2 ms·

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 t

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.
- semanticist 16y ago
  As I understand it, Intel are not selling these CPUs directly to consumers at all. The CPUs are in a specific model of Gateway machine. I presume that Intel will have discussed with this Gateway, since it has their name on the card, and will have sold the CPUs to them 'at face value'. Did the use of these CPUs affect Gateway's pricing for the machines they sold to consumers? Seems unlikely, the low-end PC market has no margin to allow manufacturers to charge extra for something that's not an immediate benefit.

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.
semanticist 16y ago
As I understand it, Intel are not selling these CPUs directly to consumers at all. The CPUs are in a specific model of Gateway machine. I presume that Intel will have discussed with this Gateway, since it has their name on the card, and will have sold the CPUs to them 'at face value'. Did the use of these CPUs affect Gateway's pricing for the machines they sold to consumers? Seems unlikely, the low-end PC market has no margin to allow manufacturers to charge extra for something that's not an immediate benefit.