Intel offering downloadable hardware upgrades for low end chips.

[LordJummy]

I have no problem paying for the things I want and/or need. I don't see the logic in your statement.
I bought a Jeep Wrangler. It was priced reasonably and I like it a lot.
I like the house we live in and have no problem paying property taxes for the services we get.
I pay for gas, electricity, TV, internet, insurance, etc. etc.
If I feel that a product or service is overpriced I look for other options (and often do so), if they are available.
If nothing else is available and I still want the service, I pay for it (although with a reasonable amount of bitching. )

So you're telling me you LIKE paying for those things?

Let me help you: You don't mind paying them because you have been conditioned to not mind. You feel there is no other option, so you have become complacent. They make you feel like you have a choice by artificially filling the market with tons of different models, which are all basically the same crap crippled in different ways, with different price tags. I realize they have a right to do this, but it doesn't make it okay to me at all. That's saying the least.

In my case, I simply require the processors I've purchased in order to maintain my businesses. This is just a fact. Do I like paying for them? No. Is there another option for me? No. So I do what I must, just as you do.

 

[theJesus]

So you're telling me you LIKE paying for those things?

Let me help you: You don't mind paying them because you have been conditioned to not mind. You feel there is no other option, so you have become complacent. They make you feel like you have a choice by artificially filling the market with tons of different models, which are all basically the same crap crippled in different ways, with different price tags. I realize they have a right to do this, but it doesn't make it okay to me at all. That's saying the least.

In my case, I simply require the processors I've purchased in order to maintain my businesses. This is just a fact. Do I like paying for them? No. Is there another option for me? No. So I do what I must, just as you do.

I'm confused. Are you trying to say that companies should just give away cars and houses to everybody?

 

[Kreij]

Let me help you: You don't mind paying them because you have been conditioned to not mind.

Uhh ... no.
I work so that I have the means to afford the things that I want and need.
Should someone who has not put in the effort I have to get where I am, or who doesn't do anything at all, be entitled or have the right to, the same things I worked hard to get?
No, they should not.

When you purchased a processor at a certain price point, it came with certain specs and features. That is what you paid for and that is all you are entitled to get.
If you wanted a better processor you should have purchased that in the first place.

 

[LordJummy]

I'm confused. Are you trying to say that companies should just give away cars and houses to everybody?

Is that really what you took from that?

All I am saying is that the current monetary system is fucked, and so is the way most corporations are doing business.

However, I do see a problem with there being lots of empty houses all over the world with people living on the streets. Does that make sense to you? Should companies give them away? No, because it will hurt the companies. I'm just saying the way things are setup right now is not working. I think this is becoming quite obvious.

I don't want to reply anymore, as I hate to ruin a thread. If you would like to argue with me feel free to PM me or send me a skype message or something. Sorry OP!

Uhh ... no.
I work so that I have the means to afford the things that I want and need.
Should someone who has not put in the effort I have to get where I am, or who doesn't do anything at all, be entitled or have the right to, the same things I worked hard to get?
No, they should not.

When you purchased a processor at a certain price point, it came with certain specs and features. That is what you paid for and that is all you are entitled to get.
If you wanted a better processor you should have purchased that in the first place.

I'm not saying anyone is entitled to have what you have. I'm just saying that this system doesn't work plain and simple. It works for some, like you and i - but it is a cold hard fact that some people have to suffer in this system. It doesn't just boil down to everyone working hard. With the way the money is created, some people will HAVE to suffer while others prosper. There is no way around that.

 

[Kreij]

Thanks for a little verbal sparring, LJ ... and thanks for keeping it civil and not getting personal.
You are right, the problems of this world are not what this thread is about.

Carry on all (On topic).

 

[theJesus]

Is that really what you took from that?

Yes.

All I am saying is that the current monetary system is fucked, and so is the way most corporations are doing business.

How would you improve it?

However, I do see a problem with there being lots of empty houses all over the world with people living on the streets. Does that make sense to you? Should companies give them away? No, because it will hurt the companies. I'm just saying the way things are setup right now is not working. I think this is becoming quite obvious.

Again, how would you improve it?

I don't want to reply anymore, as I hate to ruin a thread. If you would like to argue with me feel free to PM me or send me a skype message or something. Sorry OP!

Oh, OK, nvm then.

 

[KainXS]

Uhh ... no.
Should someone who has not put in the effort I have to get where I am, or who doesn't do anything at all, be entitled or have the right to, the same things I worked hard to get?
No, they should not.

and . . . . . . . they're people working much harder, that have put in more effort than you and me in poor countries making next to nothing with no chance of improvement.

is this a rip off, maybe
will someone buy it anyway, yes(and thats all that matters)

 

[Kreij]

I'm not sure if it's a bad deal for someone that is not very tech savy.
Let's say they buy the X1 processor for $100 (because the X2 is $250 and out of their reach).
Later Intel sells them the upgrade to the X2 for $50.
As long as the X2 is still over $150, it's not a bad deal ... is it?

