I don't care if that's where their money comes from, they chose to give me the software, so I'm going to use it. If you sell me something, I'm going to do whatever I want with it. Don't like it, don't sell it to me. That simple.
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it.
Yes they did, because you're "physically" in possession of the actual code for the feature, it's just locked.
I work for a company that handles this simply where a software product has multiple tiers or options, you hand the customer the code only for the version they purchased, completely different downloads that require different hardware activation. The option is there for companies to send a clear message but they choose not to.
That. The whole issue here revolves about hardware and software with a given set of capabilities and characteristics that has been physically created AND delivered to you, but some of it you can't use, it's silly and is what causes the perception issues we see here.
We wouldn't see people feeling robbed if the software or hardware was not included at all in the first place. Back in the day when upgrades meant physically buying and installing an actual hardware module with better capabilities that uses a more expensive component than what they already have to provide them (i.e. there was a real difference in cost between the parts providing the limited or advanced capabilities and their choice of going with the limited ones to save was deliberate, and you know what you're paying for when you buy the upgrade), or purchasing a separate software package that you install next to the existing one or replacing it things were clear and nobody was complaining. The thing is an actual, "physical" product (counting downloads as such) that is clearly stolen if you get it in your possession without paying for it.
Technically there is no difference with the unlocking key, but perceptually the difference is huge. The licensing scheme is only "legal BS" that nobody in the general public actually can relate to. Music, movies, software have been working on that scheme "forever" but you never hear someone say "I licenced XYZ's new album", they'll say "I bought...". They physically got something, whether a vinyl, cassette, CD or download in return for their money, now they can use it. Breaking the link between payment and an actual physical thing in people's minds would take decades to change. I occasionally work in the production industry, and when the managers get to a licensing agreement that they can use "2 minutes from that 15min video" we still don't give them the whole 15min file which would of course be easier, but we'll extract and physically only give them the 2 minutes they chose. If we had given them the 15 min file ourselves we'd expect them to try to use more if we didn't do that because that's just how people work. The fact we did the effort to make a cut for them will burn in their mind the fact that we don't mess about this, and even if it's a piece of cake to download the 15 min version from Youtube they know doing this would be very wrong, so they don't.
So in the meantime as Someone (hah) says the solution is simple, if you don't want me to use something then don't give it to me. If you do, don't complain if I do whatever I can to use it. Don't load the device with software that is perfectly capable of performing some functions but are disabled if a bit isn't flipped. Don't put a 64MB RAM chip or fast ADC and let me use only 8MB / part of the ADC's capabilities. I've bought it, I have it in my hands and want to use it. If you want to sell a scope with a slower ADC or less memory then build one, the fact you can save some money by making all the units identical is not my problem. At most, it says something about how much a scope with only 8MB RAM is worth on the market - nothing given you decided it was not worth making. If you decided making a scope with 64MB was less expensive than making one with 8MB then great! But then give me all 64MB at that price, don't try to make me pay extra for something that obviously didn't cost you, or you even saved on.
Screw the "product is worth what people are ready to pay for it, not how much it actually costs to make" paradigm. This marketing scheme is a pain for users and nobody really wants it, it's unfortunately imposed by pretty much every test equipment manufacturer so that you pretty much have no other option as a buyer, but they're the only ones thinking it's good. There are industries where artificial market segmentation was also heavy, but some manufacturer has tried going the opposite way... and their success no doubt proves buyers are really tired of the old scheme. Their products are segmented only based on actual hardware features, cheaper or more high end contruction, different form factors, hardware components that allow for new features on newer models etc but the cheapest model can already do 90% of what the top end one can, and most importantly getting those capabilities from other manufacturers would require you to buy their top end model at 5x the price or more, anything cheaper while technically just as capable is artificially crippled. In the new market segment mnementh talks of the artificial crippling caused features that are useful for that new segment to only be found in the higher end models, but nobody's ready to pay the price they ask for it, so... guess who's got 50% market share in the now most active and insanely fast growing segment of the industry.