People are free to spend their hard earned cash however they please. It's not for me to comment on what someone else pays for.
I'm entitled to an opinion, certainly, but there's no point in airing that out in public, as it won't change anyone's mind one way or the other.
If it makes them happy, and it's not immoral or illegal (which I don't think SC is either at the present), then whatever floats your boat. I'm free to chose to spend the same as well, or not, as I wish.
I dedicated a long part of my early gaming days to Everquest. Our guild culture at the time heavily discouraged "game hopping" - the guild was close, and people would take it as a personal slight or even betrayal if people left the game/guild for other games. We were never top tier, but we were pretty competitive and made some good runs in progression during times when that wasn't very easy to do in Everquest.
And I felt that way too, for a long time. My playtime in Everquest tallies in Years played, not just hours or days, and that wasn't spent AFK.
Then, as the game got older, and I got older, I realized that taking breaks, trying other games, and playing with other people isn't betrayal, or personal slight, or anything else. It just isn't the case at all. I realized that I wanted play the game for my enjoyment, not just as a body to fill a raid in order to facilitate another 40-60 people's idea of a good time.
Then I started game hopping. I have ~a lot~ more fun playing games now. True, I don't get to enjoy the competitive raiding scene, I don't always get to experience all the content. But it went from being a high stress almost second job to a real form of entertainment - like it's supposed to be.
You could put in WoW exactly as it was the day it released in 2004, for every person who cheers, 5 say "You ruined it"
You could put in WoW exactly as it was the day before BC released, and for every person who cheers, 5 say "You ruined it"
You could pick any single update/upgrade/change the game as made since release to implement, and for every person who cheers, 5 say "You ruined it"
This is a no-win proposition, there is absolutely no way you can make everyone happy, and I don't even think a reasonable middle ground exists. That is probably why Blizzard tried to stay clear of it.
Speaking just for myself - I'm totally glad I was there when WoW opened their doors. I'm glad to have experienced a lot of the Vanilla experience. I am equally glad that games have evolved to be better and I never have to do that again.
There are a lot of reasons here, but the more I think about it, I think there are underlaying currents here. Maybe I just have my tinfoil hat on too tightly today.
This very well could be an Apple product - Intel has done Apple-specific configurations before (Crystalwell). They weren't exclusively provided to Apple, but they were definitely designed around Apple's specifications.
That being said, I don't think that's a huge volume of chips. Apple is a big company now, but that isn't on the back of their x86 computer line. The overall volume of Macbooks and iMacs is still a pretty low number compared to the overall x86 market. This is a great perk, but I don't think this was a driving decision in this particular announcement.
There is also the talk of Apple going ARM in their OSX line. This may be a tactic being employed by Intel intended to drive Apple to reconsider that, or at the very least, delay that. I don't know for certain any more than anyone else if Apple really is intending to do that, or what timetable they have to do it, but if that's the course that Apple has chosen to chart, then there is next to nothing that Intel could do to alter that, or significantly impact the time table. Again, I don't see a high enough volume from Apple in the x86 line to really make this a decision driver, but stranger things have happened.
I do think that it had more to do with IP. I don't know if this is a signal that Intel has given up on graphics entirely or not. I could be Intel needed AMD patents, and the cheapest way to do that was to give the allusion that your going to integrate their product early on, do a generation or two and float it out there without a lot of promotion. If it hits on it's own merits without a huge marketing campaign, then great, that was a low risk high payoff venture. If it doesn't hit, well, you have Intel's R&D dept in the background working the entire time to replace nVidia patented items with AMD patented items, and will re-release Intel HD Graphics and Larrabee 2.0 in a couple-three years. And the price of integrating that one or two generations (and giving the allusion of cooperation) up front was less than the price of purchasing the IP outright.
Then there is the Raja factor. Raja Koduri has been in the graphics field for a long time. He came from ATI/AMD graphics as CTO, and in 2009 went to Apple and worked on their GPU/Retina transition. Then he went back to be VP of AMD's Radeon Technologies Group in 2013, and was largely the person responsible for pulling AMD over to HBM memory, and has had a very large influence on Vega (and perhaps more so, Navi). He announced a sabbatical from AMD about a month ago. Then, out of the blue on Tuesday, he resigns from AMD.
The very next day, Intel releases a press release saying Raja is now working at Intel, and Intel is back in to pushing a discrete graphics product. Pundits buzzed about this being specifically to target nVidia, and there's something to that. But it's curious - I could see hiring Raja over to help with the integration of AMD into the Intel package, as was announced last week. That would make perfect sense.
I wonder how much of it was to just weaken AMD though. If Intel really does see Zen as a big of a threat as they are reacting to - couldn't this be just another reaction to Zen? How better to cripple AMD than to hit them where they are really doing well? And say what you want about Vega, but it has been selling and is generally a well received product. And for a long time, the RTG group has been floating the CPU group, pretty much since the release of the GCN architecture.
The announcement of a return to discrete graphics is curious. I would imagine that mining/datacenter sales volumes of GPUs has no small part in that. If you can't convince the world to buy your CPUs, and the world has shifted to buying discrete GPU packages, then you need to package your product as a discrete GPU; which was exactly what Knight's Landing tries to do, but hasn't been successful at.
I'm sure there was no single reason that is driving all of this, but it certainly is an interesting sequence of events lately.