|
|
|
|
|
by unethical_ban
544 days ago
|
|
It's interesting how we the people (broadly) accept this practice in software and even some hardware, but not in other areas. Note how frustrated people are when you hear about "unlocking" sensors and services available on cars. If a product is made, and the cost to provide that product is the same one way or the other but you cripple it to create segmentation, then that is greed. Period. Objectively. And if you're okay with that, then fine, no problem. Just don't try to tell me it isn't maximization of profit. There are no heroes in the megacorp space, but it would be nice for AMD and Intel to bring Nvidia to heel. |
|
With that out of the way, market segmentation is often good for budget customers, who, in the case of Nvidia GPUs, are gamers. They get GPUs that run their games just as well as the uncrippled model, for a much lower price. Without market segmentation, all the GPUs would go to Amazon, Microsoft, Google, etc... since they are the ones with the big budget, gamers will be left with GPUs they can't afford, and Nvidia with less profits as they will lose most of the market for gamers.
With market segmentation, Nvidia wins, gamers win, AI companies and miners lose. And I don't know about you, but I think that AI companies and miners deserve the premiums they pay.
It sounds stupid to pay for crippled hardware, but when buying a GPU, the silicon is only a small part of the price, the expensive part is all the R&D, and that cost is the same no matter how many chips they sell, and it makes sense to maximize these sales, and segmentation is how they do it without sacrificing their profits.
Of course, should AMD or Intel come back, they would do their own market segmentation too, in fact, they already do.