For the record...Samsung announced mass production of their 8Gb NAND on Jul 13. Apple announced the 8GB Nano that uses Samsung's 8Gb NAND in September (12th?).
Obviously they didn't design and produce the 2G nanos in 3 months...so any statement in May of 2006 that Apple couldn't be using a 8Gb part on technical grounds that "there are no 8Gb chips available in any mass manufactured quantity, and there won't be for months" would have been equally bogus and shown false by subsequent events.[..]
Your assumption that an 8 GB iPod nano has eight 8 Gb modules is grossly mistaken. I'd be surprised if it even has four modules.
I've found a couple more articles that helps substantiate my point.
As you look around at articles and statements from Samsung, Toshiba, SanDisk you see they have a clear goal of using higher capacity Solid State Drive (SDD) to compete directly with Hard Data Drive (HDD). The limiting factor is largely price. These companies know and understand that increasing supply and demand will drive down the costs of manufacture of Flash.
At this point there is little demand or varied use for 32GB, 64GB, or even 128 GB SDD. Flash manufactures are ramping up development wishing to give them to the consumer market. Something needs to break this deadlock. There needs to be an example of how higher capacity SDD can be used to help build demand which would help lower the price. Which would bolster the use of Flash memory for the entire industry.
The industry has been in this situation before. Prior to Apple switching from HDD in the mini to Flash in the nano. Flash based mp3 players prior to 2005 were low capacity and comparatively cheap and featureless.
With the introduction of the iPod Nano brought more features, style, and larger capacity to the flash mp3 player. For a clear pictures of how it appeared here is a CNET shopper page from February 2005.
The nano is the only player with 4GB of storage. Most players have as little as 256MB of storage. The Sirious Stiletto 100 is the only player with storage of 2GB but it costs $100 more than the nano.
This all clearly points to the fact that Apple received exclusivity and discounts that were not available to others. I believe Samsung agree to offer this exclusivity and discount to Apple partially because of the popularity of the iPod and to help support flash manufacturing and help build the high capacity flash industry.
The result is that 10's of millions of nanos have been sold and the 4GB Flash player is the most popular mp3 player sold.
Here is an article from an Japanese business magazine.
Flash memory prices should come down to about US$7 (750 yen) in the second quarter of 2006. However, making a rough calculation based on the latest quoted price, the 4GB iPod nano, which retails in Japan for 27,800 yen, would incorporate about US$200 (22,000 yen) worth of flash memory. If that were actually the case, profits would be nil.
The reality is that Apple used 4GB flash memory in the iPod nano because it could get it cheaper than the going price. The company supplying Apple with flash memory is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, which has a 60% share of the market. According to an industry source, Samsung supplied Apple with flash memory "at a price competitive with HDDs."
The iPod nano is indeed remarkably cheap compared with other makers' flash memory-based products. For example, the new Walkman with 2GB flash memory has an expected retail price of over 30,000 yen. An iPod nano of the same capacity costs 21,800 yen. Because of the differences in display mechanism and other features it is difficult to make an accurate comparison, but in simple terms the Apple products would be about 30% cheaper than Sony's Walkmans.
The article is saying the 4GB of Flash used in the nano at the time was worth the same price Apple was selling the nano for. Obviously Apple was buying the Flash for much cheaper than that. The overall benefit for Samsung is that it owns the lions share of the flash market.
This process can be repeated again. Currently 32GB SDD is estimated to cost $600. Right now that amount of storage at that price has limited use in the wide market. Something needs to break the inertia of demand to motivate increased manufacturing and lowers the cost to introduce wide adoption of higher capacity SDD.
The iPhone will aggressively attack its market, is tracked to sell at least 10 million units in its first year, and is highly anticipated by consumer interest. Currently its the most logical device to help break higher capacity SDD into the mainstream market.
Just using your imagination, if iPhone were to ship with 32GB of flash memory that would set the device far ahead of its competitors in storage which would help in over all functionality. The same as the nano was far more useful than the 256MB and 512MB mp3 players when it was first introduced.The iPhone's storage would be akin to the current iPod Video and Zune. If nothing else this would certainly justify its $600 price tag and give people a clear reason to buy the device in-spite of its cost.
The benefit for Samung is that it now has a large manufacturing demand for its 32GB SDD which would help lower the price of 64GB and 128GB SDD. This would force every other mobile communication manufacturer to either increase internal storage or adopt new higher capacity SDHC cards, which over all would benefit the entire Flash industry.
I'm not saying Apple nor Samsung will do this. I'm saying it could be done based on their history and would be mutually beneficial to both.
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure so you do the math."
Exactly what was your point? That a 32GB drive can't be $600?
Vinea
You are THE expert in taking information, and turning it around 180 degrees. IF you read the article, and saw the prices mentioned, you would be able to see that the prices are not in opposition to what you had stated.
Despite you attacks, I'm not opposed to posting imformation that disagree with something I had thought.
How you can come to the conclusions you do, is beyond me.
But, I'm not going to bother to respond to your posts after this, as I said before, so you can B.S. all you want, to yourself.
I've found a couple more articles that helps substantiate my point.
As you look around at articles and statements from Samsung, Toshiba, SanDisk you see they have a clear goal of using higher capacity Solid State Drive (SDD) to compete directly with Hard Data Drive (HDD). The limiting factor is largely price. These companies know and understand that increasing supply and demand will drive down the costs of manufacture of Flash.
At this point there is little demand or varied use for 32GB, 64GB, or even 128 GB SDD. Flash manufactures are ramping up development wishing to give them to the consumer market. Something needs to break this deadlock. There needs to be an example of how higher capacity SDD can be used to help build demand which would help lower the price. Which would bolster the use of Flash memory for the entire industry.
The industry has been in this situation before. Prior to Apple switching from HDD in the mini to Flash in the nano. Flash based mp3 players prior to 2005 were low capacity and comparatively cheap and featureless.
With the introduction of the iPod Nano brought more features, style, and larger capacity to the flash mp3 player. For a clear pictures of how it appeared here is a CNET shopper page from February 2005.
