Apple creates worldwide NAND flash shortage; China Mobile deal

[AppleInsider]

Apple's iPhone and iPods use so much NAND flash memory that there is a worldwide dearth of memory chips; and negotiations with China Mobile for the iPhone are ongoing.

Flash memory supply prioritized for Apple

In a new report from DigiTimes, Taiwanese memory module makers said there have been a "serious shortage" of NAND flash chips, as companies provide more and more of their supply to Apple. Industry sources said memory providers will limit the supply of memory provided to companies other than the Cupertino, Calif., hardware maker.

"Samsung Electronics has informed Taiwan module makers that it will halve its NAND flash memory to them in September, and Micron Technology has also told some of its downstream customers that no NAND flash chips are available, claimed the sources," the report said. "Toshiba and Hynix Semiconductor are also giving priority to Apple, and are offering limited supply to the spot market, the sources added."

The average price for a 16GB chip was $4.48, up 7.2 percent in the first half of September. 32GB also rose 4.3 percent to $6.80.

Last week, Apple unveiled a new 64GB iPod touch for $399, doubling the capacity of its previous highest capacity 32GB model. In addition, this summer the 16GB and 32GB iPhone 3GS models were introduced.

As Apple has continued to double its available capacities on the iPhone and iPod touch every year, competitors have struggled to keep up. This week Microsoft will release its new Zune HD, available with flash memory capacities of 16GB and 32GB.

If true, the latest report from DigiTimes could suggest that competitors, like the Zune HD, have been unable to offer the capacity of the iPod touch because memory suppliers simply will not provide enough product to anyone other than Apple.

Report reaffirms Apple negotiations with China Mobile ongoing

China Mobile, the world's largest wireless provider, remains in negotiations with Apple to bring the iPhone to its network, a new report from The Wall Street Journal states.

The company's chairman said talks are ongoing, confirming previous reports that Apple is looking beyond its deal with China Unicom. Though Apple entered into a three-year deal with China Unicom last month, that agreement was non-exclusive, paving the way for the iPhone to potentially appear on other carriers.

Of China's estimated 700 million mobile subscribers, China Mobile is by far the largest, with more than 475 million customers. China Unicom has an estimated 141 million subscribers. Later this year it will offer a new model of the iPhone that does not have Wi-Fi. The carrier has plans to offer 3G access in 335 cities before 2010.

[marik]

Wow, just a little over $2.00 difference between flash sizes like that? Yet in the final product, to get the larger storage capacity, the price difference may well be over $50. That's a lot of profit!! :/

[camroidv27]

Conspiracy Theory of the day:

Is Apple purposely buying as much NAND chips to drive up costs for other manufacturers, or to try to make it so it is not possible for others to make their NAND based products? I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion.

[Guartho]

Definitely a conspiracy theory. There's no way Apple is sinking huge amounts of money in to inventory they have no intention of using. They're just building iPods, iPhones, Airs (and maybe tablets) like mad.

[Booga]

I'm sure Microsoft can find enough NAND memory for both of their Zune customers to upgrade.

[MacTripper]

Apple's iPhone and iPods use so much NAND flash memory that there is a worldwide dearth of memory chips; and negotiations with China Mobile for the iPhone are ongoing.

Well I'm sure the purpose of buying so much and using it in Apple created popular devices was to drive down the price through creating a large market and therefore increased suppliers and competition, with the benefits of economies of scale.

Unfortunately what seemed to occur was innovation, because now San Disk has a SD (SDXC) card coming out with capacities of up to 2 TB with access speeds 2x faster than a 7200 RPM hard drive (speed according to my calculations).

NAND is looking rather obsolete, fat and expensive in my opinion for Apple's lust for the thinnest gadgets, and because it's soon to be obsolete, there is no reason to invest in it's future, therefore whomever makes it is in it's best interest to milk the cow for all it's worth.

Also because the new SDXC will be expensive at first as the market for it develops (and the deal wrangling etc) so that's not necessarily a cheap option either.

So what to do, what to do? Between a rock and a hard place...

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

Conspiracy Theory of the day:

Is Apple purposely buying as much NAND chips to drive up costs for other manufacturers, or to try to make it so it is not possible for others to make their NAND based products? I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion.

