6 ms·

> But it is controversial to complain that the best stuff is more expensive than the cheap stuff. Nah. Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it woul

by dirkt 6y ago

> But it is controversial to complain that the best stuff is more expensive than the cheap stuff. Nah. Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer, without all those bells and whistles that can be turned against the user, without the Intel Management Engine, TPM, and what have you. > That's the type of stuff they sacrificed to make it cheap. No, it's economies of scale which make one expensive, and the other one cheap. And human greed, and the human need to control other humans.

culturestate 6y ago
> Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer...without the Intel Management Engine, TPM, and what have you Maybe I'm missing something here but how is it possible that on-die features like IME affect the manufacturing cost and complexity of a laptop for e.g. Dell?
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  Intel has to pay for it, so they add more to the cost that Dell has to pay, and then that cost is passed on to the consumer.
0x008 6y ago
Yes and no. Companies don't exclusively decide what they design based on the expected manifacturing cost. The decide based on the return of investment.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer, without all those bells and whistles that can be turned against the user, That's true. However, vendors don't look at manufacturing costs in isolation - they care about profit. All these user-hostile additions generate more in profit than they cost in manufacturing. This way, the best stuff costs more, even if it has less - because "value-add" garbage has negative total cost.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Don't forget that a lot of those features weren't put on there to spy on people, or control them, they were put on there to make non-technical users safer. Non-technical users can and will be tricked into doing all sorts of ridiculous things to their computer, and then they will blame the computer manufacturer for letting them do that. Computer manufacturers responded by not letting them do that. Mainstream computers are designed for mainstream users... the common clay of the land... you know... morons. They have to be protected from doing stupid things to their computers (because otherwise that's how you get botnets). As the OP says, there are computers that don't have these features, and that you can do whatever you like with. But they tend to cost more, in part because they're not mainstream so they don't get economies of scale.
paulmd 6y ago
Businesses want and will pay for management-engine features. It's more profitable to have them, therefore it is more expensive (in an opportunity cost sense) not to have them, even if you personally do not want them. You're right that it is all about economies of scale. Economies of scale say that it doesn't make sense to tape out a whole separate die just for non-business consumers. They just don't sell that many units that it's worth it. It's cheaper to make one die for everyone and then sell one die with AMT turned off, even if it involves wasting a small amount of silicon for each chip produced. Incidentally, this is why (apart from a few noxious exceptions like ECC) consumers are generally the beneficiaries of market segmentation. Businesses will pay a lot more, locking these features behind higher-priced models lets the consumer models be cheaper. Without market segmentation, the outcome isn't that you get a Xeon at the price of a Pentium, it's that you get a Xeon at the cost of a Xeon.

by dirkt 6y ago

culturestate 6y ago

> Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer...without the Intel Management Engine, TPM, and what have you Maybe I'm missing something here but how is it possible that on-die features like IME affect the manufacturing cost and complexity of a laptop for e.g. Dell?

brokenmachine 6y ago
Intel has to pay for it, so they add more to the cost that Dell has to pay, and then that cost is passed on to the consumer.

0x008 6y ago

Yes and no. Companies don't exclusively decide what they design based on the expected manifacturing cost. The decide based on the return of investment.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> Technically, and in terms of manufacturing cost, it would be even easier to make a simpler computer, without all those bells and whistles that can be turned against the user, That's true. However, vendors don't look at manufacturing costs in isolation - they care about profit. All these user-hostile additions generate more in profit than they cost in manufacturing. This way, the best stuff costs more, even if it has less - because "value-add" garbage has negative total cost.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

Don't forget that a lot of those features weren't put on there to spy on people, or control them, they were put on there to make non-technical users safer. Non-technical users can and will be tricked into doing all sorts of ridiculous things to their computer, and then they will blame the computer manufacturer for letting them do that. Computer manufacturers responded by not letting them do that. Mainstream computers are designed for mainstream users... the common clay of the land... you know... morons. They have to be protected from doing stupid things to their computers (because otherwise that's how you get botnets). As the OP says, there are computers that don't have these features, and that you can do whatever you like with. But they tend to cost more, in part because they're not mainstream so they don't get economies of scale.

paulmd 6y ago

Businesses want and will pay for management-engine features. It's more profitable to have them, therefore it is more expensive (in an opportunity cost sense) not to have them, even if you personally do not want them. You're right that it is all about economies of scale. Economies of scale say that it doesn't make sense to tape out a whole separate die just for non-business consumers. They just don't sell that many units that it's worth it. It's cheaper to make one die for everyone and then sell one die with AMT turned off, even if it involves wasting a small amount of silicon for each chip produced. Incidentally, this is why (apart from a few noxious exceptions like ECC) consumers are generally the beneficiaries of market segmentation. Businesses will pay a lot more, locking these features behind higher-priced models lets the consumer models be cheaper. Without market segmentation, the outcome isn't that you get a Xeon at the price of a Pentium, it's that you get a Xeon at the cost of a Xeon.