Totally different. You aren't adjusting your development workflow based on a soft drink. If it weren't a rug-pull, why wouldn't they charge for it immediately, or at least tell us the price now?

They are specifically hoping you'll become dependent on it and then feel compelled to pay. This shit works because people like you believe it doesn't.

They may not know enough about the cost structure of this feature to price it fairly; I could easily imagine this is heavily dependent on usage patterns and they'll need a few thousand people using it regularly before they'll know that.

> If it weren't a rug-pull, why wouldn't they charge for it immediately, or at least tell us the price now?

Because they haven't decided the price yet, or because they don't think the feature is mature enough to justify charging for?

Though even if they really have the motivations you describe, that's fine too. There's a chance this is such a valuable feature you could feel compelled to pay any price for it, but you get to try it for free? That's purely to your benefit: it's not heroin and you won't really lose by trying it and then it being taken away.

You're going to be adjusting regardless with new tooling, so the point is irrelevant. It's not a rug pull because they're telling you it's not free. So what if it works? I pay for useful services, you do too. My point is not exploring or being curious because a company might ask you to pay for a product, seems outlandish, because that's what companies do, they charge people for goods and services.

I can’t speak to the Zed team’s motivations for this, but unless it’s a big corp pulling a move like this it’s usually not that nefarious. Having been in these kinds of product conversations it’s more like, “that thing we prototyped? I we think it’s stable and usable enough for beta. We’re not sure how to price it yet, but let’s give it to our customers to play around with and give us some feedback while we figure out what to tweak and how much it’s worth”.