Slashdot Mirror


Hard Drive Shortage Relief Coming In Q1 2012

MojoKid writes "According to new reports [note: source article at DigiTimes], global HDD production capacity is getting ready to increase to 140-145 million units in the first quarter of 2012, or about 80 percent of where it was prior to when the floods hit Thailand manufacturing plants. HDD production was sitting around 175 million units in the third quarter of 2011 before the floods, after which time it quickly dropped to 120-125 million units. Since then, there's been a concerted effort to restore operations to pre-flood levels."

205 comments

  1. Market pressures. by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's great that HDD production is about to increase again, but I think the recent "crunch" was also a good thing in a way. Perhaps it encouraged some end users to get more creative with data storage techniques, resulting in more efficient systems that can do more with less bulk storage capacity. At least I can hope so.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
    1. Re:Market pressures. by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most end users never noticed. People that needed the storage paid the higher price. People that didn't actually need it just held off until prices went down.

    2. Re:Market pressures. by Walter+White · · Score: 1

      Efficient? With drive prices where they were it is not efficient to spend a lot of time minimizing drive space usage.

    3. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope. The people qualified to make that kind of efficiency decisions already do it.

      Your average Granny-user remains clueless and storing gigs of uncompressed bitmaps on their system.

       

    4. Re:Market pressures. by PatPending · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, according to the article, "Due to increased costs of components and materials, HDD prices are likely to rise 30-40% from the level before the floods by the end of 2012, the sources indicated."

      A 30-40% increase is A LOT, esp. given the present and foreseeable economic conditions.

      Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    5. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

      rm -rf /music/Whitney_Houston

    6. Re:Market pressures. by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

      You can recover up to 50% of your drive space by switching your collection over to midget-pr0n.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    7. Re:Market pressures. by philip.paradis · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

      That largely depends on how many copies of such items you're storing, or in some cases how similar blocks in various files are, even if they're not exact copies of one another. For organizations with large storage requirements and a fair amount of duplicate data being stored for various reasons, things like ZFS with deduplication can go a long way toward more efficiently managing those requirements.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    8. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter.

      What does that Granny user do?
      If she's like the vast majority it will be email, facebook, general internet, and maybe MS Office. Any media that is consumed is streamed. My parents can't work the DVD player, much less manage downloaded media. They can work Netflix though.

      Essentially, it's gotten to the point where the only thing they have to store is what you create. And its hard to fill more than then 300GB that comes with a modest computer that way.

    9. Re:Market pressures. by gman003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think it had more of an impact on SSD adoption.

      Before the floods, SSD prices were 10x higher than hard drives, per gigabyte. When the floods hit, hard drive prices nearly doubled, while SSD prices continued to slowly drop. That added up to SSDs being only 4-6x the per-gigabyte price of a hard drive, at least temporarily.

      I've certainly noticed a lot more people buying and using SSDs. I'll probably do so myself at some point, once I have a computer that's primarily disc-latency-bound instead of CPU- or GPU-bound in most tasks.

    10. Re:Market pressures. by sidthegeek · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I like underscores, you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:Market pressures. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      ka-CHING!

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    12. Re:Market pressures. by Tastecicles · · Score: 2

      hm... I dunno, with digital images coming in at over 3MB on an entry level camera these days, and SD cards at stupid prices which mean you can cram nearly 3,000 full resolution images per 16GB card (so deleting images is an exercise in timewasting more than saving limited space!), plus HD video at 8GB/30min, I don't think it's be that hard filling 300GB of /scratch space/.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    13. Re:Market pressures. by voodoowizard · · Score: 1

      Yeah it was great when my HD failed and I am now still limping along with a stupid noisy drive I had for back up. Can't wait for the prices to drop. Yay, what a good thing.

    14. Re:Market pressures. by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about your workload. If it's more disk latency bound than CPU or GPU bound, would you possibly benefit more from the addition of more RAM, instead of moving to an SSD? RAM is extremely cheap these days, and I've found that many workloads benefit much more from extra system memory than faster disks, which is why I'm interesting in hearing more about your particular use case.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    15. Re:Market pressures. by jrmcferren · · Score: 2

      I waited until prices went back to late 2012 levels before I bought my new drive today. Now I can get my camcorder out and not worry about losing frames (MiniDV captured on DV mode).

      --
      sudo mod me up
    16. Re:Market pressures. by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Let the joyous news be spread." --Munchkin Mayor

    17. Re:Market pressures. by bloodhawk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      we had server purchases seriously delayed, in the end we had to go with some more expensive and larger disks just so we could get our desperately needed servers delivered, otherwise it was expected up to a further 3 months of delays.

    18. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's been my experience that most users who grew up with film treat digital in the same mentality of "Each shot has a cost associated, so I'm going to take as few as I can". Whereas the younger generation will leave the camera running the whole time, or take a lot of shots.

