5 ms·
Parent was pointing to a real world analogous situation which we don't get upset about, and accusing OP of hypocrisy. But it was a flawed argument, because CPU
by reitzensteinm 7y ago
Parent was pointing to a real world analogous situation which we don't get upset about, and accusing OP of hypocrisy.
But it was a flawed argument, because CPU binning is not at all like Tesla software limiting battery packs. It's totally valid to be upset about one but not the other (personally I'm fine with both).
You coming up with any sort of theoretical scenario to continue the analogy doesn't counter my argument or boost theirs. We don't need help understanding what Tesla is doing.
- alkonaut 7y agoI wasn't talking about CPU binning, that's the practice of producing items with variying quality and selling the higher quality parts for a premium. I'm talking about making 1000 widgets at the same production cost and then making half of them worse (disabling a feature) and selling them cheaper - because it is cheaper to produce 1000 of the same widget than making 500 simple widgets and 500 more complex widgets and sell the complex widget at a premium, and in order to not let the cheap widget cannibalize the sales of the better one, it needs to be made worse after production. This has happened very rarely in the case of CPU's but it's not unheard of, and it's not the same as binning. It's a very valid and very real business strategy for other areas, where it is more common than for CPU's. Edit: Perhaps a better example for CPU's is making a single CPU die in manufacturing but producing a more expensive enterprise/pro part and a cheaper consumer part, where the difference is disabling some feature (an instruction set extension for example) in microcode.
- reitzensteinm 7y agoI get the strong sense you're not reading what I have written. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I don't understand why you're saying it to me.