It boggles the mind that amongst greater competition from AMD and ARM, Intel decides that what it's business model needs is a subscription fee to unlock CPU features:

@devinprater @jokeyrhyme Broadcom already paved the way for this with the hardware codecs in RaspBerry Pis, which you have to pay extra rent to unlock.

The very concept of "IP" leads to vendors imagining that they literally still own the things they make and sell, it's only natural then to try and extract rents more and more from "customers".

@seachaint @jokeyrhyme That's crazy. let me guess, one of these days we'll have to literally pay subscription to "unlock" more RAM already in our devices? Yeah this is gonna suck.

@jokeyrhyme @seachaint @devinprater that’s pretty common for codecs and not specific to the pi. Its also no longer the case now that MPEG-2 licensing expired

@seachaint @devinprater @jokeyrhyme like I’m not saying it’s good but that money never went to Broadcom it went to the MPEG-2 patent pool

@cinebox @devinprater @jokeyrhyme Is that to say that the Pi can now have codecs unlocked freely? Great news if so: How does one go about unlocking those sweet, sweet codecs at last? :)

(I was always too stubborn to pay for pure IP leechery)

@jokeyrhyme I just saw this funny code review today by Greg K. H. on an early draft on the Linux driver of Intel's Software Defined Silicon. Now I know what it is...
> Oh nice, this will be fun if I provide "interesting" values for off to
the function right? Remember: All input is evil.
> These sysfs attributes are crazy. Who has audited them to be correct
and work properly? It feels like there are just buffer overflows
waiting to be exploited in them due to the reading/writing of raw memory buffers all over the place.
:blobcatgiggle: "Hey, remember how a few years back we tried selling CPUs that required a fee to unlock all the features and it was hated so much we killed off the line and agreed we'd never talk about them again? Maybe that's the way to stop being looked down on, let's try shooting ourselves in the other foot."
I mean, seriously‽

@jokeyrhyme I can think of a half dozen reasons of why this is a stupid idea. Just for starters, how do you ever sell this to customers without just straight-out telling them that you make them pay twice for the same chip?

@tsturm well, people pay twice for their Tesla: once for the vehicle, and again to unlock all software features, so there's definitely a market of people who don't care enough about the dangers of this business model

@jokeyrhyme I don't understand this. Does it mean that they will sell processors at a loss, and then make up the difference/margin by charging to turn it on to capacity for some, or does it mean we'll be paying a full price for all of it, but will have to pay even more to unlock what we already bought?

@goran haha, the thought of this lowering prices for anyone, haha, good one!

@jokeyrhyme I've literally been an Intel/Nvidia loyalist since we got our first Pentium machine. My next build is gonna be AMD because Intel keeps making such shitty anti-consumer decisions.

I think Intel has gotten too big and is flying too close to the sun. Will be interesting to watch the fall

@rolenthedeep they never atoned for unfair market distortions against AMD decades ago, so I'm keen to see them squirm

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Welcome to thundertoot! A Mastodon Instance for 'straya