Fine, I would agree with you on much of this.

But those are different issues. And I don’t think a slippery slope argument applies as you note Intel has been pushing this stuff for a while.

So from a purely price discrimination perspective, I think this is a good thing, even if Intel are doing a lot of other shady things in parallel.

> So from a purely price discrimination perspective, I think this is a good thing

This kind of setup never benefits users. It only allows corporations producing a product for <100$ to sell variations of it up to thousands of dollars. See also Canon cameras or nvidia graphics cards doing precisely that: locking/reducing features via software cuffs (and of course you can find cracked firmware to go around those, just makes it harder).

Greed is a bad way to organize society: it has failed us as a species and threatens to destroy millions of other species along with it. We need to build a needs-based economy that is not dictated by private corporations.

> This kind of setup never benefits users.

You’ll be hard pressed to find an economist that agrees with you.

If Canon sold one camera, they would have to find the profit maximizing price and quantity. By definition this means that single product will have too many features and too expensive for some people, and have too few features for other people who would be willing to pay more.

So instead they make multiple products with different functionality so that people can decide.

I’m surprised to have to be defending greater consumer choice in HN?!?

> they would have to find the profit maximizing price and quantity

You're only concerned about profits for the shareholders, which i explicitly don't care about (or rather, i care against). I'm interested in the interests of the people, which is structurally at odds with the profits of the 1%.

> By definition this means that single product will have too many features and too expensive for some people

Nope, as someone else pointed out, if there were consumer protection regulations against such practices, you'd just have the best camera for the cheapest price. Because i strongly doubt the manufacturer would sell any model at a loss, which would anyway be illegal in certain jurisdiction (eg. France) as part of anti-monopoly regulations.

> So instead they make multiple products with different functionality so that people can decide.

People empower people. Corporations empower shareholders. Our class interests are not aligned (in fact, they are opposite). It's very rare (if possible at all) to see a private corporation doing something to empower people, except maybe for worker-operated coops (which are not driven by shareholders' profits but by their passion or the interests of their users).

Economists never produce chips. Nobody is arguing against different models. Interest (not the economic term) for economists seems to be a viable licencing scheme for hardware CPUs. That doesn't help anyone. To be fair, constructive input on the economy itself is on short supply too if you allow me the general condemnation against the branch of all economists if indeed few economists would agree here.

This isn't improving consumer choice, it is how to milk a cow to the largest degree possible. I know you can spin this further that the income would fund new products etc., but at some point it just becomes pure bullshit.

> This isn't improving consumer choice, it is how to milk a cow to the largest degree possible.

I know you didn't intend this as support to my comment, but it does.

this sort of "choice" is essentially entirely meaningless, if camera features were software unlock based they could sell all cameras with all features for the lowest price and still make money, the only one benefiting here is canon extracting maximum value.

Making money is not binary. Companies will target the profit maximizing price. Price discrimination allows this to be solved for numerous segments.

Let's say there are 10,000 people who want to buy cameras, a lot will pay $100 for bare bones, less will pay $200 for a few more features, and a few will pay $1,000 for all the features.

If Canon makes one single camera, and let's say they charge the middle price of $200, then the largest market of low-end consumers are priced out the market, while the handful of high end buyers get a great deal.

You might say "oh well just charge the $100 to everyone!". But Canon might actually make more money by charging more and selling to fewer people. They would be dumb not to do this. Price discrimination let's them target all these different price points.

that still has nothing to do with consumer choice, and is entirely about revenue maximization for canon. It is not somehow magically enabling a greater degree of choice.

> It is not somehow magically enabling a greater degree of choice.

What are you talking about? There are 3 camera choices instead of 1.

Would you consider it's more choice if a company started selling fruits where all vitamins have been removed? It used to be the same fruit, but the company altered it to make more profit: it's not benefiting the users in any way.

>We need to build a needs-based economy that is not dictated by private corporations.

what does that even mean? As bad as a "Greed" based economy might be, it does provide clear incentives for everyone to follow. How would a "needs-based" economy work?