News SSDs pricing to 'skyrocket' as flash shortages are already underway — critical NAND packages are already in short supply, high-capacity SSD models...

[cyrusfox]

My price of Entry is $60 or less for 2tb drives or higher, 1tb is too little, it joins the box of other old used ssd that go in family and friend upgrades.

I don't mind buying used drives though, but new (Amazon Newegg) was cheaper than used (ebay, mercari, craigslist, facebook, etc.) back in May through July this year, funny enough...

 

[purpleduggy]

Is the shortage of demand for the chips artificial ?

it could be sometimes, though shortage of demand is rarely the method used, it is usually shortage of supply that is used to increase profits. if you control the supply chain source, this is easy to effect. artificial shortage of supply have been used extensively in the past by cartels to make their products seem more scarce and more expensive. in a few decades the TSMC\Micron\Samsung\Intel semiconductor and memory cartel will be exposed as artificially limiting supply when in reality there was never a shortage in supply, they just wanted to become rich faster.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

 

[bit_user]

in a few decades the TSMC\Micron\Samsung\Intel semiconductor and memory cartel will be exposed as artificially limiting supply when in reality there was never a shortage in supply, they just wanted to become rich faster.

You really shouldn't make assertions like this, without providing any evidence.

If you've followed this site's reporting closely, you'd know the few reported wafer price increases by TSMC haven't been enough to compensate for revenue opportunities lost to bottlenecks in their fabs or upstream suppliers (e.g. substrate, photomasks, etc.). Furthermore, fab capacity is far too expensive to overbuild, and lead times (especially given ASML's backlogs) are far too long for fabs to just snap their fingers and bring on more capacity as soon as there's a shortage.

Hence, it's not only irresponsible, but ignorant of readily available information to claim that fabs have been artificially restricting chip supply to bolster prices.

 

[purpleduggy]

You really shouldn't make assertions like this, without providing any evidence.

If you've followed this site's reporting closely, you'd know the few reported wafer price increases by TSMC haven't been enough to compensate for revenue opportunities lost to bottlenecks in their fabs or upstream suppliers (e.g. substrate, photomasks, etc.). Furthermore, fab capacity is far too expensive to overbuild, and lead times (especially given ASML's backlogs) are far too long for fabs to just snap their fingers and bring on more capacity as soon as there's a shortage.

Hence, it's not only irresponsible, but ignorant of readily available information to claim that fabs have been artificially restricting chip supply to bolster prices.

while you might be right, back in the days of the phoebus cartel, i'm sure there were many who expertly elaborated on why the 1000 hour lightbulb is simply impossible to improve upon and that the complexity of the technology is to blame not the fact that the cartel members are making billions from artificially limiting supply and holding back cutting edge 2nm tech for the ultra expensive citing expensive R&D. essentially giving consumers already decades old tech in 4nm while charging a premium. of course i have no proof just like the lightbulb buyer had no proof in the days of the phoebus cartel. only decades afterwards after hundreds of billions (adjusted for inflation) were exploited from consumers did proof come to light.

 

[thestryker]

while you might be right, back in the days of the phoebus cartel, i'm sure there were many who expertly elaborated on why the 1000 hour lightbulb is simply impossible to improve upon and that the complexity of the technology is to blame not the fact that the cartel members are making billions from artificially limiting supply and holding back cutting edge 2nm tech for the ultra expensive citing expensive R&D. essentially giving consumers already decades old tech in 4nm while charging a premium. of course i have no proof just like the lightbulb buyer had no proof in the days of the phoebus cartel. only decades afterwards after hundreds of billions (adjusted for inflation) were exploited from consumers did proof come to light.

Your analogy just doesn't make sense because if we're talking wafer processing they're all building more fabs and the thing that has been universal in scale fabrication from the beginning is idle fabs cost a significant amount of money. So if they're all building more fabs to process more wafers and yet somehow are also not increasing the number of wafers being sold they would all be losing a lot of money. So what you're suggesting with regards to manufacturing process nodes it just an impossibility.