The nano is the only player with 4GB of storage. Most players have as little as 256MB of storage. The Sirious Stiletto 100 is the only player with storage of 2GB but it costs $100 more than the nano.
This all clearly points to the fact that Apple received exclusivity and discounts that were not available to others. I believe Samsung agree to offer this exclusivity and discount to Apple partially because of the popularity of the iPod and to help support flash manufacturing and help build the high capacity flash industry.
The result is that 10's of millions of nanos have been sold and the 4GB Flash player is the most popular mp3 player sold.
Here is an article from an Japanese business magazine.
Flash memory prices should come down to about US$7 (750 yen) in the second quarter of 2006. However, making a rough calculation based on the latest quoted price, the 4GB iPod nano, which retails in Japan for 27,800 yen, would incorporate about US$200 (22,000 yen) worth of flash memory. If that were actually the case, profits would be nil.
The reality is that Apple used 4GB flash memory in the iPod nano because it could get it cheaper than the going price. The company supplying Apple with flash memory is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, which has a 60% share of the market. According to an industry source, Samsung supplied Apple with flash memory "at a price competitive with HDDs."
The iPod nano is indeed remarkably cheap compared with other makers' flash memory-based products. For example, the new Walkman with 2GB flash memory has an expected retail price of over 30,000 yen. An iPod nano of the same capacity costs 21,800 yen. Because of the differences in display mechanism and other features it is difficult to make an accurate comparison, but in simple terms the Apple products would be about 30% cheaper than Sony's Walkmans.
The article is saying the 4GB of Flash used in the nano at the time was worth the same price Apple was selling the nano for. Obviously Apple was buying the Flash for much cheaper than that. The overall benefit for Samsung is that it owns the lions share of the flash market.
This process can be repeated again. Currently 32GB SDD is estimated to cost $600. Right now that amount of storage at that price has limited use in the wide market. Something needs to break the inertia of demand to motivate increased manufacturing and lowers the cost to introduce wide adoption of higher capacity SDD.
The iPhone will aggressively attack its market, is tracked to sell at least 10 million units in its first year, and is highly anticipated by consumer interest. Currently its the most logical device to help break higher capacity SDD into the mainstream market.
Just using your imagination, if iPhone were to ship with 32GB of flash memory that would set the device far ahead of its competitors in storage which would help in over all functionality. The same as the nano was far more useful than the 256MB and 512MB mp3 players when it was first introduced.The iPhone's storage would be akin to the current iPod Video and Zune. If nothing else this would certainly justify its $600 price tag and give people a clear reason to buy the device in-spite of its cost.
The benefit for Samung is that it now has a large manufacturing demand for its 32GB SDD which would help lower the price of 64GB and 128GB SDD. This would force every other mobile communication manufacturer to either increase internal storage or adopt new higher capacity SDHC cards, which over all would benefit the entire Flash industry.
I'm not saying Apple nor Samsung will do this. I'm saying it could be done based on their history and would be mutually beneficial to both.
Apple is buying enough FLASH in their contracts to get it at lower prices than most other buyers. But, the price for such a large amount would still be high. I don't disagree that Apple could put this into a phone, if they wanted to, but not at current prices, not at current device size, not at current battery life, and not now that Apple has sent the units to the FCC for testing as a final product.
I expect that, just like 3G, Apple will increase the memory at some point. When? As I said, once R&D has been paid down, the new chips use no more power than the current ones, and allow the same phone form factor. Late this year? Maybe.
Your assumption that an 8 GB iPod nano has eight 8 Gb modules is grossly mistaken. I'd be surprised if it even has four modules.
Eh? The part number (K9MBG08U5M) from the dissassembled Nano shows the Samsung 8Gb part in the 32Gb x 1 form factor. That's 4 of the 8Gb chips stacked (K9L8G08U0M) in a 48 pin TSOPI-DSP.
You are THE expert in taking information, and turning it around 180 degrees. IF you read the article, and saw the prices mentioned, you would be able to see that the prices are not in opposition to what you had stated.
Then why not conceed that the prices for the 32GB SSD will be $600 or less? You continued to challenge that price even in your latest posts asking for a link.
As far as responding or not that's simply your way of bowing out once presented with overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.
I don't disagree with your opinions or give you any hard time about your opinions given that they are just opinions. I do give you a hard time when you talk out of your ass about something in support of that opinion. Fact is you were clueless about flash and the flash market.
Apple is buying enough FLASH in their contracts to get it at lower prices than most other buyers.
Yes I'm sure Apple was able to get its flash so cheap initially because it agreed to buy a lot of flash from Samsung over a number of years.
Quote:
but not at current prices
The cost of the iPhone is also three times higher than the cost of the nano.
Quote:
not at current device size
SDD are being created in 2.5 and 1.8 form factors because they are courting laptops but both SanDisk and Samsung said they can be created in smaller form factors.
Quote:
not at current battery life
Samsung says their 32GB SDD consumes .1W idle and .5W at full load. I seriously doubt the 8GB is using significantly less than that.
Quote:
Apple has sent the units to the FCC for testing as a final product
Admittedly I don't know much about the FCC process. But I don't believe that after the iPhone is approved Apple is stuck with the storage that was approved. Even if it did work that way Apple should be able to show devices with different amounts of storage.
The cost of the iPhone is also three times higher than the cost of the nano.
Of course, it is a phone, with WiFi, and Bluetooth, a much larger, high rez display with multi-touch, etc. It should cost much more.
Quote:
SDD are being created in 2.5 and 1.8 form factors because they are courting laptops but both SanDisk and Samsung said they can be created in smaller form factors.
The board with the chips is pretty large. Thes case it's in must be even larger. I'm sure we'll see smaller forms in the future.
Quote:
Samsung says their 32GB SDD consumes .1W idle and .5W at full load. I seriously doubt the 8GB is using significantly less than that.
I don't know the actual draw, but it's less than that.
Quote:
Admittedly I don't know much about the FCC process. But I don't believe that after the iPhone is approved Apple is stuck with the storage that was approved. Even if it did work that way Apple should be able to show devices with different amounts of storage.
