[yjftsjthsd-h]

I'm not in this scene so take with a grain of salt, but I've heard that in many circles cracking your own copy of IDA was considered a rite of passage long before this particular change, and the company honestly may not care if their whole intent is to target the corporate market (a bit like how Adobe benefited greatly from Photoshop being widely pirated). Of course, the dynamic may also be changed by FOSS options becoming real competitors.

[jamesfinlayson]

Oh really? I remember reading that each customer got a customised build so that if a customer did crack their version they could see who did it based on the cracked binary.

[thaumasiotes]

> and the company honestly may not care if their whole intent is to target the corporate market

If their goal is to target the corporate market, then they do care about individual hobbyists cracking their product - they'd be in favor of it.

[rene77]

Oh no, they were sore about this like you wouldn't believe. They'd rather refuse a legitimate customer than risk a leak. I can't even say they were entirely wrong: the sensitive nature of reverse engineering makes it hard to make sure you won't get ripped off. Still, they did take this personally.

[chevill]

They have a reputation of being one of the most aggressively anti-piracy companies that exists.