The current policy:
Calculate the exact point at which consumers will no longer have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Next, calculate the exact minimum amount of percentage performance increase over this number-- (5%, 6%?), at which consumers will have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Finally: Provide that chip.
This means that if Intel *can* remove 2 extraneous cores and provide 5% performance, they will do so, and it's a perfect plan.
This is the collective shareholder will manifesting product outcomes that are intended to maximize profits.
The reason for Intel doing this has been stated by many: Intel must protect their R&D investment in order to have a safe buffer to ride on in the future. And they must be able to stretch this investment out as far as it can go, in order to reap the returns on it for as long as possible.
---
The change I want to see:
Intel, give us everything you've got. This means if you're stuck, and you can't give any more performance, it should be because you're genuinely stuck, not because of any calculation. Why not give the 8 core Haswells now and then screw up in the future if you can't come up with anything faster? If the era has been stagnant, go ahead and give something now. Let's push the "freeze" into the future as far as it can go. Give as much as you've got at every moment, and let the freeze be NATURAL, not artificial. Screw the fake freeze!
I think they could keep it up like that by making individual decisions at certain key years. It doesn't mean they have to lose massive money. Just don't have oversight on key years. 2013 was one of those years. Because everybody became aware of the era, and the illusion broke.
---
Would this be reasonable to even ask of any company?
How can you ask a company to make less profits?
How can a company work against the wishes of the shareholders?
Is the fake freeze not even fake at all?
Is Haswell genuinely Intel's best technology?
They've got 10 core Xeons, but 8 core Haswell would literally not be possible?
Would 8 core Haswell have been possible if Intel chose to be a less profitable company?
A slightly less profitable company, or a much less profitable company?
What if Intel dropped the non-Xeons completely, and used a simplified product lineup to save money?
What if Intel stopped manufacturing all chips with a lower core count, and used the simplified lineup to save money?
How could we convince Intel to lose 6% profits in order to advance the world's computation by 20%?
Does a company have any duty to humanity to consider such ideas?
---
Let's make an Intel, screw the 5% margin campaign.
Maybe you'd make more money in the future, if you screwed the margin now. How?
When the world is advancing more rapidly, we may be able to produce more babies.
We may be able to compute better things and produce more technology.
We may be able to feed the humans on our planet more quickly, and get them ready as customers for Intel.
We may be able to create a network of planets, full of humans spreading to the stars sooner.
We may be able to have more people to purchase your chips, if you give us faster ones.
Therefore, maybe you're wrong to not give everything at every moment.
Calculate the exact point at which consumers will no longer have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Next, calculate the exact minimum amount of percentage performance increase over this number-- (5%, 6%?), at which consumers will have any reason whatsoever to purchase a new chip.
Finally: Provide that chip.
This means that if Intel *can* remove 2 extraneous cores and provide 5% performance, they will do so, and it's a perfect plan.
This is the collective shareholder will manifesting product outcomes that are intended to maximize profits.
The reason for Intel doing this has been stated by many: Intel must protect their R&D investment in order to have a safe buffer to ride on in the future. And they must be able to stretch this investment out as far as it can go, in order to reap the returns on it for as long as possible.
---
The change I want to see:
Intel, give us everything you've got. This means if you're stuck, and you can't give any more performance, it should be because you're genuinely stuck, not because of any calculation. Why not give the 8 core Haswells now and then screw up in the future if you can't come up with anything faster? If the era has been stagnant, go ahead and give something now. Let's push the "freeze" into the future as far as it can go. Give as much as you've got at every moment, and let the freeze be NATURAL, not artificial. Screw the fake freeze!
I think they could keep it up like that by making individual decisions at certain key years. It doesn't mean they have to lose massive money. Just don't have oversight on key years. 2013 was one of those years. Because everybody became aware of the era, and the illusion broke.
---
Would this be reasonable to even ask of any company?
How can you ask a company to make less profits?
How can a company work against the wishes of the shareholders?
Is the fake freeze not even fake at all?
Is Haswell genuinely Intel's best technology?
They've got 10 core Xeons, but 8 core Haswell would literally not be possible?
Would 8 core Haswell have been possible if Intel chose to be a less profitable company?
A slightly less profitable company, or a much less profitable company?
What if Intel dropped the non-Xeons completely, and used a simplified product lineup to save money?
What if Intel stopped manufacturing all chips with a lower core count, and used the simplified lineup to save money?
How could we convince Intel to lose 6% profits in order to advance the world's computation by 20%?
Does a company have any duty to humanity to consider such ideas?
---
Let's make an Intel, screw the 5% margin campaign.
Maybe you'd make more money in the future, if you screwed the margin now. How?
When the world is advancing more rapidly, we may be able to produce more babies.
We may be able to compute better things and produce more technology.
We may be able to feed the humans on our planet more quickly, and get them ready as customers for Intel.
We may be able to create a network of planets, full of humans spreading to the stars sooner.
We may be able to have more people to purchase your chips, if you give us faster ones.
Therefore, maybe you're wrong to not give everything at every moment.