Samsung, Micron, Hynix sued for alleged DRAM price fixing

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    macseekermacseeker Posts: 546member
    tzeshan said:
    macseeker said:
    tzeshan said:
    The law firm forgot to include Apple in the law suit. Apple doubled the base memory of iPhone to 32 GB from 16 GB in iPhone 7. Since Apple is the leader in smartphone, all Android smartphone copycats followed. This caused a tremendous increase in NAND demand thus a supply demand imbalance. Similar thing happened in DRAM. 
    Aple is not a manufacturer of DRAM.  Thus Apple was excluded.
    The defendant only has to prove that Apple and all other Android smartphone makers caused tremendous demand. The lawsuit failed to say how Samsung and others decreased production. The lawsuit has no merit. 
    I don't think you're understanding what I said.  Rephrasing what I said is:  Apple is a consumer of DRAM.  As such they can't be sued.
    magman1979longpathwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 34
    KITAKITA Posts: 409member
    tzeshan said:
    Apple doubled the base memory of iPhone to 32 GB from 16 GB in iPhone 7. Since Apple is the leader in smartphone, all Android smartphone copycats followed. 
    Smartphones with 32 GB (or greater) base memory:
    • Nokia Lumia 930 - April 2014
    • Oppo Find 7 - May 2014
    • Blackberry Passport - September 2014
    • Samsung Galaxy Note 4 - October 2014
    • Google (Motorola) Nexus 6 - November 2014
    • Lenovo P90 - January 2015
    • HTC One M9 - April 2015
    • Sony Xperia Z3+ - April 2015
    • LG G4 - April 2015
    • Meizu PRO 5 - September 2015
    • ASUS Zenfone 2 Deluxe - September 2015
    • ZTE Axon - October 2015
    • Motorola Moto X Force - October 2015
    • Huawei Mate 8 - November 2015
    • Vivo X6 - December 2015
    • LeEco Le 1s - February 2016
    • Acer Liquid X2 - February 2016
    • BLU Vivo 5 - February 2016
    • Xiaomi Mi 5 - April 2016
    • OnePlus 3 - June 2016
    I think just about every smartphone manufacturer switched their flagships to 32 GB or 64 GB base memory before the iPhone 7 came out.
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 34
    tzeshan said:
    Do you know that PCs sold far more units than iPad? 

    Your argument was about Apple's culpability in the law suit alongside the three named defendants (albeit probably as a way to make a point about the increased demand) in the lawsuit, and that is why you are getting some pushback.

    Nevertheless, your point about the price increases being more likely due to significantly increased demand than price-fixing collusion by the three named companies is well-taken. I guess Apple would do well to encourage the growth of the industry by supporting a smaller supplier outside of those three (if there is one).

    Having said that PCs sold more units than iPad: Apple tends to sell a lot more iPads than Macs (at least 2 to 1, I think); and if iPads were represented in PC statistics, like the Surface, Netbooks or any piece of sub-$500 plastic junk that PC OEMs get away with selling as PCs, the iPad would make a significant proportion of annual PC sales by unit and raise Apple (currently in fourth place or so by unit) up a couple of places.


    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 34
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 2,475member
    While at it they should also sue De Beers
  • Reply 25 of 34
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    rob53 said:
    Of course, we the end users will see maybe a buck or two at most out of this.
    Actual, you will not, most consumers never actually buy memory directly. I worked for one of the companies who bought memory from these companies, back in 2006 the last time this happen. My company got a big fat check and we did not share it with anyone. We did not increase our product price we took a margin hit so consumers did not end up paying more. 

    Most likely this is what will happen again. Those who buy the memory will get the payday.

    FYI, the company I worked for back in 2006 was the one who blew the whistle on memory companies and what they were doing.
    longpathcornchip
  • Reply 26 of 34
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Folks let me explain how this works. 

    With the growth of mobile, memory manufacturers had decisions to make, what they ended doing was to put more capital into mobile NAND not DRAM. It has been this way for the last 10 years.

    Because of this DRAM has been in short supply and cost has been all over the place, also if your not buying key memory densities you are going to pay more. This is just the fact of memory production.

    On NAND a similar thing was happening, as densities moved up memory companies stop production of lower densities, if they did make them they would cost more per Gbit. This why you see the jump from one densities to the next. Manufacturers can not afford to make all densities they will focus productions on the sweet spot from cost stand point.

    This is all independent of any attempts to control selling price.
  • Reply 27 of 34
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,038member
    maestro64 said:
    Folks let me explain how this works. 

    With the growth of mobile, memory manufacturers had decisions to make, what they ended doing was to put more capital into mobile NAND not DRAM. It has been this way for the last 10 years.
    I don't think anyone is disputing that. What is in question is whether the named companies colluded to artificially inflate prices.
    edited April 2018 longpathStrangeDayscornchipmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 28 of 34
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,932member
    nunzy said:
    The lawyers get rich and the plaintiffs get nothing.
    If bad actors are punished and the behavior comes to an end, then consumers win. I’m fine with that. 
    muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 29 of 34
    NotsofastNotsofast Posts: 450member
    tzeshan said:
    macseeker said:
    tzeshan said:
    The law firm forgot to include Apple in the law suit. Apple doubled the base memory of iPhone to 32 GB from 16 GB in iPhone 7. Since Apple is the leader in smartphone, all Android smartphone copycats followed. This caused a tremendous increase in NAND demand thus a supply demand imbalance. Similar thing happened in DRAM. 
    Aple is not a manufacturer of DRAM.  Thus Apple was excluded.
    The defendant only has to prove that Apple and all other Android smartphone makers caused tremendous demand. The lawsuit failed to say how Samsung and others decreased production. The lawsuit has no merit. 
    You're missing the most basic understanding of how this all works.  If we follow your logic,  consumers who bought the phones could all be sued because their actions drove up prices.  BTW,  you're confusing "plaintiff" with "defendant."  
  • Reply 30 of 34
    macseekermacseeker Posts: 546member
    For those that don't want to go through the hoops of Scribd, here is the PDF of the complaint document:

    https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/dram2/2018-04-27_dram_class_action_complaint.pdf
  • Reply 31 of 34
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,889administrator
    macseeker said:
    For those that don't want to go through the hoops of Scribd, here is the PDF of the complaint document:

    https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/dram2/2018-04-27_dram_class_action_complaint.pdf
    It's also embedded in the story on the homepage.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    smalmsmalm Posts: 677member
    Created a freakin' account for this shit... @Tzeshan please educate yourself. https://www.lehigh.edu/~inimr/computer-basics-tutorial/ramvsdiskspacehtm.htm
    Mmm nice, a screenshot from the Neolithic Age...
  • Reply 33 of 34
    Mike1980Mike1980 Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    It's great to see something being done about these horrible companies out there that artificially decrease supply of things in order to make costs for things skyrocket illegally by holding a monopoly on the entire market! Just one question now: when can we file a class action against DeBeers for selling those worthless rocks they have literally tons of for thousands of dollars per karat???
  • Reply 34 of 34
    Mr. OwnageMr. Ownage Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    These companies are the epitome of greedy bottom feeding scum.
Sign In or Register to comment.