What if Intel starts pricing like Comcast does?

[VirtualLarry]

This question was inspired by my friend's trip to Comcast today, along with a comment from this thread:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2221881

If only Intel had a nice 2C/4T SKU that fit right in-between the G620 and the i3 2100. Lower clockspeed, but with a decent turbo...that would be a WINNER. Say, about $75.

My friend is paying for 15Mbit/s down internet from Comcast, which costs $70/mo. They offer another plan, which is only 1.5Mbit/s down, which costs $40/mo.

What if Intel stopped trying to have a continuous lineup of CPUs, and instead, only offered "very cheap" (but very slow) CPUs, or "high end" (very fast, but very expensive) CPUs.

I suppose that there are market advantages and disadvantages to each approach.

If you were Intel, which way would you price CPUs, and why?

Would you offer a continuous lineup, much like GPU prices, where there is a definite price/performance ratio that you pay for, and it curves upwards in price, as the performance linearly increases?

Or would you offer very limited, take it or leave it choices, that forces the majority of customers to purchase a CPU that was faster and more expensive than they really wanted to spend, only because the only cheaper alternative was unacceptable from a performance standpoint.

IOW, what if Intel pared their lineup down to say, a G530 and a 2700K, and nothing in-between.

 

[God Mode]

I've commonly heard "don't buy it if you don't like it." What sucks is that these mega companies hold so many patents that it'll be impossible to find alternatives.

 

[scannall]

Comcast is a service. An overpriced on at that, supported by government granted monopolies. CPU's are a commodity. Like a car or a bag of sugar. No comparison.

 

[geokilla]

I've commonly heard "don't buy it if you don't like it." What sucks is that these mega companies hold so many patents that it'll be impossible to find alternatives.

Welcome to the flawed patent system. It was useful decades or centuries ago but today... :hmm:

 

[Idontcare]

Comcast is a service. An overpriced on at that, supported by government granted monopolies. CPU's are a commodity. Like a car or a bag of sugar. No comparison.

I have to agree with this in that utility services like your landline telephone, electricity delivery, cable, internet, water, garbage, sewer are all government sanctioned monopolies and the persistent train of price hikes and lackluster customer service really leaves little to be desired.

Some locales have deregulated utilities, but even then you can't help but get the impression all these guys are colluding to stay out of each other's gravy train domains.

CPU's and computers are not like that. I don't have limited choices that differ by region. Whether I live in TX or PA I have the same consumer choices for my personal computing devices. Which is something I cannot say about my cable, internet, water/sewer/trash, electricity, landline phone.

 

[Idontcare]

Welcome to the flawed patent system. It was useful decades or centuries ago but today... :hmm:

Any time man attempts to govern his neighbor he embarks on a process that leads to a flawed system.

I'd be all for dissolving the patent system if we simultaneously dissolved the laws that criminalize violence.

The mafia know exactly how to protect their wealth, physical and intellectual, without the need of government "protection".

But the government likes their cut, and they don't like anyone else honing in on their turf. So until a bigger badder family comes to town, we all pay our protection fees to uncle sam so our Intellectual Property is less likely to have an unfortunate accident :hmm:

 

[bononos]

I have to agree with this in that utility services like your landline telephone, electricity delivery, cable, internet, water, garbage, sewer are all government sanctioned monopolies and the persistent train of price hikes and lackluster customer service really leaves little to be desired.

Some locales have deregulated utilities, but even then you can't help but get the impression all these guys are colluding to stay out of each other's gravy train domains.

By 'regulation' you mean regulating by deregulating. The whole govt sanctioned monopoly diatribe is overdone and incorrect. It sounds nice and pat and fits nicely in the current political climate but ignores the fact of revolving doors btwn industry and govt and how it came about. By contrast we don't hear the argument so much about the medical insurance industry being the same patchwork of mini-fiefdoms throughout the country.

 

[lamedude]

While the telecommunications act of 1996 did away with exclusive franchise agreements it doesn't change the fact that most places have a monopoly or duopoly on service.

 

[RU482]

what if they start putting square tires on cars?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Or would you offer very limited, take it or leave it choices, that forces the majority of customers to purchase a CPU that was faster and more expensive than they really wanted to spend, only because the only cheaper alternative was unacceptable from a performance standpoint.

That won't work unless Intel has absolutely no competition, and even then they need a mid range at least. If they had 3 SKUs, 1 low, 1 mid, 1 high, a competitor like AMD can easily fit between the gaps left by having only 3 SKUs.