 

[LordJummy]

I'm not sure if it's a bad deal for someone that is not very tech savy.
Let's say they buy the X1 processor for $100 (because the X2 is $250 and out of their reach).
Later Intel sells them the upgrade to the X2 for $50.
As long as the X2 is still over $150, it's not a bad deal ... is it?

Technically it might not be a bad deal in terms of performance vs. money spent, however the practice of crippling something with the intention of making more money off of it later is not very ethical IMHO.

 

[Easy Rhino]

surprise surprise, a debate about DLC and how it is terrible and OMGBBQ we are all being ripped off by the evil companiezzzzzz!!!1111!1! all chip manufacturers purposely cripple their chips for a variety of reasons. not a big deal.

 

[L|NK|N]

Dear Intel, I would like to download a hardware update for my hard drive to turn it into an SSD. Also could I download 4 more cores plz?

 

[LordJummy]

surprise surprise, a debate about DLC and how it is terrible and OMGBBQ we are all being ripped off by the evil companiezzzzzz!!!1111!1! all chip manufacturers purposely cripple their chips for a variety of reasons. not a big deal.

I'm sorry, but if we don't debate it and let manufacturers know our opinion then it will only get worse. What good are you doing by downplaying it?

 

[Easy Rhino]

I'm sorry, but if we don't debate it and let manufacturers know our opinion then it will only get worse. What good are you doing by downplaying it?

what good are you doing by up-playing it? all chip manufacturers cripple their chips to spread out the cost of those chips. this widens their market both in terms of the consumers financial situation and the consumers actual processing needs.

 

[LordJummy]

what good are you doing by up-playing it? all chip manufacturers cripple their chips to spread out the cost of those chips. this widens their market both in terms of the consumers financial situation and the consumers actual processing needs.

I don't really think I am "up playing" it. To myself and many others, it is a very big deal. I think your "they do it so just deal with it!" attitude is just extremely negative and the reason why big corps will continue to stomp on consumers. That is all. We can agree to disagree if you don't want to talk about it. No one is forcing you

 

[Easy Rhino]

I don't really think I am "up playing" it. To myself and many others, it is a very big deal. I think your "they do it so just deal with it!" attitude is just extremely negative and the reason why big corps will continue to stomp on consumers. That is all.

if they didnt cripple their chips in order to spread out the market, a practice they have been doing practically since their developed silicon, we would not have a consumer pc market. so yea, deal with it.

 

[Kreij]

Technically it might not be a bad deal in terms of performance vs. money spent, however the practice of crippling something with the intention of making more money off of it later is not very ethical IMHO.

Hmm ... I guess I look at it from a different stand point.
Intel (or whomever) makes a product that they feel they need to sell at a certain price point in order to recoup their costs in R&D and make a profit on their efforts.

They then reduce the feature set in order to fullfill a lower-end market need and to also play fair with the people who shelled out the full price for the full featured product.
It really pisses people off when they pay X for something and a month later the price drops by 50%.

Seems reasonably ethical to me, as they are letting you know up front what you are getting when you make your purchase.

@LiNKiN : lol

 

[LordJummy]

if they didnt cripple their chips in order to spread out the market, a practice they have been doing practically since their developed silicon, we would not have a consumer pc market. so yea, deal with it.

I am aware of this. I actually deal with it on a daily basis when I am ordering servers for our web hosting brands. Doesn't mean it's the right way of doing things. Again though, I do not have all the answers - just questions. I appreciate your opinion.

 

[Kreij]

I know how you feel LJ, but I have to say that Intel's (and other hardware manufacturers) way of presenting cross-market products is a LOT more ethical than what we see by some of the game publishers with their DLC.

Buy our game !! Want the whole game you thought you were getting? Buy our DLC too !! :shadedshu

 

[Heavy_MG]

Companies are in the business to make money, not blow sunshine and unicorns up anyone's ass.
Intel has every right to sell their products anyway they choose.
If you don't like the way they go about it, don't buy it. It's that simple.

Yeah,because Intel working under the table with OEM's & forcing competition of of the market is just fine.

 

[LordJummy]

I know how you feel LJ, but I have to say that Intel's (and other hardware manufacturers) way of presenting cross-market products is a LOT more ethical than what we see by some of the game publishers with their DLC.

Buy our game !! Want the whole game you thought you were getting? Buy our DLC too !! :shadedshu

I agree with you. People can argue "well the game makers aren't making enough profit", but the big names that are doing DLC are making a killing off of it in reality. It is especially BS when they originally intended to put the DLC in the game, but decided to rip it out and charge more for it. That is unethical IMO.

