Perhaps under some kind of "intuitive ethics". From a consequentialist perspective this model provides more R & D funding for better microscopes and is therefore the morally right action. A utilitarianist would argue that the greater public benefits from more highly developed microscopes while only the owner of the microscope benefits from opensource software.
your company breaking it
Discontinuing support is not "breaking it". As in the OP, the owner of the microscope is still using it - it's their responsibility support continued use, not the manufacturer.
Profit must always go up
This is a redditism and only really true of venture capital funded corporations, primarily info tech. Almost guaranteed that a microscope manufacturing company is owned by a university and as such self-sustaining profit is perfectly adequate.
our brains are so broken by this.
This is hyperbole but suppose you're really just saying that we're accustomed to thinking about things in a certain way. I would argue that most commenters are indeed used to thinking about things in a capitalism = evil kind of way. Certainly there are grave shortcomings of capitalism, but it is not completely without virtue. Funding for research is extraordinarily difficult under socialism for example. The inherent sink or swim mandate of capitalism ensures productive research. There's an argument to be made that while the capitalist approach seems wasteful because the microscope becomes superseded, a socialist approach would also be wasteful because there's no motivation for efficient research and development.
Of course you're going to buy the one where "you're sol after it's service life" because that's the one who's manufacturer has been able to afford to invest in any R & D.
All things being equal, if there's a company who's model is some kind of eternal service life and another with a limited service life obviously the latter will be a better product.
Most commenters here are talking about a lab budget in the same way you'd manage household finance in some kind of "buy it for life" philosophy which is just not how org budgets work. Managers don't work on a life long time scale, they want the best results from projects with limited scope. You buy the best microscope that you can afford, not the one which is going to have continued support 20 years after you've left the org.
Oh wait, they’re doing everything in their power to prevent me from being independent after the purchase
They're not, actually. This may be subtle nuance but they're not actively preventing you from doing whatever you want, they're just not assisting you to undermine their IP.
As I said, this business model is built around products having a finite service life. This microscope may have been state of the art 30 years ago, but all the R & D that's taken place in the interim is funded by the sale of new microscopes.
Its incredibly wasteful, but there is another perspective.
When that microscope was purchased, it formed part of someone's budget throughout its service life. Support would have been guaranteed for that service life, but that life has now expired.
The company isn't obligated to assist buyers beyond that service life, and doing so would eat into current and future profits.
There is not a single commenter (nor downvoter) in this thread who would open the source for that microscope if they owned that microscope company.
I don't think it's a strategy, it's just a happy potential by-product, albeit an unlikely one.
Sure it's possible that a judge might make mistakes that may form the basis for a successful appeal. Is Engoron more likely to make mistakes because of Trump's antics? Not necessarily. Most people do their best work under pressure.
Trump's behavior is focused as always on his supporters. The more he appears to be persecuted the more his supporters will throw money at him - it's that simple. He's intentionally pushing the judge as far as he can without crossing the line into actual consequences.
Edit: as an aside the photos of these idiots always makes me think about how much time they've spent practicing their facial expressions in a mirror.
I don't really read ebooks, MAM has been supremely adequate for audiobooks for me though. I've never gone looking for an audiobook and been unable to find it there.
I don't really have any more faith in Mercedes than I do with infotainment systems.
I don't doubt that they have amazing org knowledge around integrating data systems, but how are they with... any of the myriad of other components of operating systems?
Sorry mate this is not some special fight club logic. It's not even really accounting or economics logic, it's just kinda common sense.
What price should I sell my lemonade for? I'll have more customers if I sell it cheaper...
The part which seems lost on most commenters is that these companies have huge and very sophisticated market research campaigns. They can predict with great accuracy how their demographics will respond.
Are you trying to make a case that suicide can be a well reasoned and appropriate solution?
Euthanasia might be appropriate in the context of some medical illnesses, but I think there's very few people that would agree that suicide is a reasonable course of action when one encounters challenges like that described here.
I'll just pull you up on some of the phrasing or terms you've used. I'm not trying to be an ass, I'm just concerned at the way you're phrasing things and maybe you don't realise?
He hasn't "lost everything". Sure I'm sure he's lost his current position and standing with some political parties, but he still has whatever wealth he had, and given his experience can probably look forward to a lucrative career in some kind of political support role in another state.
A "pariah" is an outcast. He might have found it hard to make eye contact with some people at the shops but he wouldn't have been banned from entering the city.
He may have been "disowned" but some of his friends, but not all of his friends and family.
It's never too late to move and turn the page on a new chapter. He wouldn't be "starting over" he would be making a change and continuing on.
Additionally, the term "crazy" doesn't help anyone. People who are clinically depressed and suicidal are not "crazy".
Words and phrasing is important and means things, whether you realise it or not your phrasing and framing is very catastrophic or black and white. Life happens in the grey.
Finally, you absolutely can talk to a mental health professional about thoughts of suicide, and they're not going to lock you up. Usually the barrier beyond which someone needs to be detained is when they're an "imminent risk to themselves or others". There's a whole spectrum from "wonders whether suicide is a solution" to "likely to harm themselves today" and in most of that spectrum locking someone up is not the right solution.
If you're not active on Twitter but you don't want your account stolen, is it easier to become active or just use some service to post drivel every few days.
Perhaps under some kind of "intuitive ethics". From a consequentialist perspective this model provides more R & D funding for better microscopes and is therefore the morally right action. A utilitarianist would argue that the greater public benefits from more highly developed microscopes while only the owner of the microscope benefits from opensource software.
Discontinuing support is not "breaking it". As in the OP, the owner of the microscope is still using it - it's their responsibility support continued use, not the manufacturer.
This is a redditism and only really true of venture capital funded corporations, primarily info tech. Almost guaranteed that a microscope manufacturing company is owned by a university and as such self-sustaining profit is perfectly adequate.
This is hyperbole but suppose you're really just saying that we're accustomed to thinking about things in a certain way. I would argue that most commenters are indeed used to thinking about things in a capitalism = evil kind of way. Certainly there are grave shortcomings of capitalism, but it is not completely without virtue. Funding for research is extraordinarily difficult under socialism for example. The inherent sink or swim mandate of capitalism ensures productive research. There's an argument to be made that while the capitalist approach seems wasteful because the microscope becomes superseded, a socialist approach would also be wasteful because there's no motivation for efficient research and development.