I'm absolutely with you here but I think this is a matter of least worst situations: I still think an OSS corporation trumps a non-OSS corporation regardless.
> These days it's not unbelievable that they are doing it on purpose.
I think there's a bit of a leap between a company - at a management level - deciding to "go open-source" for mainly marketing/branding/image reasons & that same company actively endeavoring to make their open-source product deliberately worse.
It's still likely (& common) that profit incentive will lead to paid plans receiving more investment & QA than open-source offerings. But again, this is a least worst outcome imo. A semi-abandoned corporate OSS project isn't very different from a semi-abandoned personal individual OSS project - maybe even better as there will typically be less social reluctance to build a community fork.
Daily, you are bombarded with decisions for how to allocate resources. In each of those, do you lean towards the option that makes it easier to self host rather than spending those resources on other things?
Unless you're implying that Supabase are for some reason deliberately releasing separate defective software to the open source community... to... convince users that using their commercial services is a good reliable option??? I can't really figure out how or why any business would go to the effort of doing this. It seems patently easier to be a legit open source company.
Assuming you're not implying the above & I've just misinterpreted... everything else in your comment paints Supabase in an eminently positive light.