> The rationalization is that since in your opinion it wouldn't cost them very much to give you something, that they really owe it to you and if they don't give it to you, they are actually withholding something and you are being denied something you have a right to.
The reason they should do it is because it helps their customers get what they paid for.
They have a solution to the problem, and sharing the solution costs nothing, but they refuse to share it.
There doesn't need to be an obligation to make that refusal asshole behavior.
At no point am I rationalizing anything here. I'm not even a customer.
> Except, maybe it is actually the most customer-first, because their support & security argument is not bullshit. If there are things wrong with the old version that they know about, then it is entirely valid to decide not to actively help facilitate the proliferation of old bad versions that still have their name on it out in the world.
Moving toward a world where users can't use that version but have no replacement is not customer-first.
> The fact you don't like it is purely a you problem.
Why do so many people act like it's invalid to complain about legal company actions? Complaints about bad service give warning to other potential customers, and might get the company to change things for the better.
Companies can have bad support, and that risks them getting bad reviews.