insidious hardware conspiracy, anyone?

[MichaelBurns]

Firstly, I want to emphasize that I am not accusing anyone of anything.

I just had a random thought, and I decided to indulge my more conspiracy-theory-prone side (and to invite a discussion with those of like mind).

1. Is it possible (i.e. cost-effective) to implement in the cpu some mechanism that intentionally disables it after a predetermined amount of usage?
2. Can such an implementation be made undetectible?
3. Do any cpu manufacturers actually do this?

One implementation that occured to me is a counter. When a certain number of computation cycles is counted, a disable signal is sent. Naively, I believe that this would add virtually no cost. An alternative to completely disabling the cpu would be to disable certain functions. The desired effect would, of course, be the purchase of a new computer (i.e. the computer manufacturer would make more money).

Anyway, I don't really believe that this is the case, since software development is more than sufficient to promote hardware obselescence. I was just wondering what anyone else thinks about this. I think that this might be borderline political, so no hard feelings if a moderator decides to delete this thread.

[Psumi]

Has anyone seen my wallet?

[Paqman]

The desired effect would, of course, be the purchase of a new computer (i.e. the computer manufacturer would make more money).

The actual effect would be that they'd be exposed by their competitors, lose all their customers and go bust.

[whiskeylover]

One thing I really do not understand about these "big bad evil corporation" conspiracy theories is - these corporations have thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people working for them in hundreds of different departments. Do you honestly think that they do something evil like that and not one person speaks out? I mean, atleast 200 engineers working on the chip must know about it, right? And you think every one of them is 100% loyal to the company so as to not reveal their dirty secrets to the outside world or the media? Maybe the big bad evil corporation embeds a capsule full of explosives in their butts and their children's butts so they can hold them at ransom if they tried to "out" their secrets?

[MrNatewood]

This logic may work for washing mahcines, where there isn't a bery good reason to buy a new one until the old one brakes.

But as long as computetion power increases, and so rapidly, there isn't a reason for the manufacture to implement this, even if possible in theory.

[Tristam Green]

Sony has a killswitch in their batteries that degrades upon warranty expiration.

Just sayin'.

[pastalavista]

Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law) makes (made) planned obsolescence unnecessary in the CPU biz.

[MichaelBurns]

I don't believe that any low-level engineers would need to know why they were asked to design a particular cpu. I never worked on cpu design, but even an asic that controls an o/e card is a huge project, and the director is the only one who needs to know the true purpose of every block of hdl. All the engineers need to know are input/output specs, power requirements, etc., and I don't know any engineers who wax philosophical about their projects. They are under so much pressure to just get it done and then move on to the next one. I believe that the director has more incentive to help the company make lots of money than he/she has to out the company and then begin the climb of a different company's corporate ladder.

[MichaelBurns]

Moore's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_Law) makes (made) planned obscolescence unnecessary in the CPU biz.Hmm... Are you implying that planned obselescence once occured in the cpu biz? Can you tell us more about it?

[tom66]

This might happen with all products, but it doesn't, because people won't buy a computer or a processor if it turns out to be unreliable. If my computer is still working when I decide to upgrade, then I think I will buy the same brand (of course if the original laptop was pretty good.)

[MichaelBurns]

This might happen with all products, but it doesn't, because people won't buy a computer or a processor if it turns out to be unreliable.Don't you have family members who have purchased win98, then xp, then vista, ...? I have several family members who have at least gone through win98 and xp. They ALL complain that their computers become more "corrupted" (with viruses, slow boot times, lost/inaccessible files, etc.) over time, yet they stick with windows for some god-only-knows reason. The average joe-user doesn't even seem to distinguish os from computer from cpu (and frankly I'm starting to wonder how separable they are).


If my computer is still working when I decide to upgrade, then I think I will buy the same brand (of course if the original laptop was pretty good.)I definitely agree with this. I have been running this laptop (Toshiba) for 5 years, I guess. It is in pretty bad physical shape, because I didn't take care of it like I should. But I recommend Toshiba to all of my family. And contrarywise, there is a certain "domestic" computer manufacturer that I have sworn off for probably the rest of my life, because their hardware seemed to malfunction regularly (esp. their laptop keyboards). So, for people like me (and you, I suppose), the disabled cpu would end customer loyalty.

However, most people continue to use windows. So I think that kind of logic just doesn't compute.

[steeleyuk]

Maybe the big bad evil corporation embeds a capsule full of explosives in their butts and their children's butts so they can hold them at ransom if they tried to "out" their secrets?

Have you been watching Man On Fire? :p I just got a picture of Denzel with the trigger...

[aaaantoine]

Sony has a killswitch in their batteries that degrades upon warranty expiration.

Just sayin'.

If my laptop is any indication, so does Acer.


Hmm... Are you implying that planned obselescence once occured in the cpu biz? Can you tell us more about it?

