11 ms·

Isn’t that the same with a lot of hardware? Like CPUs where you have to pay more to get a feature unlocked that’s there but unusable when you do not pay extra?

Isn’t that the same with a lot of hardware? Like CPUs where you have to pay more to get a feature unlocked that’s there but unusable when you do not pay extra? And also the same for almost all software with multiple feature sets. I don’t understand why it’s bad when MS does it.

dsr_ 7y ago
I assert that it's usually bad when anyone does it, because it is evidence that they have excess market power. If there were enough competition, they couldn't produce a thing with capabilities x,y, and z and then charge an unlock fee for y and z.
- rat9988 7y ago
  >it is evidence that they have excess market power. Tesla doesn't and they still dot it.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    Doesnt it? It has huge brand value, a great niche, mass flowing... it's almost apple of cars.
- bostonpete 7y ago
  Lots of complex software systems are sold this way, allowing customers to add-on features a la carte. I don't see that as a bad thing -- allows people who only need a subset of the functionality to only pay for what they need. Oftentimes, the functionality is sitting there waiting to be unlocked.
- Semaphor 7y ago
  So for example LINQPad [0] has excessive market power? It’s a REPL for C#. [0]: https://www.linqpad.net/Purchase.aspx https://www.linqpad.net/Purchase.aspx (Purchase site has the version comparison) edit: I’d actually go as far as saying that by your definition almost every good software tool has excessive market power.
  - undersuit 7y ago
    Your software is all the same quality. The copy one customer has doesn't have a series of bits in it that are mistakes in the production that can't be removed. Everyone's binary is capable of the same actions. Software is malleable, hardware by it's very name is less so.
- 7952 7y ago
  The alternative may be that having a single price point would price some consumers out of the market.
- zaarn 7y ago
  Most mainframe manufacturers will ship you a mainframe that has been configured way above what the customer ordered. Because in most cases the customer will upgrade and changing a license key is cheaper than building and shipping a new mainframe.
- sounds 7y ago
  Sibling comments assert that software with unlocks demonstrates the importance of allowing "locks" on capabilities. That's the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. Specifically, siblings start from the true statement that: people buy software with locks. They then affirm the consequent, that software with locks is the correct market solution.
maccard 7y ago
Hardware is _kind of_ different. Hardware is usually binned for tolerances/expected demand. e.g. the manufacturing process for an i5 and an i3 might be the same, but the acceptable tolerances for an i3 are lower. If the part fails the test for an i5, it will be sold as an i3, and the extra features disabled. This makes sense, otherwise you run into a bad press part lottery. (of course they do also bin based on demand/sales, which is scummy.)
- ChuckNorris89 7y ago
  >of course they do also bin based on demand/sales, which is scummy. Why is this scummy? It's a free market and it's not a life saving drug, they can ask for whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to buy it. That's like saying "Software engineers are paid according to demand/market which is scummy." The best business strategy for companies and professionals alike is to find a niche with less competition where you are a leader(cough, monopoly, cough) and charge whatever the market will bear. If Apple/Microsoft/AMD/Intel can get away with that it means the market can bear it. The fact that you don't like it, is another issue.
  - bobbob1921 7y ago
    i agree , you can also add vmware to this list. they ship a free (and great imo) hypervisor which has full features built in, with only a license key unlocking those advanced (and expensive) features. this also applies to almost every piece of demoware software.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    Because it's price gouging. They would be actively restricting supply of their highest-performing parts for no other reason than to charge a higher price for them. Software engineers don't do this, they're highly paid because demand is so huge that it outstrips even an ample supply. Of course, in practice, it can be hard to tell whether intentional "crippling" is going on. Yield problems are common and might manifest in the exact same way, after all - for example, chips that don't "make timing" for their design frequency can be sold for lower specs.

dsr_ 7y ago

I assert that it's usually bad when anyone does it, because it is evidence that they have excess market power. If there were enough competition, they couldn't produce a thing with capabilities x,y, and z and then charge an unlock fee for y and z.

rat9988 7y ago
>it is evidence that they have excess market power. Tesla doesn't and they still dot it.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  Doesnt it? It has huge brand value, a great niche, mass flowing... it's almost apple of cars.
bostonpete 7y ago
Lots of complex software systems are sold this way, allowing customers to add-on features a la carte. I don't see that as a bad thing -- allows people who only need a subset of the functionality to only pay for what they need. Oftentimes, the functionality is sitting there waiting to be unlocked.
Semaphor 7y ago
So for example LINQPad [0] has excessive market power? It’s a REPL for C#. [0]: https://www.linqpad.net/Purchase.aspx https://www.linqpad.net/Purchase.aspx (Purchase site has the version comparison) edit: I’d actually go as far as saying that by your definition almost every good software tool has excessive market power.
- undersuit 7y ago
  Your software is all the same quality. The copy one customer has doesn't have a series of bits in it that are mistakes in the production that can't be removed. Everyone's binary is capable of the same actions. Software is malleable, hardware by it's very name is less so.
7952 7y ago
The alternative may be that having a single price point would price some consumers out of the market.
zaarn 7y ago
Most mainframe manufacturers will ship you a mainframe that has been configured way above what the customer ordered. Because in most cases the customer will upgrade and changing a license key is cheaper than building and shipping a new mainframe.
sounds 7y ago
Sibling comments assert that software with unlocks demonstrates the importance of allowing "locks" on capabilities. That's the "affirming the consequent" fallacy. Specifically, siblings start from the true statement that: people buy software with locks. They then affirm the consequent, that software with locks is the correct market solution.

maccard 7y ago

Hardware is _kind of_ different. Hardware is usually binned for tolerances/expected demand. e.g. the manufacturing process for an i5 and an i3 might be the same, but the acceptable tolerances for an i3 are lower. If the part fails the test for an i5, it will be sold as an i3, and the extra features disabled. This makes sense, otherwise you run into a bad press part lottery. (of course they do also bin based on demand/sales, which is scummy.)

ChuckNorris89 7y ago
>of course they do also bin based on demand/sales, which is scummy. Why is this scummy? It's a free market and it's not a life saving drug, they can ask for whatever they want, nobody is forcing you to buy it. That's like saying "Software engineers are paid according to demand/market which is scummy." The best business strategy for companies and professionals alike is to find a niche with less competition where you are a leader(cough, monopoly, cough) and charge whatever the market will bear. If Apple/Microsoft/AMD/Intel can get away with that it means the market can bear it. The fact that you don't like it, is another issue.
- bobbob1921 7y ago
  i agree , you can also add vmware to this list. they ship a free (and great imo) hypervisor which has full features built in, with only a license key unlocking those advanced (and expensive) features. this also applies to almost every piece of demoware software.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Because it's price gouging. They would be actively restricting supply of their highest-performing parts for no other reason than to charge a higher price for them. Software engineers don't do this, they're highly paid because demand is so huge that it outstrips even an ample supply. Of course, in practice, it can be hard to tell whether intentional "crippling" is going on. Yield problems are common and might manifest in the exact same way, after all - for example, chips that don't "make timing" for their design frequency can be sold for lower specs.