5 ms·

The website has a clear and concise explanation of "Intel On Demand": > What Is Intel On Demand? > Align your infrastructure investment with your business dem

The website has a clear and concise explanation of "Intel On Demand": > What Is Intel On Demand? > Align your infrastructure investment with your business demands with Intel’s API-enabled business offerings that deliver flexible consumption and configurations. That answered all my questions.

_8j50 4y ago
Indeed. They will help me align my investments!
- bayindirh 4y ago
  With your business demands, no less!
baal80spam 4y ago
It really reads as if it was created by a "bullshit corpspeak generator".
ainar-g 4y ago
tl;dr: pay extra to actually use the CPU you have already bought.
- manicdee 4y ago
  Pay extra to use features that would normally require buying a more expensive SKU. We’re talking the difference between Chill Mode and Standard Acceleration, not seat warmers.
- Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
  This happens in other markets just fine, one that springs to mind is oscilloscopes. Often you will find that a the hardware in one model is the same as the hardware in scopes in the same "family", what differs is software / locks set. This allows the manufacturer save on costs during manufacture but place the R&D cost (and profit from that R&D) onto the customers requiring those needed features. Its quite common to buy a lower end scope and unlock some extra sample size, seom extra bandwidth, some extra decoders by following a guide found on the net. (My personal theory as to why manufacturers don't lock these down more is because it gets home lab engineers more inclined to buy a brand they know they can hack and get the best bang for their buck in the hopes that will help drive sales when it comes to their companies requiring new lab gear). If I were to give Intel the benefit of the doubt, They currently have a sizable SKU count in any generation of processor that are basically the same silicon under the hood just binned/hardware locked differently based on any manufacturing defeats and customer demand. If the locks already exist (be it hardware locks atm) why not move those locks to software and allow customers to unlock extra features as required? As long as Intel don't a) convert to a "pay as you go"/subscription model or b) pump up the base price to gouge customers on common features I'm not going to loose any sleep over it, however but it wouldn't be the first time a company has fucked over customers.
  - q-big 4y ago
    > This happens in other markets just fine, one that springs to mind is oscilloscopes. Often you will find that a the hardware in one model is the same as the hardware in scopes in the same "family", what differs is software / locks set. There exist quite some makers who solve this "oscilloscope tiering" by installing a hacked or alternative open source firmware on the oscilloscope.
    - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
      My personal fav (while not a scope) is the Flir hacking years ago (Not sure if they have locked them down since). Things like converting a Flir E4 to an E8 via software alone (and vastly improving the resolution) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/msg321956/#msg321956 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-therma...
  - rkagerer 4y ago
    My personal theory as to why manufacturers don't lock these down more... In a similar vein, I strongly suspect Windows would never have become the #1 OS had Microsoft locked it down further in its heyday.
    - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
      I'm not going to disagree I mean after all Bill gates is quoted as saying back in 98 > Although 3 million computers get sold each year in China, people don’t pay for our software. Someday they will, though, and as long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. Though by the time XP came around MS was no longer happy with the casual copier although VL still made it pretty dam easy to pirate windows. I still enjoy listening to Dave Plummers talk about windows product activation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKNFCFABp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKNFCFABp0
ClassyJacket 4y ago
I had the exact same thought. They clearly have no intention of answering the question. They clearly don't want the reader to have any idea what it is. Why even include the question?
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  Confusion and fear of dwelling in a lower intelligence bracket (because maybe smart people understood the answer) is a simple way to hand-wave the problem away. You don’t understand? Perhaps you can’t! Only a few will call bullshit. Likely on niche sites on the internet. Probably not in such a dramatic way that the masses take note. There might be a funny meme image gif. The question is asked so that an answer may be provided, so that the question has been answered. That avoids anyone getting surprised by the question and giving the wrong answer. The right answer doesn’t have to mean… anything. Delay, deny, distract. Until the avoidable is inevitable. Then we are all to blame, not just some poor corporation that meant well. After all, they told us what they were doing and we didn’t object!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
the_duke 4y ago
Well, they really did need a massive amount of corpo speak to rephrase: > From now on, we will force you to buy subscriptions for hardware you already bought and is already sitting in your data center, because $$$
- kimixa 4y ago
  Or the other way, "Features that were previously fused off due to market differentiation but the same die otherwise can now be accessed without throwing away the current product and re-buying different SKUs (e.g. server/workstation Xeon chips)" How "Acceptable" this is really depends on what features are going to be behind this paywall.
- Pet_Ant 4y ago
  > for hardware you already bought Is it really? If it's not retroactive, and you knew it going in and perhaps got a discount for it at purchase time is it really "you already brought". It's more like instead of destructively fusing off capabilities of functional products (ie irrecoverably ruining perfectly good hardware to enforce market segmentation), they make it easy to upgrade later. This isn't really that bad an idea. As long as I can buy it fully unlocked from the get-go and am never forced into a subscription (as opposed to one-off) on my home workstation I really don't mind.
  - the_duke 4y ago
    It doesn't change my mind, but this is a valid counter argument and you shouldn't be downvoted.