Anything that can change the emission of radiation that could affect reception (part 15, subsection C) must be re-submitted. It doesn't have to go through the entire process again, but it must continue to meet the same standards.
Changing a switch wouldn't make a difference, but changing the amount of memory, cpu, case material, etc. would.
Given I did just see you admit to making an obvious mistake in another thread you have my apologies for over generalizing. Yes, its also obvious that I push you into a defensive corner but frankly you just rub me the wrong way when you talk as an expert but are clearly wrong about something.
Then why not conceed that the prices for the 32GB SSD will be $600 or less? You continued to challenge that price even in your latest posts asking for a link.
As far as responding or not that's simply your way of bowing out once presented with overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.
I don't disagree with your opinions or give you any hard time about your opinions given that they are just opinions. I do give you a hard time when you talk out of your ass about something in support of that opinion. Fact is you were clueless about flash and the flash market.
Vinea
Ok, just this last time. I will provide a quote from the end of the article I provided, which you are so upset about. I will let you, and others here, try to figure out what the quote means, and what I was thinking when I provided the article.
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure...."
So, when I posted that article, what was I showing about the pricing, and my asking you for a reference about the $600 price for the Sandisk drive?
I don't know the actual draw, but it's less than that.
30 mA @ 3.3V max for the Nano part for erase. .099W or so/chip if I did my math right.
0.8W absolute max I guess since they give that same 30mA max for reads, writes and erases but that's max and you're not going to hit all 8 chips at once anyway so its far less.
No spec sheet for the 16Gb part handy but its not likely that far off given the 32GB SSD specs.
Ok, just this last time. I will provide a quote from the end of the article I provided, which you are so upset about. I will let you, and others here, try to figure out what the quote means, and what I was thinking when I provided the article.
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure...."
So, when I posted that article, what was I showing about the pricing, and my asking you for a reference about the $600 price for the Sandisk drive?
Did I not post a link I was asking YOU for?
Then I misread that and again, my apologies.
In any case I wasn't "upset", I was confused as to why you posted that because the original source for that price is still a SanDisk quote you rejected earlier (even more distantly removed). It really isn't a second confirmation except for the Ritek drive which also isn't on the market yet either. So I was sarcastic because there's no reason for you to accept this as "proof" any more than other links you had previously rejected as "speculation". You gave the impression that you would except nothing less than a sub-$600 retail link from Pricegrabber or something.
In any case I wasn't "upset", I was confused as to why you posted that because the original source for that price is still a SanDisk quote you rejected earlier (even more distantly removed). It really isn't a second confirmation except for the Ritek drive which also isn't on the market yet either. So I was sarcastic because there's no reason for you to accept this as "proof" any more than other links you had previously rejected as "speculation". You gave the impression that you would except nothing less than a sub-$600 retail link from Pricegrabber or something.
Vinea
To be clear. I didn't see anything in those links you posted showing the price of the Sandisk drive. If it was there, you will have to show me, because I must have missed it.
However, the articles do say that the 32 Gb FLASH will be available in the second half of the year. Not now. Not in time for the iPhone's introduction, as is being implied. You see the problem?
Also, you accused me of posting the link, to deny the correctness of your statement of pricing. Your entire post, in response to my posting the link, the relevant part which you posted as well:
Quote:
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure so you do the math."
Exactly what was your point? That a 32GB drive can't be $600?"
I can't imagine how you can derive that question from the article, or particularly the part even you quoted, when the quote says, quite clearly that "SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600".
This is why I get tired of parrying with you. Even though you say that you don't get upset, you do. You then mis-read much of what I say, and even quotes that I post in SUPPORT of what YOU say, get misunderstood.
I find myself spending more time trying to explain myself in different ways, than I do refuting what you say. It isn't worth it.
30 mA @ 3.3V max for the Nano part for erase. .099W or so/chip if I did my math right.
0.8W absolute max I guess since they give that same 30mA max for reads, writes and erases but that's max and you're not going to hit all 8 chips at once anyway so its far less.
Its difficult to tell from this what the full load would be and how much less it is than the 16GB or 32GB.
Quote:
However, the articles do say that the 32 Gb FLASH will be available in the second half of the year. Not now. Not in time for the iPhone's introduction, as is being implied. You see the problem?
From what I am reading the Samsung 32GB SDD is available to OEM now. The SanDisk will be available to OEM soon. But no one is placing any big orders because currently there is no real use for them.
Its difficult to tell from this what the full load would be and how much less it is than the 16GB or 32GB.
From what I am reading the Samsung 32GB SDD is available to OEM now. The SanDisk will be available to OEM soon. But no one is placing any big orders because currently there is no real use for them.
Vinea's article states pretty definitely that it will be available sometime in the second half. From my own checking, I agree. It's not available now.
Shipping now, the 32GB and 16GB drives will initially be sold to equipment makers only. Samsung already includes the drive in its Japan-only Q30 subnotebook; the company is in discussions with U.S. vendors to bring SSD laptops and portable devices here.
SEOUL, Korea ? May 23, 2006 : Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the leader in digital media technology, will release the world?s first PCs embedded with a 32-Gigabyte (GB) NAND flash-based solid state disk (SSD). This marks the first time that NAND flash has moved into a commercial mobile computing application and is a breakthrough that will pave the way for replacing hard disk drives with NAND flash-based memory disks. The Samsung Q1, an ultra-mobile computing device and the Q30, a 12.1-inch screen notebook PC, will be available in the Korean market from early June.
Vinea's article states pretty definitely that it will be available sometime in the second half. From my own checking, I agree. It's not available now.
The SanDisk SSD not available retail now. Fujitsu and Samsung's 32GB SSDs are using their older 8Gb chips currently in the Nano which aren't that old either (mid-2006). Toshiba is SanDisk's partner and their 16Gb chip trails Samsung by months although both will go into mass production within a month or so of each other if Toshiba doesn't slip. Evidently SanDisk sees no need to use last year's technology for their new product given that Samsung has already beaten them to the market by 6 months and the new process is almost ready anyway.
