It may be economically efficient, but it's materially inefficient. You're increasing the amount of materials and labour required in order to reduce the utility of manufactured products. This indicates an error in the economic system.
In my experience, it's the exact opposite. The gain of such things in logistics, stock management, production are much better than a slightly higher cost of goods. It enable to sell stuff even in cases when it would be too expensive, and enable cheap followup businnes.
I would say that such model is much more acceptable in b2b
Not just that. When you fab a design you'll get sometimes get errors here or there and have to disable things. Or it won't be safe to drive the thing to the highest clock speeds. But none of that is happening here: we're talking about the same design and same output quality.
Really just absolute greed and lack of innovation. I hope ARM and AMD continue to eat away at them for this reason. Same feeling about BMW/Mercedes and the subscription heated seats.
Would you be happier if Intel spent the money to have a second SKU that removed the features in silicon, including imperfect yield, and charged more than they are now to cover that extra cost?
Pricing makes more sense when you pay for value delivered.
Neither is ethical, because the company has the option to reduce customer costs while increasing margins, and they are doing the opposite. This is especially true for monopolies.
But that's actually why, despite my complaints, I'm not worried about Intel's actions here. I don't think Intel is offering good value compared to their competition.
The markets where Intel has wins are niche workloads and consumer (AMD is supply constrained and focusing all efforts on the high margin cloud/enterprise market). Otherwise they are losing, and offering lower value will make them lose faster.
So to summarize, I think it's not only immoral, but a losing strategy.
I think you’re saying that only cost-plus pricing is ethical. That’s . . . a take.
Most of the world operates on value-based pricing. For instance, you could probably afford to work for less money, but you are unethically asking your employer for more money than your pure cost of living. You presumably expect your employer to pay based on the value you provide to the company, not your costs.
It may or may not be a losing strategy, but I think it’s very strange to see value based pricing as immoral. But maybe? I’m open to correction if you ask your employer to lower your wages when your costs go down, e.g. by paying off a car or student loan.
I don't have a problem with value based pricing. But I think I'm just going to end up repeating myself now so I'm going to check out of this discussion now.