_8j50 4y ago

Indeed. They will help me align my investments!

bayindirh 4y ago
With your business demands, no less!

baal80spam 4y ago

It really reads as if it was created by a "bullshit corpspeak generator".

ainar-g 4y ago

tl;dr: pay extra to actually use the CPU you have already bought.

manicdee 4y ago
Pay extra to use features that would normally require buying a more expensive SKU. We’re talking the difference between Chill Mode and Standard Acceleration, not seat warmers.
Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
This happens in other markets just fine, one that springs to mind is oscilloscopes. Often you will find that a the hardware in one model is the same as the hardware in scopes in the same "family", what differs is software / locks set. This allows the manufacturer save on costs during manufacture but place the R&D cost (and profit from that R&D) onto the customers requiring those needed features. Its quite common to buy a lower end scope and unlock some extra sample size, seom extra bandwidth, some extra decoders by following a guide found on the net. (My personal theory as to why manufacturers don't lock these down more is because it gets home lab engineers more inclined to buy a brand they know they can hack and get the best bang for their buck in the hopes that will help drive sales when it comes to their companies requiring new lab gear). If I were to give Intel the benefit of the doubt, They currently have a sizable SKU count in any generation of processor that are basically the same silicon under the hood just binned/hardware locked differently based on any manufacturing defeats and customer demand. If the locks already exist (be it hardware locks atm) why not move those locks to software and allow customers to unlock extra features as required? As long as Intel don't a) convert to a "pay as you go"/subscription model or b) pump up the base price to gouge customers on common features I'm not going to loose any sleep over it, however but it wouldn't be the first time a company has fucked over customers.
- q-big 4y ago
  > This happens in other markets just fine, one that springs to mind is oscilloscopes. Often you will find that a the hardware in one model is the same as the hardware in scopes in the same "family", what differs is software / locks set. There exist quite some makers who solve this "oscilloscope tiering" by installing a hacked or alternative open source firmware on the oscilloscope.
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    My personal fav (while not a scope) is the Flir hacking years ago (Not sure if they have locked them down since). Things like converting a Flir E4 to an E8 via software alone (and vastly improving the resolution) https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-thermal-imaging-camera-teardown/msg321956/#msg321956 https://www.eevblog.com/forum/thermal-imaging/flir-e4-therma...
- rkagerer 4y ago
  My personal theory as to why manufacturers don't lock these down more... In a similar vein, I strongly suspect Windows would never have become the #1 OS had Microsoft locked it down further in its heyday.
  - Crosseye_Jack 4y ago
    I'm not going to disagree I mean after all Bill gates is quoted as saying back in 98 > Although 3 million computers get sold each year in China, people don’t pay for our software. Someday they will, though, and as long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. Though by the time XP came around MS was no longer happy with the casual copier although VL still made it pretty dam easy to pirate windows. I still enjoy listening to Dave Plummers talk about windows product activation - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKNFCFABp0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpKNFCFABp0

ClassyJacket 4y ago

I had the exact same thought. They clearly have no intention of answering the question. They clearly don't want the reader to have any idea what it is. Why even include the question?

catchnear4321 4y ago
Confusion and fear of dwelling in a lower intelligence bracket (because maybe smart people understood the answer) is a simple way to hand-wave the problem away. You don’t understand? Perhaps you can’t! Only a few will call bullshit. Likely on niche sites on the internet. Probably not in such a dramatic way that the masses take note. There might be a funny meme image gif. The question is asked so that an answer may be provided, so that the question has been answered. That avoids anyone getting surprised by the question and giving the wrong answer. The right answer doesn’t have to mean… anything. Delay, deny, distract. Until the avoidable is inevitable. Then we are all to blame, not just some poor corporation that meant well. After all, they told us what they were doing and we didn’t object!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

the_duke 4y ago

Well, they really did need a massive amount of corpo speak to rephrase: > From now on, we will force you to buy subscriptions for hardware you already bought and is already sitting in your data center, because $$$

kimixa 4y ago
Or the other way, "Features that were previously fused off due to market differentiation but the same die otherwise can now be accessed without throwing away the current product and re-buying different SKUs (e.g. server/workstation Xeon chips)" How "Acceptable" this is really depends on what features are going to be behind this paywall.
Pet_Ant 4y ago
> for hardware you already bought Is it really? If it's not retroactive, and you knew it going in and perhaps got a discount for it at purchase time is it really "you already brought". It's more like instead of destructively fusing off capabilities of functional products (ie irrecoverably ruining perfectly good hardware to enforce market segmentation), they make it easy to upgrade later. This isn't really that bad an idea. As long as I can buy it fully unlocked from the get-go and am never forced into a subscription (as opposed to one-off) on my home workstation I really don't mind.
- the_duke 4y ago
  It doesn't change my mind, but this is a valid counter argument and you shouldn't be downvoted.