&gt; I do find market segmentation to be morally wrong (at least, it&#x27;s against free market principles, even though I don&#x27;t agree with those always).<p>I completely disagree. Free market principles allow manufacturers to make whatever separate product lines they choose, and sell them at whatever price they can fetch. I see nothing immoral about this, but maybe you do.<p>&gt; Why shouldn&#x27;t everyone deserve access to the best tools, and by extension, best things? (Taking the production costs into account.) Best tools save time and make everybody more productive, which should be in everybody&#x27;s interest.<p>People deserve what they pay for, what they bargain for. No more and no less.<p>&gt; Imagine you would say something like that in education - that some children do not deserve the best education, simply because they may never use it. How do you know they will not find some use for it?<p>That&#x27;s not the question. The analogous question would be, is it ok to allow them to purchase a more rudimentary education for a lower price? I see no reason why not.<p>&gt; Also, the argument &quot;if they didn&#x27;t do it this way, they&#x27;d do it some other way&quot; is interesting. In this nebulous form, it&#x27;s often used to justify something morally fishy.<p>I was just responding to the idea that this is an &quot;abusive&quot; business practice. My point was that if the law didn&#x27;t allow for them to segment the market <i>this</i> way, they&#x27;d just sell multiple hardware lines--crippled by physically having lower capabilities, etc. In that situation, no one is better off, and the manufacturer is somewhat worse off. So I have trouble swallowing the idea that this is abusive.