Re:Intel Officially Introduces Pay-as-You-Go Chip Licensing
by fuzzfactor on Friday November 25, 2022 @12:54AM
(#33739676)
>would you rather 1) pay more for features you don’t need
I would rather have early adopters pay for features I wouldn't pay for, then after the price comes down, or even relative obsolescence has occurred, I can adopt the full technology at a price I can afford.
The only consumer-beneficial approach to things like this is when the base model which has none of the optional features is still decently high-performance, and priced truly cheap enough for anyone who would be the least bit interested not to hesitate to buy.
If the general consensus is that the bare-bones model is a wonderful bargain and just fine for the vast majority of potential users, then a much more expensive or even overpriced deluxe version geared for the small minority of very well-heeled consumers is sensible.
When it's designed the other way around, the "bare-bones" model ends up being overpriced to some extent by osmosis, nobody ever gets a "good deal" and it's limiting for everybody.
I would rather have early adopters pay for features I wouldn't pay for, then after the price comes down, or even relative obsolescence has occurred, I can adopt the full technology at a price I can afford.
The only consumer-beneficial approach to things like this is when the base model which has none of the optional features is still decently high-performance, and priced truly cheap enough for anyone who would be the least bit interested not to hesitate to buy.
If the general consensus is that the bare-bones model is a wonderful bargain and just fine for the vast majority of potential users, then a much more expensive or even overpriced deluxe version geared for the small minority of very well-heeled consumers is sensible.
When it's designed the other way around, the "bare-bones" model ends up being overpriced to some extent by osmosis, nobody ever gets a "good deal" and it's limiting for everybody.