[kajecounterhack]

If it makes you feel any worse both AMD and Intel provide cheaper chips by disabling cores on more expensive chips.

To me it's fine -- it's just a method of manufacture. No different than buying different versions of software.

"They are literally charging you to flip a switch on something you already paid for." << To be clear, physically you have the thing in your possession, and you could physically figure out how to flip the bit or re-enable disabled cores (people do try this). I'm 100% for that being legal since it's a physical device -- no DRM for me. But I'm also 100% OK with them doing this to begin with if it makes it cheaper for them to give me their base product.

[Veratyr]

Don't they generally disable those cores because they have more flawed silicon?

[Grazester]

Yes.

[bjpbakker]

So you're saying no to DRM (which I fully agree on). But hen you seem to say DRM is fine if it makes products cheaper.

That's basically you hopping onboard with DRM. It's always the excuse of manufacturers that their DRM makes things cheaper or more secure (the latter is what Intel used on its ridiculous ME).

[kajecounterhack]

It's not drm if you're allowed by law to circumvent it when you know how. At that point it's obfuscation.