5 ms·

Intel Officially Introduces Pay-as-You-Go Chip Licensing

15 points by andrew-ld 4y ago

brookst 4y ago
A lot of tech people really hate pricing that is based on value delivered rather than cost of ingredients, but I like it. It is inefficient to make multiple SKUs just to leave out features. This model is more economically efficient, and ultimately better for both Intel and buyers. If you can get over the “different price for the same transistors” thing. But as a buyer, would you rather 1) pay more for features you don’t need, 2) pay more for the cost of Intel making a different SKU just to remove those features, or 3) pay less and just have features you don’t need turned off in software?
- fuzzfactor 4y ago
  >would you rather 1) pay more for features you don’t need I would rather have early adopters pay for features I wouldn't pay for, then after the price comes down, or even relative obsolescence has occurred, I can adopt the full technology at a price I can afford. The only consumer-beneficial approach to things like this is when the base model which has none of the optional features is still decently high-performance, and priced truly cheap enough for anyone who would be the least bit interested not to hesitate to buy. If the general consensus is that the bare-bones model is a wonderful bargain and just fine for the vast majority of potential users, then a much more expensive or even overpriced deluxe version geared for the small minority of very well-heeled consumers is sensible. When it's designed the other way around, the "bare-bones" model ends up being overpriced to some extent by osmosis, nobody ever gets a "good deal" and it's limiting for everybody.
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  100% "pay more for features you don’t need" or "pay more for the cost of Intel making a different SKU just to remove those features". Features they can activate can be deactivated (deliberately or due to bugs), and I'd rather not take on that risk if I can avoid it.
- LocalH 4y ago
  I think they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. In the old days, doing this would risk someone creating a method to expose and use the additional features. Now everything’s so encrypted and locked down that they can literally nickel and dime people to death. This used to be the exclusive domain of big metal, not inflicted on the low end of the market. Yet another step towards the fewest rights possible
  - cyclotron3k 4y ago
    I'd give it a week before some motivated teenager finds a way to unlock all features
- janef0421 4y ago
  It may be economically efficient, but it's materially inefficient. You're increasing the amount of materials and labour required in order to reduce the utility of manufactured products. This indicates an error in the economic system.
  - YakBizzarro 4y ago
    In my experience, it's the exact opposite. The gain of such things in logistics, stock management, production are much better than a slightly higher cost of goods. It enable to sell stuff even in cases when it would be too expensive, and enable cheap followup businnes. I would say that such model is much more acceptable in b2b
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jayparth 4y ago
    > materials They're all printed from the same wafers. > labor It's not like manual laborers are sitting there carving these things by hand. We program computers to do it. Reprogramming and setting up the hardware for multiple SKUs increases cost, paradoxically
    - uluyol 4y ago
      > They're all printed from the same wafers. Not just that. When you fab a design you'll get sometimes get errors here or there and have to disable things. Or it won't be safe to drive the thing to the highest clock speeds. But none of that is happening here: we're talking about the same design and same output quality. Really just absolute greed and lack of innovation. I hope ARM and AMD continue to eat away at them for this reason. Same feeling about BMW/Mercedes and the subscription heated seats.
      - brookst 4y ago
        Would you be happier if Intel spent the money to have a second SKU that removed the features in silicon, including imperfect yield, and charged more than they are now to cover that extra cost? Pricing makes more sense when you pay for value delivered.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
- nhinck2 4y ago
  How long until we get to a clock speed boost subscription?
- rolenthedeep 4y ago
  I'd argue it's less resource efficient. Presently, chips are individually tested and "binned" into performance groups. The chips that aren't stable at high clocks, or have a bad chunk of cache are binned and sold as a lower performance model. If not for this process, a significant amount of chips would go into the trash before even being packaged. If instead every chip must be capable of performing at top specs just in case the user upgrades the license. You can't bin partially defective chips as lower performance models, because there is no lower performance model. The entire line needs to meet the top spec, or a license upgrade could cause physical damage to the system. The binning model is fine. It lets manufacturers sell the vast majority of their chips, and consumers get a deal by buying the lower performance models. Some users still decide to unlock the chips by various means, with completely unpredictable results. The proposed license scheme doesn't solve any problems, and it doesn't benefit consumers. It creates more waste and passes the cost of that waste to the consumer.
  - talvi 4y ago
    This was exactly my thought. I guess it’s possible there’s another answer but it feels like marketing bs

