

Intel wants to charge $50 to unlock stuff your CPU can already do - lotusleaf1987
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/18/intel-wants-to-charge-50-to-unlock-stuff-your-cpu-can-already-d/

======
jdietrich
This is how the industry has always worked. The 486SX was a 486DX with the FPU
burned off with a laser. Initially this was to make use of parts with a
defective FPU, but parts with perfectly good FPUs were often disabled to
fulfil demand.

CPUs are produced to a single design within a processor series. The ones with
no faults are clocked the fastest and have all their features enabled. Parts
with lots of flaws are sold off as crippled budget processors. AMD's triple-
core processors seem a bit strange until you realise that they're a quad-core
part with one faulty core.

Overclockers have known about this for years, identifying countless 'good
batches' of processors and GPUs that were perfectly capable of being clocked
faster, but were sold as cheap parts to fulfil demand.

If this seems like a con, then the whole IC fabrication industry is a con -
artificially crippling ICs has been standard practice for decades.

~~~
jrockway
This is different. In order to be upgraded via software, the chip has to be
able to function at the upgraded specs. So Intel can't take a broken batch and
sell them in this type of machine anymore; they have to put the good one in no
matter what.

That's what makes it seem arbitrary and annoying. When you buy a low-spec
chip, you get it cheap because it could be defective. But when you buy this,
it's perfectly functional, just artificially limited. You aren't helping Intel
increase their yield and getting some savings for helping them -- you are just
being fucked because they feel like fucking you.

I hated Intel for a long time, but then they started making good products and
contributing drivers to Linux... but if they keep this sort of thing up, that
goodwill is all going to erode and AMD will have to opportunity to get the
enthusiast market again. (Their "we'll sue you for using the HDCP crack" is
similarly goodwill-eroding, especially because there is nobody they can even
sue.)

~~~
ghshephard
I'm genuinely curious - why do you find this to be a problem? Isn't the
decision to upgrade (or not) completely up to you? How is this any different
than enabling a feature set on a cisco router with a license key, or adding
users to an exchange server. In both of those cases the systems are already
capable of performing the function. Are you opposed to all of these classes of
'pay to enable' functionality?

~~~
jrockway
Because it implies that I'm "licensing" the blob of engraved silicon sitting
in my computer. How long until we're just "licensing" everything?

~~~
gaius
No, you're buying in installments.

------
gkoberger
Don't get me wrong- I get why people are mad. It comes off as racketeering.
And I certainly wouldn't want to drop $50 on this. But how is this all that
different from software companies that do the same thing?

Your basic subscription to Basecamp, your Photoshop trial, your Windows 7 Home
Edition, the Keynote trial that comes with your Mac, your iPhone... they're
all capable of doing a lot more (for no extra cost to the company behind it),
and you can upgrade for a cost. Another good example that the article mentions
is upgrades in video games. This is a pretty common practice for software, so
why not hardware?

~~~
chopsueyar
Because you own the physical hardware, not simply a "license" to use the
hardware.

Unless processors are coming with EULAs now?

This could set a dangerous precedent for automobiles or any other physical
good.

EDIT: I'm speaking of consumer, not business purchases.

~~~
wmf
If you buy a crippled processor and hack it, I'd guess that Intel has no cause
to sue you, precisely because you own that processor. But they don't have to
make it easy to hack.

~~~
noarchy
Until Intel distributes a EULA with the processor. If the courts will hold up
the validity of a software EULA, why not one that applies to hardware?

...not that I think that this is an agreeable situation. But I am hardly
surprised to see things evolve in that direction.

~~~
JBiserkov
>Until Intel distributes a EULA with the processor. ... written with a _very_
tiny font in silicon.

------
gaius
This is quite normal in high-end kit; If you buy an HP SuperDome for example
with half the CPUs they'll probably actually ship you a fully loaded one with
half the chips turned off (still for the price of exactly what you ordered).
Then when you want to upgrade you don't have to take any downtime, you just
pay them the difference and they supply you with the codes to unlock it. IBM
do this with mainframes all the time.

First time I've seen this on consumer kit tho'.

~~~
_delirium
It seems a little clearer in that case, because mainframe purchases are often
pretty explicitly "licenses" rather than "purchases", with an actual contract
negotiated between the two companies. IBM used to even come and take back the
machine if you stopped paying the annual fees, because you didn't really own
it. Consumer hardware is more typically a "sale", though, with no real
contract-negotiation phase, and both parties' obligations completed after the
sale, except for any warranties.

------
zitterbewegung
Couldn't someone theoretically figure out how to enable these features without
paying intel? I suspect if intel starts doing this people are going to figure
out ways around this.

~~~
dedward
Practically guaranteed someone will, in no time flat, figure out how to unlock
these, and that knowledge will be spread far and wide. There will be a run on
the stores for the cheap versions of the chips for this reason, mostly for the
home/small shop busines, and then Intel won't do it anymore.

