5 ms·

> Nvidia has always been notorious for making people use the "good stuff" (expensive) even though it's not really required. Do you think that these Quadro feat

by TomVDB 6y ago

> Nvidia has always been notorious for making people use the "good stuff" (expensive) even though it's not really required. Do you think that these Quadro features materialized out of thin air, or did they require engineering effort and additional silicon area? If the latter, is it reasonable for Nvidia to expect to be compensated for that additional effort (which is born by, say, 2 orders of magnitude lower volume) ? Additionally, would you be happier if Nvidia simply removed those features so that no home users would complain anymore (at the expense of Quadro users who would lose the ability to use real features.) And, using my standard to-go-to argument, are you similarly upset that software companies are charging different amounts of money for different tiers of a software product (e.g. Microsoft Office Home vs Professional), even though these different tiers are only enabled by a license key? If not, why?

syntaxing 6y ago
I personally think there's a pretty big difference between being compensated for their work and using software to limit where the hardware can be used (and Im not saying Nvidia is the only company that does this, like Tektronix who is even worse for it). This differs than a purely software product like you mentioned between home vs professional usage. When I buy a GPU, I expect to be able to use it as a....GPU regardless of the software it connects to. Sure, I get it, there is some additional software work such as CUDA and driver stuff depending on the package but at a basis with something like DirectX, this should be more or less software agnostic. Unfortunately our market is heading towards that direction (e.g Tesla and John Deere) where even "unlocking" the features via hardware means is a violation of DMCA.
- shard 6y ago
  The other choice would be to actually manufacture different product lines with different hardware, which would 1. increase costs, and 2. prevent the user from being able to upgrade via software, and have to buy completely new hardware. From a business, consumer, and environmental point of view, unlocking via software seems the superior solution.
- babypuncher 6y ago
  It's not that simple though. It's cheaper to engineer one chip that does everything then selectively disable certain features for lower end SKUs. Going to the effort of making different hardware for the lower end SKUs that completely lacks these features would end up raising prices for consumers because it makes engineering and manufacturing more costly. The other alternative is they just don't offer lower price SKUs and make everyone buy top-end parts.
- TomVDB 6y ago
  You say that this is different than a software product, but you don’t explain why. You didn’t buy a GPU, you bought a consumer class GPU promised you the advertised consumer class features. Why do you expect it to give you professional class features from a higher pricing tier?
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> are you similarly upset that software companies are charging different amounts of money for different tiers of a software product (e.g. Microsoft Office Home vs Professional), even though these different tiers are only enabled by a license key? Is there anyone who isn't upset by that?
- TomVDB 6y ago
  Why would you be upset by that? By lowering the price for an entry version, customers who otherwise couldn’t afford the full version still get the option to use a feature reduced version. (See how I framed that?)
  - matheusmoreira 6y ago
    > Why would you be upset by that? The former Microsoft Excel Program Manager explains it well: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-duckies/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-... > this business about segmenting? It pisses the heck off of people. > People want to feel they’re paying a fair price. They don’t want to think they’re paying extra just because they’re not clever enough to find the magic coupon code. > God help you if an A-list blogger finds out that your premium printer is identical to the cheap printer, with the speed inhibitor turned off. > So, while segmenting can be a useful tool to “capture consumer surplus,” it can have significant negative implications for the long term image of your product. > Even assuming you’re willing to deal with a long-term erosion of customer goodwill caused by blatant price discrimination, segmentation is just not that easy to pull off. First of all, as soon as your customers find out you’re doing it, they’ll lie about who they are > If your customers talk amongst themselves, they’re going to find out about the price you’re offering the other people, and you’ll find yourself forced to match the lowest prices for everyone.
- Bjartr 6y ago
  If they only offered one tier, it would be Office Professional, at a price that made sense for most businesses, so they can recoup the cost of building and providing ongoing support for the product. This would absolutely price a huge number of people out from getting Office for personal use. So, no, I don't think there are a lot of people upset that there exists an Office product they can afford.
pjlegato 6y ago
This argument assumes that pricing is to be determined through some a priori philosophical consideration of what is "fair" or "reasonable" compensation for effort involved in creating supply, according to some subjective personal idea of what those terms mean. Empirically, pricing is - always and everywhere - determined by the intersection of supply and demand, nothing more and nothing less. The labor theory of value and its relatives are empirically false.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- monadic2 6y ago
  Empirically, prices are set by the seller.
  - pjlegato 6y ago
    The seller can _ask_ for any price they like, not unilaterally "set" it. They're only going to get that, and thus set the price, if there is also a buyer who agrees to pay that price. In technical terms, I was using "set the price" to mean "discover the the market-clearing price that allows a transaction to happen."
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Right, but this attitude allows neglecting any behavior that results in bad resource distribution as inevitable and immutable. That's not how economies work by all observation. Empirically supply/demand is insufficient to explain all the market behavior that's trivially observable, especially when you can easily manipulate both sides of that narrative with enough capital. The labor theory of value certainly has issues but at the very least I would expect a critique to provide an alternative narrative of observable pricing pressures, such as scarcity and market controls. This type of reductive thinking doesn't have a clear end to my eyes.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    Sure, but the seller is not guaranteed to get sales. So there must be an agreement between the seller and the buyer on what the item is worth, and "worth" includes what alternatives both of them have available as well.
xmprt 6y ago
The big difference is that with hardware it feels wasteful. With software, you're not missing out on anything if they decide to lock certain features under a paywall. But if the hardware already exists and can perform a certain function and the only thing blocking it from doing that is a license key then doesn't that seem like a waste of good hardware? Software is unlimited but hardware isn't.