    19. Re:Market pressures. by sjwt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh sweet, let me know what late 2012 levels are(will be?), I'm looking to upgrade then and do not want to be ripped off!

      --
      You have 5 Moderator Points!
      Which Helpless Linux zealot/MS basher do you want to mod down today?
    20. Re:Market pressures. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

      Start burning stuff to DVD or putting it on cheap flash drives and hand them out to your friends. It's just like saving stuff to the Cloud, except they appreciate the music and movies and you can drink with them.

      I call it "Sneaker-cloud".

      I am learning more and more that the answer to life's questions often comes down to the people who are around you, physically. Family, friends, neighbors. Internet is good for lots of things, but I'm re-discovering all the value hidden in these non-virtual relationships. Salut!

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      and a fair amount of duplicate data being stored for various reasons, things like ZFS with deduplication can go a long way toward more efficiently managing those requirements.

      Yeah like backups ;).

    22. Re:Market pressures. by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Unless you have a battery backed up RAM drive you wouldn't be able to write something "permanently".

      And you'd still need it as a "drive" because operating systems etc treats drives differently. Drives aren't normally wiped on reboots, bluescreens, application crashes.

      --
    23. Re:Market pressures. by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm not referring to using RAM drives. I'm mostly referring to in-memory filesystem cache, which has a serious effect on performance. That said, using a RAM disk (notably things like /dev/shm on Linux, other platforms have different implementations) for temporary data instead of a disk (whether HDD or SSD) can provide fairly ridiculous additional performance improvements without having to modify any application code.

      Put simply, I've got systems where the addition of a few GB of RAM essentially tripled overall performance.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    24. Re:Market pressures. by gman003 · · Score: 1

      First, understand that my "workload" is primarily gaming. That means relatively GPU-heavy loads, compared to what you might expect.

      Second, understand that my primary gaming computer died recently, so I'm currently on a machine that is... not designed for gaming. Dual Xeons (dual-core each), 5GB of (fully-buffered, ECC) RAM, yes, very good for a server or such, and absolute overkill for any game I've found. I have no complaints on that end - even Minecraft, a game legendary amongst gamers for choking up most CPUs, is easily handled.

      The Radeon X1900 powering the graphics? Not so much. 256MB of VRAM, 48 shader units. Ouch. (For comparison, the card I'm looking at for my replacement has 3GB of VRAM and 192 shader units (at about triple the clock speed)). It's even slower than you'd expect from a 5-year-old card, and it even lacks enough features that I can't even try to run certain games on it.

      So yeah, my hard drive isn't under much stress. Gaming-wise, hard drive speed mainly matters for loading - and since I don't have the VRAM to load high-res textures or models, it's not a major bottleneck. 7200RPM is fine. Even as a boot disk, an SSD is unnecessary, since I'm running a proper, Unix-like OS that boots in under 30 seconds, instead of the five minutes Windows would take.

      So for now, I'm ogling replacement computers. I've got my eye on one particular beast, and the only weakness I can find in it is the storage. I'll probably order it with a 64GB SSD to use as a boot/app drive, since the extra $100 isn't a big deal when ordering a $1,500 computer.

    25. Re:Market pressures. by parlancex · · Score: 3, Informative

      We had to provision 2 new 16 disk storage arrays for network backups, and ended up paying about 3x what it should've cost for the storage. Needless to say our department's budget isn't looking as good as it could.

    26. Re:Market pressures. by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      âo you have an advanced camcorder that senses how much free space is on a target drive and drops frames to fit the video onto it?

    27. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "MiniDV captured on DV mode"

      1998 called, they want their camera back.

      Hmm, stange, 1985 just called me, and wants its bad jokes back.

    28. Re:Market pressures. by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Start burning stuff to DVD or putting it on cheap flash drives and hand them out to your friends. It's just like saving stuff to the Cloud, except they appreciate the music and movies and you can drink with them.

      I call it "Sneaker-cloud".

      So I take it you use Air Jordans for the physical layer? (or is that considered the data-link layer)?

    29. Re:Market pressures. by rrohbeck · · Score: 5, Informative

      We make systems that have up to 200+TB storage and had to do emergency qualifications of replacement disk drives because the drive vendors told us "sorry, can't deliver." That must be because we have long term purchasing agreements, i.e. prenegotiated prices. I think the bastards rather sold at 3x prices to Newegg & co.

    30. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've had a few million dollars worth of server and SAN orders held up for months. Certain drive sizes - particularly SFF SAS 10K and 15K are constrained. Some customers are opting for more expensive larger capacity drives.

      SSD has gotten a much bigger boost than it otherwise would have - and that's a good thing from my point of view. Spinning rust drives are a hideous bottleneck for a modern server and the sooner we get away from them the better.

    31. Re:Market pressures. by jkflying · · Score: 1

      The latency is kinda high...