------
pmjordan
This actually sounds pretty good to me, at least in theory.

Upgrading the CPU is quite costly - you have to take out the old CPU and
replace it altogether with a new one. With HDDs you can put the old one in an
external enclosure and get some use from it (if the reason you're replacing it
isn't failure), and with RAM you might have slots free, so you can keep using
the old stuff in addition to the new.

Replaced CPUs tend to be pretty useless. The socket type changes _all the
time_ , so you have to eBay it off. Laptops are worse, the CPUs are often
soldered on or you can't find replacements.

The only real problem I foresee is that the upgrades are likely going to be of
limited use. Hyperthreading gives you a modest boost, anything more than that
(clock speed, disabled cores, cache) will drive up power consumption and
therefore thermal dissipation. Computers upgradeable in this way will have to
contain cooling systems that can cope with the extra heat, even if 90% of
people will never upgrade. Might still be feasible for the very low end (Atoms
- especially as they're so slow even "normal" people might upgrade) or as CPUs
become increasingly modular (either double your CPU _or_ GPU cores in the same
package, but not both).

------
anigbrowl
I ♥ AMD when it comes to pricing. Their pricing ratios seem to reflect the
realities of production yields rather than market segmentation, and seem more
closely correlated with performance. (Desktops; haven't looked at server CPUs
lately).

------
seanos
This already happens with cars. For example, the difference between the BMW
Mini One and Cooper versions is basically just a different engine map on the
CPU, with the former restricted in power and the latter sold at a higher price
<http://www.newmini.org/content/mini_jan02.htm>.

~~~
dchest
This seem to happen with mice [animals] too:

 _Deleting a certain gene in mice can make them smarter by unlocking a
mysterious region of the brain considered to be relatively inflexible,
scientists at Emory University School of Medicine have found._

[http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20100918/2064/gene-
limits-l...](http://www.medicaldaily.com/news/20100918/2064/gene-limits-
learning-and-memory-in-mice.htm)

------
dchest
Can't wait to go to The Pirate Bay for upgrades to my hardware.

------
jjcm
We already do this in several industries, so it's nothing to get that upset
about. However my larger worry here is that the end-users will now think that
software can upgrade their hardware. That alone opens up huge doors in
security - users will inadvertently download some tracking program that claims
to "upgrade their processor" under the assumption that it does the same thing
that intel is doing. Good for computer repair companies and spyware companies,
bad for the end user.

~~~
wmf
You're about 15 years late; IIRC there was malware that claimed to upgrade
your modem to 56k and your CD-ROM drive to a CD-R drive.

------
nivertech
Two more examples:

* Nvidia intentionally capping floating point precision on 1/8th on their GTX 480 cards, since they cost a fraction of their Tesla cards. Both based on latest Fermi architecture.

* In automotive industry: two otherwise identical cars, but with different versions of engine microcontroller driver, can have many thousands of dollars difference in price.

------
shirtless_coder
1-2 months tops before someone breaks their security.

~~~
seltzered
well, that risk is exactly why they're testing the idea out in low-end markets
first - so the people who would break the security for this probably don't
even care for this laptop anyways.

~~~
wmf
You don't have to scratch your own itch. An entrepreneurial hacker could start
selling "$50 value" unlocks for, say, $25.

~~~
jdietrich
Last time I checked, that would constitute illegal circumvention under the
DMCA.

~~~
brazzy
Did you actually check at all?

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102
----000-.html)

Doesn't look to me like it covers CPU features.

~~~
jerf
They'd probably argue you're circumventing the copyright protections on the
portion of the chip you didn't pay to access, just as circumventing DRM for
pre-installed DLC for a game would be a DMCA violation. Anybody's guess what
the courts would say about that, that is to say, I'm not saying I agree with
this argument, just that I think it would be good enough to get someone
selling $25 unlocks into court with a decent chance of serious losses.

~~~
caf
Since when do you make a _copy_ of those parts of the chip to use them?

Copyright is about the right to restrict copying - the clue is in the name.
The software case is fundamentally different, because your computer must make
a (temporary) copy of the software in order to use it.

~~~
jerf
You don't _make_ a copy, you _have_ a copy. The DMCA applies to such works as
well, at least as far as the law is concerned. This is part of why the DMCA is
so offensive, the "anticircumvention" clause grotesquely expanded copyright
law well beyond the act of mere copying. The _act of circumvention_ becomes
illegal, regardless of whether it even involves you "making a copy" in the
eyes of the law. The act of playing a DVD on Linux by hacking past the
encryption is illegal, even though that is not usually considered "making a
copy" in the eyes of the law. (That's also something that has been fought over
but I'm not convinced has been settled.)

