I don’t really see any way this could not be anti-competitive. A perfectly functional peripheral was rendered non-functional at an arbitrary date with no benefit to consumers and with an obvious benefit to the party making the change in terms of increased licensing fee income.
Why is this sort of behaviour allowed?
Yet another move by MS contrary to the ‘see we arent the same company as we used to be’ vibe they’ve tried to cultivate.
Why is this sort of behaviour allowed?
Yet another move by MS contrary to the ‘see we arent the same company as we used to be’ vibe they’ve tried to cultivate.