Talk:Crippleware

March 2005

The sentence:

The authors of C. argue that regular shareware versions...

needs clarification. Is it referring to the C programming language, a language called C. (notice the dot) or a book called C.? If it is the programming language, that is a standard dictated by the ANSI committee and can't be "cracked." Specific C compilers could be cracked, however, but if that is what the sentence is referring to, it should say so. Can anyone offer a clarification? —Frecklefoot 16:16, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reverted the page back after 139.98.3.21 vandalized it. --Kross 17:49, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

the car Examples are terrible

The Volkswagen golf isnt limited in power by merely its programming of the ECU. those tuners are increasing power by cranking up the boost pressure of the turbocharger. reasons for VW keeping it where it is, is becuase of reliability, fuel efficiency, and the clutches for the DSG transmission cant handle much more than 200hp. also "Porsche consistently refuses..." sorry im rewording that that, thats pure original research. and just because Porsche doesnt use the same engine options on the 911 and the Cayman, doesnt mean its Crippleware, this isnt a fairness contest. thats like saying "the Chevy Cobalt is total Crippleware, because its only available with a 4-cyl engine, and Chevy totally refuses to offer the 7.0L V8 from the Corvette Z06"... its not an argument that you can make objectively. car makers will always offer different models with varying engine sizes, to fit different price points. that doesnt mean the top model is the bees-knees, and a slightly lower model is Crippleware.

Deleted

The section also violates WP:NPOV. It's written from the biased point of view of a boy racer who thinks horsepower and speed are always unmitigated goods. There is copious evidence that speed kills, and that more powerful cars are less safe than moderately powered ones. Besides safety, a car tuned or governed to a maximum power our speed will, all else being equal, get better gas mileage, and might qualify for cheaper insurance. For motorcycles, power limits can qualify it for a lower drivers license rating in some countries. There is no reason to assume, without cited proof, that the power and speed of a car is limited solely to differentiate other products from the same company. Many consumers will choose the less powerful car because they think it is a better product. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge with demoware?

Support.Let's merge this into crippleware.--Mac Lover ^Talk 18:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I object. See Talk:Demoware -Lwc4life 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I also object. Demoware runs out where as Crippleware never runs out but you can never use the full program. Two different things if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.237.228 (talk) 13:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I object as well. They are different things mainly because demoware doesn't cripple your computer but crippleware does. --82.153.194.161 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Avoid certain phrases/ weasel words

The Wiki guidelines "frown" upon the word canonical in its context on the Crippleware article

Also, "The authors of crippleware defend the practice " is slightly opinionated as it implies crippleware is a "bad" practice, and it must be defended. --Habbzz

Questionable statements

I have removed two statements from the article, because they are very dubious. The first dubious statement is:

This is the dominant manufacturing philosophy in the electronics and media industries today.[1]

I cannot validate the source because it requires a paid subscription. However, I have trouble believing the validity of the statement. Most computer monitors, computers, radios, speakers, televisions, toasters, microwave ovens, etc., have no crippleware features. It might be more appropriate to say "This is an increasingly common manufacturing philosophy..." The word dominant implies that there is more crippleware than non-crippleware. Just because your CD player doesn't play DVDs doesn't make it crippleware. You should have bought a DVD player for that purpose. Crippleware usually requires the manufacturer to take active steps to reduce the capabilities that the hardware or software could otherwise handle.

The second dubious statement is:

The term crippleware comes from the plaintiff in the Federal class-action lawsuit, "Melanie Tucker v. Apple Computer Inc" filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.

The reason this statement is dubious is because the timing is wrong. The class-action lawsuit occurred in 2005-2006, but the term crippleware is much older. This crippleware article, itself, was originally created on August 22, 2002. Are we really to believe that someone started this article three years before the word crippleware even existed?

--JHP 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Include Windows Vista into the list?

