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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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???
Comments
- 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.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.
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.
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.
https://www.hbsslaw.com/uploads/case_downloads/dram2/2018-04-27_dram_class_action_complaint.pdf