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>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>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>Yet, when it comes to tools (and stuff in general), it is readily accepted as a principle (that it is OK to intentionally cripple someone else&#x27;s productivity). Neither the fact that there are business models around market segmentation doesn&#x27;t make it a good choice.<p>You will probably now follow with the standard argument about how they need to make profit and recoup their investments and so on. Guess what - the investment was already made, and it can&#x27;t be undone! And frankly, I am sick of this lazy ass market god which requires investors to get return on profit so they would do something at all. (It&#x27;s kinda like you&#x27;re probably not a very good human if you need threat of hell and promise of heaven to make you not bad!) Just like everybody else, an &quot;investor&quot; should get a good salary (for the work done in decision-making) and that&#x27;s it.<p>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. Note that you can also use it other way around: Why should there be laws to protect DRM, if people who want to break will find some other way? The correct answer is, of course, the laws and regulations (legal system) are the correct resolution of this argument - we have them to steer people away from &quot;other ways&quot;.