(Not a perfect analogy I admit - opting out of a CPU security mitigation typically isn't going to risk anyone's life. At least not on most servers.)
(Not a perfect analogy I admit - opting out of a CPU security mitigation typically isn't going to risk anyone's life. At least not on most servers.)
(I'm not arguing equivalence between these two "post-consumer downgrades" -- just pointing out there's not only prior art for it occurring, but also prior art for repercussions/compensation.)
> Intel's response to the FDIV bug has been cited as a case of the public relations impact of a problem eclipsing the practical impact of said problem on customers. While most users were unlikely to encounter the flaw in their day-to-day computing, the company's initial reaction to not replace chips unless customers could guarantee they were affected caused pushback from a vocal minority of industry experts. The subsequent publicity generated shook consumer confidence in the CPUs, and led to a demand for action even from people unlikely to be affected by the issue. Andrew Grove, Intel's CEO at the time was quoted in the Wall Street Journal as saying "I think the kernel of the issue we missed [...] was that we presumed to tell somebody what they should or shouldn't worry about, or should or shouldn't do".