This is total BS and nonsense.

In the first place, Apple wouldn't take a hit on inventory and pay more for NAND just to (maybe) "screw" some unknown competitor in some way. They'd have to pay for the NAND and keep it around in warehouses while it depreciated in value. It would cost them to store it and all this just so that some micro supplier in Indonesia or something had a hard time?

Secondly, the articles musings about whether this would hurt Zune production are probably the weakest point of the whole piece and made rather offhandedly and as a guess. But you turn it into a certain argument based on what? Hatred of Apple? Zune production is very small, as are almost all the other NAND clients relative to the volume Apple uses. It's more valid to speculate that the other customers will have to swallow higher prices and delays than it is to suggest that it will affect production anyway.

You have an obvious bias here and you're reading stuff in that has no bearing on the facts. Which is what your basic conspiracy theorist does as you say.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Well I'm sure the purpose of buying so much and using it in Apple created popular devices was to drive down the price through creating a large market and therefore increased suppliers and competition, with the benefits of economies of scale. ...

Actually they pre-bought on a contract so as to get assured supply for an extended period at lower than normal prices so that wasn't Apple's purpose even if it might have been the effect it created.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

Conspiracy Theory of the day:

Is Apple purposely buying as much NAND chips to drive up costs for other manufacturers, or to try to make it so it is not possible for others to make their NAND based products? I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion.

My take is simply; Apple need it and made great deals for all concerned ... no conspiracy involved.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm sure Microsoft can find enough NAND memory for both of their Zune customers to upgrade.

ROFL

Maybe Apple will sell them a few for that. plus a few for the M$ iPhone killer they announced that was coming ...

[digitalclips]

I know the usual suspects will claim all the Chinese already have grey imported iPhones but I have to think if Apple pull this off AAPL will be assured a steady ascent for some time to come! There can surely be no better product for any country with a complex writing system than the graphical keyboard iPhone and we still have the 'secret' product to come which will surely have the same.

[Drow_Swordsman]

This kind of stinks for the competition right now, but I think overall Apple's made a very positive effect on the flash memory industry. I'm no tech journalist, but as a consumer I remember what it seemed like for years flash memory always seemed very costly for the size you received and it never seemed to get that much cheaper and bigger as time went on. Ever since the iPods began using large amounts of flash memory it seems like the industry as a whole (or maybe just the consumer) really benefited. You can get an 8GB flash drive for $10 by walking into a Staples, I remember just 4 or 5 years ago you had to shell out a good $50 for a 2GB, and it seemed like it stayed like that for awhile until recently. I think $399 is way out of my price range for an mp3 player with 64GB of flash storage, but Apple doubling the available memory on the iPod Touch every year without increasing the top of the line price I think will really drive the industry to mark down the prices and innovate. Just my $.02.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by Drow_Swordsman

This kind of stinks for the competition right now, but I think overall Apple's made a very positive effect on the flash memory industry. I'm no tech journalist, but as a consumer I remember what it seemed like for years flash memory always seemed very costly for the size you received and it never seemed to get that much cheaper and bigger as time went on. Ever since the iPods began using large amounts of flash memory it seems like the industry as a whole (or maybe just the consumer) really benefited. You can get an 8GB flash drive for $10 by walking into a Staples, I remember just 4 or 5 years ago you had to shell out a good $50 for a 2GB, and it seemed like it stayed like that for awhile until recently. I think $399 is way out of my price range for an mp3 player with 64GB of flash storage, but Apple doubling the available memory on the iPod Touch every year without increasing the top of the line price I think will really drive the industry to mark down the prices and innovate. Just my $.02.

Agreed. It must surely also be making the hard drive companies push innovation boundaries too. I suspect we will see 100 TB drives and beyond soon. They have to keep well ahead of Flash to stay in business now.

[lkrupp]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

Conspiracy Theory of the day:

Is Apple purposely buying as much NAND chips to drive up costs for other manufacturers, or to try to make it so it is not possible for others to make their NAND based products? I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion.

I think maybe your tin foil hat needs adjusting. The Tesla coils the government has installed at the North Pole for mind control may be putting out too much signal and overloading your neurons. Just a thought.

[DaveGee]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

My take is simply; Apple need it and made great deals for all concerned ... no conspiracy involved.

