5 ms·

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

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
"However intel effectively takes advantage of those of us..." Since there is no monopoly, you have the right to choose to buy an Intel product or a competitor. You have the choice. It's your money; therefore, it's your power. It's not correct to say that Intel is taking advantage of you. The people of Bhopal are victims; you are not a victim. "Paying for technology, should in effect, be paying for the research and development of the people who put their efforts into it." Stated in another way, you believe that the prices of things should reflect the cost to produce those things. So your real complaint is not with Intel, it's with how the economy works.
- zbruhnke 16y ago
  I think in the above post I already clearly acknowledged this was not solely against intel. Although this article was titled with such notation. What irks me as a consumer is the idea that companies set pricing along no guidelines besides making profit. Most companies were started because of a love or interest in something. However inevitably at some point nearly all companies lose sight of their love for a product and fall in love with money. I would be willing to wager that intel once built the best processor they could for the best pricepoint they could. This article simply states that these companies lose track of those ideas at some point. Again, I did not say this was new, or that several companies were not involved in these processes. As an opinion I simply do not think it is right. Are we all not entitled to an opinion?
  - semanticist 16y ago
    I disagree strongly: I imagine that most companies are started to make money. Ideally someone can make money 'because of a love or interest in something', but that's not always going to be the case. I think you have an overly romantic and naive view of the world, which is why you're so angry at Intel for doing something that's in no way unfair or immoral.
    - zbruhnke 16y ago
      I do not think my view of the world is either romantic nor naive. I was simply raised with a different mindset. Make no mistake, I have sold software, I have made a premium on some of that software I sold as well. But I did not sell the software to customers with scaled back capabilities and tell them that this is basically a "lite" version of what they could get if they paid "x" amount more dollars. Maybe that makes me a bad capitalist, or just dumb, but that is how I have always operated and it has made me a fairly nice living at a fairly young age. What i have done in other instances however is tell companies that if they would like other features added I could work to add those features at an additional cost. Maybe that is my real rant here. At least if Intel sold these processors at face value telling end users that there were so called "upgradable" processors before they were ever purchased then I would not have as much of an issue. i simply believe in buying and selling products at face value. So perhaps my problem actually lies in the idea that these were sold at face value as one thing and then weeks, months or even just days later they were told, oh but wait, we could also make it do this if you wished, but that will cost you $(insert arbitrary amount here)

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

"However intel effectively takes advantage of those of us..." Since there is no monopoly, you have the right to choose to buy an Intel product or a competitor. You have the choice. It's your money; therefore, it's your power. It's not correct to say that Intel is taking advantage of you. The people of Bhopal are victims; you are not a victim. "Paying for technology, should in effect, be paying for the research and development of the people who put their efforts into it." Stated in another way, you believe that the prices of things should reflect the cost to produce those things. So your real complaint is not with Intel, it's with how the economy works.

zbruhnke 16y ago
I think in the above post I already clearly acknowledged this was not solely against intel. Although this article was titled with such notation. What irks me as a consumer is the idea that companies set pricing along no guidelines besides making profit. Most companies were started because of a love or interest in something. However inevitably at some point nearly all companies lose sight of their love for a product and fall in love with money. I would be willing to wager that intel once built the best processor they could for the best pricepoint they could. This article simply states that these companies lose track of those ideas at some point. Again, I did not say this was new, or that several companies were not involved in these processes. As an opinion I simply do not think it is right. Are we all not entitled to an opinion?
- semanticist 16y ago
  I disagree strongly: I imagine that most companies are started to make money. Ideally someone can make money 'because of a love or interest in something', but that's not always going to be the case. I think you have an overly romantic and naive view of the world, which is why you're so angry at Intel for doing something that's in no way unfair or immoral.
  - zbruhnke 16y ago
    I do not think my view of the world is either romantic nor naive. I was simply raised with a different mindset. Make no mistake, I have sold software, I have made a premium on some of that software I sold as well. But I did not sell the software to customers with scaled back capabilities and tell them that this is basically a "lite" version of what they could get if they paid "x" amount more dollars. Maybe that makes me a bad capitalist, or just dumb, but that is how I have always operated and it has made me a fairly nice living at a fairly young age. What i have done in other instances however is tell companies that if they would like other features added I could work to add those features at an additional cost. Maybe that is my real rant here. At least if Intel sold these processors at face value telling end users that there were so called "upgradable" processors before they were ever purchased then I would not have as much of an issue. i simply believe in buying and selling products at face value. So perhaps my problem actually lies in the idea that these were sold at face value as one thing and then weeks, months or even just days later they were told, oh but wait, we could also make it do this if you wished, but that will cost you $(insert arbitrary amount here)