6 ms·

Perhaps the call to 'sue me' would have more weight if you'd already managed to hack the unlocking process. But anyway, how are Intel doing anything to the 'fr

Perhaps the call to 'sue me' would have more weight if you'd already managed to hack the unlocking process. But anyway, how are Intel doing anything to the 'free market'? In a free market Intel can sell whatever they like for whatever the market will pay for it. They're not quite a monopoly so if you don't like the 'unlockable' processor, don't buy a machine that uses it. The only way I can make this rant make sense in my head is if the writer assumes that it's immoral to make a profit at all. My understanding of free market economics is limited, but I suggest that the author of that rant has an even worse understanding than I do.

tzs 16y ago
What I want to know is if buyers of the chip who don't buy the upgrade are still paying something for the unused hardware. Analogy: I pay a contractor to build me a house and specify an 800 sq ft finished basement. The contractor actually builds the house with a 1200 sq ft basement, but walls off 400 sq ft of it so that it appears to only have an 800 sq ft basement. For an modest fee (less than it would normally cost to have a real 800 sq ft basement expanded by 400 sq ft), I can have the contractor come in later and open up the extra 400 sq feet. Whether this is cool or not depends on just how the contractor charged for the project. If it cost the contractor more to construct that extra 400 sq ft than it would to have constructed just an 800 sq ft basement, and he included that cost in figuring what he charged me, than I'd be mightily annoyed. If, on the other hand, the extra costs associated with that extra 400 sq ft were eaten by the contractor, then I'd be reasonably OK with it. Same with Intel. If they are charging me what they would have normally charged for a CPU with the "extra" stuff, and then charging me $50 later if I actually want to use it, then I would be annoyed. On the other hand, if they are charging what they would have normally charged for a chip that doesn't have the extra stuff, and so they are eating the cost of building a chip that costs more to make on speculation that I might later pay to buy access to the extras, that is fine.
- reitzensteinm 16y ago
  The chips are not priced on cost, they're priced at the level the market will bare, to earn back the massive fixed costs of design and fab construction. Paying for unused hardware is a faulty way to think about it - in reality, you're paying a price set based on the performance of the part and its competition in the marketplace.
zbruhnke 16y ago
Let me start off by saying, clearly I am the author of this post. While I understand the call to "sue me" seems to not carry much weight I assure you it is not far from being done and posted on my site. And while I can appreciate your post concerning my lack of free market knowledge you should know that it could not be further from the truth. I have built and sold several (albeit small) companies since I turned 18 and have continued on a daily basis to work on new products and releases every day because it's what I love not because it makes me money. While I understand the frustrations of some people with my rant (and that's exactly what this article is) I would also like everyone to realize what it is they are doing. Some would argue that they sell these at a going rate, however the truth is demand sets the price of processors. The fact that most computer users wait for prices to drop before purchasing the highest end products is a testament to that. However intel effectively takes advantage of those of us who always want the newest and best technology and then proceeds to drop the price to "fair market value" for the rest of consumers only to sell another "higher end" chip with several more features that in many cases are just unlocked from the previous version of the product. Paying for technology, should in effect, be paying for the research and development of the people who put their efforts into it. Intel simply believes that in paying for technology you should be paying for what they choose. My point in writing this article is not that it was a new concept. It was not even that intel was alone in these business practices, it was simply to point out that these practices are not fair to the consumers who support these companies. I never said this was not an example of the free market, I simply stated that sometimes the free market simply is not a fair market for the consumers who drive it.
- semanticist 16y ago
  This is nonsense. Intel are trialling this on some low-end CPUs. They're not trying to aim this at the people who read Hacker News and always want the latest shiny tech. Anyway, Intel aren't making CPUs for the love of it. They're doing it to make money for their shareholders. This isn't immoral or unfair. Paying for technology is like paying for anything, if you're pricing based on your costs then you're doing it wrong. You set your prices to maximise profit, not to meet someone's preconceived notion of 'fair'.
- techiferous 16y ago

tzs 16y ago

What I want to know is if buyers of the chip who don't buy the upgrade are still paying something for the unused hardware. Analogy: I pay a contractor to build me a house and specify an 800 sq ft finished basement. The contractor actually builds the house with a 1200 sq ft basement, but walls off 400 sq ft of it so that it appears to only have an 800 sq ft basement. For an modest fee (less than it would normally cost to have a real 800 sq ft basement expanded by 400 sq ft), I can have the contractor come in later and open up the extra 400 sq feet. Whether this is cool or not depends on just how the contractor charged for the project. If it cost the contractor more to construct that extra 400 sq ft than it would to have constructed just an 800 sq ft basement, and he included that cost in figuring what he charged me, than I'd be mightily annoyed. If, on the other hand, the extra costs associated with that extra 400 sq ft were eaten by the contractor, then I'd be reasonably OK with it. Same with Intel. If they are charging me what they would have normally charged for a CPU with the "extra" stuff, and then charging me $50 later if I actually want to use it, then I would be annoyed. On the other hand, if they are charging what they would have normally charged for a chip that doesn't have the extra stuff, and so they are eating the cost of building a chip that costs more to make on speculation that I might later pay to buy access to the extras, that is fine.

reitzensteinm 16y ago
The chips are not priced on cost, they're priced at the level the market will bare, to earn back the massive fixed costs of design and fab construction. Paying for unused hardware is a faulty way to think about it - in reality, you're paying a price set based on the performance of the part and its competition in the marketplace.

zbruhnke 16y ago

Let me start off by saying, clearly I am the author of this post. While I understand the call to "sue me" seems to not carry much weight I assure you it is not far from being done and posted on my site. And while I can appreciate your post concerning my lack of free market knowledge you should know that it could not be further from the truth. I have built and sold several (albeit small) companies since I turned 18 and have continued on a daily basis to work on new products and releases every day because it's what I love not because it makes me money. While I understand the frustrations of some people with my rant (and that's exactly what this article is) I would also like everyone to realize what it is they are doing. Some would argue that they sell these at a going rate, however the truth is demand sets the price of processors. The fact that most computer users wait for prices to drop before purchasing the highest end products is a testament to that. However intel effectively takes advantage of those of us who always want the newest and best technology and then proceeds to drop the price to "fair market value" for the rest of consumers only to sell another "higher end" chip with several more features that in many cases are just unlocked from the previous version of the product. Paying for technology, should in effect, be paying for the research and development of the people who put their efforts into it. Intel simply believes that in paying for technology you should be paying for what they choose. My point in writing this article is not that it was a new concept. It was not even that intel was alone in these business practices, it was simply to point out that these practices are not fair to the consumers who support these companies. I never said this was not an example of the free market, I simply stated that sometimes the free market simply is not a fair market for the consumers who drive it.

semanticist 16y ago
This is nonsense. Intel are trialling this on some low-end CPUs. They're not trying to aim this at the people who read Hacker News and always want the latest shiny tech. Anyway, Intel aren't making CPUs for the love of it. They're doing it to make money for their shareholders. This isn't immoral or unfair. Paying for technology is like paying for anything, if you're pricing based on your costs then you're doing it wrong. You set your prices to maximise profit, not to meet someone's preconceived notion of 'fair'.
techiferous 16y ago