4 ms·

Don't get me wrong- I get why people are mad. It comes off as racketeering. And I certainly wouldn't want to drop $50 on this. But how is this all that diffe

Don't get me wrong- I get why people are mad. It comes off as racketeering. And I certainly wouldn't want to drop $50 on this. But how is this all that different from software companies that do the same thing? Your basic subscription to Basecamp, your Photoshop trial, your Windows 7 Home Edition, the Keynote trial that comes with your Mac, your iPhone... they're all capable of doing a lot more (for no extra cost to the company behind it), and you can upgrade for a cost. Another good example that the article mentions is upgrades in video games. This is a pretty common practice for software, so why not hardware?

chopsueyar 16y ago
Because you own the physical hardware, not simply a "license" to use the hardware. Unless processors are coming with EULAs now? This could set a dangerous precedent for automobiles or any other physical good. EDIT: I'm speaking of consumer, not business purchases.
- wmf 16y ago
  If you buy a crippled processor and hack it, I'd guess that Intel has no cause to sue you, precisely because you own that processor. But they don't have to make it easy to hack.
  - noarchy 16y ago
    Until Intel distributes a EULA with the processor. If the courts will hold up the validity of a software EULA, why not one that applies to hardware? ...not that I think that this is an agreeable situation. But I am hardly surprised to see things evolve in that direction.
    - JBiserkov 16y ago
      >Until Intel distributes a EULA with the processor. ... written with a very tiny font in silicon.
- ergo98 16y ago
  Modern processors could be considered software as much as they're hardware. Further, it delivers what the customer expects. It just turns out that Intel nicely provided additional functionality that you can unlock if you pay for your part of the R&D cost of it (which is the real cost of processors). There is nothing wrong with this practice.
  - chopsueyar 16y ago
    I'm more concerned with functionality being disabled at a later time.
    - ergo98 16y ago
      For all we know, every modern appliance is counting down the days until the warranty expires at which point it self immolates, forcing you to buy another. That isn't the case in this situation, though. The expectations of the device were entirely up front and this was more of an "aha!". As an aside, my auto has a built in system that monitors car telemetrics, has GPS functionality, a built in cell phone and "lojack" system, etc. I paid for this as a part of the car. It is completely useless the moment I stop paying a monthly service fee.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        That's more in line with what I fear, if your "lojack" system has remote disable. What is to prevent a rogue employee, system error, or virus from disabling your vehicle at the most inopportune time? "Sorry, your [phone|cpu|car] is bricked. Just have it towed, and I can JTAG it."
        wtracy 16y ago
        Already happened before: http://www.pcworld.com/article/191856/exemployee_wreaks_havoc_on_100_cars_wirelessly.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/191856/exemployee_wreaks_havo...
        cromulent 16y ago
- dedward 16y ago
  Just because it has a restriction built in doesn't necessarily mean it comes with an EULA, or that finding a way to enable or otherwise modify the hardware to your whim is illegal in any way (although I'm sure Intel would take a run at the first grey-market unlocks) As long as they are up front about the cost & features of the product I'm buying I don't care. As a consumer, I don't like this practice, it smells bad - but it's supply and demand. Intel can price their chips however they want, it's up to them to price them in a way that's the most profitable for them - it's not like they have no competition.
- mjgoins 16y ago
  Physical goods come with EULAs already. They should be legally worthless, of course, but they do exist.
- eitland 16y ago
  As long as the manufacturer doesn't cripple your product after you bought it (think PlayStation 3) this should be perfectly OK.
andreyf 16y ago
I don't understand why people are mad, but I do understand why they'd be surprised. The value of the processor is physical. It's protected by property law. At one point of the manufacturing, the processor is purposefully damaged and devaluated to meet market demands. The force of the market is to take goods, damage them, and sell them as inferior goods. That's not what you would expect an otherwise "reasonably functioning" manufacturing economy to incentivize. Taken out of context, some Chinese school child might be learning "in the great American Capitalist system, goods are damaged on purpose to fulfill the optimum of their system: farmers are paid not to plant anything, and chip manufacturers damage their own goods on purpose. Why do they do this? Because the rules of American Capitalism dictate it.
- lolipop1 16y ago
  In conclusion, from the manufacturer point of view, there is more profit to be made by selling a product at multiple profit margin levels using the same manufacturing process. But at the same time, doing only low profit margin manufacturing might be: or not profitable; or not enough to drive and push development of new technology.
- xilun0 16y ago
  The market demand is for a cheaper processor. That the vendor is able to sell high end ones as lower ends (and volontarilly damaging them in the process...) and still getting a profit is a sign that they are artificially increasing prices by this trick and others, and while in a true free/perfect/unbiased/whatever market this kind of economical evil behavior (from the whole world/humankind point of view) would soon disappear thanks to the great idealized market, there is no such thing in the real world, especially not in the processor field, especially not in the x86 processor field. So the little Chinese kid will indeed get a kind of wiseness by learning that "in the great American Capitalist system, goods are damaged on purpose to fulfill the optimum of their system: [...] chip manufacturers damage their own goods on purpose. Why do they do this? Because the rules of American Capitalism dictate it." Because for the most part, that's the most unbiased view you can get. (But the rules of American Capitalism applies more and more to China too, so the little Chinese kid will either don't be taught that or learn soon enough that he will be part of the very same system regardless... (Not saying that real attempts to organize society by communism was better anyway))
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
superuser2 16y ago
Your iPhone is limited by default but you are free to sever your relationship with Apple (jailbreak) and use it as you see fit. Software is different.

