I don't think it breaks down evenly like that. What would it signify if it did, btw?
*ASB *(My XeeSM Profile) <http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker> *Exploiting Technology for Business Advantage...* * * On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:12 AM, Phillip Partipilo <[email protected]> wrote: > Call me out on this one if I am totally off my rocker, but why does it seem > that all the folks in this particular "debate" who are pro this concept of > artificial limitations seem to be independent contractors/consultants? > > > Phillip Partipilo > Parametric Solutions Inc. > Jupiter, Florida > (561) 747-6107 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:10 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > It seems that's an advertising issue as opposed to a technical or "am I > being robbed" issue. > > Given Intel's prowess in the market, I suspect if there's money to be made > with this model, they'll ensure it's effectively marketed. > > Do you know the "Intel Inside" campaign? Can you see the logo in your mind? > Can you recognize the "Intel chimes" even if you don't see the commercial? > > I should think "Intel Inside PLUS!" shouldn't be too difficult. > > -sc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: John Aldrich [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:52 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > > > Here's something I thought of... Sure you'll be able to buy an "unlock" > > code, but will the end-user realize that they are getting the same > physical > > hardware as someone who pays more and know that they can unlock better > > performance? Thinking about the folks who go into Best Buy or WalMart to > > buy a new computer (this appears to be the market that this new "feature" > is > > aimed at.) My thought is that they're going to buy whatever is on the > shelf > > and not realize that they just need to buy an "upgrade"/unlock code to > > enable better performance. > > > > How is that going to help the end-user? > > > > > > > > From: Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 7:12 PM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > > Subject: Re: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > > > I disagree that the costs are being subsidized at the low end. It costs > less > > overall to manage the product as a single unit with unlockable features > than > > a two separate products with hard coded features. > > And since the primary competitor has still not embraced that model, it is > still > > possible for someone to compare the value of both the low end processor > > and the high one independently. I'll very that both levels of consumer > well > > get better pricing than before, even as Intel bags more profits. > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker > > Sent from my Motorola Droid > > On Sep 21, 2010 6:00 PM, "Ben Scott" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >>> But another way to l... > > That works as long as no one can offer a comparable but lower-priced > > product. If your price is high because your costs are high (living, > education, > > experience, etc.), chances are good you'll have continued work -- > potential > > competitors will likely have similar costs. If your price is high while > your costs > > are low, that's another matter. If competition moves in, your customer > base > > is likely to defect en masse. > > Even if you lower your prices to compete, you now have a reputation as > > having a high price/cost ratio. Customers often dislike that, and > express their > > dislike with their wallets. > > > > Since legislative action is part of the big picture (with the hardware > thing), > > popular opinion can matter for that reason, too. > > > > >> High price/cost ratios tend to yield unstable long-term economic > > >>relationships, unless presti... > > They're only better for the customers who buy the product with the lower > > price and get the lower intended performance. The customers who pay for > > more performance get a worse deal. Both parties get the same physical > > material. Both benefit from the same NRE. But the high-end guys pay > > more. They end up subsidizing the low-end guys. Sometimes the high-end > > people don't mind, but sometimes they do. When people propose taxing > > the rich to give to the poor, the rich tend to put up a pretty big stink, > for > > example. > > > > > Frankly, I think that the hardware side of the house has suffered with > > > low margins as compared ... > > I agree completely. But weren't you just making a point about the scope > of > > this discussion? ;-) > > > > >>> I think you're arguing a narrower scope of issues than some other > > >>>people are. > > > > > > Yes, I am... > > Well, your choice, but don't be surprised when you get persistent > > confusion/disagreement. One can "win" any argument by carefully defining > > terms. If mutual understanding is the goal, you need to change minds. > :) > > > > -- 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
