• TootSweet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      If you’re not paying for the product, then you’re the product.

      (I don’t believe the above quote to be absolutely true, but I’m not sure what motivation Canonical could have to lock some features of the OS behind a free account except $$$.)

        • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No, random Internet forum users and whoever is lurking in IRC/Matrix are the support. Kind of like that 2 by 4 in my basement is supporting the entirety of my house’s main beam.

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Canonical already maintains security patches for paying customers so they aren’t actually doing any extra work, but putting it behind a subscription gives them an option to start charging more for desktops, gives clear cost for server use, and maybe is marketing for “look at the premium work we do”.

        • TootSweet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Seems really dodgy to me making your business model holding security features hostage for either money or sign-ups, honestly.

          Kindof like charging people for vaccines against deadly diseases or something.

          But then again, my craw may be extra susceptible to sticking when it comes to such things.

    • Waffelson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think it looks like Microsoft is requesting a ms account to use/install Windows, I think it’s weird to request registration for non-commercial users