Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
As I said, IF the renaming of 9800GT to GTS240 or 9800GTX+ to GTS250 results in a ZERO price increase from existing 9800GT's and 9800GTX+'s, then all is cool. That will mean there is no evidence of trying to "fool" the consumer into spending more money on a GPU with a "new" designation, or "sounds" like a new product. If the price goes up however, then we have some serious problems, or at least I will. As Zap has stated, there is zero evidence to date that pricing on the new name products would be higher. Lets hope it stays that way.
Even if they did raise their prices, where's the foul?
It is capitalism, supply/demand equilibrium. Marketing's job is to increase demand so they push the equilibrium ASP higher. If that means glitzy packaging and snazzy product names then so be it. Its their job (marketing) to add value to their employer above and beyond the compensation footprint they leave on the company as employees.
We may
feel like its motivated by malfeasance or unethical greed, but absolutely everything they do is motivated by the same mentality...so if we have an issue with the mentality of what drives publicly held businesses to increase revenue then we should have issues with them simply operating as
for-profit businesses in general.
A bridge which I don't think anyone wants to cross.
Is it unethical for a company to charge $300 for a product that costs $5 to produce? What about $10, or $100, or $299? Who are we to judge what is unacceptable greed and what is acceptable greed.
If NV discovers that all it takes to increase revenue is to rename an existing product the 2600GTorgazmo+ and price it to sell for $10 more than the existing hardware equivalent then where is the fiducial responsibility to their shareholders if the decision makers opt to not raise revenue by increasing the price on the 2600GTorgazmo+?
The only unethical aspect to this as I see it is the consumer who has access to all the info they need to make an informed educated purchase but chooses not to exercise their rights to secure this info for themselves, and subsequently decides to decry malfeasance and unethical business practice against NV (or any other company operating for-profit) as a means to blame someone/anyone other than themselves for their being "duped" into buying less for more.
edit: fixed analogy error (more for less versus less for more)
Is it unethical for a gas station on the corner of a street to charge $0.01 more per gallon than the gas station right across the street on the same street corner?
Or what about the same gas station company having two gas stations in the same town but one charges $0.01 more per gallon than the other gas station (two exxon's, same local franchise owner, for example)? Of course we don't see this as unethical, it is capitalism, consumers can find out online where the cheaper gas is in their town and they can go get it if they feel so inclined.
Actually, the real question is how many people did that and swore they noticed a huge difference? 
Facebook
Twitter