If Apple wanted some it could get some (of either kind)...certainly enough to build engineering and test units suitable for certification. Again, they did so for the Nano 2G where they launched 3 months after the flash they depended on went into mass production.
Apple wouldn't likely use the Samsung SSD itself for the iPhone since the casing and connector isn't required. Plus given the extra space in the drive casing they can use less dense packaging (ie less or no stacking in TSOPs) than would be desired in the iPhone.
But the new chips themselves are higher density and faster. In a quad stack configuration as in the Nano its 8GB per chip vs 4GB. There are only two reasons that Apple would be unable to get to 16Gb if they so desired in the current footprint:
1) Apple is only using a single new 16Gb chip in the 8GB iPhone (as a single quad stacked chip) and the older 8Gb chip in the 4GB iPhone (which is possible since they need all the battery space they can get)
2) Samsung is unable to get the quad stack to work for the new part in time. If they can only get the packaging for 2 chips stacked then while it would work for a SSD (8 chips) but not for a Nano or iPhone to go 16Gb.
There's no retail availability for the Samsung 32GB SSD either. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that Apple couldn't use it in the 6G iPod if it wanted to. But those parts (quad stacked) are likely in high demand since they are already used in the Nano and UMPCs. Even so, DVNation seems overpriced for 32Gb 1.8 normal temp flash given the Samsung would be around $950 if available on the retail market. No need for Samsung to be pushing this drive to retail anymore either given its about to be replaced with newer technology and everything they're making is going to UMPC makers anyway.
In the pics you see the same part number on the flash as in the Nano. I think we can put to rest the "fast" vs "slow" flash price thing. The nano uses the same flash as in the 32GB SSD.
Given SanDisk's 30% discount that gets you pretty close to $600 (although the quad stacked flash is least likely to get discounted). With half the parts the new SSD should hit their desired $600 mark and possibly get to the double the price / GB for a 1.8" HDD (closer to $300) Toshiba projects for this year.
The SanDisk SSD not available retail now. Fujitsu and Samsung's 32GB SSDs are using their older 8Gb chips currently in the Nano which aren't that old either (mid-2006). Toshiba is SanDisk's partner and their 16Gb chip trails Samsung by months although both will go into mass production within a month or so of each other if Toshiba doesn't slip. Evidently SanDisk sees no need to use last year's technology for their new product given that Samsung has already beaten them to the market by 6 months and the new process is almost ready anyway.
If Apple wanted some it could get some (of either kind)...certainly enough to build engineering and test units suitable for certification. Again, they did so for the Nano 2G where they launched 3 months after the flash they depended on went into mass production.
Apple wouldn't likely use the Samsung SSD itself for the iPhone since the casing and connector isn't required. Plus given the extra space in the drive casing they can use less dense packaging (ie less or no stacking in TSOPs) than would be desired in the iPhone.
But the new chips themselves are higher density and faster. In a quad stack configuration as in the Nano its 8GB per chip vs 4GB. There are only two reasons that Apple would be unable to get to 16Gb if they so desired in the current footprint:
1) Apple is only using a single new 16Gb chip in the 8GB iPhone (as a single quad stacked chip) and the older 8Gb chip in the 4GB iPhone (which is possible since they need all the battery space they can get)
2) Samsung is unable to get the quad stack to work for the new part in time. If they can only get the packaging for 2 chips stacked then while it would work for a SSD (8 chips) but not for a Nano or iPhone to go 16Gb.
There's no retail availability for the Samsung 32GB SSD either. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that Apple couldn't use it in the 6G iPod if it wanted to. But those parts (quad stacked) are likely in high demand since they are already used in the Nano and UMPCs. Even so, DVNation seems overpriced for 32Gb 1.8 normal temp flash given the Samsung would be around $950 if available on the retail market. No need for Samsung to be pushing this drive to retail anymore either given its about to be replaced with newer technology and everything they're making is going to UMPC makers anyway.
In the pics you see the same part number on the flash as in the Nano. I think we can put to rest the "fast" vs "slow" flash price thing. The nano uses the same flash as in the 32GB SSD.
Given SanDisk's 30% discount that gets you pretty close to $600 (although the quad stacked flash is least likely to get discounted). With half the parts the new SSD should hit their desired $600 mark and possibly get to the double the price / GB for a 1.8" HDD (closer to $300) Toshiba projects for this year.
Vinea
If this is moving more rapidly than they have been stating, then possibly, Apple could get their hands on it for an end of the year 16 GB upgrade. Those laptops with these FLASH "drives" are still a fair bit more expensive than machines without them. As Samsung said it wouldn't be available 'till the second half of the year, what they are using now must either be current chips, or a very limited run of the new ones. I don't see $300 for 32 GB until sometime next year. These predictions seem to be much too optimistic from everything I'm reading, including your article.
If this is moving more rapidly than they have been stating, then possibly, Apple could get their hands on it for an end of the year 16 GB upgrade. Those laptops with these FLASH "drives" are still a fair bit more expensive than machines without them. As Samsung said it wouldn't be available 'till the second half of the year, what they are using now must either be current chips, or a very limited run of the new ones. I don't see $300 for 32 GB until sometime next year. These predictions seem to be much too optimistic from everything I'm reading, including your article.
Wu states $5/GB in this latest analysis. iSuppli says $42.50 for 4GB from Samsung back in September for $10/GB. Given that the Samsung SSD uses the same flash as in the 4GB Nano the build cost for the 32GB Samsung SSD is $320 + controller and case without any new discounting since September of last year. Call it ballpark $7/GB for the whole kit at today's pricing (controller isn't that expensive).
32GB SSD for $600 this year is a no brainer. 32GB SSD for $300 this year depends on how high the SSD manufactures want their gross margins to be and volume pricing on the new 16Gb part. Most of the production will likely go to OEMs and not appear on the open market.
Comments
For the record...Samsung announced mass production of their 8Gb NAND on Jul 13. Apple announced the 8GB Nano that uses Samsung's 8Gb NAND in September (12th?).
Obviously they didn't design and produce the 2G nanos in 3 months...so any statement in May of 2006 that Apple couldn't be using a 8Gb part on technical grounds that "there are no 8Gb chips available in any mass manufactured quantity, and there won't be for months" would have been equally bogus and shown false by subsequent events.[..]