by TomVDB 6y ago

syntaxing 6y ago

I personally think there's a pretty big difference between being compensated for their work and using software to limit where the hardware can be used (and Im not saying Nvidia is the only company that does this, like Tektronix who is even worse for it). This differs than a purely software product like you mentioned between home vs professional usage. When I buy a GPU, I expect to be able to use it as a....GPU regardless of the software it connects to. Sure, I get it, there is some additional software work such as CUDA and driver stuff depending on the package but at a basis with something like DirectX, this should be more or less software agnostic. Unfortunately our market is heading towards that direction (e.g Tesla and John Deere) where even "unlocking" the features via hardware means is a violation of DMCA.

shard 6y ago
The other choice would be to actually manufacture different product lines with different hardware, which would 1. increase costs, and 2. prevent the user from being able to upgrade via software, and have to buy completely new hardware. From a business, consumer, and environmental point of view, unlocking via software seems the superior solution.
babypuncher 6y ago
It's not that simple though. It's cheaper to engineer one chip that does everything then selectively disable certain features for lower end SKUs. Going to the effort of making different hardware for the lower end SKUs that completely lacks these features would end up raising prices for consumers because it makes engineering and manufacturing more costly. The other alternative is they just don't offer lower price SKUs and make everyone buy top-end parts.
TomVDB 6y ago
You say that this is different than a software product, but you don’t explain why. You didn’t buy a GPU, you bought a consumer class GPU promised you the advertised consumer class features. Why do you expect it to give you professional class features from a higher pricing tier?

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> are you similarly upset that software companies are charging different amounts of money for different tiers of a software product (e.g. Microsoft Office Home vs Professional), even though these different tiers are only enabled by a license key? Is there anyone who isn't upset by that?

TomVDB 6y ago
Why would you be upset by that? By lowering the price for an entry version, customers who otherwise couldn’t afford the full version still get the option to use a feature reduced version. (See how I framed that?)
- matheusmoreira 6y ago
  > Why would you be upset by that? The former Microsoft Excel Program Manager explains it well: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-duckies/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-... > this business about segmenting? It pisses the heck off of people. > People want to feel they’re paying a fair price. They don’t want to think they’re paying extra just because they’re not clever enough to find the magic coupon code. > God help you if an A-list blogger finds out that your premium printer is identical to the cheap printer, with the speed inhibitor turned off. > So, while segmenting can be a useful tool to “capture consumer surplus,” it can have significant negative implications for the long term image of your product. > Even assuming you’re willing to deal with a long-term erosion of customer goodwill caused by blatant price discrimination, segmentation is just not that easy to pull off. First of all, as soon as your customers find out you’re doing it, they’ll lie about who they are > If your customers talk amongst themselves, they’re going to find out about the price you’re offering the other people, and you’ll find yourself forced to match the lowest prices for everyone.
Bjartr 6y ago
If they only offered one tier, it would be Office Professional, at a price that made sense for most businesses, so they can recoup the cost of building and providing ongoing support for the product. This would absolutely price a huge number of people out from getting Office for personal use. So, no, I don't think there are a lot of people upset that there exists an Office product they can afford.

pjlegato 6y ago

This argument assumes that pricing is to be determined through some a priori philosophical consideration of what is "fair" or "reasonable" compensation for effort involved in creating supply, according to some subjective personal idea of what those terms mean. Empirically, pricing is - always and everywhere - determined by the intersection of supply and demand, nothing more and nothing less. The labor theory of value and its relatives are empirically false.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
monadic2 6y ago
Empirically, prices are set by the seller.
- pjlegato 6y ago
  The seller can _ask_ for any price they like, not unilaterally "set" it. They're only going to get that, and thus set the price, if there is also a buyer who agrees to pay that price. In technical terms, I was using "set the price" to mean "discover the the market-clearing price that allows a transaction to happen."
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Right, but this attitude allows neglecting any behavior that results in bad resource distribution as inevitable and immutable. That's not how economies work by all observation. Empirically supply/demand is insufficient to explain all the market behavior that's trivially observable, especially when you can easily manipulate both sides of that narrative with enough capital. The labor theory of value certainly has issues but at the very least I would expect a critique to provide an alternative narrative of observable pricing pressures, such as scarcity and market controls. This type of reductive thinking doesn't have a clear end to my eyes.
- ric2b 6y ago
  Sure, but the seller is not guaranteed to get sales. So there must be an agreement between the seller and the buyer on what the item is worth, and "worth" includes what alternatives both of them have available as well.

xmprt 6y ago

The big difference is that with hardware it feels wasteful. With software, you're not missing out on anything if they decide to lock certain features under a paywall. But if the hardware already exists and can perform a certain function and the only thing blocking it from doing that is a license key then doesn't that seem like a waste of good hardware? Software is unlimited but hardware isn't.