I agree, except for the bit about “nobody wants be that guy who deprecates appropriate changes just because there are also much bigger issues”. I’ve been happy to be that guy so you don’t have to. You’re welcome.
Typically hilarious corporate nonsense. Forbid the use of a descriptive term like “end users” which actually describes what they are, and substitute “tech consumers”, which sounds like creatures that eat technology, or otherwise make it go away (as in “consumed by flames”). I tend to dislike the term “consumers” in many contexts because it’s not only so non-descriptive, but carries this weird connotation that their only purpose is to “consume” things rather than do anything productive with them. How about “users” or “customers”?
Totally agree. The usage goes back a very long way, and is still current AFAIK. It even predates the common use of firmware. Back in the day, for instance, IBM developed a line printer that was designed to print “x” number of lines per minute. Someone in marketing got the brilliant idea that they could expand their customer base by marketing a cheaper model that was 33% slower. The cheapest way to do this was to cripple the existing printer, and in the absence of firmware, the change was made by actually adding (at extra cost to IBM) a special circuit board that disabled every third print cycle.
So while the standard model would go “print print print print print”, the cheaper model would go “print print click print print click”. They were otherwise exactly the same machine.
IBM’s strategy worked fine for most businesses, but when these things were leased to universities, the clever minds of academia figured out the simple fix of pulling out the offending circuit board. And yes, these models, as shipped, were universally referred to as “crippled” printers.