Your assumption that an 8 GB iPod nano has eight 8 Gb modules is grossly mistaken. I'd be surprised if it even has four modules.
As you look around at articles and statements from Samsung, Toshiba, SanDisk you see they have a clear goal of using higher capacity Solid State Drive (SDD) to compete directly with Hard Data Drive (HDD). The limiting factor is largely price. These companies know and understand that increasing supply and demand will drive down the costs of manufacture of Flash.
At this point there is little demand or varied use for 32GB, 64GB, or even 128 GB SDD. Flash manufactures are ramping up development wishing to give them to the consumer market. Something needs to break this deadlock. There needs to be an example of how higher capacity SDD can be used to help build demand which would help lower the price. Which would bolster the use of Flash memory for the entire industry.
The industry has been in this situation before. Prior to Apple switching from HDD in the mini to Flash in the nano. Flash based mp3 players prior to 2005 were low capacity and comparatively cheap and featureless.
With the introduction of the iPod Nano brought more features, style, and larger capacity to the flash mp3 player. For a clear pictures of how it appeared here is a CNET shopper page from February 2005.
http://shopper.cnet.com/4566-6495_9-0.html
The nano is the only player with 4GB of storage. Most players have as little as 256MB of storage. The Sirious Stiletto 100 is the only player with storage of 2GB but it costs $100 more than the nano.
This all clearly points to the fact that Apple received exclusivity and discounts that were not available to others. I believe Samsung agree to offer this exclusivity and discount to Apple partially because of the popularity of the iPod and to help support flash manufacturing and help build the high capacity flash industry.
The result is that 10's of millions of nanos have been sold and the 4GB Flash player is the most popular mp3 player sold.
Here is an article from an Japanese business magazine.
Flash memory prices should come down to about US$7 (750 yen) in the second quarter of 2006. However, making a rough calculation based on the latest quoted price, the 4GB iPod nano, which retails in Japan for 27,800 yen, would incorporate about US$200 (22,000 yen) worth of flash memory. If that were actually the case, profits would be nil.
The reality is that Apple used 4GB flash memory in the iPod nano because it could get it cheaper than the going price. The company supplying Apple with flash memory is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, which has a 60% share of the market. According to an industry source, Samsung supplied Apple with flash memory "at a price competitive with HDDs."
The iPod nano is indeed remarkably cheap compared with other makers' flash memory-based products. For example, the new Walkman with 2GB flash memory has an expected retail price of over 30,000 yen. An iPod nano of the same capacity costs 21,800 yen. Because of the differences in display mechanism and other features it is difficult to make an accurate comparison, but in simple terms the Apple products would be about 30% cheaper than Sony's Walkmans.
http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/artic...061207/115157/
The article is saying the 4GB of Flash used in the nano at the time was worth the same price Apple was selling the nano for. Obviously Apple was buying the Flash for much cheaper than that. The overall benefit for Samsung is that it owns the lions share of the flash market.
This process can be repeated again. Currently 32GB SDD is estimated to cost $600. Right now that amount of storage at that price has limited use in the wide market. Something needs to break the inertia of demand to motivate increased manufacturing and lowers the cost to introduce wide adoption of higher capacity SDD.
The iPhone will aggressively attack its market, is tracked to sell at least 10 million units in its first year, and is highly anticipated by consumer interest. Currently its the most logical device to help break higher capacity SDD into the mainstream market.
Just using your imagination, if iPhone were to ship with 32GB of flash memory that would set the device far ahead of its competitors in storage which would help in over all functionality. The same as the nano was far more useful than the 256MB and 512MB mp3 players when it was first introduced.The iPhone's storage would be akin to the current iPod Video and Zune. If nothing else this would certainly justify its $600 price tag and give people a clear reason to buy the device in-spite of its cost.
The benefit for Samung is that it now has a large manufacturing demand for its 32GB SDD which would help lower the price of 64GB and 128GB SDD. This would force every other mobile communication manufacturer to either increase internal storage or adopt new higher capacity SDHC cards, which over all would benefit the entire Flash industry.
I'm not saying Apple nor Samsung will do this. I'm saying it could be done based on their history and would be mutually beneficial to both.
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure so you do the math."
Exactly what was your point? That a 32GB drive can't be $600?
Vinea
You are THE expert in taking information, and turning it around 180 degrees. IF you read the article, and saw the prices mentioned, you would be able to see that the prices are not in opposition to what you had stated.
Despite you attacks, I'm not opposed to posting imformation that disagree with something I had thought.
How you can come to the conclusions you do, is beyond me.
But, I'm not going to bother to respond to your posts after this, as I said before, so you can B.S. all you want, to yourself.
I've found a couple more articles that helps substantiate my point.
As you look around at articles and statements from Samsung, Toshiba, SanDisk you see they have a clear goal of using higher capacity Solid State Drive (SDD) to compete directly with Hard Data Drive (HDD). The limiting factor is largely price. These companies know and understand that increasing supply and demand will drive down the costs of manufacture of Flash.
At this point there is little demand or varied use for 32GB, 64GB, or even 128 GB SDD. Flash manufactures are ramping up development wishing to give them to the consumer market. Something needs to break this deadlock. There needs to be an example of how higher capacity SDD can be used to help build demand which would help lower the price. Which would bolster the use of Flash memory for the entire industry.
The industry has been in this situation before. Prior to Apple switching from HDD in the mini to Flash in the nano. Flash based mp3 players prior to 2005 were low capacity and comparatively cheap and featureless.
With the introduction of the iPod Nano brought more features, style, and larger capacity to the flash mp3 player. For a clear pictures of how it appeared here is a CNET shopper page from February 2005.
http://shopper.cnet.com/4566-6495_9-0.html
The nano is the only player with 4GB of storage. Most players have as little as 256MB of storage. The Sirious Stiletto 100 is the only player with storage of 2GB but it costs $100 more than the nano.