Even with a really good CPU like the Westmere-EP and Nehalem EX, AMD managed to find a gap between them. Offering a HPC-optimized chip with high bandwidth without the negatives of both the EP and EX. EP doesn't offer 4P configurations, and EX sacrifices pure performance for RAS for example.

Plus it works further to CPU manufacturer's advantage that low yielding parts can be sold, rather than scrapped. Service providers like Comcast or platform vendors like Apple, HP don't need to worry about "yields" on their chassis. Maybe yields are actually the most important reason why they shouldn't offer only a handful of SKUs.

 

[sm625]

The problem with intel is they charge so much money that people just go buy iGarbage because it is only marginally more expensive, or in some cases less expensive.

 

[Hulk]

If Intel priced like Comcast you'd need a "decoder USB stick" to allow your processor to run. And you would pay a monthly fee for "renting" it.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

I was thinking you were gonna go with something where you'd pick a price plan and every year you'd get a new cpu to replace the old one, like say you bought an i5-2500k plan for the year and when IB came out they sent you a i5-3550k to replace your aging (lol) i5-2500k.

Something like $18 a month 😀 for the i5-2500k package would be nice!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Something like $18 a month 😀 for the i5-2500k package would be nice!

Except that would be a six-month trial rate, and then it would go up to $70/mo. Running it overclocked, would cost you $120/mo.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

/🙁\

Dang you AMD(Dish)!!!

 

[exar333]

The problem with intel is they charge so much money that people just go buy iGarbage because it is only marginally more expensive, or in some cases less expensive.

Let it go buddy. What did Intel do to you anyway?

 

[StrangerGuy]

Why do people always forget Intel competes with itself and also market trends? This isn't 1990-mid 2000 era anymore where PCs obsolescence occurs at a much faster rate, exploding PC market growth and "impossible" stuff happening like MS support ARM.

 

[mosox]

Comcast is a service. An overpriced on at that, supported by government granted monopolies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

 

[exar333]

Why do people always forget Intel competes with itself and also market trends? This isn't 1990-mid 2000 era anymore where PCs obsolescence occurs at a much faster rate, exploding PC market growth and "impossible" stuff happening like MS support ARM.

Because sadly lots of people are so heavily 'emotionally' invested in AMD, that to speak otherwise offends them. It's not 2001 anymore where I can get a $60 AXP that can be OC'd to beat a $300 Intel CPU. Those days are long gone...

 

[ultimatebob]

If anything, Intel has TOO many choices in CPU's right now. It could stand to be pared down to about a dozen different options for each (server/desktop/mobile/ultramobile) product line.

I mean, seriously... why do they have both a 3.3 GHz and a 3.4 GHz Core i3 desktop processor, for example? Do you honestly think that anyone is going to notice the performance between those two?

 

[exar333]

If anything, Intel has TOO many choices in CPU's right now. It could stand to be pared down to about a dozen different options for each (server/desktop/mobile/ultramobile) product line.

I mean, seriously... why do they have both a 3.3 GHz and a 3.4 GHz Core i3 desktop processor, for example? Do you honestly think that anyone is going to notice the performance between those two?

OEMs love it. Dell/HP can configure a 'base' PC to have the 3.3ghz CPU and offer the 3.4 for 'only' $30 more. Intel sells the 3.4ghz for maybe $15 more to the OEM who splits the difference (in profit) from the upgrade. It's win-win. All Intel has to do is slightly bin the CPUs and package the 3.3 vs. 3.4s.

 

[soccerballtux]

what if they start putting square tires on cars?

a triangular tire would be better-- it would eliminate one bump

 

[soccerballtux]

I've commonly heard "don't buy it if you don't like it." What sucks is that these mega companies hold so many patents that it'll be impossible to find alternatives.

Amd isn't an alternative? If intel did something stupid like this AMD would jump right into the middle segment and provide something mid priced that performs much better than the low end.

In addition, there's ARM, thanks to who in a few years we'll have cellphones that can replace desktops for 95% of home users.

 

[soccerballtux]

If Intel priced like Comcast you'd need a "decoder USB stick" to allow your processor to run. And you would pay a monthly fee for "renting" it.

lol true

 

[monkeydelmagico]

VL, I think you are confusing devices and services. A more apt parallel would be your cable box and the services streamed to it.

I've said it before here:
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32845145&highlight=#post32845145

Oh noes please take this idea BACK. I shudder to think of an evil plan in which processor/computer manufacturers clone the wireless industry business model providing us with substandard devices, userous contracts, and confusing data plans. :'(

My opinion is that "cloud" computing/services is a step in this direction. Microsoft/Intel are late to the game though. Verizon is the 800lb gorilla in the room when it comes to giving away tools then charging to use them.