No, I don't think that is the implication. Perhaps you are confusing a pseudo-scientific law with government law. The author's choice of words is fuzzy but the main point stands. Because of the constant rate of evolution in semiconductor technology, there isn't a need to plan obsolescence.

[tom66]

Don't you have family members who have purchased win98, then xp, then vista, ...? I have several family members who have at least gone through win98 and xp. They ALL complain that their computers become more "corrupted" (with viruses, slow boot times, lost/inaccessible files, etc.) over time, yet they stick with windows for some god-only-knows reason. The average joe-user doesn't even seem to distinguish os from computer from cpu (and frankly I'm starting to wonder how separable they are).

I definitely agree with this. I have been running this laptop (Toshiba) for 5 years, I guess. It is in pretty bad physical shape, because I didn't take care of it like I should. But I recommend Toshiba to all of my family. And contrarywise, there is a certain "domestic" computer manufacturer that I have sworn off for probably the rest of my life, because their hardware seemed to malfunction regularly (esp. their laptop keyboards). So, for people like me (and you, I suppose), the disabled cpu would end customer loyalty.

However, most people continue to use windows. So I think that kind of logic just doesn't compute.
Windows isn't all that bad. Sure, I don't like it. But it works with most software, and if you keep a good antivirus running and clean out the cruft, it works quite well. The main reasons that people use Windows though is because, a) it works with most hardware and software, b) they're familiar with it.

The same is not true for processors or computers. They all sort of work the same - they should all run most software.

[audiomick]

If my laptop is any indication, so does Acer.

From what I have been told (from a guy in a computer shop who claimed to be an ex-Toshiba tech), so does Toshiba. A thing that counts loading cycles and then says the battery is broken after a certain number, regardless of it's real condition.

[RabbitWho]

It wouldn't make any sense to do that because you'd think " hey.. my mac only lasted 3 years, my friends dell lasted 10 years.. I'll get a dell next time" for this to happen either all the computer companies would need to be in league with each other, which they're not because they're competing, or we'd have to be living in some kind of society where there was only one computer company with a monopoly.

What i'm saying is, capitalism protects us from this.

I do believe they wait a while before releasing things if they know the competitors aren't ready, for example camera phones, they were possible way before they came out, but first we had to buy the crappy ones, and then we'd want to upgrade.

but i someone makes something it's their right to decide when they release it, that's different from deciding its their right to secretly destroy your property once you've bought it from them.

[NCLI]

Any company which tries this can wave goodbye to corporate contracts. The servers and workstations in most corporate environments are expected to last for well over five years, and are used every single day.

What i'm saying is, capitalism protects us from this.

But without capitalism, there would be no incentive to do it.

[Psumi]

I'm guessing no one watches Pulp fiction. :|

[Tristam Green]

From what I have been told (from a guy in a computer shop who claimed to be an ex-Toshiba tech), so does Toshiba. A thing that counts loading cycles and then says the battery is broken after a certain number, regardless of it's real condition.

Seen it on Dells too.

[MichaelBurns]

Windows isn't all that bad. Sure, I don't like it. But it works with most software, and if you keep a good antivirus running and clean out the cruft, it works quite well.I guess I'm living in a peculiar bubble of the universe, then. Indeed, I had dual boot with xp (when I used to have a working harddrive), and I never had any problems with it. It booted in about 30 sec, and most of the applications were snappy. But, literally everyone else I know who used windows xp and vista complained about what I mentioned in the previous post. Yet, they all repurchased windows machines.


The same is not true for processors or computers. They all sort of work the same - they should all run most software.They may all be able to run most software, but they certainly don't all work the same. For example, some are notorious for running MUCH hotter than others (because tweakers like to overclock them, I guess).


... for this to happen either all the computer companies would need to be in league with each other, which they're not because they're competing, or we'd have to be living in some kind of society where there was only one computer company with a monopoly.I believe that different company's market the different characteristics that make their computers stand out (or, in the case of mac, that make "pc"s look dumb). In any case, I believe that every year we get a fresh crop of clueless computer buyers - kids who have no idea what a long-term purchase means. They don't care if it stops working in a few years; it won't be the cool new gadget then anyway. What they want is all of the various features, and if the reliable computer doesn't have them then they will not buy the reliable computer. I would go so far as to say that computers are approaching disposable item status.


What i'm saying is, capitalism protects us from this.Capitalism is what motivates a company to bamboozle you as much as they can (e.g. into believing that there are significant competitors that keep you safe from monopoly).


but i someone makes something it's their right to decide when they release it, that's different from deciding its their right to secretly destroy your property once you've bought it from them.hdcp key revocation - not quite disabling a processor, but an example of effectively destroying your property.