This all clearly points to the fact that Apple received exclusivity and discounts that were not available to others. I believe Samsung agree to offer this exclusivity and discount to Apple partially because of the popularity of the iPod and to help support flash manufacturing and help build the high capacity flash industry.
The result is that 10's of millions of nanos have been sold and the 4GB Flash player is the most popular mp3 player sold.
Here is an article from an Japanese business magazine.
Flash memory prices should come down to about US$7 (750 yen) in the second quarter of 2006. However, making a rough calculation based on the latest quoted price, the 4GB iPod nano, which retails in Japan for 27,800 yen, would incorporate about US$200 (22,000 yen) worth of flash memory. If that were actually the case, profits would be nil.
The reality is that Apple used 4GB flash memory in the iPod nano because it could get it cheaper than the going price. The company supplying Apple with flash memory is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Korea, which has a 60% share of the market. According to an industry source, Samsung supplied Apple with flash memory "at a price competitive with HDDs."
The iPod nano is indeed remarkably cheap compared with other makers' flash memory-based products. For example, the new Walkman with 2GB flash memory has an expected retail price of over 30,000 yen. An iPod nano of the same capacity costs 21,800 yen. Because of the differences in display mechanism and other features it is difficult to make an accurate comparison, but in simple terms the Apple products would be about 30% cheaper than Sony's Walkmans.
http://business.nikkeibp.co.jp/artic...061207/115157/
The article is saying the 4GB of Flash used in the nano at the time was worth the same price Apple was selling the nano for. Obviously Apple was buying the Flash for much cheaper than that. The overall benefit for Samsung is that it owns the lions share of the flash market.
This process can be repeated again. Currently 32GB SDD is estimated to cost $600. Right now that amount of storage at that price has limited use in the wide market. Something needs to break the inertia of demand to motivate increased manufacturing and lowers the cost to introduce wide adoption of higher capacity SDD.
The iPhone will aggressively attack its market, is tracked to sell at least 10 million units in its first year, and is highly anticipated by consumer interest. Currently its the most logical device to help break higher capacity SDD into the mainstream market.
Just using your imagination, if iPhone were to ship with 32GB of flash memory that would set the device far ahead of its competitors in storage which would help in over all functionality. The same as the nano was far more useful than the 256MB and 512MB mp3 players when it was first introduced.The iPhone's storage would be akin to the current iPod Video and Zune. If nothing else this would certainly justify its $600 price tag and give people a clear reason to buy the device in-spite of its cost.
The benefit for Samung is that it now has a large manufacturing demand for its 32GB SDD which would help lower the price of 64GB and 128GB SDD. This would force every other mobile communication manufacturer to either increase internal storage or adopt new higher capacity SDHC cards, which over all would benefit the entire Flash industry.
I'm not saying Apple nor Samsung will do this. I'm saying it could be done based on their history and would be mutually beneficial to both.
Apple is buying enough FLASH in their contracts to get it at lower prices than most other buyers. But, the price for such a large amount would still be high. I don't disagree that Apple could put this into a phone, if they wanted to, but not at current prices, not at current device size, not at current battery life, and not now that Apple has sent the units to the FCC for testing as a final product.
I expect that, just like 3G, Apple will increase the memory at some point. When? As I said, once R&D has been paid down, the new chips use no more power than the current ones, and allow the same phone form factor. Late this year? Maybe.
Your assumption that an 8 GB iPod nano has eight 8 Gb modules is grossly mistaken. I'd be surprised if it even has four modules.
Eh? The part number (K9MBG08U5M) from the dissassembled Nano shows the Samsung 8Gb part in the 32Gb x 1 form factor. That's 4 of the 8Gb chips stacked (K9L8G08U0M) in a 48 pin TSOPI-DSP.
Vinea
You are THE expert in taking information, and turning it around 180 degrees. IF you read the article, and saw the prices mentioned, you would be able to see that the prices are not in opposition to what you had stated.
Then why not conceed that the prices for the 32GB SSD will be $600 or less? You continued to challenge that price even in your latest posts asking for a link.
As far as responding or not that's simply your way of bowing out once presented with overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.
I don't disagree with your opinions or give you any hard time about your opinions given that they are just opinions. I do give you a hard time when you talk out of your ass about something in support of that opinion. Fact is you were clueless about flash and the flash market.
Vinea
Apple is buying enough FLASH in their contracts to get it at lower prices than most other buyers.
Yes I'm sure Apple was able to get its flash so cheap initially because it agreed to buy a lot of flash from Samsung over a number of years.
but not at current prices
The cost of the iPhone is also three times higher than the cost of the nano.
not at current device size
SDD are being created in 2.5 and 1.8 form factors because they are courting laptops but both SanDisk and Samsung said they can be created in smaller form factors.
not at current battery life
Samsung says their 32GB SDD consumes .1W idle and .5W at full load. I seriously doubt the 8GB is using significantly less than that.
Apple has sent the units to the FCC for testing as a final product
Admittedly I don't know much about the FCC process. But I don't believe that after the iPhone is approved Apple is stuck with the storage that was approved. Even if it did work that way Apple should be able to show devices with different amounts of storage.
The cost of the iPhone is also three times higher than the cost of the nano.
Of course, it is a phone, with WiFi, and Bluetooth, a much larger, high rez display with multi-touch, etc. It should cost much more.
SDD are being created in 2.5 and 1.8 form factors because they are courting laptops but both SanDisk and Samsung said they can be created in smaller form factors.
The board with the chips is pretty large. Thes case it's in must be even larger. I'm sure we'll see smaller forms in the future.
Samsung says their 32GB SDD consumes .1W idle and .5W at full load. I seriously doubt the 8GB is using significantly less than that.
I don't know the actual draw, but it's less than that.
Admittedly I don't know much about the FCC process. But I don't believe that after the iPhone is approved Apple is stuck with the storage that was approved. Even if it did work that way Apple should be able to show devices with different amounts of storage.
Anything that can change the emission of radiation that could affect reception (part 15, subsection C) must be re-submitted. It doesn't have to go through the entire process again, but it must continue to meet the same standards.
Changing a switch wouldn't make a difference, but changing the amount of memory, cpu, case material, etc. would.
