4 ms·

From a technical perspective, you're absolutely correct. This is just the logical next step in what's been going on for 20 years. But from a consumer's perspec

From a technical perspective, you're absolutely correct. This is just the logical next step in what's been going on for 20 years. But from a consumer's perspective, this is a big shift. It's taking what was once an open secret in the industry and shoving it right in the faces of consumers. And I wouldn't underestimate the backlash that can come from something like that.

jhancock 16y ago
Its still nothing new. IBM was doing this with mainframes in the '70s. The mainframes they installed typically had more horsepower than your were licensed for. When you needed more power, the IBM rep came over with an impressive suitcase of equipment, locked himself inside your server room and simply flipped a switch and then ran some diagnostics for an hour or so to further the illusion.
- _delirium 16y ago
  IBM didn't even pretend that that they "sold" you the mainframes, though; they were explicitly rented.
- reitzensteinm 16y ago
  So you're saying that IBM got their representitives to do more than necessary to cover up the fact that the upgrade as just a flip of a switch? That they were conscious of what their customers would think - business customers that are probably far more understanding of this type of arrangement than the average consumer? The fact that we know it's been going on a while means nothing to the average consumer. Crippling of CPUs used to be magic that happened at the chip fabs that only people connected to the industry knew about. Now consumers are being openly told that their chips have been crippled in software, and if they pay more, that magical switch will be flipped. I don't know if there'll be a big backlash or not, but this is not business as usual. Intel's small step forward has suddenly made the pratice visible.
- ShabbyDoo 16y ago
  As recently as five years ago, IBM would do a mainframe deal sort of like this: You get X MIPS available, but only YY% of those MIPS will be turned on with the option of turning on additional computing power during the period of the deal. There was no pretense that the hardware wasn't already present.
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  AFAIK mainframe business still works exactly like this. And I see no problem with it. It is good on two fronts. 1. If you're savvy you can hack the chip thus getting more for less (Premium on your ability). 2. If you're not savvy then you can buy exactly what you're after at price point that is acceptable to you (thus ensuring a proper price/performance). People feel cheated since they didn't get more than what they paid for? I always assumed that trade happens when two parties reach a level where both "agree" that they get what they expected out of the deal. There is no need to go all ape on Intel -> IC manufacturing is a cutthroat business with insane risks and low margins. If Intel can profit from different people willing to pay more for the "same" thing (and yes for anyone that knows and understands Amdahl's law its perfectly clear that within a microchip generation difference between high and low end is mostly superficial - regarding to system performance). I recommend reading Spolsky's Camels and Rubber Duckies: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...
electromagnetic 16y ago
But is this really a problem? I can buy a quad-core CPU restricted to 1.33GHz on the cheap and 6 months down the line I can put down a little more cash to get it unlocked to a 2.00GHz. Why is this a bad change? Currently if I buy a 1.33GHz and want to upgrade later to a more powerful one, I'm buying the second processor and dropping a lot more money than I'd be putting down to unlock more processing power of my existing CPU. This would be like selling all Kindles with 3G built in. You can save say $10 off the activation of 3G if you buy it already activated, or you can wait and pay a little more in the long run, but less up front. I don't see this as a bad thing, but I understand why people would misunderstand as to why it is. If you put a restricted CPU in a budget computer, it's the same as putting a flawed under-clocked CPU in a budget computer save that you can upgrade it later for less money than replacing your CPU to the equivalent. (Edit: note that it also puts less strain on CPU manufacturers as they're not producing 2 CPU's whenever someone buys a computer to upgrade, which in the long run would probably mean more quality control could be implemented in the production process meaning less flawed CPU's)
- elblanco 16y ago
  > I can buy a quad-core CPU restricted to 1.33GHz on the cheap and 6 months down the line I can put down a little more cash to get it unlocked to a 2.00GHz. Actually, you're buying a 2.00Ghz part on the super cheap, you just aren't allowed to use all of what you bought under this kind of payment scheme. This brings up two downsides to this: 1) Consumer's know that the thing they purchased is not really under control...many people want to be able to do whatever they want with what they purchased. This is basically the same as a pay-per-use license like with software today...which most people absolutely hate. 2) It tells the market that the 2.00Ghz part is way overpriced. It's a powerful signal of how bad of a value the company is offering since you actually can but the 2.00Ghz part at the lower price, it's just artificially broken. How long till crackers figure out their way past such a lockout scheme?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    This isn't how pricing works. Prices track value (in the abstract) and the market (in reality); unless the good we're discussing is sorghum, prices don't track costs. If pricing did work this way, Photoshop Elements would have cost the same as Photoshop.
pmorici 16y ago
I don't think the average consumer has a clear enough understanding of how a computer works that they would automatically view this in a negative light.
- dmoney 16y ago
  Depends whether by "consumers" you mean people who buy a computer as a unit, or people who just buy the CPU.

jhancock 16y ago

Its still nothing new. IBM was doing this with mainframes in the '70s. The mainframes they installed typically had more horsepower than your were licensed for. When you needed more power, the IBM rep came over with an impressive suitcase of equipment, locked himself inside your server room and simply flipped a switch and then ran some diagnostics for an hour or so to further the illusion.

