There is more nuance to this. Let me give you a better example that actually happens — SSDs. Manufacturer will tell you some miniscule amount of specifications, such as that the drive reads and writes some amount of MB/s. That's basically the only spec you get. Reviewers review this drive. It is a really good drive, dedicated controller, MLC/TLC flash, all the good stuff. It gets raving reviews. Some months after this, during which the drives have been selling like hot-cakes and have been recommended everywhere, the manufacturer swaps parts, without creating a new SKU/model. Some examples are swapping TLC flash for QLC flash, making the SSD DRAMless when it had a dedicated RAM before and such, all negatively affecting the performance in some way. After the changes, you can still read/write with the advertised speeds, but only for 10GB instead of indefinitely or the drive has much worse latency or what have you, you basically got bait-and-switched and bought an inferior product to what was expected. The question is, is this ok? I think it is not ok, even though the manufacturer technically did not promise all the seemingly undocumented stuff (although one could argue that it has been documented by the reviewers).

> As far as AMD is concerned, this was never supported, nor documented.

Maybe this is the only thing that concerned them but not the only thing they knew very well. AMD knew that this was widely used by consumers and that every motherboard manufacturer exposed the option to the user. They pulled the rug legally, knowing that all those many people standing on the rug will fall on their ass.

That's an asinine take. We're not talking about a remote subscription service changing an undocumented implementation detail. Physical artifacts shouldn't lose features due to the remote action of the company that made them.

Thank you for defending the Big Corp.