Given I did just see you admit to making an obvious mistake in another thread you have my apologies for over generalizing. Yes, its also obvious that I push you into a defensive corner but frankly you just rub me the wrong way when you talk as an expert but are clearly wrong about something.
Regards,
Vinea
Then why not conceed that the prices for the 32GB SSD will be $600 or less? You continued to challenge that price even in your latest posts asking for a link.
As far as responding or not that's simply your way of bowing out once presented with overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.
I don't disagree with your opinions or give you any hard time about your opinions given that they are just opinions. I do give you a hard time when you talk out of your ass about something in support of that opinion. Fact is you were clueless about flash and the flash market.
Vinea
Ok, just this last time. I will provide a quote from the end of the article I provided, which you are so upset about. I will let you, and others here, try to figure out what the quote means, and what I was thinking when I provided the article.
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure...."
So, when I posted that article, what was I showing about the pricing, and my asking you for a reference about the $600 price for the Sandisk drive?
Did I not post a link I was asking YOU for?
I don't know the actual draw, but it's less than that.
30 mA @ 3.3V max for the Nano part for erase. .099W or so/chip if I did my math right.
0.8W absolute max I guess since they give that same 30mA max for reads, writes and erases but that's max and you're not going to hit all 8 chips at once anyway so its far less.
No spec sheet for the 16Gb part handy but its not likely that far off given the 32GB SSD specs.
Vinea
Ok, just this last time. I will provide a quote from the end of the article I provided, which you are so upset about. I will let you, and others here, try to figure out what the quote means, and what I was thinking when I provided the article.
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure...."
So, when I posted that article, what was I showing about the pricing, and my asking you for a reference about the $600 price for the Sandisk drive?
Did I not post a link I was asking YOU for?
Then I misread that and again, my apologies.
In any case I wasn't "upset", I was confused as to why you posted that because the original source for that price is still a SanDisk quote you rejected earlier (even more distantly removed). It really isn't a second confirmation except for the Ritek drive which also isn't on the market yet either. So I was sarcastic because there's no reason for you to accept this as "proof" any more than other links you had previously rejected as "speculation". You gave the impression that you would except nothing less than a sub-$600 retail link from Pricegrabber or something.
Vinea
Then I misread that and again, my apologies.
In any case I wasn't "upset", I was confused as to why you posted that because the original source for that price is still a SanDisk quote you rejected earlier (even more distantly removed). It really isn't a second confirmation except for the Ritek drive which also isn't on the market yet either. So I was sarcastic because there's no reason for you to accept this as "proof" any more than other links you had previously rejected as "speculation". You gave the impression that you would except nothing less than a sub-$600 retail link from Pricegrabber or something.
Vinea
To be clear. I didn't see anything in those links you posted showing the price of the Sandisk drive. If it was there, you will have to show me, because I must have missed it.
However, the articles do say that the 32 Gb FLASH will be available in the second half of the year. Not now. Not in time for the iPhone's introduction, as is being implied. You see the problem?
Also, you accused me of posting the link, to deny the correctness of your statement of pricing. Your entire post, in response to my posting the link, the relevant part which you posted as well:
"For reference, SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600 while Ritek's 32GB drive will likely come in slightly below that figure so you do the math."
Exactly what was your point? That a 32GB drive can't be $600?"
I can't imagine how you can derive that question from the article, or particularly the part even you quoted, when the quote says, quite clearly that "SanDisk's 32GB drive is pegged at around $600".
This is why I get tired of parrying with you. Even though you say that you don't get upset, you do. You then mis-read much of what I say, and even quotes that I post in SUPPORT of what YOU say, get misunderstood.
I find myself spending more time trying to explain myself in different ways, than I do refuting what you say. It isn't worth it.
30 mA @ 3.3V max for the Nano part for erase. .099W or so/chip if I did my math right.
0.8W absolute max I guess since they give that same 30mA max for reads, writes and erases but that's max and you're not going to hit all 8 chips at once anyway so its far less.
Its difficult to tell from this what the full load would be and how much less it is than the 16GB or 32GB.
However, the articles do say that the 32 Gb FLASH will be available in the second half of the year. Not now. Not in time for the iPhone's introduction, as is being implied. You see the problem?
From what I am reading the Samsung 32GB SDD is available to OEM now. The SanDisk will be available to OEM soon. But no one is placing any big orders because currently there is no real use for them.
Its difficult to tell from this what the full load would be and how much less it is than the 16GB or 32GB.
From what I am reading the Samsung 32GB SDD is available to OEM now. The SanDisk will be available to OEM soon. But no one is placing any big orders because currently there is no real use for them.
Vinea's article states pretty definitely that it will be available sometime in the second half. From my own checking, I agree. It's not available now.
Shipping now, the 32GB and 16GB drives will initially be sold to equipment makers only. Samsung already includes the drive in its Japan-only Q30 subnotebook; the company is in discussions with U.S. vendors to bring SSD laptops and portable devices here.
PC World Tests Samsung 32GB Flash Drive
The article also estimates flash cost $63 per 4GB module. That would place the 16GB at $252 and the 32GB at $504. But this was in August 2006.
SEOUL, Korea ? May 23, 2006 : Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the leader in digital media technology, will release the world?s first PCs embedded with a 32-Gigabyte (GB) NAND flash-based solid state disk (SSD). This marks the first time that NAND flash has moved into a commercial mobile computing application and is a breakthrough that will pave the way for replacing hard disk drives with NAND flash-based memory disks. The Samsung Q1, an ultra-mobile computing device and the Q30, a 12.1-inch screen notebook PC, will be available in the Korean market from early June.
Vinea's article states pretty definitely that it will be available sometime in the second half. From my own checking, I agree. It's not available now.
The SanDisk SSD not available retail now. Fujitsu and Samsung's 32GB SSDs are using their older 8Gb chips currently in the Nano which aren't that old either (mid-2006). Toshiba is SanDisk's partner and their 16Gb chip trails Samsung by months although both will go into mass production within a month or so of each other if Toshiba doesn't slip. Evidently SanDisk sees no need to use last year's technology for their new product given that Samsung has already beaten them to the market by 6 months and the new process is almost ready anyway.