If I'm not mistaken Apple has been UP FRONTING huge amounts of cash to suppliers to ensure the parts they need will be there. The did in in the past with LCD panel makers and I'm pretty sure they did it (within the last year?) to memory suppliers.

Anyone who ponies up 10's or 100's(?) of millions of dollars in advance will likely get similar treatment.

And I wasn't too close with my figures...

Apple made an investment HALF A BILLION DOLLARS! So people crying that it's not fair to the other manufacturers.. well this is business and if Apple's internal forecasts showed a potential problem with getting parts in the future they reacted accordingly and made and investment that would ensure their supply. Why didn't the other companies or if they couldn't afford that kind of money then they should have seen the writing on the wall and started stockpiling their chips for the rainy day. Well those poor companies better have their umbrellas cause the forecast looks like a wet one.

And like I said this isn't something new for Apple:

In 2005, Apple paid $1.25 billion in advance to Hynix, Intel, Micron, Samsung Electronics and Toshiba to secure the supply of NAND flash memory. The previous long-term supply agreement runs through 2010.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...sh_memory.html

Dave

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

This is total BS and nonsense.

In the first place, Apple wouldn't take a hit on inventory and pay more for NAND just to (maybe) "screw" some unknown competitor in some way. They'd have to pay for the NAND and keep it around in warehouses while it depreciated in value. It would cost them to store it and all this just so that some micro supplier in Indonesia or something had a hard time?

Secondly, the articles musings about whether this would hurt Zune production are probably the weakest point of the whole piece and made rather offhandedly and as a guess. But you turn it into a certain argument based on what? Hatred of Apple? Zune production is very small, as are almost all the other NAND clients relative to the volume Apple uses. It's more valid to speculate that the other customers will have to swallow higher prices and delays than it is to suggest that it will affect production anyway.

You have an obvious bias here and you're reading stuff in that has no bearing on the facts. Which is what your basic conspiracy theorist does as you say.

I never said that I believed my own theory. It was just something to throw out there for people to ponder. I'm glad you pondered it, and gave me reasons as to why the idea is false. However, I do not appreciate the attack, regardless of how much I dis-like Apple.

[alandail]

Originally Posted by DaveGee

If I'm not mistaken Apple has been UP FRONTING huge amounts of cash to suppliers to ensure the parts they need will be there. The did in in the past with LCD panel makers and I'm pretty sure they did it (within the last year?) to memory suppliers.

Anyone who ponies up 10's or 100's(?) of millions of dollars in advance will likely get similar treatment.

Any I wasn't too close with my figures...

Apple made an investment HALF A BILLION DOLLARS! So people crying that it's not fair to the other manufacturers.. well this is business and if Apple's internal forecasts showed a potential problem with getting parts in the future they reacted accordingly and made and investment that would ensure their supply. Why didn't the other companies or if they couldn't afford that kind of money then they should have seen the writing on the wall and started stockpiling their chips for the rainy day. Well those poor companies better have their umbrellas cause the forecast looks like a wet one.

And like I said this isn't something new for Apple:



http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...sh_memory.html

Dave

plus the $1.25 billion a few years ago in the same referenced article. When you are spending billions to prepay for supplies, you should get preferential treatment.

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

I never said that I believed my own theory. It was just something to throw out there for people to ponder. I'm glad you pondered it, and gave me reasons as to why the idea is false. However, I do not appreciate the attack, regardless of how much I dis-like Apple.

"I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion."

[melgross]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

Conspiracy Theory of the day:

Is Apple purposely buying as much NAND chips to drive up costs for other manufacturers, or to try to make it so it is not possible for others to make their NAND based products? I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion.

That would be absurd. Apple would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying up chips they can't use.

The reason for the shortage is simple, and has been reported on a number of times.

The price for memory, both flash and RAM was dropping like a stone. Remember all the predictions on how cheap SSD's were going to get in 2009 based on what was happening in 2008? Well, it ain't happening.

Why? With the recession, people are cutting down on what they buy, and what they buy contains a lot of memory. This contributed to even faster price drops as the market had a glut of unsold memory.

