> "Only Microsoft would come up with a new security feature and then intentionally and arbitrarily limit its availability to the most expensive version of their OS."
What's your point? How is that not a reasonable business model?
Charge more for enterprise features by all means, but if basic security concepts are something you feel the need to charge for, your priorities are fucked up.
It's hardly basic. It might seem so for you or - in general - people who frequent hn, but you'd have to spend a lot of time explaining why it's good to an average person running windows home.
There are a lot of basic, in the sense of foundational, things that are not basic, in the sense of easy to understand. I think "basic security feature" was meant in the former sense.
What's your point? How is that not a reasonable business model?