[gfunk911]

This seems no different than Intel manufacturing fewer distinct things and using CPU locking to sell at more price points.

https://www.techopedia.com/definition/2239/cpu-lock

It’s cheaper to physically put the functionality in all the cars than to differentiate at assembly time. We don’t have the same visceral reaction to paying for options at the dealer.

(I am assuming they aren’t adding this charge RETROACTIVELY. That’s very different)

[atty]

I’d be fine if every vehicle had the hardware in it and it was activated via an upsell at the dealership. I think the truly insidious thing here is the subscription aspect, for all the various reasons other people in the responses have stated. I’m ok with Intel doing the same thing. But if Intel started selling AVX512 with a monthly subscription I’d ever buy an Intel chip again.

[norman784]

Isn’t that most of the low end processors have deffects, so they trim down (yes, blocking some features, cores, etc) and selling you at lower prices, but the thing is, you know beforehand what are you buying, without any hidden subscription, etc, also is cheaper than the full featured one, so I’m not particularly mad about it.

[xuhu]

Are you paying Intel $18 per month for your extra cores ?

[thrtythreeforty]

No, although IBM did the same thing with mainframes, and yes customers did make a phone call to unlock some extra hardware. Or pay per instruction executed. IBM had lots of creative ways to charge for mainframes.

[naasking]

You are correct, it is no different, and it's wrong when Intel does it too, assuming the CPU hardware really is identical and it's purely a software lock that the user can't work around.