Why is 8950hk config upgrade SO much more than 8750h?

[eltouristo]

I'm not asking a general stupid question for people to say 'that's just how much it cost' or 'it's worth it'. I mean, does anyone have the actual reason? Does it really COST the (bga MB) suppliers that much more to get the chip from Intel vs the 8750h? I am talking about what is generally around $600 more JUST for that upgrade! But you see the internet published Intel price difference between the two chips is 'only' about $200 So...THAT is either wrong or there is something else going on. I still sorta think there is an ACTUAL 'legitimate' reason, like it does actually cost close to that much more for vendors to get it in their hands. BUT, I know it could be 'other reasons'. It seems to be consistent across all vendors...but they could just all be forced to pay up somehow from a single supplier...idk. SOMEWHERE in the supply chain it seems to be that ($600) much more...but where? and why? Anyone know? If I knew that, I might not feel quite so UTTERLY frustrated and refusing to considering to muster almost 50% more for my base config vs 8750h. Though I still probably would never pay an extra $600 for that. I would gladly pay $200-300, maybe $400 at the outside, but $600 is just like *** ?!' I can't have what I want/need because.. screw u and your *** up pricing ! It's seems just weird...like they DON"T want people to get the better chip/mb, or some weird 'catch 22' where they are afraid to have adequate supply of them from fear of less demand from slightly higher price, which ends up making price dramatically higher? R/D and production costs of MB etc are, or should be, all be the same or very nearly so. Yeah I have no idea. Just pissed really. I think it's an interesting question I've not yet seen any clarity on. I sorta doubt there is some 'conspiracy' to 'gouge' those that 'have more money than sense' but, in the laptop industry, well...let's just say there are probably too few suppliers for everyone's good, idk. Still I more strongly suspect there is a 'legitimate' reason, I just have no idea what it is and am very curious about that.

 

[eltouristo]

things stated here so far are actually 'off topic' and are also in the form of 'examples'. That's all ok, but of course
they are not actual reasons. "whatever they can get" is not, for example, a reason. Or at least, the examples made so are are more like arguments that there is no such thing as an actual reason (or other things just a bit off topic also). So, to try to state question another way: An examples of actual answers would be ' "because this vendor has to pay this supplier this much for this MB". or "this supplier has to pay Intel this much for the cpu", or "because the cpu's can't be bought for the price Intel publishes for them". Then we would want to know why for example the supplier charged that, but we would have an actual fragment of an actual answer. I hope people might being to see what is meant by 'actual answer'. It means something specific. It's doesn't necessarily mean something 'special' or 'secret'. So there is no just cause to assume that. Just things that are specific. Generalized (non specific) related talk/speculation is not really informative, because while it is good to know in general at first, after looking into such things for a while in you life you see that generalized talk is not new, doesn't add anything, because those are all existing, known, general considerations. It's all like the 'normal background set of general considerations'. So what I've meant is, does anyone know actual reason(s)?

 

[USAFRet]

"because this vendor has to pay this supplier this much for this MB"
"this supplier has to pay Intel this much for the cpu"
"because the cpu's can't be bought for the price Intel publishes for them"

And those exact numbers are closely held corporate numbers. You will not find them published anywhere.

 

[eltouristo]

"because this vendor has to pay this supplier this much for this MB"
"this supplier has to pay Intel this much for the cpu"
"because the cpu's can't be bought for the price Intel publishes for them"

And those exact numbers are closely held corporate numbers. You will not find them published anywhere.

that not really exactly so. 'Closely held' is not what they really are always, or even ever, but especially not often. They are just contracts. In fact sometimes contracts are quite public. Unpublished is definitely true. But if someone had that knowledge and talked about it loose terms and hints but still gave some ball park guidance that would not get anyone in trouble. It perfect reasonable to think that if you just happen to talk to right person on the phone at one of the Asian vendors or something, that they would pretty much give the actual reason. That's not farfetched, but it's not necessarily likely either. It just is what it is. It's not really easy to get those guys on the phone but sometimes you can. I might try to call Sager, for example, I've had a decent experience talking with them about Clevo etc.

 

[Barty1884]

Nobody you'll talk to at Sager/Clevo etc are even going to know the supply chain cost, let alone be willing to share it with you.
Those are decisions/information that's at a much higher level than anybody answering the phone.

Sure, somewhere along the supply chain you might be able to find out that X component costs Y amount to a given vendor.... sure, with a bit of luck & some loose lips on a given individual.

What is that going to get you though? Ok, so a MB/Chassis etc etc costs X. Unless you're putting the same call in to suppliers of every component, and having the same luck with a given individual at every factory, you're still no further forward.

"because this vendor has to pay this supplier this much for this MB"
"this supplier has to pay Intel this much for the cpu"
"because the cpu's can't be bought for the price Intel publishes for them"

And those exact numbers are closely held corporate numbers. You will not find them published anywhere.

that not really exactly so.

Except, it is.
MB suppliers negotiate their prices with vendors individually. If a vendor discloses how much they pay for a given MB, they're in breach of contract -- and they won't be dealing with that supplier any longer, at least not at that price.

How much a supplier has to pay Intel for a given chip isn't going to be knowledge the vendor is even likely privy to.
Their interest is how much the MB (etc), including the CPU, will cost them. Sure, the supplier can claim Intel are charging more to justify the cost to the vendor, but how would you validate how truthful that is?

Say you ask MSI. They tell you "the supplier told us they have to pay X for the Intel CPU". If the supplier is outright lying about that fact, what MSI tell you is then incorrect.


