4 ms·

> The number of people that actually care about Intel Management Engine is extremely small. I think this sentence, in isolation, actually kind of nails the pro

by amluto 2y ago

> The number of people that actually care about Intel Management Engine is extremely small. I think this sentence, in isolation, actually kind of nails the problem. I realize this isn’t what you and the article you’re replying to have in mind, but: no one cares enough about ME to buy it. After years of development, Intel has a solution to server management (and client management?) that is arguably technically superior to the crappy, power hungry chips from ASPEED and the management stacks from the likes of Dell and HPE that, until very recently, were unbelievably bad. But Intel completely failed to execute! ME should have been a headline feature, made friendly to the point where people would buy Intel systems because of ME. Anyone considering AMD or Ampere or POWER would be annoyed because their organization heavily used ME and Intel’s competitors didn’t have it! But instead, Intel hid the good parts (iAMT) behind annoying SKUs, obnoxious and secretive software and weird proprietary lock-ins. And the result is: no one cares about ME! (Intel has messed up most of its recent features in almost exactly the same way.)

BobbyTables2 2y ago
Fully agree — always thought the same way. Saw AMT once about 15 years ago — available for free on an Intel banded desktop motherboard. Now I can’t even pay money to use it on my modern PCs…
nonrandomstring 2y ago
This is a good point that I cannot disagree with. One more round in the magazine of the Intel footgun. Lack of openness and engagement with customers cuts both ways. The ME tech is great for a market segment of industrial datacentres. If those buyers chose to prioritise energy and management over security, then hurrah to whatever works for them. But as you say, Intel hid it away. Like a guilty secret. They somehow forgot to tell even their most Evil™ customers about the Evil Inside™. Which is jolly suspicious. And they've hidden away other "features" that trash security. It may be the number of people who "actually care about Intel Management Engine is extremely small", but those who do matter and they make decisions. Yes performance is important but security factors are going to be gaining more and more influence now. So Intel were told time and time again that people want legible, well documented products with no surprises, and they ignored that.

by amluto 2y ago

BobbyTables2 2y ago

Fully agree — always thought the same way. Saw AMT once about 15 years ago — available for free on an Intel banded desktop motherboard. Now I can’t even pay money to use it on my modern PCs…

nonrandomstring 2y ago

This is a good point that I cannot disagree with. One more round in the magazine of the Intel footgun. Lack of openness and engagement with customers cuts both ways. The ME tech is great for a market segment of industrial datacentres. If those buyers chose to prioritise energy and management over security, then hurrah to whatever works for them. But as you say, Intel hid it away. Like a guilty secret. They somehow forgot to tell even their most Evil™ customers about the Evil Inside™. Which is jolly suspicious. And they've hidden away other "features" that trash security. It may be the number of people who "actually care about Intel Management Engine is extremely small", but those who do matter and they make decisions. Yes performance is important but security factors are going to be gaining more and more influence now. So Intel were told time and time again that people want legible, well documented products with no surprises, and they ignored that.