• bear_delune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The value proposition is ease of use and integration of these theming utilities.

    I honestly think this monetisation strategy of theirs is a non-issue.

    People who want a streamlined experience have the option of paying for that, people who want the option of doing it all themselves have that opportunity too.

      • bear_delune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not communicating that there are alternatives to their services?

        I don’t really think it’s their responsibility to spoon feed alternatives to their customers; they’re not being anticompetitive, they’re not being deceptive, they’re not blocking alternatives.

        I think your requirements here are unfair and kind of irrational

                • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Because I believe not doing so is exploiting people that don’t know better.

                  If it wasn’t then there wouldn’t be a problem with being upfront about it.

                  • bear_delune@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Okay, I guess I simply disagree that it’s their responsibility to tell other people there are alternatives to their service and I don’t think any other software vendor is beholden to such a requirement either.