbatim; the article itself does describe the exact kind of bait-and-switch model as I’ve heard it used: company offers open standard edition, after a while switches it to basic / ‘core’ offering which locks e.g. Linux access behind a (steep) paywall.

      • hoppolito@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’ll have to point me even closer because none of the comments I have seen on that post state what happened is different than what I described above?

        I can see a comment stating the switch is justified in their eyes, but it doesn’t negate that it is a bait-and-switch model.

        • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Wish I had time. If you care to dive in, I’ve provided a link to the post. If you don’t believe any of the comments fit, then I guess you don’t agree with the comments, and thats fine.

      • zod000@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Not a single one of those comments gives the clarity that you see to think that it does. There were two comments that seemed to support removing Linux from the free tier because… ? No real reason was given, even by these vague supporters as to why it should be free for Windows and not Linux.