Ok,  I'll try again and clarify what exactly is the issue I have a problem with.
Perhaps I'll first say what I  am not arguing about.

• E-on can decide on whatever pricing scheme they like. Perhaps they will make a killing, perhaps they will price themselves out of the market. Their business.
• E-on does not have to lower the prices to fit the customers pockets if it means they will not be able to make a descent profit. They are not a charity, they are in it to make money. Not only is it their right and duty to their investors, owners, workers - it is their duty to their customers. If they go bust there will be no programs for us to use.
• E-on can chose to cater to whichever customer base they chose. If they only want to cater to professional studios, not to ordinary artists or small studios, that's up to them. But They havnt decided that (yet?). They are promoting the artist line. They are making a big fuss about 'pioneer' and the ability to start with a free application and upgrade it whenever the customer sees fit. So, it is their phylosophy - you can start with a cheap program with few tools and upgrade to a more powerfull version whenever you want/can (not only within 30 days).
  I agree that this is a wise policy the flexibility is good for  the customer, allowing him to adapt his tools to his ability, and good for the company because it enlarges their customer base well beyond those who would have gone for the fully blown version directly. (Gateway drug so to speak)

My point is why stop this policy when you get to complete and not enable upgrade to infinite?

• E-on  will not lose any money, they will get extra money. In fact they will get more than they got from customers who purchased inf directly
• Customers who bought infinite directly will not (contrary to Gareee's claim) lose anything comparatively.
  Let me spell it out with an example:
  John and Jane have V6inf. John paid $395 and got v7inf. Jane  made an informed decision(examining the comparison list)  to upgrade to v7complete and payed $99. After a while -whatever length of time- Jane's circumstances changed. She  upgraded to v7infinite and paid an extra $350, They both now have only V7infinite. John paid in total $395. Jane paid in total $449.
  How was John adversely affected? why is it unfair to him? he still paid less than her.
  How was e-on adversly affected? they made more money from Jane's purchase than from John's purchase. No doubt it covers the 'restocking' cost?
  On the other hand if the transition is not possible, either they would have only made $99 from Jane, or maybe no money at all if she thought that upgrading to complete is a dead end and didnt buy at all?

So how is a v7comp-> v7Inf not a win/win path?

PS  Curious that vendors percieve customers as thieves and crooks first and formost- I havnt encountered this attitude since I left England:) Gareee, you can point as many fingers (and toes) as you like, but I dont see how on earth the scenario I suggested for the complete->infinite change can be seen as taking advantage of e-on. I would still pay more than if I went for 7inf directly, e-on would make more money. What kind of useless crook am I than?

PPS Thanks Richard, Rids and some others who PM'ed me for your contribution!

"I paint that which comes from the imagination or from dreams, or from an unconscious drive. I photograph the things that I do not wish to paint, the things which already have an existence."
Man Ray, modernist painter
http://artpearl.redbubble.com/