Different Vista versions differ one from another only by the key; the DVD is always the same except few non-significant files. So Vista Starter is a cut version of Vista Ultimate. 87.236.29.137 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is crippled. And a popular example. I notice lot of talk about crippleware, but few examples. I know of another program, Mathematica which is 64-bit, but a 'Home Use' edition is available too at about $300 rather than $2500. That home version is 32-bit. Drkirkby (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Automotive crippleware

I propose that the automotive section be removed. An opinion, with equivalent citations (i.e. none of real value), could be made that the additional cost for additional power goes to pay for the additional R&D and additional warranty cost to the manufacturer. It makes sense that to make a mechanically identical engine produce 25% more power will require more time to develop and still be reliable and drivable. Further, the MTBF will be lower due to the engineered materials being pushed closer to their limit, which will drive up the number of warrantied failures. Finally, not every consumer wants a more powerful car, more power raises insurance costs and changes the driving character of the vehicle. If a car manufacturer makes two power ratings available with mechanically identical engines to appeal to a wider range of consumers and charges the same price for both, the person seeking the lower power car will be effectively getting ripped off, less product for an equal price. My perception of crippleware is that it is a product where certain features are present in the product but are made inactive ("crippled") in order to make money on the activation of those features. Anyways, this is just my opinion, so I have not made this change to the article. Any thoughts? Fastsince85 (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

See above. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

i486SX: Assume good faith?

"the Intel 486SX which was a 486DX with the FPU removed or in early versions present but disabled"

Is it verifiable that Intel converted working 486DX chips to 486SX chips, as opposed to increasing production yield by selling 486DX chips with a flaw in the PPU as 486SX chips? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

intel has verified it themselves as well as every computer magazine editor at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.228.240 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

That's how I remember it. —Długosz (talk) 15:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move to Damaged good

Crippleware as discussed here appears to correspond precisely to the notion described in economics as "damaged goods", ref e.g. Andrew Odlyzko's "Privacy, Economics, and Price Discrimination on the Internet", which gives a compelling example of damaged goods from passenger trains in the 19th century. As such I propose this article be moved to Damaged good and generalised accordingly. Dcoetzee 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 12:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Video game consoles

To what extent do modern video game consoles, all of which have a cryptographic lockout against user-written programs, count as damaged goods? Are they a notable example? --71.97.220.250 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Sony PS3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OtherOS should be in it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.115.169 (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Suunto dive computers not explained as damaged goods

A vendor offering two similar products with one having fewer features isn't sufficient to consider the less featureful one as a damaged good. The description of the Suunto dive computers explains how two models are different, but gives no explanation of how the less featureful one is damaged. If it was known that both had exactly the same hardware, and merely a firmware difference, one would be a damaged good. --Brouhaha (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Digital cameras without lossless data format support

Do those count a damaged goods? Some may have serious reasons like too little memory available, but what about those that don't? --AVRS (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The definition is that it has been deliberately limited. You need a source who has some way to know what the motives of the camera manufacturer were. If you don't have insider information on their motives, or some other clear evidence, then there's no way to know.

To take a wild guess, I'd say that 90% of ordinary users, outside of high end cameras, don't have any idea what lossless means and would prefer not to have to choose which format to use. They just want to take a picture and upload it to Instagram or whatever, with as few hassles as possible. The more features software has, the more menus and options and configuration the user is forced to deal with. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