chopsueyar 16y ago

Because you own the physical hardware, not simply a "license" to use the hardware. Unless processors are coming with EULAs now? This could set a dangerous precedent for automobiles or any other physical good. EDIT: I'm speaking of consumer, not business purchases.

wmf 16y ago
If you buy a crippled processor and hack it, I'd guess that Intel has no cause to sue you, precisely because you own that processor. But they don't have to make it easy to hack.
- noarchy 16y ago
  Until Intel distributes a EULA with the processor. If the courts will hold up the validity of a software EULA, why not one that applies to hardware? ...not that I think that this is an agreeable situation. But I am hardly surprised to see things evolve in that direction.
  - JBiserkov 16y ago
    >Until Intel distributes a EULA with the processor. ... written with a very tiny font in silicon.
ergo98 16y ago
Modern processors could be considered software as much as they're hardware. Further, it delivers what the customer expects. It just turns out that Intel nicely provided additional functionality that you can unlock if you pay for your part of the R&D cost of it (which is the real cost of processors). There is nothing wrong with this practice.
- chopsueyar 16y ago
  I'm more concerned with functionality being disabled at a later time.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    For all we know, every modern appliance is counting down the days until the warranty expires at which point it self immolates, forcing you to buy another. That isn't the case in this situation, though. The expectations of the device were entirely up front and this was more of an "aha!". As an aside, my auto has a built in system that monitors car telemetrics, has GPS functionality, a built in cell phone and "lojack" system, etc. I paid for this as a part of the car. It is completely useless the moment I stop paying a monthly service fee.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      That's more in line with what I fear, if your "lojack" system has remote disable. What is to prevent a rogue employee, system error, or virus from disabling your vehicle at the most inopportune time? "Sorry, your [phone|cpu|car] is bricked. Just have it towed, and I can JTAG it."
      - wtracy 16y ago
        Already happened before: http://www.pcworld.com/article/191856/exemployee_wreaks_havoc_on_100_cars_wirelessly.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/191856/exemployee_wreaks_havo...
      - cromulent 16y ago
dedward 16y ago
Just because it has a restriction built in doesn't necessarily mean it comes with an EULA, or that finding a way to enable or otherwise modify the hardware to your whim is illegal in any way (although I'm sure Intel would take a run at the first grey-market unlocks) As long as they are up front about the cost & features of the product I'm buying I don't care. As a consumer, I don't like this practice, it smells bad - but it's supply and demand. Intel can price their chips however they want, it's up to them to price them in a way that's the most profitable for them - it's not like they have no competition.
mjgoins 16y ago
Physical goods come with EULAs already. They should be legally worthless, of course, but they do exist.
eitland 16y ago
As long as the manufacturer doesn't cripple your product after you bought it (think PlayStation 3) this should be perfectly OK.

andreyf 16y ago

I don't understand why people are mad, but I do understand why they'd be surprised. The value of the processor is physical. It's protected by property law. At one point of the manufacturing, the processor is purposefully damaged and devaluated to meet market demands. The force of the market is to take goods, damage them, and sell them as inferior goods. That's not what you would expect an otherwise "reasonably functioning" manufacturing economy to incentivize. Taken out of context, some Chinese school child might be learning "in the great American Capitalist system, goods are damaged on purpose to fulfill the optimum of their system: farmers are paid not to plant anything, and chip manufacturers damage their own goods on purpose. Why do they do this? Because the rules of American Capitalism dictate it.

lolipop1 16y ago
In conclusion, from the manufacturer point of view, there is more profit to be made by selling a product at multiple profit margin levels using the same manufacturing process. But at the same time, doing only low profit margin manufacturing might be: or not profitable; or not enough to drive and push development of new technology.
xilun0 16y ago
The market demand is for a cheaper processor. That the vendor is able to sell high end ones as lower ends (and volontarilly damaging them in the process...) and still getting a profit is a sign that they are artificially increasing prices by this trick and others, and while in a true free/perfect/unbiased/whatever market this kind of economical evil behavior (from the whole world/humankind point of view) would soon disappear thanks to the great idealized market, there is no such thing in the real world, especially not in the processor field, especially not in the x86 processor field. So the little Chinese kid will indeed get a kind of wiseness by learning that "in the great American Capitalist system, goods are damaged on purpose to fulfill the optimum of their system: [...] chip manufacturers damage their own goods on purpose. Why do they do this? Because the rules of American Capitalism dictate it." Because for the most part, that's the most unbiased view you can get. (But the rules of American Capitalism applies more and more to China too, so the little Chinese kid will either don't be taught that or learn soon enough that he will be part of the very same system regardless... (Not saying that real attempts to organize society by communism was better anyway))

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

superuser2 16y ago

Your iPhone is limited by default but you are free to sever your relationship with Apple (jailbreak) and use it as you see fit. Software is different.