~~~
caf
The DMCA bans circumventing effective technological measures intended to
prevent copying. The technological measure you'd be circumventing here is one
intended to prevent you from using a feature of the hardware, not prevent you
from copying a copyrighted work. The DMCA does not appear to apply.

(On the other hand, if they designed it such that you needed to upload a piece
of (copyrighted) microcode to the CPU on each boot, then that could well bring
it within the remit of copyright law. In that case, if you wanted to produce a
third-party version, you'd have to write your own "clean room" version of the
necessary microcode, which seems like a pretty high hurdle).

------
jacquesm
DEC used to do this with their hardware, they would cripple an otherwise
perfectly functional machine to a cheaper model in order to segment the
market.

Of course DEC field engineers did not feel like waiting for the diagnostics to
complete so they usually temporarily upgraded the machine to full spec to run
their tools, then revert the changes before they left.

This was a funny little dance because some of their customers had clued in to
the trick and would do the same thing after the engineers have left, upgrading
the machine, only to downgrade it just before a field engineer would arrive.

On the plus side, if this is a software thing I fully expect it to be hacked.

------
heimidal
It seems most of the commenters here are overestimating the average consumer.

Excluding the friends I have in the tech industry, not a single one of my
friends or family would be able to tell you the different between the CPU and
software on their computer.

Besides, which is a better value proposition to the consumer (even if it is
not a better value in reality)? Paying $50 for an online CPU upgrade that
makes their processor appear 10% faster, or dropping $500+ on a brand new
computer to get 40% faster?

------
bobds
My question is, how do you unlock/lock things on the processor via software?
Does the CPU have a special instruction that the software triggers? I can't
wrap my mind around it.

~~~
tbrownaw
I would guess it uses some of these: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-
specific_register>

------
rdl
IBM and Sun Microsystems (one of the first workstation vendors, then seller of
servers, especially to finance; now an obscure division of Oracle, a
commercial database company) used to do something similar with their biggest
machines -- ship a fully populated high-end server, and then sell activation
of CPU and memory resources after the fact. I don't know how this was
enforced; I think it was mainly done at the OS or firmware level, not at the
CPU level.

------
robk
Intel has been doing this for years with 100% flawless chips. Crippling a chip
is part of their business. Their yield management is fantastic such that they
run entire wafers at the higher spec then choose what % to sell as lower-end
SKUs purely based on demand. Perhaps 10 years ago this was driven by yield
quality, but nowadays the number of chips out of a batch that can't pass the
test for the top-of-the-line product in that batch are < 1%.

------
kule
This seems like a great idea to me - sell the slower processor cheaply to the
customer with the promise that they can upgrade it later via a simple code
with no hardware changes necessary. The customer can get a performance boost
later down the line when they have the need/money for it.

Intel gets the opportunity to make a little more money and the customer has a
little future proofing - like I said seems like a great idea to me....

------
strebler
Funny related sidenote: the Chinese government was at one point so paranoid
about buying processors from western companies that they initiated the
creation of their own CPU architecture and began fabrication. They had a fear
that outside CPUs could be programmed to be disabled (either remotely or under
certain scenarios).

In any case, the processors were reportedly quite bad and the whole thing was
eventually dropped.

~~~
caf
That would be the Loongson.

It's a reasonably performing MIPS clone, and the project is still active.

~~~
strebler
You're right, it's still active. I just remember it having terrible
performance 4-5 years ago and interest in it being less than stellar.

------
tzury
Well, if it was SAAS (software as a service), no one would have complain about
that, right?

With every paid service, one can get a list of features for a fixed price, and
then pay more to "unlock" features that that very software can already do.

I wonder why is it easier for people to pay extra for extra in software but
not in hardware.

Does anyone have an idea?

------
adbge
How does this business model even make sense? I just can't wrap my head around
why you would produce a product, cripple it, and then sell it.

Edit: My point is that Intel is intentionally reducing the value of their
product. How can they afford to do that and remain competitive?

~~~
xenophanes
So you don't have to produce lots of different products? Mass producing the
same good version is cheap.

~~~
gaius
It's like region locked DVD players. It's all the same kit off the same
assembly line, just with one jumper lead attached. If you're Sony or whoever
you want to be able to shift your inventory from country to country if that's
where the demand is.

~~~
caf
It's not even a physical jumper, most DVD players can be switched region by
means of codes sent to the IR port.

------
rbanffy
What worries me more is that if software can enable parts of a chip, software
could, also, cripple the processor by enabling conflicting parts.

~~~
dedward
IIRC, intel chips have had software modifiable microcode (or some portion
thereof) that could render them useless for a good 10 years or more.

~~~
chronomex
Intel microcode lives in SRAM. It can't survive a power cycle, and so has to
be loaded on every boot.

~~~
rbanffy
Interesting. Can it be written during normal operation? Like giving up a
couple opcodes for a better implementation of an important one?

