Thoughts on software-defined silicon [LWN.net]

Thoughts on software-defined silicon

Posted May 23, 2022 8:33 UTC (Mon) by jem (subscriber, #24231)
In reply to: Thoughts on software-defined silicon by littoral
Parent article: Thoughts on software-defined silicon

I don't see how this could be seen as a ripoff, if Intel is clear about what you get when you purchase the processor. What worries me is that people are not objecting to monopolistic pricing when you can't see it, but feel ripped off when they find out that a product is hiding additional capabilities that weren't in the purchase agreement in the first place.

I don't think we should be worried about Intel being a monopoly. To me it seems like they are gradually becoming the underdog, with AMD being competitive again. Apple has also proved that it is possible to make Arm processors that are competitive in general purpose computing, and with increasing distrust between China and the US, I wouldn't be surprised by a flood of powerful Chinese RISC V chips on the market in the coming years.

to post comments

Thoughts on software-defined silicon

Posted Jun 7, 2022 18:52 UTC (Tue) by flussence (guest, #85566) [Link]

> I don't see how this could be seen as a ripoff, if Intel is clear about what you get when you purchase the processor.

Intel's customer isn't you as an individual. These things are laundered through the retail and system-builder industry, and those middlemen are under no obligation to be clear or honest about this DRM if it'll make them an extra buck.

The Apple situation just reinforces that: they *do* advertise and sell direct to end users, so they aren't going to intentionally build lemons and cut corners simply because they don't have the responsibility-laundering arrangements in place to get away with that.