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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Camroid, you are either behaving like a naive child or an intentional sh**-disturber. Consider these quotes:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
paranoid much?
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.
Conspiracy Theory of the day...
paranoid much?
Every time Apple buys a large amount of memory in advance we get this. It's nothing new or clever.