• Gamoc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 hours ago

    No, they claim it is for a good reason to excuse it so they can get away with all the stuff they want later whilst hopefully (from their perspective) making more profit now. It’s the thin end of a wedge.

    Stop defending corporations for anti-consumer behaviour. You do realise that YOU are a consumer as well, right?

    • Womble@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      You are misunderstanding their point. “Good reason” doesnt mean ethically good, it means there is a sound logical connection between the action they are taking and the outcome they want to happen. In that case Microsoft does have good reason to push trusted hardware, in the same way as a bank robber has good reason to buy a face mask.

    • r00ty@kbin.life
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I really feel like you should read my comment more carefully. I’m not defending them. I’m describing their rationale. My very last sentence should make clear I am not one of the normal users that will be happy and fine with this. I’m typing this, on Linux, right now.

      Normal people don’t care, and they would be happy with the thin veil of extra security they will gain (and be told they’re going to gain), in exactly the same way the sales of the top tier mobile phones when they’re boot locked and sideload locked will not dip in any meaningful way.