In response, beginning in late 2008, and continuing in 2009, manufacturers have shut down memory manufacturing plants (not the first time they have done this). This has resulted in memory supply beginning to match demand as memory in the market has been bought up. The idea was to cause the price of memory to rise, and this has worked. In the past 7 months, the price of memory, flash and RAM, has risen by more than 150%, in other words, chips now cost 2.5 times what they did early this year.

This is because of what has now become a slight shortage of memory, which is what the manufactures of memory intended.

So before blaming Apple for this, look to the rapid memory price drop and the memory glut that caused the cutback to production, and the subsequent price rise and shortage.

You might also note on OWC's memory pages, that prices have risen dramatically, and are expected to continue to do so. For example, just a bit over two months ago, the price for a 16 GB 2GB chip memory package for the new Mac Pro cost $275, now it costs $416.99.

Apple certainly has the right to buy as much memory as they need, if they are willing to pay for it in advance. This isn't any different from what is done in any industry with parts whose price may go up, or whose production may be limited.

To suggest otherwise means that the person saying that is expecting Apple to voluntarily limit it's production of its own devices, and thus limit its own sales and profits. That wouldn't be fair or proper.

I can assure people that small companies will always get enough parts for their own production, though they may have to pay a bit more in the spot market.

It's the medium sized companies that will have a problem. Companies such as MS with the Zune. Small enough so that they can't buy into a company's production the way Apple can, but too large to rely on the spot market and its small availability at any given time, as well as its variable pricing.

Ironically, Sandisk, a maker of memory in their own right, and the second biggest music player manufacturer, will have no problem getting as much memory as it wants.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by cmf2

"I wouldn't put it past Apple to do this. Really shady in my opinion."

You proved my point.

I said that I wouldn't put it past them to do it, but I didn't say that I actually think that they are. My "shady" comment was upon speculation if they were, not that they are. Make sense? (I am often accused of using a different dictionary than most people, especially by my fiance.)

[SuperMacGuy]

OMG it's the Hubbert Peak of NAND chips!

[melgross]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

You proved my point.

I said that I wouldn't put it past them to do it, but I didn't say that I actually think that they are. My "shady" comment was upon speculation if they were, not that they are. Make sense? (I am often accused of using a different dictionary than most people, especially by my fiance.)

Quite honestly, you are dissembling. You are now attempting to use semantics to work around your original statement, which quite clearly meant what you said.

While your original comment does allow that you aren't 100% certain of it, it does assume that Apple is actually guilty.

Your later admission that you are biased against them is telling. It shows that your first impression will almost always be biased against what they do, and isn't logical.

[PaulMJohnson]

Originally Posted by melgross

That would be absurd. Apple would be spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying up chips they can't use.

The reason for the shortage is simple, and has been reported on a number of times.

The price for memory, both flash and RAM was dropping like a stone. Remember all the predictions on how cheap SSD's were going to get in 2009 based on what was happening in 2008? Well, it ain't happening.

You've got this absolutely right. In the past 12 months there has been an incredible amount of capacity for both DRAM and FLASH taken offline. Almost all suppliers have been stopping their 200mm fabs and that won't be coming back (companies like Qimonda have folded, ProMOS is probably going). Now we have demand for bigger flash and DDR3 DRAM, both of which are going to need tighter geometries than most 300mm fabs can produce, and all that is a recipe for both shortage, and prices going up.

Chip makers are starting to invest in more capacity for the advanced devices, but that is going to take time.

In my opinion, Apples huge purchase of Flash earlier this year was a fantastic move - other suppliers are going to struggle.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by PaulMJohnson

You've got this absolutely right. In the past 12 months there has been an incredible amount of capacity for both DRAM and FLASH taken offline. Almost all suppliers have been stopping their 200mm fabs and that won't be coming back (companies like Qimonda have folded, ProMOS is probably going). Now we have demand for bigger flash and DDR3 DRAM, both of which are going to need tighter geometries than most 300mm fabs can produce, and all that is a recipe for both shortage, and prices going up.

Chip makers are starting to invest in more capacity for the advanced devices, but that is going to take time.

In my opinion, Apples huge purchase of Flash earlier this year was a fantastic move - other suppliers are going to struggle.

There has been continuing reporting on this issue in the EETimes, among other technology sites. I'm sometimes surprised at how little most people know about what's going on around them in these areas they are interested in, and so make wild statements.

