As a former Best Buy drone who was trained to sell parallel printer cables for $40, I resemble that remark. Wait, what?
Phillip Partipilo Parametric Solutions Inc. Jupiter, Florida (561) 747-6107 -----Original Message----- From: Steven M. Caesare [mailto:scaes...@caesare.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 10:20 AM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU 1) It's be great if you actually answered the question. I deliberately made is simple and singular in order to make a point. 2) Your analogies serve to contradict: an auto sales person will do everything in their power to upsell you options, particularly at the time of purchase. When you return for service, they try again ("Would you like the regular oil or the slick new Synthetic with the Incredion additive?"). What makes you think the same Best Buy sales droid that tries to push the $75 HDMI cables on the poor sap who just bought a flatscreen is at the same time going to fail to mention a CPU upgrade? 3) Your argument seems to have shifted from being indignant over "owning" hardware you haven't paid to activate to one of fearing that the upgrade capability won't be effectively communicated to end uses. Does this indicate a change in your previous thoughts on the matter? -sc > -----Original Message----- > From: John Aldrich [mailto:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 8:59 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Intel wants to charge to unlock features already on your CPU > > 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:scaes...@caesare.com] > 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:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] > > 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:asbz...@gmail.com] > > 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, <richardmccl...@aspca.org> 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" <asbz...@gmail.com> 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 > > <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com > > > > 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:asbz...@gmail.com] > > > 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 > > > <jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com> 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:bem...@pittcountync.gov] > > > 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:jaldr...@blueridgecarpet.com] > > > 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:jonathan.l...@gmail.com] > > > 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 > > > <jra...@eaglemds.com> 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 > > > jra...@eaglemds.com > > > www.eaglemds.com > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ben Scott [mailto:mailvor...@gmail.com] > > > 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 > > > <k...@adopenstatic.com> > > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > > 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 > > listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com > 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com 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 listmana...@lyris.sunbeltsoftware.com with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
