Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by regularfry 1433 days ago
It's slightly different (but only slightly) in the CPU case in that the disabling they're doing is a special case of an operation they have to do anyway. I don't know if it's the case for the specific 3 and 6 core AMD chips you're referring to, but it's common practice for that sort of CPU to be a 4 or 8-core chip where one or more core has failed validation. Cores that have failed testing then get disabled, and the CPU is bucketed into a lower grade but is still sold as a working unit. All AMD would have been doing here is using the disabling process which must already exist to intentionally nerf working cores because the yields they were getting in the various buckets were too good for the market conditions.

I'm not sure what BMW are thinking with the seat heaters. I suspect someone thinks they can make a saving by reducing variation in seat construction and that saving offsets the additional material costs. All the software/subscription/after-market nonsense flows from that, but the fundamental design driver is, I would bet, manufacturing complexity.

3 comments

As I said, they were working 4 and 8 core CPUs that had a working core disabled and then solder at a cheaper price as 3 or 6 core CPUs.

The reason AMD did this was because they had the genius idea of selling off some faulty CPUs at a cheaper price but with the faulty core disabled. However those cheaper CPUs sold so well that AMD ended up having to disable working cores on non-faulty units to meet demand.

Since you could actually unlock those cores, lots more people started to buy 3 and 6 core CPUs in the hope that “CPU roulette” might pay off and they’d end up with a stable 4 or 8 core computer for the cost of a 3 or 6 core one.

> the fundamental design driver is, I would bet, manufacturing complexity.

One of them. If it was only about manufacturing, they could just as easily make heated seats standard on all bmws.

I think a big motivator would also be the ability for owners to opt in at a later date. In most cars you only have the chance to offer an upgrade at the time of purchase. Making it a software thing means that I can add it on 6 months after buying the car. Or the second owner can add it on.

The point is that they wouldn't have that marketing flexibility if they weren't going to do the technical thing for manufacturing reasons. Like, the marketing folks will be all over that crap once they've got the capability, but I doubt they would be the original reason it was done.
> the fundamental design driver is, I would bet, manufacturing complexity

I think that recurring monthly revenue is also highly appreciated, especially considering how other industries (game, movie) are moving in spite of manufacturing complexity.

Appreciated, yes, but I wouldn't be shocked if they did it anyway even in the absence of the recurring revenue opportunity.