Nobody knows what price Intel *charge* for the chip is. So it's not even a matter of being available at Intel's listed price.
Intel list no such price. They list a "Recommended Customer Price". There's no requirement to stick to that, and there's no direct link between a customer price & a supplier cost.

 

[eltouristo]

Making assumptions about the nature of a thing without knowing the nature of it. We can't know how 'complicated' the answer is, so we can't know it's 'impossibly complicated'. It seems likely to be either the Intel deal being more than is 'recommended', or who is making the MB increasing the price vs 8750h MB, or a combination of those.

 

[COLGeek]

Making assumptions about the nature of a thing without knowing the nature of it. We can't know how 'complicated' the answer is, so we can't know it's 'impossibly complicated'. It seems likely to be either the Intel deal being more than is 'recommended', or who is making the MB increasing the price vs 8750h MB, or a combination of those.

You are getting the only answers that can be provided. There really isn't any more that anyone can provide as it seems you won't be satisfied with any response.

Supply. Demand. Companies will charge what they believe the market will pay. Premium components fetch premium prices.

Sometimes the answer is "that is just the way it is".

Good luck finding your answer.

 

[okcnaline]

-snip- I mean, does anyone have the actual reason? -snip-

Yes. We can answer your question with 3 sentences and one question.

1) Are you a troll?
2) Because Intel could.

 

[ElectrO_90]

Simple Maths
If someone is willing to pay a small fortune for something, greed/capitalism allows this.
If you want to know what companies ARE ripping you off, just check their profit margin. It really is THAT simple.

 

[Solandri]

Making assumptions about the nature of a thing without knowing the nature of it. We can't know how 'complicated' the answer is, so we can't know it's 'impossibly complicated'. It seems likely to be either the Intel deal being more than is 'recommended', or who is making the MB increasing the price vs 8750h MB, or a combination of those.

One cannot prove a negative. Say I claim reindeer can't fly. I capture 100 reindeer, push them off a cliff, and all of them plummet to their deaths. I have not proven that reindeer cannot fly. I have only proven that those 100 reindeer could not fly. Even if I gathered every reindeer alive, and pushed them all off this cliff to their deaths, you could counter that the reindeer chose not to fly, for some reason preferring death over revealing their flying ability. It is impossible for me to prove that reindeer cannot fly.

OTOH, if you produce a single flying reindeer, then my claim is utterly and irrevocably disproven. Since proving a positive is possible, while proving a negative is impossible, the burden of proof falls upon the person advocating the positive hypothesis to prove it.

Likewise, we are telling you how pricing should work out if things are left to market forces. If you believe differently, it is not up to use to prove that Intel is not manipulating prices - that is impossible to prove. It is up to you to prove that Intel is manipulating prices. And speculation is not proof. You'll need to do some investigative reporting and get your hands on some of the contracts Intel makes with motherboard manufacturers. Yes we are making assumptions about the nature of the pricing. But lacking evidence to the contrary, these assumptions are the ones which have the highest probability of being correct. The situation changes if you can dig up evidence, but thus far you haven't provided any evidence. All you've done is post speculation, and attacked anyone who offered an explanation counter to your speculation.

Simple Maths
If someone is willing to pay a small fortune for something, greed/capitalism allows this.

Small correction. It is not greed which allows it. It is the fact that the buyer is getting more value out of the purchase than what it cost him to acquire it. If the buyer is getting $1000 worth of value out of the product, and is upset that the manufacturer is charging him $300 instead of $200, then it's the buyer who is being greedy. Not the seller.

This sort of resale with added value is what makes the economy work.

A mining company sells a quantity of iron ore to a refinery for $2, because it only cost them $1 to dig it up.
The refinery buys the ore for $2, because they can sell the refined iron to a smelter for $3.
The smelter buys it for $3 because they can sell the final steel ingot for $4.
The tool company buys the ingot for $4, because they can use it to make a hammer they sell for $5.
The hardware store buys the hammer for $5 because they can sell it for $6.
The carpenter buys the hammer for $6, because he can use it on his construction projects to get more than $6 of value out of it.

 

[ElectrO_90]

A mining company sells a quantity of iron ore to a refinery for $2, because it only cost them $1 to dig it up.
The refinery buys the ore for $2, because they can sell the refined iron to a smelter for $3.
The smelter buys it for $3 because they can sell the final steel ingot for $4.
The tool company buys the ingot for $4, because they can use it to make a hammer they sell for $5.
The hardware store buys the hammer for $5 because they can sell it for $6.
The carpenter buys the hammer for $6, because he can use it on his construction projects to get more than $6 of value out of it.

Change the tool company selling the hammer for $50
then change the hardware company selling the hammer for $100

Then you can see it's a rip off, just like memory and many other things.
Putting low value on it, makes it look better in your eyes, but the truth is, nothing is marketed or sold like you seem to perceive.

 

[Barty1884]

Realistically, regardless of the actual values involved Sonandri is correct.

There's three types of consumers, and only two are relevant here

1. A consumer with more money than sense & wants the bragging rights of having X product.
2. A consumer who feels a given product represents a good 'value' between performance & price.
3. A consumer who depends on a given product & simply has to buy that, specific product - regardless of cost.

Clearly #3 has no place in the argument - mobile processors simply are not a 'need'

Leaves you either consumers who just want the product & those that feel it represents a fair value proposition.


Regardless of how a product is marketed, the consumer dictates demand

If you feel it's a "rip off", don't buy it.

 

[COLGeek]

Folks, I think we have answered this one to death. As the OP hasn't been back, I'll close for now.