4 ms·
To address the core of your argument: no one is saying Intel should subsidize anything. The assertion is that using monopoly status to do additional work to gim
by pharrington 10y ago
To address the core of your argument: no one is saying Intel should subsidize anything. The assertion is that using monopoly status to do additional work to gimp functionality in one product line and artificially drive up the price of another is at least abusive in the short term, probably makes Intel less competitive in the long run, and increases the volatility of the market.
- dpark 10y ago> The assertion is that using monopoly status to do additional work to gimp functionality in one product line and artificially drive up the price of another 1. Are they actually doing that? I'll be honest, I don't know for sure, but I do know that more capacity rarely comes for free. I assume that supporting 256GB of memory efficiently relative to 64GB requires either a faster clock speed or some more pins. Is Intel "gimping" the consumer product or simply not building in the extra capacity? 2. Is it necessarily a bad thing if they are? If consumer demand peaks at, say, 32GB and professional demand reaches, say, 512GB, Intel could develop two entirely different architectures, which seems wasteful and more costly to everyone. They could ship just one chip with professional capacity supported, which drives up consumer costs effectively subsidizing professionals (because professionals are no longer paying the premium for the "pro" chip; they're just buying the consumer one). Or they could ship a consumer chip that doesn't support professional needs and ship a professional chip at a price that makes pros pay for the capacity Intel had to engineer for them. The last option seems like a good option for everyone except the people who think everyone else should pay a premium for unnecessary pro support so that a few people can get cheaper pro chips.