←back to thread

477 points plam503711 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
EDEdDNEdDYFaN ◴[] No.44004495[source]
Isn't this a failure by the company to recognize free trial abuse sooner? and to not close the loophole immediately seems like even more of a weak behavior. Calling them out but not taking decisive action beyond claiming that they are acting immorally ultimately accomplishes nothing. Businesses are not beholden to your ideas about what is nice and fair, but whatever the rules and constraints are to your system. if you keep a practice like this that allows free trial abuse forever, why would they spend money?
replies(3): >>44004546 #>>44004554 #>>44004561 #
plam503711 ◴[] No.44004546[source]
You're absolutely right that businesses act within whatever constraints exist — and yes, we were a bit naive. We assumed that if someone had a fully functional, free, open source version available (well-documented and easy to install), nobody sane would go out of their way to abuse the trial system instead.

To be clear, it’s not just trial abuse — it’s actively ignoring the better, freer option in favor of repeatedly faking evaluations just to get the “easy mode.”

We’ll definitely tighten things up going forward. But in nearly a decade of doing this, they're the only ones to push it to this scale. So yeah, they've earned a spot in our open source hall of shame

replies(3): >>44004559 #>>44004921 #>>44005035 #
1. EDEdDNEdDYFaN ◴[] No.44004559[source]
To be fair to them - they've been doing it for 10 years without a problem!