Samsung and SK Hynix halt expansion plans to prevent SSD and memory price drop

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, S w a t s o n said:

How interesting that graph doesn't go earlier than 2014, lets see the pre-2013 fire spot prices

Pre-2013 is not relevant to the price hike we just went through. The price drops in 2014-15 prove the 2013 fire cannot be a contributory cause of that price hike.

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Sakkura said:

Pre-2013 is not relevant to the price hike we just went through. The price drops in 2014-15 prove the 2013 fire cannot be a contributory cause of that price hike.

What? Of course a fire that happened in 2013 doesnt directly affect prices today, the point was that the DRAM shortage and price inflation BEGAN in 2013 with that fire. RAM was still super expensive in 2016 and yet the spot price listed is at the lowest cost, wonder how that happens

[asus killer]

On 9/7/2018 at 11:36 PM, Wh0_Am_1 said:

It's not price fixing, do people even know the definition of that term anymore? 

it is if they "both reportedly slimming down their expansion plans for DRAM and NAND chip production" at the same time. That is the exact definition

[Tech Enthusiast]

6 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

For the last like 5 years we've been in some sort of dram shortage but suddenly there is an oversupply? And so now suddenly they do not feel the need to produce as much, hmm must be tinfoil. In this specific case it may or may not be literal price fixing but it doesn't need to be literal price fixing for them to be assholes. They can still manipulate the market without coming to a literal agreement for which they have been fined and sued for multiple times in the past

There is no shortage of anything atm. Did you find any empty shelves in the past months? No? Me neither.

 

We are NOT talking about reducing production.

We are NOT talking about halting expansion.

We are NOT talking about increasing prices.

 

We are talking about reducing EXPANSION. It is still happening, just slower. And we already have more production than demand. 

I really don't see how people can jump to conclusions that don't even fit the situation at least a tiny little bit.

They can still produce more than we buy. Prices won't go up, they will keep going down.

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Tech Enthusiast said:

There is no shortage of anything atm. Did you find any empty shelves in the past months? No? Me neither.

 

We are NOT talking about reducing production.

We are NOT talking about halting expansion.

We are NOT talking about increasing prices.

 

We are talking about reducing EXPANSION. It is still happening, just slower. And we already have more production than demand. 

I really don't see how people can jump to conclusions that don't even fit the situation at least a tiny little bit.

They can still produce more than we buy. Prices won't go up, they will keep going down.

I didnt say they were reducing production or halting expansion or directly increasing prices. I am well aware of the topic of the article. What I am saying is that this is a very convenient choice for them considering they have been enjoying insane margins for the past few years citing undersupply. So we've gone very quickly from undersupply to oversupply to such an extent that they no longer feel like doing full expansion after years of being unable to keep up with demand.

 

And we all know that less and less DRAM is being put into devices year over year right? /s

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

it is if they "both reportedly slimming down their expansion plans for DRAM and NAND chip production" at the same time. That is the exact definition

No, it is not.

Price fixing is if two parties sit down at a table and discuss the price, setting it at any random value. Both parties agree to not undercut the other party.

 

Slowing down expansion is not price fixing. It is slowing down money burning if the manufacturing capacity is bigger than running demand. 

As long as no one has proof of actual price fixing, I would consider bad mouthing other people/companies as more illegal as what these two companies are doing right now.

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

I didnt say they were reducing production or halting expansion or directly increasing prices. I am well aware of the topic of the article. What I am saying is that this is a very convenient choice for them considering they have been enjoying insane margins for the past few years citing undersupply. So we've gone very quickly from undersupply to oversupply to such an extent that they no longer feel like doing full expansion after years of being unable to keep up with demand.

 

And we all know that less and less DRAM is being put into devices year over year right? /s

Well, you nailed it there.

That is EXACTLY what we know, not more, not less.

Companies trying to maximize their profits is not unusual, not illegal, not unexpected. Every single one of us would do exactly the same.

 

People in this topic are dead set on "knowing" more though.

Hell, even IF they would not expand at all anymore (which they do), what about that is illegal? Even if demand was sky high? Where does the entitlement come from nowadays? What gives us the right to demand them spending their money on more factories? 

 

I know I would not like it if anyone tried to decide on what I would spend my money on. 

