I'm thinking it's more like you go to the local GM dealership and they sell you a Cadillac, and you drive out off the lot with one of those "Kiddy" Cadillacs and then the sales rep tells you, "Oh, for an additional $1500 you can upgrade to a 'real' car." Based on who this seems to be marketed to (i.e. BestBuy Non-Geek users) I don't see the Best Buy sales associate saying "Oh, yeah... buy this, and it'll do great...and if you want more performance, I can sell you an 'upgrade' for $75." I think that most folks who go to the electronics store or Wal-Mart are going to say "heck, if this isn't the top of the line, I don't want it." I think this model is going to end up backfiring and causing confusion.
The info on the display model says "15 Ghz CPU" but it probably isn't going to say "For an additional $75 you can get 17 Ghz." That would be confusing to the end user, I think. -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:28 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU How would you feel if the car lived up to it's performance specs disclosed at the time it was sold to you? -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:56 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > Ok... back to the automotive example... you buy a car that's got a governor > on it, limiting it to 45 mph. You want to be able to drive 65 Mph. The car is > completely capable of going that speed. The manufacturer has been selling > the same *exact* car, without the governor for the same price as they are > asking you to pay now, only now you have to pay to remove the governor. > > > > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 12:34 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > Exactly!!! > > I'm not saying that there's no opportunity for abuse by the vendor, but as > stated, this change in production makes it easier for both me AND Intel. > > They get a more consist fabrication process where they can more easily > match price points with market demand for certain CPU capacity, and I get to > purchase power I need today at a cost I like today AND be able to increase it > relatively cost effectively later. > > ASB (My XeeSM Profile) > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Similarly, suppose you later wish to upgrade to 4 cores. Which would you > prefer: > > a - shut down the server, pull it from the rack, remove the cooling units, pull > the CPU, replace (etc), and update the BIOS? > > b - boot off a piece of media which enables the other two cores, updates, > the BIOS, etc? > > Personally, I like "b" > -- > richard > > "Andrew S. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote on 09/21/2010 11:24:37 AM: > > > > Crippled relative to what: Maximum capacity that you have no > > intention of paying for? > > > > > How is it "crippled" if it accomplishes the work you paid for it to > > accomplish? > > > > If Intel sells one model of CPU with 2 cores for $100, and another > > with 4 cores for $175, and you decide to purchase the 2-core product > > because it has an appropriate cost/benefit ratio for you, then how is > > it suddenly a problem if they sell a 4 core product with 2 cores > > locked for the same $100? > > > > How is that crippled? > > > > ASB > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:42 AM, John Aldrich > <[email protected] > > > wrote: > > In my personal opinion, if certain "features" are disabled and the CPU > > is not capable of running at it's full potential (barring any > > manufacturing defects which would cause it to be sold as a lower > > performing chip, as is common these days) then I, personally, would > > consider it "crippled" or "hamstrung" if you prefer. That's my > > personal opinion and I think it's a lousy way to do business. > > > > Now, if you're willing to buy hardware that has been *artificially* > "dumbed > > down" with the knowledge that you can undo that by paying Intel a fee, > then > > by all means, feel free to do that. Personally, if I have the option > > of buying a CPU that is NOT artificially "dumbed down" or has some > > features disabled strictly so Intel can charge me to unlock those > > features, I will opt for the competitor's CPU that doesn't have those > > artificial restrictions. That's just my 2¢. > > > > > > > > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:32 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > > CPU > > >>That being said, I think it's a crappy way to do business... sell a > > "crippled" product then charge to "fix it." > > > > Please show me in that article what language led you to conclude that > > the product being sold is "crippled" > > As an example, should you pay for a two core processor, and the price > > you pay you deem reasonable for a two-core processor, and then Intel > > makes it possible for you to pay an incremental price to unlock two > > more cores (for > a > > total that you deem is appropriate for a four-core processor), then > > what specifically is the problem? > > You appear to be engaging in a philosophical debate which lacks any > > practical pain. > > ASB (My XeeSM Profile) > > Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage... > > > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 11:21 AM, John Aldrich > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I agree... if you modify your Windows 7 install and it violates the > > EULA, Microsoft has every right to say "sorry... you violated the > > EULA, we're > not > > supporting it." Same goes for a "bricked" iphone. I also would not > > expect Intel to support a "hacked" CPU. That being said, I think it's > > a crappy > way > > to do business... sell a "crippled" product then charge to "fix it." > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mayo, Bill [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:30 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > > CPU > > > > If you applied a hack to your Windows 7 installation that allowed you > > to bypass some of the security controls (e.g. product activation), > > would you expect Microsoft to support it? The ruling says, "It's your > > hardware, so you can do what you want with it." Apple says, "If you > > modify the > operating > > system, don't call us if you have problems with it." As far as I > > know, there would be nothing to prevent you from restoring the factory > > iOS to > your > > phone and contacting Apple for support if the problem persisted (was > > hardware related). If you bricked your iPhone trying to jailbreak it, > then > > all bets are off. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 10:20 AM > > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > > CPU > > > > I wonder if it wouldn't be something similar to the recent ruling that > > a phone owner can legally "jail-break" their iPhone, but Apple can > > then > refuse > > to support it??? > > > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:58 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > > CPU > > > Typically, that involved the single issue of illegal possession of > > some physical item. > > > > There's a whole area of new law that needs to be made on this area. > > We're now in the situation where I legally own something, have legal > > physical possession, but you're retaining certain rights in relation > > to that item, and we've signed no agreement to that effect. We have > > 3,400+ years of, if it's mine, I can do what I want with it, too. We > > have case law to that effect. Are we now putting EULAs on hardware? > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Raper, Jonathan - Eagle > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Isn't stealing illegal in most countries? IIRC, that concept goes all > > the way back to the days of Moses...about 3,400 years ago, give or > > take a century ;-) > > > > Jonathan L. Raper, A+, MCSA, MCSE > > Technology Coordinator > > Eagle Physicians & Associates, PA > > [email protected] > > www.eaglemds.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 9:00 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your > > CPU > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > You are getting what you paid for. And if you then decide you need > > something better, you can unlock those features without having to > > replace your CPU. > > > > It wouldn't bother me so much except that you're actually getting the > > hardware, and then these companies inevitably try to enforce their > business > > model through legislation which makes "unapproved activation" > > illegal. > > > -- Ben > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: > http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ > <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > --- > To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt- > software.com/read/my_forums/ > or send an email to [email protected] > with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