Apple is keeping in touch with what is happening, and is taking advantage of it. What I hear from my own contacts in the industry is that many companies expected memory supplies to continue being fluid, but were caught short by all the cutbacks (and as you've mentioned, failures) in the industry. That's their fault, not Apple's.

Few people really expected Qimonda to fail, but they did.

What I find interesting is that both Toshiba and Samsung, both large memory makers that Apple is investing huge amounts of cash with for memory, are also two of the largest USERS of these same memory chips they are selling Apple in such great numbers.

Both companies have stated that their large sales of memory to Apple will actually impinge on their own production of devices that uses this memory, but that the memory sales to Apple is too important to let that concern them.

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by melgross

Quite honestly, you are dissembling. You are now attempting to use semantics to work around your original statement, which quite clearly meant what you said.

While your original comment does allow that you aren't 100% certain of it, it does assume that Apple is actually guilty.

Your later admission that you are biased against them is telling. It shows that your first impression will almost always be biased against what they do, and isn't logical.

Perhaps I should have said right off the bat "But I don't believe that Apple is trying to force others out using this tactic." Since I don't actually think they are doing this. It was an idea of mine that I don't believe.

And yes, I do have a bias against apple, much like many people here have a bias for apple. That said, the times that I think Apple did well, I speak up about it too, much like how I would like those who are pro apple would speak up against the company when they do wrong by their opinion.

The point of my post was not to show that I am a conspiracy theorist. I said it was a "Theory of the Day"... I thought the humor would have given away the fact that I'm not serious. You will also note that I haven't actually argued my original point. The goal was to make people think about the idea, as preposterous as it may seem. Some have taken my comment too literally. I did however like your approach and gave me some good evidence as to why the idea was false.

And yes, sometimes its fun to play with the snake's rattle just to see how it will react.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Unfortunately what seemed to occur was innovation, because now San Disk has a SD (SDXC) card coming out with capacities of up to 2 TB with access speeds 2x faster than a 7200 RPM hard drive (speed according to my calculations).

NAND is looking rather obsolete, fat and expensive in my opinion for Apple's lust for the thinnest gadgets, and because it's soon to be obsolete, there is no reason to invest in it's future, therefore whomever makes it is in it's best interest to milk the cow for all it's worth.

You do realize that SDXC is a NAND based device right? SDXC SUPPORTs 2TB drives. SanDisk won't be releasing 2TB SDXC cards this year.

"SDXC combines a higher capacity roadmap with faster transfer speeds as a means to exploit NAND flash memory technology as a compelling choice for portable memory storage and interoperability,” said Joseph Unsworth, research director, NAND Flash Semiconductors, at Gartner."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0901/09010803sdxc.asp

Also because the new SDXC will be expensive at first as the market for it develops (and the deal wrangling etc) so that's not necessarily a cheap option either.

So what to do, what to do? Between a rock and a hard place...

Amazing what the wrong assumptions does to a snarky comment. Makes the poster, rather than Apple, look the fool.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

And yes, sometimes its fun to play with the snake's rattle just to see how it will react.

In this case you got bit. The wiser course would have been to snake away to another thread rather than trying to spin a victory (or at least a lesser defeat) out of a dumb comment shown to be utterly stupid.

[paxman]

If Apple has such a thirst for NAND I find it surprising that they haven't sunk more money into production. To be so dependent upon suppliers when there is not enough to go around doesn't make sense. I don't know what it takes to set up NAND production but when you are creating a world wide shortage you must be pretty close to making it worth while.

[PaulMJohnson]

Originally Posted by paxman

If Apple has such a thirst for NAND I find it surprising that they haven't sunk more money into production. To be so dependent upon suppliers when there is not enough to go around doesn't make sense. I don't know what it takes to set up NAND production but when you are creating a world wide shortage you must be pretty close to making it worth while.

It takes a lot to setup NAND production (upto $4bn for an advanced fab)!

Apple know absolutely nothing about chip manufacturing and they are best staying out of it. It's already a brutal industry and there is huge consolidation going on. Smart long term contracts are Apples best bet, not getting into an industry they don't have any knowledge of.

