6 ms·

"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.

"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)
    - techiferous 16y ago
      I think this is probably about how the situation is framed rather than the objective facts. Consider a restaurant that charges $3.50 for a cup of coffee unless you are a senior citizen in which case the charge is $2.50. Here are two ways that this can be framed: * Coffee: $2.50 (add $1.00 surcharge if you are young) * Coffee: $3.50 ($1.00 discount if you are a senior citizen) The objective facts are the same but our subjective feelings are different. We hate getting "charged" for things but don't mind a higher baseline price if we can get a "discount". Are you sure the core of the problem isn't just that it "feels wrong" that the chip has parts that are disabled?
    - techiferous 16y ago
      "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)" I really have a hard time seeing how this is a bad thing. If I see a product and I agree that it's worth my money, I buy it. If it turns out that the product can do more than I originally expected it to, I really have a hard time seeing this as a problem. I only see the problem if the product ends up doing less than I expected.
- zokier 16y ago
  But companies (and individuals for that matter) need money to pursue their love/interest in something. Without reaping profits from low end, they couldn't afford to make those awesome high end CPUs.
- techiferous 16y ago
  Thanks for clarifying; I get where you're coming from now. It's really not a bad ideal that you express: that profit should not become the ultimate motive but something else should be the core driver of the business (a passion for solving the customers' problems, for example). I think that when a company takes on investment money from others then their focus must shift more toward making money; otherwise they would be using the investment money unethically. However, if you bootstrap a business, you have more control over the direction of the company and have a little bit more wiggle room over to what extent profit plays a part in the company's mission.

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)
  - techiferous 16y ago
    I think this is probably about how the situation is framed rather than the objective facts. Consider a restaurant that charges $3.50 for a cup of coffee unless you are a senior citizen in which case the charge is $2.50. Here are two ways that this can be framed: * Coffee: $2.50 (add $1.00 surcharge if you are young) * Coffee: $3.50 ($1.00 discount if you are a senior citizen) The objective facts are the same but our subjective feelings are different. We hate getting "charged" for things but don't mind a higher baseline price if we can get a "discount". Are you sure the core of the problem isn't just that it "feels wrong" that the chip has parts that are disabled?
  - techiferous 16y ago
    "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)" I really have a hard time seeing how this is a bad thing. If I see a product and I agree that it's worth my money, I buy it. If it turns out that the product can do more than I originally expected it to, I really have a hard time seeing this as a problem. I only see the problem if the product ends up doing less than I expected.
zokier 16y ago
But companies (and individuals for that matter) need money to pursue their love/interest in something. Without reaping profits from low end, they couldn't afford to make those awesome high end CPUs.
techiferous 16y ago
Thanks for clarifying; I get where you're coming from now. It's really not a bad ideal that you express: that profit should not become the ultimate motive but something else should be the core driver of the business (a passion for solving the customers' problems, for example). I think that when a company takes on investment money from others then their focus must shift more toward making money; otherwise they would be using the investment money unethically. However, if you bootstrap a business, you have more control over the direction of the company and have a little bit more wiggle room over to what extent profit plays a part in the company's mission.