_delirium 16y ago
IBM didn't even pretend that that they "sold" you the mainframes, though; they were explicitly rented.
reitzensteinm 16y ago
So you're saying that IBM got their representitives to do more than necessary to cover up the fact that the upgrade as just a flip of a switch? That they were conscious of what their customers would think - business customers that are probably far more understanding of this type of arrangement than the average consumer? The fact that we know it's been going on a while means nothing to the average consumer. Crippling of CPUs used to be magic that happened at the chip fabs that only people connected to the industry knew about. Now consumers are being openly told that their chips have been crippled in software, and if they pay more, that magical switch will be flipped. I don't know if there'll be a big backlash or not, but this is not business as usual. Intel's small step forward has suddenly made the pratice visible.
ShabbyDoo 16y ago
As recently as five years ago, IBM would do a mainframe deal sort of like this: You get X MIPS available, but only YY% of those MIPS will be turned on with the option of turning on additional computing power during the period of the deal. There was no pretense that the hardware wasn't already present.
JanezStupar 16y ago
AFAIK mainframe business still works exactly like this. And I see no problem with it. It is good on two fronts. 1. If you're savvy you can hack the chip thus getting more for less (Premium on your ability). 2. If you're not savvy then you can buy exactly what you're after at price point that is acceptable to you (thus ensuring a proper price/performance). People feel cheated since they didn't get more than what they paid for? I always assumed that trade happens when two parties reach a level where both "agree" that they get what they expected out of the deal. There is no need to go all ape on Intel -> IC manufacturing is a cutthroat business with insane risks and low margins. If Intel can profit from different people willing to pay more for the "same" thing (and yes for anyone that knows and understands Amdahl's law its perfectly clear that within a microchip generation difference between high and low end is mostly superficial - regarding to system performance). I recommend reading Spolsky's Camels and Rubber Duckies: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckie...

electromagnetic 16y ago

But is this really a problem? I can buy a quad-core CPU restricted to 1.33GHz on the cheap and 6 months down the line I can put down a little more cash to get it unlocked to a 2.00GHz. Why is this a bad change? Currently if I buy a 1.33GHz and want to upgrade later to a more powerful one, I'm buying the second processor and dropping a lot more money than I'd be putting down to unlock more processing power of my existing CPU. This would be like selling all Kindles with 3G built in. You can save say $10 off the activation of 3G if you buy it already activated, or you can wait and pay a little more in the long run, but less up front. I don't see this as a bad thing, but I understand why people would misunderstand as to why it is. If you put a restricted CPU in a budget computer, it's the same as putting a flawed under-clocked CPU in a budget computer save that you can upgrade it later for less money than replacing your CPU to the equivalent. (Edit: note that it also puts less strain on CPU manufacturers as they're not producing 2 CPU's whenever someone buys a computer to upgrade, which in the long run would probably mean more quality control could be implemented in the production process meaning less flawed CPU's)

elblanco 16y ago
> I can buy a quad-core CPU restricted to 1.33GHz on the cheap and 6 months down the line I can put down a little more cash to get it unlocked to a 2.00GHz. Actually, you're buying a 2.00Ghz part on the super cheap, you just aren't allowed to use all of what you bought under this kind of payment scheme. This brings up two downsides to this: 1) Consumer's know that the thing they purchased is not really under control...many people want to be able to do whatever they want with what they purchased. This is basically the same as a pay-per-use license like with software today...which most people absolutely hate. 2) It tells the market that the 2.00Ghz part is way overpriced. It's a powerful signal of how bad of a value the company is offering since you actually can but the 2.00Ghz part at the lower price, it's just artificially broken. How long till crackers figure out their way past such a lockout scheme?
- tptacek 16y ago
  This isn't how pricing works. Prices track value (in the abstract) and the market (in reality); unless the good we're discussing is sorghum, prices don't track costs. If pricing did work this way, Photoshop Elements would have cost the same as Photoshop.

pmorici 16y ago

I don't think the average consumer has a clear enough understanding of how a computer works that they would automatically view this in a negative light.

dmoney 16y ago
Depends whether by "consumers" you mean people who buy a computer as a unit, or people who just buy the CPU.