While I subscribe to your idea, that deliberate is necessary to be sure, I am almost certain, that insider information is not necessary to get an idea whether or not some feature is meant to be absent for price and customer discrimination purposes. Also I'd say the "90% of ordinary customers" guess is just too wild - if "ordinary customers" are all customers (how else to interpret the word?) then 90% not wanting lossless compression as a menu option somewhere deep in the settings is just not believeable; that would not pose any hassles at all. I would classify the argument as straw man fallacy. The absence of such an option in consumer cameras seems to be very deliberate to me; the fact that it would not make construction, maintenance, guarantee and usability of the product more expensive/worse combined with its absence is at least a very strong indication. Harald Nowak (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It isn't really of any consequence whether you or I think it's one way or the other. Do we have a source to cite saying they intentionally made it that way in order to make it inferior? Wikipedia is not a collection of anonymous editors' opinions. If an expert source who is in a position to know says it's a damaged good, then it is. If not, then it's not Wikipedia's job to raise the issue with no external basis. There are a thousand other venues on the Internet where you and I can express our opinions about what's wrong with cameras, but this is not one of them. Please read Verifiability and No original research for in depth explanations of this policy. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Original research and neutrality

Much of the content here, particularly about software, comes only from biased, sensationalistic sources like The Register, Eric S. Raymond's New Hacker's Dictionary and Gizmodo. Much of it is pure speculation used to attack big computer companies.

I just deleted a lot of original research in which a Wikipedia editor said product A lacked Feature X and therefore they think it is a damaged good. Without clear insider knowledge of why the producer chose to configure their product the way they did, there is no basis for calling it a damaged good. For example, the feature might have undisclosed bugs, delaying official release. Or the producer might be factoring in the additional support cost of enabling more features. Or they might have chosen to limit features for a simpler overall user experience. The list goes on.

There's no reason to call anything a damaged good in this article without a high quality independent source who actually says "this product is a 'damaged good' because..." and then gives solid reasons to support that they know what they're talking about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There are ways to provide "a simpler overall user experience" without rendering a device "deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility". For example, Android 4.2 and later hide the "Developer options" menu by default to keep the Settings menu clean, but Google provides instructions to restore it at no extra charge. But as the article's lead stands, even if there are good reasons for damage, such as projected support costs, a marketing-driven "deliberate[] limit[] in performance, quality or utility" is still a "deliberate[] limit[] in performance, quality or utility". There needs to be a reliable source that the device's functionality is limited and a reliable source that the limit was intentional. I'd like to see a reliable source define "damaged good" as strictly as you prefer to define it. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Japanese CDs and DVDs

I read somewhere that because Japanese CDs and DVDs cost way more to buy natively than imported from other countries, they deliberately scale down the content when exporting abroad. A common version of this is to not include the Japanese audio track/theme song for DVDs. They also sometimes force a long wait period. Also, it's common practice to include a bonus track on CDs from foreign artists. Should all this be mentioned in the article? 99.141.182.99 (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Only if you can tell us where you read it, and you have a reliable source that says it meets the definition of a damaged good. I can't imagine how one could claim that with artistic works, more=better. If an artist writes 10 good songs plus 3 mediocre ones, it really depends on your audience whether they want all 13 or not. Completists want every scrap, no matter how bad it is. But perhaps Japanese consumers only want the best overall listening experience, rather than having to sit through the artist's failures. Or marketers think that's what Japanese consumers want. Without knowing their intent, how can you call it "damaged"?

Movie DVD extras and director's cuts are similar: a longer movie isn't necessary better, and ever clip they throw in there isn't necessarily worth watching. The same can be said of the debate over software, like Apple iOS vs Android. Carefully curated walled garden, or everything plus the kitchen sink? "Better" is in the eye of the beholder, and one person's "undamaged good" is another persons bloatware. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Is the article about the phrase?

I got the impression from the lead that this article is about any good that a reliable source states "has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility". But I got the impression from this revert that it is specifically about goods for which a reliable source has used the specific phrase "damaged good" to refer to such a limit. Which is it? For example, a reliable source states that a particular product contains a mechanism that deliberately prevents a class of programs from running. Would it be original research to claim that this product "has been deliberately limited in [...] utility"? Or would I need a second reliable source to verify that preventing a program from running constitutes limiting utility? --Damian Yerrick (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The simplest way to clarify this is to point out that you don't just buy a piece of hardware, such as the Nintendo game console here. You also buy a significant amount of support and other services from the seller. The higher price for the development version includes the support costs that come with developers doing far more with the hardware than playing games. Significant amounts of documentation have to be published, and maintained. This has been pointed out about phones and other devices: when you enable a feature, you create a set of future liabilities for the seller. They have to make that feature keep the customer happy after the sale.