If Apple wanted some it could get some (of either kind)...certainly enough to build engineering and test units suitable for certification. Again, they did so for the Nano 2G where they launched 3 months after the flash they depended on went into mass production.
Apple wouldn't likely use the Samsung SSD itself for the iPhone since the casing and connector isn't required. Plus given the extra space in the drive casing they can use less dense packaging (ie less or no stacking in TSOPs) than would be desired in the iPhone.
But the new chips themselves are higher density and faster. In a quad stack configuration as in the Nano its 8GB per chip vs 4GB. There are only two reasons that Apple would be unable to get to 16Gb if they so desired in the current footprint:
1) Apple is only using a single new 16Gb chip in the 8GB iPhone (as a single quad stacked chip) and the older 8Gb chip in the 4GB iPhone (which is possible since they need all the battery space they can get)
2) Samsung is unable to get the quad stack to work for the new part in time. If they can only get the packaging for 2 chips stacked then while it would work for a SSD (8 chips) but not for a Nano or iPhone to go 16Gb.
There's no retail availability for the Samsung 32GB SSD either. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that Apple couldn't use it in the 6G iPod if it wanted to. But those parts (quad stacked) are likely in high demand since they are already used in the Nano and UMPCs. Even so, DVNation seems overpriced for 32Gb 1.8 normal temp flash given the Samsung would be around $950 if available on the retail market. No need for Samsung to be pushing this drive to retail anymore either given its about to be replaced with newer technology and everything they're making is going to UMPC makers anyway.
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/sta...ali_index.html
In the pics you see the same part number on the flash as in the Nano. I think we can put to rest the "fast" vs "slow" flash price thing. The nano uses the same flash as in the 32GB SSD.
Given SanDisk's 30% discount that gets you pretty close to $600 (although the quad stacked flash is least likely to get discounted). With half the parts the new SSD should hit their desired $600 mark and possibly get to the double the price / GB for a 1.8" HDD (closer to $300) Toshiba projects for this year.
Vinea
The SanDisk SSD not available retail now. Fujitsu and Samsung's 32GB SSDs are using their older 8Gb chips currently in the Nano which aren't that old either (mid-2006). Toshiba is SanDisk's partner and their 16Gb chip trails Samsung by months although both will go into mass production within a month or so of each other if Toshiba doesn't slip. Evidently SanDisk sees no need to use last year's technology for their new product given that Samsung has already beaten them to the market by 6 months and the new process is almost ready anyway.
If Apple wanted some it could get some (of either kind)...certainly enough to build engineering and test units suitable for certification. Again, they did so for the Nano 2G where they launched 3 months after the flash they depended on went into mass production.
Apple wouldn't likely use the Samsung SSD itself for the iPhone since the casing and connector isn't required. Plus given the extra space in the drive casing they can use less dense packaging (ie less or no stacking in TSOPs) than would be desired in the iPhone.
But the new chips themselves are higher density and faster. In a quad stack configuration as in the Nano its 8GB per chip vs 4GB. There are only two reasons that Apple would be unable to get to 16Gb if they so desired in the current footprint:
1) Apple is only using a single new 16Gb chip in the 8GB iPhone (as a single quad stacked chip) and the older 8Gb chip in the 4GB iPhone (which is possible since they need all the battery space they can get)
2) Samsung is unable to get the quad stack to work for the new part in time. If they can only get the packaging for 2 chips stacked then while it would work for a SSD (8 chips) but not for a Nano or iPhone to go 16Gb.
There's no retail availability for the Samsung 32GB SSD either. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that Apple couldn't use it in the 6G iPod if it wanted to. But those parts (quad stacked) are likely in high demand since they are already used in the Nano and UMPCs. Even so, DVNation seems overpriced for 32Gb 1.8 normal temp flash given the Samsung would be around $950 if available on the retail market. No need for Samsung to be pushing this drive to retail anymore either given its about to be replaced with newer technology and everything they're making is going to UMPC makers anyway.
http://www.hwupgrade.it/articoli/sta...ali_index.html
In the pics you see the same part number on the flash as in the Nano. I think we can put to rest the "fast" vs "slow" flash price thing. The nano uses the same flash as in the 32GB SSD.
Given SanDisk's 30% discount that gets you pretty close to $600 (although the quad stacked flash is least likely to get discounted). With half the parts the new SSD should hit their desired $600 mark and possibly get to the double the price / GB for a 1.8" HDD (closer to $300) Toshiba projects for this year.
Vinea
If this is moving more rapidly than they have been stating, then possibly, Apple could get their hands on it for an end of the year 16 GB upgrade. Those laptops with these FLASH "drives" are still a fair bit more expensive than machines without them. As Samsung said it wouldn't be available 'till the second half of the year, what they are using now must either be current chips, or a very limited run of the new ones. I don't see $300 for 32 GB until sometime next year. These predictions seem to be much too optimistic from everything I'm reading, including your article.
If this is moving more rapidly than they have been stating, then possibly, Apple could get their hands on it for an end of the year 16 GB upgrade. Those laptops with these FLASH "drives" are still a fair bit more expensive than machines without them. As Samsung said it wouldn't be available 'till the second half of the year, what they are using now must either be current chips, or a very limited run of the new ones. I don't see $300 for 32 GB until sometime next year. These predictions seem to be much too optimistic from everything I'm reading, including your article.
Wu states $5/GB in this latest analysis. iSuppli says $42.50 for 4GB from Samsung back in September for $10/GB. Given that the Samsung SSD uses the same flash as in the 4GB Nano the build cost for the 32GB Samsung SSD is $320 + controller and case without any new discounting since September of last year. Call it ballpark $7/GB for the whole kit at today's pricing (controller isn't that expensive).
32GB SSD for $600 this year is a no brainer. 32GB SSD for $300 this year depends on how high the SSD manufactures want their gross margins to be and volume pricing on the new 16Gb part. Most of the production will likely go to OEMs and not appear on the open market.
Vinea