Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on January 29, 2023 10:16 am wrote:
> AnotherAnonymousEngineer (noemail.delete@this.invalid.gmail.com) on January 29, 2023 9:33 am wrote:
> > Groo (charlie.delete@this.semiaccurate.com) on January 29, 2023 9:05 am wrote:
> > > anonymou5 (no.delete@this.spam.com) on January 29, 2023 1:49 am wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > What makes you think that you are the target customer?
> > > >
> > > What makes you think there is a target customer? I say this
> > > based on data I have been gathering, not anecdotes.
> > >
> > > > Hint: you're not.
> > > >
> > > Sorry, I misspoke above. Forget about the word 'target' in my comment.
> >
> > I suspect the On Demand aspect is not primarily about a money grab from customers, but
> > about being able to shuffle money on the balance sheet. Many investors like to see “services
> > income”, and will value that a lot higher than “product income”.
> >
> > To make life easier for developers, they could have an alternative path where the software
> > vendor pays instead of the customer, similar to how the console vendors make money from
> > their hardware. (Open source users would have to pay directly to Intel.)
> >
> > There is a (tenuous) ethical argument Intel could make “We don’t want to
> > charge all our customers for functionality that only a minority will use.”
> >
> I can definitively say that is wrong.
>
> On a happier note, it is a great thought until you also consider that cratering sales to make a
> much smaller pool look better is a *TAD* counter-productive in the eyes of most sane people.
>
> -Charlie

From the other point of view - who would like to pay less for their chip if they'd already paid for an external GPU and didn't need the one on the chip?