So it's not as simple as saying "it's deliberately limited". It requires expertise and a certain amount of insider knowledge. If you want to declare some product is "damaged", which is pejorative with heavy connotation of malfeasance, then WP:BURDEN, NPOV, V etc require you to cite a source that supports your entire claim. Your conclusions, not just the facts that you used to reach the conclusion that something is a damaged good. Collecting facts like different prices for different versions, and then using your own opinions to get from there to the conclusion that it is a damaged good violates the policy of No original research.

I have no objection to deleting other examples from this article, like Casio, if they aren't well sourced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that "damaged good" was a term of art in economics, paralleling inferior good and superior good. Is there a reliable source that "damaged good" is considered "pejorative with heavy connotation of malfeasance" among economists in a way that "inferior good" is not? Or do economists have a different term for deliberately limited goods without this connotation? If it requires insider knowledge, then please add this requirement of insider knowledge to the definition in the lead. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what the lead of this (or any) article says, the policy of WP:NOR requires that if you want to say X is a Y, then you need a source which says X is a Y. There's nothing special about this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Except it's the lead that defines "a Y" in the first place. It can define "a Y" as any "good that has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility", or it can define it as "a good described using the label 'damaged'". The lead currently does the former; you appear to prefer the latter. If the article's title itself is a loaded label and its steward accepts only sources that use a loaded label, then perhaps the article needs split to the less judgmental title Deliberately limited good in order to comply with policy on biased titles, in much the same way that Wikipedia has separate articles about homosexuality in general and the loaded word "fag" in particular.

Or perhaps my problem is that the article's reasoning skips a step or two. I originally added the disputed example on the assumption that the sources supported the definition of "damaged good" as currently written in the lead. Do you have a citation for the level of "support and other services" expected by users of a device that permits amateur software development? Do you have a citation for the cost of providing such support being the deciding factor in prohibiting amateur software development on such a platform? What reliable sources identify a difference between a "damaged good" and a good that is not "damaged" but still has an identifiable measure to deliberately limit it for price discrimination? These might be useful for explaining in the article the difference between a true damaged good and a merely deliberately limited good. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 04:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The definition contained in the lead is not necessarily reliable. Not now, and not any future rewrite of the lead. The lead is Wikipedia content and Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. Ever. Per WP:SPS. Yes, the lead could be better written and better sourced, but even then, any other facts below the lead must be cited independently. You can't reason to a conclusion based solely on facts about the pricing of the Wii, guided by a Wikipedia-sourced definition. In WP:NOR it says under WP:CALC that you can perform "routine calculations" to add up some numbers or convert some units, but you're not doing a routine mathematical calculation here. Your arguing a syllogism that says "a damaged good is a good that has been deliberately limited in performance, quality or utility. The consumer Wii lacks the features of the development Wii, therefore the Wii is a damaged good." That's not a routine calculation, that's a chain of logic that the sources don't necessarily agree with.

Google gives something like 217 million hits for Nintendo Wii. The Questia database has over 3,000 books and articles on the Wii. The Gale database has over 2,000. With all that coverage, if we can't cite even one source which says the Wii is a damaged good, then as far as I'm concerned, it's not a damaged good. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to take "Wikipedia can't cite Wikipedia" to its logical extreme, then the question becomes whether or not a source supports the assertion that a manufacturer has engaged in "intentional quality reduction of a portion of their output as a means of offering two qualities of goods for the purpose of price discrimination, even absent a cost saving."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/journalarticles/2007-1|title=Pricing Damaged Goods|author=Preston McAfee|date=May 11, 2007|accessdate=2010-02-15}}</ref> This is the exact definition of "damaged good" that appears in a source cited by this article. Everything else, including any pejorative connotation of "damaged", is original research. In fact, I might as well rewrite the lead to quote this definition, in order to make it clear to readers of the article that this definition alone is the definition that governs the inclusion of examples. But I will grant that there are probably more reliable sources that mention "intentional quality reduction" happening on the NES than on the Wii, given several lawsuits about NES lockout that made the mainstream news. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm copying my reply from the post at WT:VG here for visibility to all parties:

See WP:SYNTH: "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research". Also when you buy a DevKit you're not just buying hardware which costs more, you're buying the licence to use the hardware, access to certain developer material and support etc. Looking at the price as the only difference is a misunderstanding of how development works. (I'm generalising a lot here) Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

And fewer features can mean a better user experience, because it's easier to use and there's fewer things that can go wrong. Especially when development mode is something consumers have no interest in ever using. One man's "un-damaged good" is another man's bloatware, suffering from feature creep. Point of view is paramount here. It's not an objective fact that everyone agrees on, it's a value judgement.

Is it even necessary to spend so much time on the Wii? Why not find other examples were we do have good sources that say the product is a damaged good? The point of this article is not to provide an exhaustive list of very example of a damaged good, or to do a muckraking expose of damaged good that the public doesn't know about. The point is nothing more than to show what a damaged good is. So let's cite examples based on sources and then there's nothing to argue about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Finding sources for the assertions you just gave could be useful for a paragraph about why manufacturers damage their goods. But I'll give up on specific game consoles until someone can explain out how to apply both the policy on synthesis that advances a position and an essay advocating use of common sense in interpreting this policy to the definition of "damaged good" expressed in sources that the article cites. I have identified what I believe to be problems with how the sources are presented and used.

An encyclopedia article should begin by defining the term that describes its subject. But occasionally, as in this case, different sources cited in an article disagree on the definition, such as whether or not pure price discrimination is the only allowable motive for differentiating products. When sources differ on aspects of a definition, which source do we follow? Which of the sources supports whether or not the term carries a value judgment, such as "pejorative with heavy connotation of malfeasance"?

Under a strict interpretation of SYNTH, combining aspects of multiple definitions to form one definition that shall be used to include or exclude examples is itself synthesis if it is used to advance a position that particular examples are "damaged" or not. Must an example meet all the definitions or only one of the definitions? I have done my best to relate the less specific definition to the more specific definition.

Sometimes an article's lead mentions synonyms for a term. Like different definitions of the same term, definitions of synonymous terms may not completely coincide in their semantic spaces. Which source specifies that the term "damaged good" refers to precisely the same phenomenon as "crippleware"? So I agree that the lead needs fixing, and I've sprinkled {{citation needed}} on the lead to request an answer to this question. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Split

Since there seems to be no consensus that "damaged good" and "crippleware" (which is intentional) are the same thing, the sane course of action is to split the page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't seen hardware or software which is intentionally limited in features be described as "damaged good" myself, but "crippleware" is rather plentiful in sources, e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5]. One can easily find more like that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Title (and scope) change request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Damaged good will remain a redirect in the meantime. No prejudice against an RfD nomination per WP:REDLINK; overwriting it with an article would be even better. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Damaged good → Crippleware – Since this page is actually giving only computer hardware and software examples, I think there needs to be an entirely different page about "damaged good". The definition tacked on in lead has little relevance to what comes after it. (See section above for examples of use of the term "crippleware" in relation to hardware and software that is intentionally limited in order to extract a fee later.) The simplest solution is therefore to rename this article to "crippleware" and let the wiki-economists write whatever they want on a separate page for "damaged good". So I'm making a formal request for renaming this page, with no strings attached as to what can be written separately about "damaged good". Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC) The page was moved to its current title in 2009 based on single paper which does indeed use "damaged good" to denote crippleware:

The incentive to price discriminate leads even to extreme versions of versioning, in which extra costs are incurred in order to make a product less serviceable. This is known as the "damaged goods" approach, and appears to be used with increasing frequency [11]. A classic example is provided by the IBM Laser Printer and Laser Printer E of 1990. The latter cost less, printed at half the speed of the former, and differed from it in having an extra chip that slowed down processing.

