For the past 2+ months, I have been helping amateur satellite operators with SDRplay receivers get them working. SDRplay even referred to some of my online postings on how I started working with my SDRplay on their blog. I spent an afternoon during the recent AMSAT Symposium in Dayton OH helping a few hams work out issues with their SDR setups for working amateur satellites. I don't charge for my "services", and I am not part of SDRplay. See the failure in the "logic" you cited above? Not everyone who helps others with SDRplay receivers is in the paid service of SDRplay, and not under their control.
If you can't make the distinction between the SDRplay and those who may be supporting the SDRplay product but are not part of the company, that is your problem. It is not on SDRplay to control anyone who is on the Internet that supports their product, just as it is not on Airspy to rein in your anti-SDRplay nonsense while you support Airspy/SDR#. I'm happy with my SDRplay receivers, especially knowing that SDRplay's closest competitor would have cost me an additional $100 to approach the coverage of the SDRplay - and still come up a little short.
It has been established already quite a few times actually, that the facebook thugs attempted to negotiate the support of the SDRPlay on SDR#. This was done publicly. The threats, and the bullying was public. I am unsure, why you fail to see this. But please, let us use your logic instead.
SDRPlay community in their forums is extremely inactive. The reason for this is that one of their 3 admins scrutinize every single post to "better deal with spam" they claim. Of course, they could take the same approach used here. Scrutinize the first few posts for content then allow users to post freely and moderate the threads.
Instead they suggest you open use their "Unofficial" support group. That was their first mistake. Suggesting to the customers that paid for your product to pick an outside resource for support, simply because the forums are too slow. This is said by them and posted on their website. Meaning is a fact.
Let's continue with your logic. If you recommend an outside an unofficial support channel for your product you should at least have some control or at the very least some monitoring. But, you are telling us with your logic that this is not the case. Now, to make matters worst, that recommended by SDRPlay unofficial support channel is also closed group. So you are not only telling your customers to use an outside channel for support but, one that is not publicly available and that it will be up to someone unrelated to SDRPlay to decide whether or not you get support. Do not get me wrong, it is a great business strategy from a revenue and operations point of view.
It translates into, free support, that costs SDRPlay absolutely nothing, free advertising and absolutely zero liability. Right?
From the customer point of view, not so much. But, lets continue using your logic.
Scenario:
Unofficial recommended support group admins decide to take things a step further and start handling software support negotiations that should be left to the manufacturer.
Unofficial recommended group threatens and bullies, when the negotiations fail.
Unofficial recommended group destroys any hopes and chances the manufacturer of SDRPlay might have had to ensure support for their product.
While this scenario is developing in public the SDRPlay team sits by the sidelines and provides absolutely no communication whatsoever regarding the matter. It is not until their hand is forced by all the bad chatter about their product makes it to their ear.
During this scenario SDRPlay company decides not to distance themselves from the people that had been publicly threatening and bullying the developers of such software.
Anyone in the business world would tell you they made a bad bad bad move, by not distancing themselves from the views and comments of those (thugs) from the unofficial group. That was the very least the could have done. And that is when they fail their users. Regardless of what the reasons behind Yousseff's intentions to remove support for the sdrplay were that is what they should have done.
Perhaps, they did not think of the repercussions that might have with time. What this tells other developers of other software is that SDRPlay as a company sides and backs up a group of users that rely on threats and bullying to achieve support for their hardware.
What do you think will happen when let's say, SDR-Console, for whatever reason breaks support for the SDRPlay, let it be because of an update, or a feature does not work as expected. Are they going to bully him too and I don't know, maybe threaten Simon with contacting the dog food industry and use Simon's dogs as leverage to get support?.
Get my drift?
You are trying to over simplify a very complex situation that in fact occurred while at the same time over complicating a situation that is very simple to understand. What was done should have never happened. What SDRPlay as a company of standing by the sidelines while a group of thugs assumed the role of negotiators for them was simply wrong and inexcusable.
Now, if your logic fails to see that. That is your problem, not mine.
Based on the remainder of your post, you simply do not get it. Because, well like you said. It works for you and you saved $100. For some of us money might not be a problem but, for some others it might be. The issue has very little to do with what you saved and how you like other software. What it actually has to do with is the fact that SDRPlay as a company fails at handling the issues that affect their company and its customers.
Like others have said here on this forums, SDR hardware is as good as the software that supports the hardware. Now SDRplay users have one less option when it comes to software. And while whether your logic will allow you to realize that is up to you. That in no way means, that SDRPlay as a company did the right thing.