[asus killer]

6 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

No, it is not.

Price fixing is if two parties sit down at a table and discuss the price, setting it at any random value. Both parties agree to not undercut the other party.

 

Slowing down expansion is not price fixing. It is slowing down money burning if the manufacturing capacity is bigger than running demand. 

As long as no one has proof of actual price fixing, I would consider bad mouthing other people/companies as more illegal as what these two companies are doing right now.

for the love of all that is holy, if you don't know what you're talking just abstain from doing so, this is infuriating, god damn internet, just kill me now. 

 

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing

[S w a t s o n]

3 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

Well, you nailed it there.

That is EXACTLY what we know, not more, not less.

Companies trying to maximize their profits is not unusual, not illegal, not unexpected. Every single one of us would do exactly the same.

 

People in this topic are dead set on "knowing" more though.

Hell, even IF they would not expand at all anymore (which they do), what about that is illegal? Even if demand was sky high? Where does the entitlement come from nowadays? What gives us the right to demand them spending their money on more factories? 

 

I know I would not like it if anyone tried to decide on what I would spend my money on. 

The reason many are skeptical is because like I've said a few times in this thread. SK Hynix, Samsung and Micron have been sued for actual, literal price fixing and lost multiple times in North America

[Tech Enthusiast]

2 minutes ago, asus killer said:

for the love of all that is holy, if you don't know what you're talking just abstain from doing so, this is infuriating, god damn internet, just kill me now. 

 

Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. 

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/dealings-competitors/price-fixing

To use your word: For the love of god, how does slowing down expansion do that?! By that logic, everything a company does or does not do is price fixing.

You also forgot that for price fixing to be a thing, the prices actually need to be fixed. Are they? Are they identical between the two? Both answers are a big fat no.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 9/8/2018 at 12:59 AM, Wh0_Am_1 said:

Price fixing is an occurrence in which two or more companies arbitrarily agree to increase the prices of their products to make a quick buck, this such phenomena tend to be rare in capitalist markets due to the significant risk of the included companies breaking the agreement and stealing the others market share, and third parties  selling their products at reasonable prices thereby stealing the other companies marketshare, price fixing is almost always a foolish idea in capitalist markets due to the damage that occurs to the involved parties reputations, and the loss of marketshare, it is almost always a tactic that only works in the short term but usually causes irreparable damage in the long term.

FTFY

 

On 9/8/2018 at 12:57 AM, dizmo said:

This isn't price fixing, this is matching supply to demand. You don't make 1,000 Big Mac's if only 100 people want them, and then lower the price so that people buy them simply because they're so cheap.

If you cut down the production of Big Macs, it's not price fixing.

If you call Burger King and tell them "hey, let's produce fewer burgers so we don't end up with lower prices", it is price fixing.

 

Price fixing is not about prices being high or low, it's not about the reason why you set such prices, it's not about whether you make profits and losses. It's only about whether you collude with a competitor to achieve a particular market price (or, by extension, to achieve a particular overall supply).

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

If you call Burger King and tell them "hey, let's produce fewer burgers so we don't end up with lower prices", it is price fixing.

 

Price fixing is not about prices being high or low, it's not about the reason why you set such prices, it's not about whether you make profits and losses. It's only about whether you collude with a competitor to achieve a particular market price (or, by extension, to achieve a particular overall supply).

Right. Except this isn't that. Only Samsung is reducing it's DRAM production. SK Hynix isn't. Micron is increasing it. So, it's not price fixing.

[Tech Enthusiast]

5 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

The reason many are skeptical is because like I've said a few times in this thread. SK Hynix, Samsung and Micron have been sued for actual, literal price fixing and lost multiple times in North America

2

I get that. I get being skeptical. 

But until proven otherwise, this is not illegal at all. To even start thinking about that they would have to increase prices and name "lack of supply" as a reason.

[S w a t s o n]

5 minutes ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

I get that. I get being skeptical. 

But until proven otherwise, this is not illegal at all. To even start thinking about that they would have to increase prices and name "lack of supply" as a reason.

No, you can guess at someone's motives before they actually play out. It's not illegal at this moment but I definitely agree with the "tinfoil" in this thread that it doesn't seem legit

[Master Disaster]

Wow, despite it being explained multiple times people still don't get it...