However, this doesn't seem to be at all the common term in the IT industry for such products, and contradicts the common sense use of "damaged good". Unless a lot more economics papers use "damaged good" to mean crippleware, the 2009 move appears to have been a form of hyper-deference to one academic's terminology, and thus should be reverted. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Mkay, it seems there is at least one other econ paper [6] which uses the same term ("damaged good") to mean crippleware. (Ok, found a more recent paper by one of the authors of the aforementioned one [7].) And their "damaged good" terminology (they are cited for it) has made it into econ textbooks [8]; the textbook does make a minor but non-trivial terminological adjustment relative to the paper it's citing: it makes the phrase damaged goods strategy be the identifier (rather than just "damaged good"). And yet another textbook uses (almost) the same phrase [9] though this one writes it with some scare quotes as "damaged goods" strategy. And yet another textbook uses "damaged good" with this meaning citing the same paper [10]. This might be less clear-cut than I thought. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment this article is definitively not about the commonly known material "damaged goods", which is a psychologically damaged person, or a reputationally damaged person in need of redemption. -- 65.94.76.3 (talk) 04:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support Red Slash 23:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support as the article is indeed about crippleware with the exception of a single short paragraph in the lede. But it should be a capital C, yes? Omnedon (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Antifeature def

From [11] by Benjamin Mako Hill:

Anti-features are sold to customers as features but are fundamental or unavoidable aspects of systems that can only be removed or withheld through technological effort. Unlike real features, producers of anti-features charge customers for not inhibiting access to their products' full functionality. Technological and legal barriers that keep anti-features away from the users of intentionally less featureful end up costing all users their freedom. It is more difficult for Canon to make cameras that output JPEGs than cameras that output RAW, and it's not significantly more difficult to offer users a choice.

So does anyone still disagree that antifeature is used with the same meaning as "damaged good" as used by McAfee and the econ books cited above? Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have is any editor applying that definition -- or any definition -- to generate lists. It violates the core policy No original research. List content should come only from sources, not from logial deductions made by edtiors. And for an article like this, we don't need more then two or three examples. Lists of examples should not expand indefinitely. Nothing should be added unless it serves an explicit purpose.

The rationale here is that it is encyclopedic to provide a 'list of crippleware' or 'list of damaged goods'. Or 'list of anti-features'. The pejorative you choose doesn't make much difference. It's one thing to define what these terms mean. It's fine to offer a few well-sourced examples, in which a neutral expert in a position to know declares the good as damaged or crippled or feature-limited or whatever. It's something else entirely to create a product attack page where the goal is to punish every manufacturer who was ever accused of nefarious product design. Or punish those accused by some pundit of irrational or greedy pricing. The fact is, nobody knows what all the reasons are for product pricing, or why some features are shipped and some are held back. It is certainly the case -- which many experts have stated, in links I provided in discussions above -- that companies like Apple limit features because they think it's good design. It's the opposite of bloat, or feature creep. And it costs money to support features. Every feature you enable is more potential bugs. More testing. Often features are disabled because they haven't been fully tested and so the product can't be shipped on time with that feature. Nobody knows all the reasons.

Having a list of crippleware or list of damaged goods is like having a 'list of phoned in performances', where some critic claims an actor didn't do his best. Or a 'list of movies that sucked because they cut a scene'. Absurd. Greatness is not only what you leave in, it's also what you leave out, and it's highly subjective.