[vinea]

Originally Posted by melgross

There has been continuing reporting on this issue in the EETimes, among other technology sites. I'm sometimes surprised at how little most people know about what's going on around them in these areas they are interested in, and so make wild statements.

16Gbit NAND went from $1.80 to $4.10 by 2009 Q2.

The other discussion was based on Samsung and Toshiba's statements and their new fabs coming on line despite historically low flash pricing about a year ago. Essentially, mid year 2009, we when back to 2008 Q1 pricing. Plus, there's been a significant change at Samsung with Hwang leaving.

Uptake of SSDs have been impacted as a result.

Also given Toshiba/SanDisk's issues with moving to x3 the massive cost reductions for MLC may be over. Plus there's no easy CapEx money anymore. So no more 160% supply (bit output) growth anymore.

Apple is keeping in touch with what is happening, and is taking advantage of it. What I hear from my own contacts in the industry is that many companies expected memory supplies to continue being fluid, but were caught short by all the cutbacks (and as you've mentioned, failures) in the industry. That's their fault, not Apple's.

Most folks were predicting that 2009 wasn't going to be a 50% freefall market by November/December 2008. Especially after Hwang took it in the neck.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by paxman

If Apple has such a thirst for NAND I find it surprising that they haven't sunk more money into production. To be so dependent upon suppliers when there is not enough to go around doesn't make sense. I don't know what it takes to set up NAND production but when you are creating a world wide shortage you must be pretty close to making it worth while.

A couple of years ago Apple and Samsung were going to build a flash manufacturing facility which would supply both Apple and Samsung. Apple was going to invest hundreds of millions in that along with Samsung.

When Samsung was convicted in a scheme with other memory manufacturers to fix memory prices just before the alliance was to be announced, Apple pulled out.

You know the old saying; - "Once shy...".

[camroidv27]

Originally Posted by vinea

In this case you got bit. The wiser course would have been to snake away to another thread rather than trying to spin a victory (or at least a lesser defeat) out of a dumb comment shown to be utterly stupid.

Yep, I got bit. Coming from Arizona, I know that when you play with the tail, you get bit. This is no different, and I expected the outcome. I'm not claiming a victory either. As I said, sometimes its fun, and today it was fun (for me!). I'll "slither" away for now.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by vinea

16Gbit NAND went from $1.80 to $4.10 by 2009 Q2.

The other discussion was based on Samsung and Toshiba's statements and their new fabs coming on line despite historically low flash pricing about a year ago. Essentially, mid year 2009, we when back to 2008 Q1 pricing. Plus, there's been a significant change at Samsung with Hwang leaving.

Uptake of SSDs have been impacted as a result.

Also given Toshiba/SanDisk's issues with moving to x3 the massive cost reductions for MLC may be over. Plus there's no easy CapEx money anymore. So no more 160% supply (bit output) growth anymore.

That's right.

Most folks were predicting that 2009 wasn't going to be a 50% freefall market by November/December 2008. Especially after Hwang took it in the neck.

Most folks in the industry thought, by that time that prices would still be down somewhat from where they were due to the recession. It wasn't expected that production would be cut back as much as it was, or that capacity would go out of service due to the fall of Qimonda. They were expected to survive back then, and even in the middle of the year, it was expected that the entire firm might be bought up with full production continuing. Qimonda was one of the few that did continue full capacity right up to the end in a desperate attempt to keep sales moving.

But, you're right, another 50% price drop wasn't expected at that point in time.

[Gazoobee]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

I never said that I believed my own theory. It was just something to throw out there for people to ponder. I'm glad you pondered it, and gave me reasons as to why the idea is false. However, I do not appreciate the attack, regardless of how much I dis-like Apple.

Sorry. It sounded like you were more involved in that theory.

I'm not sure what the purpose of putting out a negative "theory" like that is if you don't believe it.

[Zoolook]

Originally Posted by marik

Wow, just a little over $2.00 difference between flash sizes like that? Yet in the final product, to get the larger storage capacity, the price difference may well be over $50. That's a lot of profit!! :/

er...

The average price for a 16GB chip was $4.48, up 7.2 percent in the first half of September. 32GB also rose 4.3 percent to $6.80.

And $100 difference on the iPhone. You have to give it to Apple, they are the only company I know who are worshipped by the people they rodger.