As for the NAND market demand, or lack thereof, drove the prices down to the point where the manufacturers had stock since drive makers weren't buying NAND. To continue manufacturing at the same rate when you cannot sell everything you're making would be extremely irresponsible for the health of the business. Will they milk this for every last penny? Almost assuredly so.

Also if you're not aware memory cannot use leading edge nodes (at least as Intel/TSMC/Samsung foundries see them) for manufacturing and all 3 obfuscate what sort of process they actually use since they have to customize nodes just last year they were starting "10nm class" validation.

 

[purpleduggy]

Your analogy just doesn't make sense because if we're talking wafer processing they're all building more fabs and the thing that has been universal in scale fabrication from the beginning is idle fabs cost a significant amount of money. So if they're all building more fabs to process more wafers and yet somehow are also not increasing the number of wafers being sold they would all be losing a lot of money. So what you're suggesting with regards to manufacturing process nodes it just an impossibility.

As for the NAND market demand, or lack thereof, drove the prices down to the point where the manufacturers had stock since drive makers weren't buying NAND. To continue manufacturing at the same rate when you cannot sell everything you're making would be extremely irresponsible for the health of the business. Will they milk this for every last penny? Almost assuredly so.

Also if you're not aware memory cannot use leading edge nodes (at least as Intel/TSMC/Samsung foundries see them) for manufacturing and all 3 obfuscate what sort of process they actually use since they have to customize nodes just last year they were starting "10nm class" validation.

so do prices go up with more supply or with less supply? seems to me there isn't a supply issue as long as you're prepared to pay more. how does that work?

 

[thestryker]

so do prices go up with more supply or with less supply?

When we're talking about things like NAND which are basically just mass production of a standardized component straightforward supply and demand tend to drive it. So long as consumers are buying drives (be it individuals or OEMs) drive makers are building more and NAND manufacturers are producing more. With the NAND market that chain broke down which meant falling prices, but everyone can only cut their prices so much which is how we ended up with NAND manufacturers having stock as they couldn't afford to further lower prices and drive makers couldn't justify buying at existing prices.

So now we have NAND manufacturers cutting back how much they're making to level out the supply side of the market. I assume they will take advantage of this and make as much money as they can during this lull in demand.

seems to me there isn't a supply issue as long as you're prepared to pay more. how does that work?

The supply side isn't that there is none available but rather a limited amount which means whomever pays the most gets access to what is available. Take the TSMC and Apple relationship as an example: Apple bought out the first mass production runs of N5 and N3 which means nobody else got access to the limited supply available. The next customers who get access to those nodes likely won't pay the same rate as Apple did as production ramps up, there's more availability and Apple was paying for exclusivity to ensure they got everything they needed.

 

[purpleduggy]

When we're talking about things like NAND which are basically just mass production of a standardized component straightforward supply and demand tend to drive it. So long as consumers are buying drives (be it individuals or OEMs) drive makers are building more and NAND manufacturers are producing more. With the NAND market that chain broke down which meant falling prices, but everyone can only cut their prices so much which is how we ended up with NAND manufacturers having stock as they couldn't afford to further lower prices and drive makers couldn't justify buying at existing prices.

So now we have NAND manufacturers cutting back how much they're making to level out the supply side of the market. I assume they will take advantage of this and make as much money as they can during this lull in demand.

The supply side isn't that there is none available but rather a limited amount which means whomever pays the most gets access to what is available. Take the TSMC and Apple relationship as an example: Apple bought out the first mass production runs of N5 and N3 which means nobody else got access to the limited supply available. The next customers who get access to those nodes likely won't pay the same rate as Apple did as production ramps up, there's more availability and Apple was paying for exclusivity to ensure they got everything they needed.

a "limited amount" that becomes unlimited as long as you are willing to pay more. the regional distributers/importers can order as many as they'd like for a higher price. if you order in bulk you get a discount. how does that work?