DLC can be good though in F2P games where you have the option, but it doesn't detract from the overall game experience.

Intel's normal way of crippling and modifying higher end chips to make lower end chips for the lower end markets is not as bad as offering a $50 unlock for a chip IMO. If they specifically stated on the original CPU purchase "this cpu is not fully unlocked, but can be unlocked later for $50" then I would be okay with it. Then again this is still just my opinion.

Did they advertise the unlock before the CPU's were released or after? That makes a world of difference to me.

 

[Kreij]

Yeah,because Intel working under the table with OEM's & forcing competition of of the market is just fine.

Come on , Heavy, there is a big difference between retail marketing strategy and illegally manipulating the market. I do not approve of any company trying to kill competition.

Did they advertise the unlock before the CPU's were released or after? That makes a world of difference to me.

I guess one of the questions would be, did they even anticipate the need for an unlock at launch?
Not enough insider info to make a call on that one.

 

[LordJummy]

Come on , Heavy, there is a big difference between retail marketing strategy and illegally manipulating the market. I do not approve of any company trying to kill competition.

Unfortunately it is legal, but that doesn't make it good business. Intel has done a fantastic job over the decades of making their chips the only option in the eyes of consumers. It is great marketing, but it also is the fact that they make fantastic processors.

Heavy: I wouldn't really call what they are doing "under the table", but I would call a lot of what they are doing "bad business". However in my eyes the same could be said of countless major corporations.

 

[Kreij]

What Intel was doing was illegal.
Telling an OEM that they will get a better price on Intel products if they do not sell their competitor's products is not just bad business.
It would be like Pepsi telling a grocery store they get a 20% discount if they don't sell Coke.
We have laws against that so the big boys can't smother the start-ups or other people trying to compete.

Anyway, this "DLC" update to flash the chip to perform at a higher level is not an uncompetetive practice. They are just trying to extend the life (and make a few more bucks) on lower end products that they quite possible sold for a loss on launch.

 

[LordJummy]

What Intel was doing was illegal.
Telling an OEM that they will get a better price on Intel products if they do not sell their competitor's products is not just bad business.
It would be like Pepsi telling a grocery store they get a 20% discount if they don't sell Coke.
We have laws against that so the big boys can't smother the start-ups or other people trying to compete.

Anyway, this "DLC" update to flash the chip to perform at a higher level is not an uncompetetive practice. They are just trying to extend the life (and make a few more bucks) on lower end products that they quite possible sold for a loss on launch.

I think they probably planned this little upgrade long before they even released the chips. I could be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.

Oh, and yes what they were doing was illegal. However, they are not breaking the law by what they are doing right now. At least not that we know of yet.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Help me here, I believe I've had an aneurism.

1) Companies are out to make a profit. This is what we call capitalism. Throwing around any hate for socialism or capitalism is a debate for people running the show, not those who are looking at purchasing who vote with their wallets. This is capitalism at its core, so calm down.

2) Crippling processors isn't new. There were, to my knowledge, no original tri-core chips on the market. However, there are quad cores with one disabled. Crippling chips, to meet specific price points isn't new. Perhaps we can look past it.

3) DLC raises ire from us nerds. Given how many times the development companies have screwed the consumers, I can feel this. Removing my preconceptions from the mix, this DLC isn't really anything wrong. It doesn't install new DRM, it isn't "upgrading" a feature out of existance (hmmm....Sony.....hmmm), and it isn't taking anything away.

4) Price is determined by the consumer. Intel is trying to get the lowest spenders in the desktop market to spend money down the road. It's a decent deal. You spend some money now, then in a year when things get slower you spend some more to suddenly get things to move faster. Looking at the whole picture, the consumer has a small expense that will allow them to see more performance in the future. It makes business sense, and caters to those without the funds or skills to do a full cpu upgrade.


Given these thoughts, Intel isn't doing something indefensible. It may be unpalatable if you spend substantial amounts of money, but the three processors affected aren't exactly contenders for performance kings.

While I think this is a dangerous precedent for Intel to set, it isn't inherently wrong. I will not be purchasing anything like this, and will recommend to anyone I know not to purchase it. Poor sales will hurt this initiative far more than some b****ing on a message board.

By not purchasing these processors, and even going AMD, you send Intel a clear message. Vote with your money, stop complaining, and spread the word. Intel is generally not stupid enough to allow business decisions (from the money seeking top) to hurt them when competing against AMD. Besides, the APU beats out the i3 in everything but raw computational performance (pricing and graphics given the target market).


*Edit: Researched AMD core schemes and I was wrong.

*Edit: Before it is said, price fixing is illegal. Intel getting burned for the back door OEM scandals is completely righteous. I support them being smacked for their dirty business practices, and believe that the fine that was levied wasn't nearly enough.