Still, I don't regret the iPhone one bit.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Zoolook

er...

The average price for a 16GB chip was $4.48, up 7.2 percent in the first half of September. 32GB also rose 4.3 percent to $6.80.

And $100 difference on the iPhone. You have to give it to Apple, they are the only company I know who are worshipped by the people they rodger.

Still, I don't regret the iPhone one bit.

Don't forget that Apple is using two of each chip.

And when manufacturing, it's standard to double or triple the price of a part in the final product. Otherwise, you actually lose money on the part because of manufacturing costs.

That doesn't cover the costs I just mentioned, but all other manufactures use the same amount of price differential Apple does, within a certain percentage, to distinguish between models with different amounts of storage.

If a company is trying hard to get more marketshare, they may charge less, but then they lose profits on the entire line. That's one reason why MS is losing money on the poor selling Zunes, and discontinued all of the models except for the new HD model.

[thompr]

Camroid, you are either behaving like a naive child or an intentional sh**-disturber. Consider these quotes:

Originally Posted by camroidv27

Perhaps I should have said right off the bat "But I don't believe that Apple is trying to force others out using this tactic." Since I don't actually think they are doing this. It was an idea of mine that I don't believe.

and

Originally Posted by camroidv27

The goal was to make people think about the idea, as preposterous as it may seem.

Look, if you have a ridiculous idea that even you don't believe, then don't bother posting it like it is food for thought. It's just naive brain vomit. That's all it is.

And when other people call you to the carpet for putting your ridiculous vomit out there (whether you actually believe it or not) then you should probably just take your well-deserved verbal thrashing like a grown-up. And learn the lesson not to make a fool of yourself next time.

Originally Posted by camroidv27

And yes, sometimes its fun to play with the snake's rattle just to see how it will react.

See, now you are just acting like your intention was to incite others to anger... sh** disturber.

Regardless of how you look at it, your original post was worthless. There was no contribution other than ignorance and/or spite.

Thompson

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by camroidv27

Perhaps I should have said right off the bat "But I don't believe that Apple is trying to force others out using this tactic." Since I don't actually think they are doing this. It was an idea of mine that I don't believe.

And yes, I do have a bias against apple, much like many people here have a bias for apple. That said, the times that I think Apple did well, I speak up about it too, much like how I would like those who are pro apple would speak up against the company when they do wrong by their opinion.

The point of my post was not to show that I am a conspiracy theorist. I said it was a "Theory of the Day"... I thought the humor would have given away the fact that I'm not serious. You will also note that I haven't actually argued my original point. The goal was to make people think about the idea, as preposterous as it may seem. Some have taken my comment too literally. I did however like your approach and gave me some good evidence as to why the idea was false.

And yes, sometimes its fun to play with the snake's rattle just to see how it will react.

Your post would have been interpreted as intended if you had left out the last two sentences. The last two sentences were an unneccesary interjection of opinion that was not needed if your true objective was for people to laugh and actually think about whether or not such a proposition was possible.

No you didn't ever say you thought that Apple was stooping to such lows (for sure), but you did indicate that it wouldn't surprise you, or by extension you might even expect Apple to be doing that.

The reaction you got was entirely predictable. You posted anti-apple remarks (without any basis or reason for doing so) on a mac centric board. You seem obligated to mention your distaste for Apple in every post you make which makes me wonder why you are here at all. Even the most dedicated Apple fanbois won't include "I love Apple" in every post.

[mac_dog]

Conspiracy Theory of the day...

paranoid much?

[MacTripper]

Originally Posted by vinea

You do realize that SDXC is a NAND based device right? SDXC SUPPORTs 2TB drives. SanDisk won't be releasing 2TB SDXC cards this year.

"SDXC combines a higher capacity roadmap with faster transfer speeds as a means to exploit NAND flash memory technology as a compelling choice for portable memory storage and interoperability,” said Joseph Unsworth, research director, NAND Flash Semiconductors, at Gartner."

Yep, I meant SSD, got me wires crossed somewhere.

Some people need more exposure to drunks, who say anything and everything, as to build up their tolerance and not to take everything everyone types or says so seriously.

Because all that really matters is what people do, not what they say.