 

[purpleduggy]

When we're talking about things like NAND which are basically just mass production of a standardized component straightforward supply and demand tend to drive it. So long as consumers are buying drives (be it individuals or OEMs) drive makers are building more and NAND manufacturers are producing more. With the NAND market that chain broke down which meant falling prices, but everyone can only cut their prices so much which is how we ended up with NAND manufacturers having stock as they couldn't afford to further lower prices and drive makers couldn't justify buying at existing prices.

So now we have NAND manufacturers cutting back how much they're making to level out the supply side of the market. I assume they will take advantage of this and make as much money as they can during this lull in demand.

The supply side isn't that there is none available but rather a limited amount which means whomever pays the most gets access to what is available. Take the TSMC and Apple relationship as an example: Apple bought out the first mass production runs of N5 and N3 which means nobody else got access to the limited supply available. The next customers who get access to those nodes likely won't pay the same rate as Apple did as production ramps up, there's more availability and Apple was paying for exclusivity to ensure they got everything they needed.

have never seen a single Apple product be sold out in their official stores. same thing with GPUs. even during the gpu mining craze you coukd find any GPU at double the price, as many as you wanted. Sony did the same with the $500 msrp PS5, claiming scarcity yet selling at $700+. its artificial scarcity. if you can generate a perceived shortage more people are likely to buy as the perceived uncertainty of availability and higher price later. in reality they are sitting on millions of units in the supply chain.

 

[bit_user]

have never seen a single Apple product be sold out in their official stores.

Demand for Apple products is surely predictable enough that Apple knows how much inventory they need for product launches, the holidays, etc. I know there have been sellouts in the past, but I think it's been a while since Apple has made a product which really sold a lot better than they expected.

same thing with GPUs. even during the gpu mining craze you coukd find any GPU at double the price, as many as you wanted.

This is definitely not true, if you restricted yourself to buying from actual stores and not scalpers. Even allowing for scalpers, there were periods of time when Newegg had just zero of many upper-end GPU models available for purchase.

Sony did the same with the $500 msrp PS5, claiming scarcity yet selling at $700+.

Their usual thing was selling console + game bundles. That was a way they could increase the selling price with only a small increase in costs.

On Amazon, it took until early 2023 for them to remove plain PS5 consoles from their waiting list. They didn't call it a waiting list, but described it as "by invitation, only" which you had to apply for. About the same time as they started selling it normally, Newegg also had it in stock and not as a bundle deal.

I then waited until their October "early Black Friday" deals to get one at a $50 discount.

its artificial scarcity.

Definitely not. Most of the inflated GPU pricing didn't flow through to AMD/Nvidia, but were rather eaten up by scalpers, graphics card makers, some wholesalers, and some retailers.

Likewise, the inflated console pricing didn't really flow through to Sony. Sony makes most of its money on software and services, selling the hardware at very little profit (usually at a loss, in the early days of a given generation). More consoles in more people's hands means more software & service revenue for Sony, so they absolutely had their incentives aligned with getting more consoles into people's hands.

in reality they are sitting on millions of units in the supply chain.

You really shouldn't say such things without evidence. A lot of us witnessed what you're talking about, firsthand. I keenly payed attention to exactly who as selling PS5's and GPUs - i.e. whether it was the store or a scalper. It was really the scalpers who had nearly all of the units you're talking about. Most of the big retailers and e-tailers were pretty good about not selling at hugely-inflated prices, whenever they managed to get some in stock.

 

[purpleduggy]

Demand for Apple products is surely predictable enough that Apple knows how much inventory they need for product launches, the holidays, etc. I know there have been sellouts in the past, but I think it's been a while since Apple has made a product which really sold a lot better than they expected.


This is definitely not true, if you restricted yourself to buying from actual stores and not scalpers. Even allowing for scalpers, there were periods of time when Newegg had just zero of many upper-end GPU models available for purchase.


