There can be another side to this discussion.
Once upon a time I worked for a manufacturer of optical switches. These switches had up to 512 ports, each with speeds of up to 10gb per second.
The architecture was based upon circuit cards with up to 8 ports each. The speed and frequency of each port was determined by a plugin module.
The plugin modules cost up to a few thousand dollars, while the circuit cards, without any modules, cost in the tens of thousands.
One of the customers desires was that expansion was more or less linear. With the high price of the circuit boards, expansion cost would be more like a saw-tooth rather than linear.
To provide the customer with a more or less linear expansion option, the circuit boards were sold around cost, while the plugin modules were sold at elevated prices. This allowed for minimum initial capital costs, and a more linear expansion cost.
When thinking about adopting this pricing strategy, it was soon realized that a customer could go directly to the plugin module vendors to purchase modules, so technology was put in place to disallow the usage of outside modules.
Were we bad by not allowing a user to buy modules from anyone and plugging them into the equipment they owned?
Often vendors have a pricing policy of selling the equipment near cost and making there profit on service. Does this make them bad?
The game manufactures often sell their equipment at near cost and hope to make their profit selling games. Are they bad if try to protect again users buying their equipment and not a buying games?
Are the wireless companies bad because they sell you a smartphone at a subsidized price and then stop you from using the phone on another network?
Automobile dealers could not survive if they only sold cars. I suspect most of the profit at an auto dealer is through maintenance. Are the automobile companies bad in trying to protect their dealer network?