>make a product
>tell your customers that if they don’t want you to spend time and money making the product you already made worse, they need to pay you more
Intel
Logan Anderson
Other urls found in this thread:
tomshardware.com
twitter.com
Matthew Mitchell
source?
Dominic Price
take for example a guy selling apples. He has many apples available, but he is the only guy selling apples in town. He decides it is a smart business maneuver to pay thousands of dollars to mexican immigrants to smear half of his apples in shit. This way, he can charge more for the apples that aren’t smeared in shit. What would you say is a wise response to businesses that engage in such schemes?
Brayden Ross
I think it could actually make sense for businesses, because from what I read, intel disables some features anyway but for normal end users it could escalate quickly.
Especially since there will probably be some utter trash software to "verify" that you bought all of these cpu "upgrades" and we know how that usually goes.
I am just afraid that this will lead to forced "renting only" of these features eventually and that will be incredibly shit
Ethan Price
So what I’ve understand from the article, they have already been doing this for some time. Just disabling features at the hardware level and charging their clients, who doesn’t need the every gimmick feature, less than what a full fledged xeon will cost. In this scheme, they will ship the ability to turn on those features in exchange for what? $200 per cpu? Feels pretty scummy regardless though. HaaS becoming a reality makes me think the schizos were right all along.
Asher Hughes
seeThey have an excess of a thing that is valuable to people. They could sell them all for a price that reflects their value to THEM, but since they have a monopoly on the market, they stand to gain more by fucking half of their products up so that they can extract money from both the serfs and the elite.
Jordan Walker
>year 2032
>Enter UEFIEXT/NSA configuration screen
>Multicore Processing: TAP HERE TO SUBSCRIBE
Jeremiah Edwards
It seems like a slippery slope. That’s the main thing that bothers me. The idea of purposefully making something worse so as not to relinquish any potential profits would be horrific in most areas of life that are more personal. Like imagine companies spending money to make your underwear less comfortable so that the people with money can pay more for the unaltered items… The end result of this would be an abject hell.
Joseph Parker
you are aware of that this is not a problem for you
but data centers which makes more money in annually than you do in a lifetime
its nothing new
have you for example seen nvidias vgpu price plan?
after spending $10000 on a gpu you have to pay a fee to use all its features but again data centers
to be honest im not sure i can even be pissed at this.. most of our hardware are disabled anyway
when you look close at enterprise gpus you will find that they are the same chip as the consumer versions
just that the consumer version is has it enterprise features disabled
the 3090 has the capacity to carry out double precision calculations (this is important for finance and weather simulations) but its disabled beyond recovery by nvidia
Asher Scott
I have a stack of mothballed x220's in my wardrobe. Im gonna be fine.
Benjamin Cooper
>What would you say is a wise response to businesses that engage in such schemes?
Buy the apples smeared in shit and wash them off and sell them as clean apples? The first computer I built was an original Athlon. I got the cpu from a company that opened the SECC cartridge and did some mod to overclock it. They took a cpu that had been smeared in shit by locking the multiplier, "cleaned it up", and resold it for more. It was still cheaper than an official processor of the same speed.
Gabriel Collins
I guess they already do this to some extent with clothing. I’m a zoomer and when I’m out shopping for clothes I notice that clothes under a certain price bracket has been purposefully designed to look odd in some way. Certainly not a good look when you’re trying to impress with your haircut and gymrat aura. So you pay more to avoid that chinesium vibes plastered all over your hoodie.
Cooper James
Lol. The only way I can find this acceptable is if it's a rent to own
Mason Morris
I agree, my wording was a bit shit, I meant it more from the retarded suit buying cpus for """cheaper""" perspective.
But I fear the moment it'll hit consumer market, if this will keep going, we won't be able to even power on the pc without paying subscription for already bought cpu
Nathaniel Watson
You will own nothing
Carter Cox
This has been a thing in the enterprise for ages.
Talk about the Cisco switches that are only licensed for half their ports
Parker Young
>without paying subscription for already bought cpu
That, user, is exactly how it will turn out.
Aside from datamining, why else do you think modern cpus have entire OS's built in them...?
Jason Morales
True. Funny however there are traps for people who think they're buying into something. And most people only care about being in style. It doesn't have to be expensive. Just well sourced.
Kayden Nguyen
True. You'll notice their project sales lead their retail releases. Functionality is intellectual property though.
Carter Mitchell
This seems weird to me. If you could prove that they were doing it, you could use that info to market your own brand of cheap clothes that aren’t purposefully shitty. I guess it makes sense within individual name brands to vary quality artificially.