 

Price fixing is not about raising prices. It's not about lowering prices. It's not about raising supply. It's not about lowering supply.

 

If any number of businesses decide to work together in order to artificially adjust a price, in any way (so increase or decrease) and/or by any means it is price fixing.

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, asus killer said:

if you don't know what you're talking just abstain from doing so

You should follow your own advice.

[Sakkura]

42 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

What? Of course a fire that happened in 2013 doesnt directly affect prices today, the point was that the DRAM shortage and price inflation BEGAN in 2013 with that fire. RAM was still super expensive in 2016 and yet the spot price listed is at the lowest cost, wonder how that happens

How did the price inflation begin in 2013, when prices were dropping in 2014-2015? You are not making any sense whatsoever.

 

[S w a t s o n]

1 minute ago, Sakkura said:

How did the price inflation begin in 2013, when prices were dropping in 2014-2015? You are not making any sense whatsoever.

 

You see that peak at the very start of your graph, if you had one that went earlier you'd see how you got there in the first place. RAM prices in 2015 were not lower for the consumer so your spot graph explains nothing anyways

[Sakkura]

2 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

You see that peak at the very start of your graph, if you had one that went earlier you'd see how you got there in the first place. RAM prices in 2015 were not lower for the consumer so your spot graph explains nothing anyways

RAM prices were lower for consumers in 2015 and 2016, as the price dropped.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160313054859/https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/

[S w a t s o n]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

RAM prices were lower for consumers in 2015 and 2016, as the price dropped.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20160313054859/https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/price/memory/

I have trouble believing those numbers based on all the prices I saw, even today DDR3 RAM costs more than it did in 2016 according to that chart. Go check if you want

 

We also see the reduction in price from the insane high of early 2014 caused by......what do you think? Maybe that 2013 fab fire huh? Why do none of these graphs show 2012-2013 hmm

 

To make my point: I bought 16GB (2x8GB) of DDR3-1600 in 2012 for $80 CAD which was probably about $80 USD cause we were near par back then, keep in mind that Canadian prices are almost always higher just due to customs and shipping so the same RAM was likely a bit cheaper in the US. Since the fab fire you have never been able to get 16GB of DDR3-1600 for anywhere close to that price. I didn't get even the cheap stuff, I bought decent kingston branded RAM with heatsinks. The DDR3-1600 8GBx2 graph shows how insane the prices were in 2014, nearing $180 and then slowly dropping but never coming close.

[Sakkura]

5 minutes ago, S w a t s o n said:

I have trouble believing those numbers based on all the prices I saw, even today DDR3 RAM costs more than it did in 2016 according to that chart. Go check if you want

 

We also see the reduction in price from the insane high of early 2014 caused by......what do you think? Maybe that 2013 fab fire huh? Why do none of these graphs show 2012-2013 hmm

 

To make my point: I bought 16GB of DDR3-1600 in 2012 for $80 CAD which was probably about $80 USD cause we were near par back then, keep in mind that Canadian prices are almost always higher just due to customs and shipping so the same RAM was likely a bit cheaper in the US. Since the fab fire you have never been able to get 16GB of DDR3-1600 for anywhere close to that price. I didn't get even the cheap stuff, I bought decent kingston branded RAM with heatsinks

You're pretending like 2012-13 were normal years for memory prices. They were not.

[S w a t s o n]

Just now, Sakkura said:

You're pretending like 2012-13 were normal years for memory prices. They were not.

2012 was normal, 2013 was normal until the fab fire. 2014 was NOT normal. $180 for 16GB of DDR3 was never normal

[vanished]

SSD prices actually are noticeably at an all time low and still falling so that makes sense but RAM is still greatly inflated and yet they are planning to cut back on that even more!?  WHAT?

[Reavantos]

3 hours ago, Tech Enthusiast said:

That did not stop you from putting a clickbait title with the most clickbaity conclusion possible in this case.

"I don't know if he killed the guy,... but he did!"

 

 

I copied the article title... calm down. 

 

Also: I sincerely hope you sprain your ankle when you get off your high-horse.

[plsno]

I really don't see what the problem is. You can't expect companies to keep expanding production when the market isn't there for said production.