me (me.delete@this.me.com) on February 2, 2023 3:47 am wrote:
> > So they sell fewer or reduce the price.
> >
> > My response is to your comment about Intel products being not
> > competitive. Sometimes companies have less competitive
> > products, and end up selling fewer of them. It's not because
> > they don't want them to be competitive, it's because
> > that's the position they're in. At some point you get stuck between a rock and a hard place.
>
> Intel said they are going to only ship a million Sapphire Rapids by the middle of the year. That
> includes what they've shipped so far. I don't know if that also includes the workstation parts.
>
> That's nothing really. Skylake and Icelake will easily outsell it. The problem is that SPR is far,
> far too big on a bad node. Demand for what they are intending to supply won't be an issue.

My comment had nothing to do with whether Intel had a good product or sales strategy, it was about extortion.

Organization forces somebody to buy their product using threats of destroying their data or kidnapping their cat -> extortion.

Organization creates a shitty product with a big price tag and nobody buys it -> not extortion.

Product segregation is not extortion, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. As I said it offends the myopic sensibilities of the tech nerd because they own all these transistors that the evil MBAs sabotaged. Reality is that you minimize cost and maximize value for a complex range of markets. If anybody has ever bought an Intel CPU with ECC fused out, you got what you wanted and you got it at that price because people who needed ECC paid more.