Any company which tries this can wave goodbye to corporate contracts.Again, hdcp has solidified corporate contracts. In fact, corporations even jump through hoops and pay for the privelege of making their devices hdcp compliant.


The servers and workstations in most corporate environments are expected to last for well over five years, and are used every single day.What about a server version of the cpu that lasts longer. If it were implemented with a counter, this would incur practically no extra manufacturing cost.


I'm guessing no one watches Pulp fiction. :|The movie or the genre?

[phrostbyte]

No. Intel/AMD make a lot of money due to the Moore law. The processors/memory in general, last a really really long time (decades even). An HDD will go out sooner, and that's mainly because it's a ridiculously sensitive moving part, not some secrat conspiracy. :) Lith-ion batteries leak chemicals and go through irreversible chemical reactions over time, so they don't last very long.

[Psumi]

The movie or the genre?

Movie. See my first post in this thread on page 1.

[ElSlunko]

Actually a secret can be kept if you pay enough :)

[nrs]

It wouldn't make any sense to do that because you'd think " hey.. my mac only lasted 3 years, my friends dell lasted 10 years.. I'll get a dell next time" for this to happen either all the computer companies would need to be in league with each other, which they're not because they're competing, or we'd have to be living in some kind of society where there was only one computer company with a monopoly.

What i'm saying is, capitalism protects us from this.

O rly? I'm not saying they employ kill switches or whatever, but I think your reasoning is completely bogus. I cite every price fixing scandal that has ever occurred. The fact that it occurs proves your argument wrong because it requires all the things you say can't happen to happen.

[Desert Sailor]

The concept is unnecessary in my opinion. The computers already self destruct just by virtue of the memory, parts and power required to run "modern" applications.

I personally am convinced that Microsoft and Intel have a devils pact.. Microsoft makes an OS that needs more processor, so Intel makes a new processor to run the bloated operating system fast, which now makes it possible for Microsoft to include more bells and whistles and features, which will then require a bigger processor... and it goes on and on. Actually even Linux and Ubuntu are guilty of including more things to support more devices which requires more memory and faster CPU's.

Remember it was the glorious Bill Gates who said that 640K is all the memory anyone would EVER need.

I remember when I bought my first 10-Meg full height 8 inch IBM hard drive. The Salesman told me I would NEVER fill it up...

Point is that the manufactures don't need to build anything in their system, our natural desire to have a bigger more powerful, faster machine will take care of everything for them.

[pwnst*r]

lol, who comes up with this crap?

[Frak]

lol, who comes up with this crap?
The OP.

[pwnst*r]

That's why I like you, Frak, you so smart! Thanks, bro!!!

[pastalavista]

Hmm... Are you implying that planned obselescence once occured in the cpu biz? Can you tell us more about it?

I didn't imply anything. I gave you a link to read. I stated a fact. Planned obsolescence (which you misspelled even though it was right in front of you) occurred (which you also misspelled) in many industries... but not in the CPU industry.. because it wasn't necessary. You read more than is written and then dig up weird attitudes. You shouldn't try so hard.

[MichaelBurns]

pasta, thank you for pointing out my spelling errors. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're on about in your last post.

[Gallahhad]

Firstly, I want to emphasize that I am not accusing anyone of anything.

I just had a random thought, and I decided to indulge my more conspiracy-theory-prone side (and to invite a discussion with those of like mind).

1. Is it possible (i.e. cost-effective) to implement in the cpu some mechanism that intentionally disables it after a predetermined amount of usage?
2. Can such an implementation be made undetectible?
3. Do any cpu manufacturers actually do this?

One implementation that occured to me is a counter. When a certain number of computation cycles is counted, a disable signal is sent. Naively, I believe that this would add virtually no cost. An alternative to completely disabling the cpu would be to disable certain functions. The desired effect would, of course, be the purchase of a new computer (i.e. the computer manufacturer would make more money).

Anyway, I don't really believe that this is the case, since software development is more than sufficient to promote hardware obselescence. I was just wondering what anyone else thinks about this. I think that this might be borderline political, so no hard feelings if a moderator decides to delete this thread.
No, and if it ever happened, the hax would be afoot, and it would end up costing manufactures more to combat the hax then they would see in sales of new computers by such a mechanism. Further, most users would give preference to manufactures who did not use such a mechanism, so any manufacturer trying this would simply go bankrupt almost instantly.

Now, all of that said, I do know there is a hardware conspiracy; I over heard my Tower, Printer, and Keyboard talking, and they all got real quiet, that uneasy awkward kinda quiet when I came into the room. I'm not sure if they have my ADSL modem in the conspiracy yet, but omg's if they get the modem on board, I can only imagine what they will do.

[MichaelBurns]

... it would end up costing manufactures more to combat the hax then they would see in sales of new computers by such a mechanism.I don't understand what hax has to do with it. Why should cpu manufacturers care about hax? Please explain.