Not convinced the article is looking at this the right way
The premise is that you need a key to unlock a piece of hardware, and that people who don't have the key are going to be pissed they paid for silicon that can do something but doesn't. The people who have paid for the feature look on the cheap one and think "same hardware, but cheaper".
This is not the way to look at it. It's much simpler to ignore that fact it done by enabling parts of the silicon, just look on it as paying for a specific feature, irrespective of how it is supplied. The fact the HW is there to support it is a bonus! It means you CAN upgrade in place.
Of course, Intel being sneaky with regard to getting the kernel support is a different kettle of fish, but I see no problems with the premise of keys to unlock extra features. It's done in many other industries after all, with great success.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
