[p0w3n3d]

> later modify that device later to remove that functionality that is called theft.

I've always been told it's called business. But I fully agree with you. Just wanted to note that this is the current business model both with hardware and software

[MSFT_Edging]

This is why the fight/loss for open computing is so important.

Without the ability to run your own code, this will be everywhere and everything.

Without some counter force of open source pushing back and offering alternatives, we'll be putting tokens in a machine to check your email. Reading email will cost 4 tokens and you'll only be able to buy them in groups of 7.

[Gormo]

> I've always been told it's called business.

The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded. The fact that you were the seller in that past transaction doesn't entitle you to vandalize goods that now belong to someone else.

This is just crime trying to disguise itself as legitimate business, as scams often do.

[dspillett]

> The "business" ended when the sale transaction concluded.

Actually not, though not in a way that makes the rest of your post incorrect.

Various laws and regulations state that the seller has responsibilities to the buyer after the initial transaction has completed, one of which Bambu might¹ be transgressing by removing features that people we lead to believe were part of the product, and could reasonably expect to remain part of the product, at the time of the sale.

--------

[1] This has not been tested in court, and I'm no lawyer, take my idea of what is the case with a requisite serving of condiment.

[p0w3n3d]

I've been treated this way numerous times. First example: FlightRadar - I bought the app, they sunsetted it and created "new one" with monthly payments

[basilikum]

Crime is unfortunately legal.

[account42]

At least when it's profitable for stockholders.