Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
A creative example of the value of free driversA creative example of the value of free driversPosted Mar 31, 2008 2:51 UTC (Mon) by ikm (subscriber, #493)Parent article: A creative example of the value of free drivers
Selling software/drivers disguised as hardware is something some companies like to do, unfortunately. Someone here probably remembers a particular sort of Nvidia's Quadros which were more or less rebranded consumer boards with different pci ids, with some software optimizations getting enabled in the drivers when these pci ids were encountered. Seems that something in the same vein goes on here. When the hardware and the drivers are pretty much sold in one package, sometimes it's hard to tell one from another. A concept of a manufacturer selling drivers for its own hardware definitely sounds ugly. Ok, now, does anyone know a good manufacturer of audio boards?
(Log in to post comments)
A creative example of the value of free drivers Posted Mar 31, 2008 5:13 UTC (Mon) by jamesh (subscriber, #1159) [Link] That seems to be true for some of the features in the modified driver (AC3 encoding), but not for others. It seems that the Vista drivers for particular Creative hardware expose fewer features than the XP equivalent. Using an operating system upgrade as an opportunity to sell a customer new hardware that they don't need seems to be the bigger story. With free drivers, the hardware vendor isn't required to keep them working for obsolete hardware, but there is nothing wrong with a third party doing the work (as has happened here with the Vista drivers).
It's a common marketing practice Posted Mar 31, 2008 10:11 UTC (Mon) by kbengston (subscriber, #6153) [Link] There was a popular 80s multimeter brand that used the same internal circuit board for base model and deluxe version. A single jumper enabled the upgrade. Of course the markings on the outside of the case gave no clue that the extra features were available, but they were if you knew. The manufacturer clearly thought that he could make a profit with either model, and that his engineering costs would be minimised if the two used mostly identical hardware. Was it legal to enable the deluxe features that were dormant in the base model hardware that many paid for? Most thought it was, though probably only a minority voided their warranty and actually did it. The manufacturer had the good grace (and funds) to chalk it up to experience. He hasn't repeated the mistake since.
It's a common marketing practice Posted Mar 31, 2008 16:03 UTC (Mon) by mckay (subscriber, #2782) [Link] A friend of mine told me that IBM did this with their 1130 minicomputers, back in the day. You could purchase a "speed upgrade" that doubled the computer's speed. The "upgrade" consisted of changing a jumper, which took a flip-flop out of the clock line.
It's a common marketing practice Posted Apr 1, 2008 6:36 UTC (Tue) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] This is so common there's even a term for this: "mid-life kicker". This applies both to doing a product upgrade in middle of a product's lifespan (which is hardly controversial), and also, I think, to the idea of "slugging" a product at launch and remove the "slug" for a fee when doing the upgrade. While this looks rather insane to some people, it is quite a sensible business practice - the company can sell the initial product for a somewhat lower price maybe, and grow the market, then release the faster/better product via upgrade without actually shipping new hardware to existing customers. Overall costs are lowered, and in a competitive market both the new and old product should cost less than shipping an entirely "new" product. Of course it does depend on customers not finding, or being unwilling to mess with, the "slug"...
It's a common marketing practice Posted Apr 2, 2008 2:46 UTC (Wed) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] IBM practiced this across their MVS mainframe range for many years. Their customers didn't feel too upset, as they were basically renting MIPS. At original sale IBM would ship bigger iron with some CPUs either clocked slow or disabled. Then the customer would pay more, a "screwdriver upgrade" would occur, and the customer would IPL (reboot) into a faster machine. The benefit to the (typically banking and government) customer was simple. A mainframe "forklift upgrade" takes about two years of planning to minimise risk and disruption. An IPL takes about eight weeks of planning.
It's a common marketing practice Posted Apr 4, 2008 0:46 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] These days, even turning a screwdriver is pretty expensive, so this kind of price discrimination is done with cryptographic keys -- you pay your money and the vendor emails you a key that brings the dormant or underutilized hardware to life. Sometimes you can downgrade again later too.
It's a common marketing practice Posted Mar 31, 2008 16:58 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Usually, the base model doesn't use some of the lower-yield portions of the circuit that the deluxe model uses, and they test boards and jumper only the ones that pass. Of course, then their yield improves, and they need to take off the jumper to meet demand for the base model. But there's often a reasonable chance that doing the upgrade on your own will reveal that the thing won't actually work like that. In any case, if the company is making a profit selling the deluxe hardware internals at the base price, and this is able to compete with other manufacturers, having people find out that they can turn the base model into the deluxe model is probably a net win. Of course, it's usually not possible to make a profit making deluxe hardware and selling it at base model prices.
|
|||||||||||