In Universe A they sell only the most powerful version of the product for 1x price and them make some money.
In Universe B they sell the most powerful for 1x AND a slightly less powerful version for 0.9x price and they make MORE overall profit.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing. There are customers who will want to pay less and not need the most powerful product.
I fail to see how the company in Universe B is morally worse than those in Universe A. One could argue they are superior, in that they offer more choices.
Breaking up the total price of a product by it's component features and then creating variants of the sold product with certain features enabled vs disabled and hence having different total prices is one fair way of create products that are tailored to customers needs.
When pricing individual features, the prices may not correlate relative to each other. There may be factors like which features are most used by which segment of customers and how valuable the feature is to that segment customer and hence how much they are willing to pay.
Demanding that all the features should be sold at the lowest total cost doesn't make sense. We don't do this in any other domain.
But profits are somewhat besides the point: I'm saying simply that some policies are not customer friendly. Whether or not you consider that to be good or bad may very well depend on whether you are a customer or a shareholder.
Btw obviously I’m not talking about software. Im not talking about pricing things with no marginal cost.