With regard to this addition. None of the four sources cited call the MacBook Pro a damaged good or crippleware. They're just bitching because Apple is charging $4.99 for something that they think should cost $0.99. Or be free. The reasons may be legalistic or they may be something else. Who knows? It's subjective. Is it necessary to include this product for the purpose of explaining what a damaged good is? Or crippleware? No, the article already communicates the concept with the examples it has. Expanding the list this way tendentious. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There are sources calling the Intel Upgrade Service (baseline) processors crippled and artificially downgraded, but there aren't indeed any that call it "damaged good", because the econ boffins and the IT hacks use different jargon for practically the same thing. So unless there is going to be wp:consensus here that you are overly anal, we write a separate article for each synonym, so we can string-match (rather than concept-match) examples to terms. Do you agree at least that "crippled" processor matches (hardware) crippleware? You are engaging in a ton of WP:TENDENTIOUS WP:OR yourself above, by the way, with your arguments as to why Apple might have done something, when the headlines were "Will Apple charge you to enable hardware you’ve already paid for?"... By the way, the 486 and so forth examples are given in the econ papers, but I see they are tagged in the article as being "dubious". Why is that? Also, NT server vs. client is given as concrete example in one of the microecon books. Do you have objections to adding that as example too? Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:28, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The article currently has the following unsourced sentence in the software section "From an Open Source software providers perspective, there is the model of open core which includes a feature-limited version of the product and an open core version. The feature-limited version can be used widely like MySQL, Eucalyptus." Why aren't you complaining about any of that not being textually described by any source as "damaged good"? Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to really worry [12] about the treatment of "big computer companies" in this article. Alas most sources would have examples about such "big computer companies" because nobody finds examples from obscure little companies informative, except yourself maybe. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

For the annalismost wikipedian(s)

From the uber-academic UChicago press [13]:

"Product versioning—the manufacturing strategy of deliberate subtraction of functionality from a product—is typically achieved when a firm starts with an existing product and produces a lower-quality or reduced-feature configuration," write authors Andrew Gershoff (University of Texas at Austin), Ran Kivetz (Columbia University), and Anat Keinan (Harvard University).

Many global brands—Sony, BMW, Intel, Microsoft, Verizon, Motorola, Canon Sharp, and Apple—have employed versioning. But when information on manufacturing practices can be easily disseminated via social media, consumers can revolt—and even sue companies—if they view their practices as being unfair.

"Consumer advocates, bloggers, and journalists have been using less-than-flattering terms to describe the versioning production method, calling it 'crippleware,' 'product sabotage,' and 'damaged goods,'" the authors write. Consumers chastised Apple for removing iPhone features to create the iPod Touch. And Verizon eventually paid more than $10 million to settle a class action lawsuit after the company disabled Bluetooth features in the Motorola v710 phone.

Anymore objections against equating crippleware with damaged goods? Or for using the poor big computer companies as examples? Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

NPOV - Still disputed?....

The article is flagged for POV, but from the talk page here it looks like there hasn't been any active discussion on the POV issue for the better part of a year now. Any objection to removing the tag?... -Helvetica (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the POV tag now. If anyone feels it's still needed they can go ahead and revert, but then please discuss here if you do. At this point I don't know that the NPOV is still disputed, and it's not even apparent what the alleged bias is... -Helvetica (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Crippleware. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090111094411/http://home.att.net:80/~srschmitt/jargonfile/jargon_file-152.html to http://home.att.net/~srschmitt/jargonfile/jargon_file-152.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

POV

This entire article pushes a POV. The title itself is an insult term. Frankly, the article should be removed or merged into another article. If it remains, it requires some semblance of balance. Objective3000 (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Link to CyberLink

What’s the purpose of the CyberLink link in the See also section? The CyberLink article doesn’t mention crippleware. I removed it, but it was added again. – 2003:CD:716:A700:F9CF:2873:AA7C:AD7D (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted and templated the editor with a WP:COI warning. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)