Their usual thing was selling console + game bundles. That was a way they could increase the selling price with only a small increase in costs.

On Amazon, it took until early 2023 for them to remove plain PS5 consoles from their waiting list. They didn't call it a waiting list, but described it as "by invitation, only" which you had to apply for. About the same time as they started selling it normally, Newegg also had it in stock and not as a bundle deal.

I then waited until their October "early Black Friday" deals to get one at a $50 discount.


Definitely not. Most of the inflated GPU pricing didn't flow through to AMD/Nvidia, but were rather eaten up by scalpers, graphics card makers, some wholesalers, and some retailers.

Likewise, the inflated console pricing didn't really flow through to Sony. Sony makes most of its money on software and services, selling the hardware at very little profit (usually at a loss, in the early days of a given generation). More consoles in more people's hands means more software & service revenue for Sony, so they absolutely had their incentives aligned with getting more consoles into people's hands.


You really shouldn't say such things without evidence. A lot of us witnessed what you're talking about, firsthand. I keenly payed attention to exactly who as selling PS5's and GPUs - i.e. whether it was the store or a scalper. It was really the scalpers who had nearly all of the units you're talking about. Most of the big retailers and e-tailers were pretty good about not selling at hugely-inflated prices, whenever they managed to get some in stock.

scalpers are still availability. you could buy as many brand new 3090ti's as you wanted for $3000, as many ps5s as you wanted for $1000. who do you think the scalpers were? nvidia and sony themselves. raspberry pi is doing it right now with the RP5.

if you cannot see artificial scarcity as a valid profiteering technique, then i dont know what to tell you. it worked.

 

[bit_user]

scalpers are still availability. you could buy as many brand new 3090ti's as you wanted for $3000, as many ps5s as you wanted for $1000. who do you think the scalpers were? nvidia and sony themselves.

Prove it.

raspberry pi is doing it right now with the RP5.

This claim is not just false, it's downright absurd.

"The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a UK-based charity with the mission to enable young people to realise their full potential through the power of computing and digital technologies."

https://www.raspberrypi.org/about/
​

Restricting supply would run directly counter to their core mission.

if you cannot see artificial scarcity as a valid profiteering technique, then i dont know what to tell you. it worked.

Artificial scarcity would be dangerous for these companies, because they don't sell most of their production volume through direct sales. They rely on a whole ecosystem of distributors, OEMs, wholesalers, retailers, and etailers. If a company artificially restricted supply, it hurts that ecosystem and damages relationships that would take a long time to rebuild, as well as risking legal jeopardy for any contract violations. That's before we even talk about competition and the kind of window it would open for them to get undercut. Furthermore, it wouldn't explain why prices dropped last year.

An apparent conflict of interest is not proof of a conspiracy.

 

[purpleduggy]

Prove it.


This claim is not just false, it's downright absurd.

​

"The Raspberry Pi Foundation is a UK-based charity with the mission to enable young people to realise their full potential through the power of computing and digital technologies."​

​

https://www.raspberrypi.org/about/​

​

Restricting supply would run directly counter to their core mission.


Artificial scarcity would be dangerous for these companies, because they don't sell most of their production volume through direct sales. They rely on a whole ecosystem of distributors, OEMs, wholesalers, retailers, and etailers. If a company artificially restricted supply, it hurts that ecosystem and damages relationships that would take a long time to rebuild, as well as risking legal jeopardy for any contract violations. That's before we even talk about competition and the kind of window it would open for them to get undercut. Furthermore, it wouldn't explain why prices dropped last year.

An apparent conflict of interest is not proof of a conspiracy.

and yet its exactly what they're doing. their hands are completely tied it seems they just cannot think of any solutions to scalping. after countless people suggested selling directly, they continued ignoring this and continued selling to scalpers.

so we moved on

View: https://youtu.be/jjzvh-bfV-E?si=DYkt9kklje6PF3Gu


artificial scarcity is a reality, because profit is a reality. cartels are as old as time.