Except I don't, I said the same thing in the Pascal thread as well. If something is not in my budget, & I may or may not "want" it, I won't buy it.
Conveniently, of course, you side stepped the issues I listed in the 2nd para. Why are corporations able to make so much money, pay so few taxes & continue to exert an ever increasing influence over our lives & in politics too?
I'm sure you won't address it, since that's off topic but there seems to be a trend here & one which I don't agree with.
Entitlement is a funny word, because I find it slightly amusing that corporations can show misleading results & yet are entitled to all the profits based on those results? Do you remember 3.5GB from you know who?
I will address it. First off however, I never said that YOU were 'an entitled person'. Just a general remark on 'people' or 'your average consumer'. And then only the vocal ones, really.
Why are corporations able to make so much money > because different (tax) rules apply to them > and that happens because governments and countries want to attract those big corporations and companies because it also helps their economy. Its a catch 22. The same with the race to the top for CEO salary: its a hot topic in Netherlands, and one that will never really cease, but this is the sheer force of capitalism and always needing/wanting more at work right here. It has nothing to do with the price companies may or may not charge for a product and it has nothing to do with the margin on that price point. The real reason companies get rich, and more importantly, why the fat toads get even fatter, is because that is how money, power and influence simply works. It needs correcting, I agree, but that won't ever - EVER - happen through the price of a product for consumers.
As for punishing misleading results: yes, there should be more severe punishment of it, but the 3.5GB example was one of the few that wás actually punished and led to a sentence.
You seem to be mixing up several things here. Because even with misleading results, the reality is no different and even with the corrected results, there is a performance gap that Intel will, can and should be cashing in on. Its not like the Intel CPU is in fact slower than the cheaper alternative. The gap is just a bit less pronounced as it was made out to be.
As for 'entitled' to all the profits - that's a wrong use of the definition. They are not entitled to anything. They have created a (misleading) reality that some people will fall for, and many in fact do not. This goes back to the eternal argument that AMD can do whatever they won't be successful because Intel and Nvidia are evil and control the market. Its simply not true. The AMD offerings are often really, truly not that much of an advantage, OR they fail to sell them in the right way. History is filled to the brim with AMD PR and marketing fails. When something is going wrong, and you start pointing fingers at others to blame, you had best make sure you've got everything perfectly in order in your own house first... otherwise you're easy prey. Look at Intel, recently with their multitude of PR fails and security issues. Those have made AMD all the more interesting as an alternative.
Its that simple back and forth of mindshare that is of great influence to price. And in that tiny space, us, consumers, still have some real weight. Yes, it matters what an internet community says about a new release. Yes, it matters that we identify the 9900K as essentially overpriced. But its wrong to think that Intel 'should' price it lower. We do not know their strategy for the mid- or long term at all.
