News Western Digital and Kioxia Report 3D NAND Contamination, Impacts at Least 6.5 Exabytes

Ya know, we haven't had a catastrophic event (fire, blackout, flood, etc) recently to drive up storage costs. SSD prices have been decreasing to "wow that's super cheap!" levels. I guess we were due.

These things are so predictable.
 

Scott Kay

Distinguished
Jun 20, 2014
2
1
18,510
Sounds to me like it's probably a water contamination issue that's reducing the fab's ability to produce the wafers rather than existing wafers being ruined. Probably a large overestimation of the potential impact for legal purposes though.
That's an interesting take. I initially assumed contaminated manufactured product or source material. Never thought of water contamination as a potential factor. Did you have any additional information leading you to believe the problem was related to the water supply for the fab?
 

Endymio

Reputable
BANNED
Aug 3, 2020
725
264
5,270
Ya know, we haven't had a catastrophic event (fire, blackout, flood, etc) recently to drive up storage costs. SSD prices have been decreasing to "wow that's super cheap!" levels. I guess we were due.

These things are so predictable.
Are you suggesting they intentionally sabotaged several months of their own production, to create a temporary price increase that their competitors will primarily benefit from, due to that same lack of production?
 
  • Like
Reactions: helper800
Feb 10, 2022
2
0
10
6.5 EB of NAND. That's a lot of SSDs! That's basically 6.5 million 1TB SSDs, though obviously it wouldn't have been purely for 1TB models. Glad I don't need another SSD right now!
Wouldn't that be 65 million 1TB SSDs? Googling 6.5 Exabytes to terabytes brings up 6.5e+7 terabytes, and using wolframalpha.com 6.5e+7 is 65 000 000.
 
That's barely any significant impact on total percentage of SSDs, but hey anything to drive prices up.
I believe something like 200 EB of consumer SSDs were shipped last year, so this would represent around 3% of total SSD shipments. Or maybe that was just in one quarter? But there’s a cascading effect so it will certainly impact prices for the next quarter or three.
 

thelastwinchester

Reputable
Aug 22, 2018
18
0
4,510
I believe something like 200 EB of consumer SSDs were shipped last year, so this would represent around 3% of total SSD shipments. Or maybe that was just in one quarter? But there’s a cascading effect so it will certainly impact prices for the next quarter or three.
Lets not forget that capacity increases every year over increasing demand which they take into account and will provision extra for it. So, at worst this should make the SSDs stay at current prices.
 
I believe something like 200 EB of consumer SSDs were shipped last year, so this would represent around 3% of total SSD shipments. Or maybe that was just in one quarter? But there’s a cascading effect so it will certainly impact prices for the next quarter or three.
I feel like even if it did not actually contribute to increased costs for the manufacturers they would all increase prices anyways because the public perception is that it may for a quick money grab.
 

Endymio

Reputable
BANNED
Aug 3, 2020
725
264
5,270
I feel like even if it did not actually contribute to increased costs for the manufacturers they would all increase prices anyways because the public perception is that it may for a quick money grab.
It doesn't matter whether or not the producers' costs increased: if it reduced supply, then prices must rise to compensate.
 
It doesn't matter whether or not the producers' costs increased: if it reduced supply, then prices must rise to compensate.
Its not that they must rise, its that they rather just do because the demand placed on it has not moved. I was suggesting something more sinister like collusion and market manipulation. Like the people who actually change the prices on the products were told to do so by an amount above and beyond compensation for the reduced supply.
 

Endymio

Reputable
BANNED
Aug 3, 2020
725
264
5,270
Its not that they must rise, its that they rather just do because the demand placed on it has not moved.
The demand curve doesn't shift, but the supply curve does. Either the price rises, or the shelves run dry: basic economics.

I was suggesting something more sinister like collusion and market manipulation. Like the people who actually change the prices on the products were told to do so by an amount above and beyond compensation for the reduced supply.
There's an entire host of misconceptions packed into that viewpoint, starting with the belief that producers somehow magically know how much they "should" change prices in response. Any rational producer always charges the price that maximizes their own profits. If that price is too high, for any reason whatsoever, they'll wind up with an unsold surplus, and be forced to lower the price regardless.
 
The demand curve doesn't shift, but the supply curve does. Either the price rises, or the shelves run dry: basic economics.

There's an entire host of misconceptions packed into that viewpoint, starting with the belief that producers somehow magically know how much they "should" change prices in response. Any rational producer always charges the price that maximizes their own profits. If that price is too high, for any reason whatsoever, they'll wind up with an unsold surplus, and be forced to lower the price regardless.
  1. This is essentially what I meant to say. I made a distinction that its not that they must rise but rather they do naturally. The price rising is not mandated. Prices either do or the item becomes unavaliable.
  2. Agreed, however, I suspect that because news information spreads so rapidly there comes a public expectation of rising prices which makes produces believe they can raise the price beyond what was required to correct for the supply loss.