15 points by andrew-ld 4y ago

A lot of tech people really hate pricing that is based on value delivered rather than cost of ingredients, but I like it. It is inefficient to make multiple SKUs just to leave out features. This model is more economically efficient, and ultimately better for both Intel and buyers. If you can get over the “different price for the same transistors” thing. But as a buyer, would you rather 1) pay more for features you don’t need, 2) pay more for the cost of Intel making a different SKU just to remove those features, or 3) pay less and just have features you don’t need turned off in software?

fuzzfactor 4y ago
>would you rather 1) pay more for features you don’t need I would rather have early adopters pay for features I wouldn't pay for, then after the price comes down, or even relative obsolescence has occurred, I can adopt the full technology at a price I can afford. The only consumer-beneficial approach to things like this is when the base model which has none of the optional features is still decently high-performance, and priced truly cheap enough for anyone who would be the least bit interested not to hesitate to buy. If the general consensus is that the bare-bones model is a wonderful bargain and just fine for the vast majority of potential users, then a much more expensive or even overpriced deluxe version geared for the small minority of very well-heeled consumers is sensible. When it's designed the other way around, the "bare-bones" model ends up being overpriced to some extent by osmosis, nobody ever gets a "good deal" and it's limiting for everybody.
dpkirchner 4y ago
100% "pay more for features you don’t need" or "pay more for the cost of Intel making a different SKU just to remove those features". Features they can activate can be deactivated (deliberately or due to bugs), and I'd rather not take on that risk if I can avoid it.
LocalH 4y ago
I think they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too. In the old days, doing this would risk someone creating a method to expose and use the additional features. Now everything’s so encrypted and locked down that they can literally nickel and dime people to death. This used to be the exclusive domain of big metal, not inflicted on the low end of the market. Yet another step towards the fewest rights possible
- cyclotron3k 4y ago
  I'd give it a week before some motivated teenager finds a way to unlock all features
janef0421 4y ago
It may be economically efficient, but it's materially inefficient. You're increasing the amount of materials and labour required in order to reduce the utility of manufactured products. This indicates an error in the economic system.
- YakBizzarro 4y ago
  In my experience, it's the exact opposite. The gain of such things in logistics, stock management, production are much better than a slightly higher cost of goods. It enable to sell stuff even in cases when it would be too expensive, and enable cheap followup businnes. I would say that such model is much more acceptable in b2b
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jayparth 4y ago
  > materials They're all printed from the same wafers. > labor It's not like manual laborers are sitting there carving these things by hand. We program computers to do it. Reprogramming and setting up the hardware for multiple SKUs increases cost, paradoxically
  - uluyol 4y ago
    > They're all printed from the same wafers. Not just that. When you fab a design you'll get sometimes get errors here or there and have to disable things. Or it won't be safe to drive the thing to the highest clock speeds. But none of that is happening here: we're talking about the same design and same output quality. Really just absolute greed and lack of innovation. I hope ARM and AMD continue to eat away at them for this reason. Same feeling about BMW/Mercedes and the subscription heated seats.
    - brookst 4y ago
      Would you be happier if Intel spent the money to have a second SKU that removed the features in silicon, including imperfect yield, and charged more than they are now to cover that extra cost? Pricing makes more sense when you pay for value delivered.
sieabahlpark 4y ago
nhinck2 4y ago
How long until we get to a clock speed boost subscription?
rolenthedeep 4y ago
I'd argue it's less resource efficient. Presently, chips are individually tested and "binned" into performance groups. The chips that aren't stable at high clocks, or have a bad chunk of cache are binned and sold as a lower performance model. If not for this process, a significant amount of chips would go into the trash before even being packaged. If instead every chip must be capable of performing at top specs just in case the user upgrades the license. You can't bin partially defective chips as lower performance models, because there is no lower performance model. The entire line needs to meet the top spec, or a license upgrade could cause physical damage to the system. The binning model is fine. It lets manufacturers sell the vast majority of their chips, and consumers get a deal by buying the lower performance models. Some users still decide to unlock the chips by various means, with completely unpredictable results. The proposed license scheme doesn't solve any problems, and it doesn't benefit consumers. It creates more waste and passes the cost of that waste to the consumer.
- talvi 4y ago
  This was exactly my thought. I guess it’s possible there’s another answer but it feels like marketing bs