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    32. Re:Market pressures. by dbIII · · Score: 2

      I ended up having a fairly unimportant server, a staging area for overnight backups, as the fastest machine in the room. The cheapest OS disk was an SSD and the storage disks ended up as SAS because that came to within less than $100 total difference between that and six SATA disks. As with the poster above it cost way too much and has a lot of empty drive bays for when disks get cheaper.

    33. Re:Market pressures. by symbolset · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Triple the performance is pretty good for cache. I see that too, particularly with the newer SAS RAID controllers with 1GB of flash-backed write cache. A decent modern SATA attached SSD can do something like 70x the IOPs and 20x the bandwidth of a spinning disk though, and also sees additional benefits from RAM caching. The PCIe attached versions can do well over 1000x the IOPs of 15K 6G SAS. No joke, one PCIe attached internal flash drive can outperform on I/O even the most optimally configured array with the 1000 of the fastest available spinning disks (which typically would take at least 3 full racks and 25 KW and have a drive failure every week). And the latency is down near 26 microseconds in the worst case, where a cache miss is best-case 2000 microseconds of latency on a spinning disk.

      Solid state: it's just faster. It also costs a bit more, but not offensively so. RAM is getting a lot cheaper these days (about $8/GB for the registered 8GB DIMM) so if you've got a problem set that fits in configurable memory and doesn't require the reliability of static storage during the problem set, RAMDISK is definitely an option again for some. Frankly these RAM prices look crazy cheap to those of us who were praying for the day that RAM dropped below $100/megabyte back in the day. I've paid over $300,000/GB for RAM ($300/MB) - and it was much slower RAM too. Going over the math in my head, apparently I once also paid $2,500,000/TB for HDD storage ($300 for 0.00002 TB) - out of my own pocket as a consumer. That's just crazy.

      The question comes down to what is your time worth? What can you do with storage this fast? Does your data fit on the SSDs? Are there other benefits? Everybody has different needs. The available technology is outpacing our needs by a good bit these days. You now can fit all of Peak Twitter into the storage, network and processing capacity of one off-the-rack server - though of course you would use three and geographically isolate them for HA if you were Twitter. These new technologies enable us to do things we couldn't do before - or alternately they allow us to use software that's so offensively bloated it robs us of all the benefit of technology's advance.

      Subbing an SSD for your laptop or desktop's boot HDD will get boot times down to mere seconds even in Windows. Anyway, I'm rambling. Time to click "submit".

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    34. Re:Market pressures. by Fjandr · · Score: 2

      Latency might be high, but you can't beat the bandwidth. :)

    35. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a hard drive shortage?

      Seriously I didn't even notice it.

    36. Re:Market pressures. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3

      Most end users never noticed. People that needed the storage paid the higher price. People that didn't actually need it just held off until prices went down.

      I'm trying to hold off, but damn if drives aren't dying left and right around me right now.

      Week before Christmas 2011, the main disk in my Windows Home Server died. Had to buy a replacement (but managed to Ghost it and reset the registry so it recognizes the new drive).

      Now my NAS appliance died, looks like I have to go buy a new one.

      Damn unlucky, it looks like.

    37. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this a spoof of some movie quote (if it is, I don't get it), or just meaningless shite?

    38. Re:Market pressures. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      2TB for 79.99 bucks.

      it's not rocket science.(2TB being 139.9 euros off the shelf around here right now and we got a bit higher taxing).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    39. Re:Market pressures. by SJHillman · · Score: 1

      And you know for sure what prices will be six to nine months from now?

    40. Re:Market pressures. by fa2k · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sometimes the OS cache is not smart though. On Linux, if you do a grep over a huge dataset or a backup, then all of the useful files you had in cache are wiped out and replaced with that data. I wish Linux could adopt a more sophisticated algorithm, like ZFS has. Granted, it's difficult for the OS to predict whether a file will be accessed once or hundreds of times in the future, but it makes sense to check if it's *frequently* used and not just if it's recently used.

    41. Re:Market pressures. by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      whoosh much?

    42. Re:Market pressures. by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Exactly, most of my customers simply made do with what they had until the price lowered like the one i just installed where the guy was simply tossing files off his 1Tb until the price hit $100 for a Tb again which is when he had me grab him another Tb to install. I'm just lucky that for once in my life i actually got in when prices were low thanks to Samsung being bought out. I've always preferred the Samsung EcoDrives because of the lower heat and rugged construction so when Newegg dropped the price to $35 for a 1Tb and $59 for a 2Tb i bought them up, ended up making a pretty penny as well as letting some of my preferred customers get drives at a decent price while everyone else was hurting and still managed to keep 6Tb for myself.

      What to me is more telling is how quickly Newegg and Tiger dropped SSDs for HDDs in their barebone kits. I wonder if they got bit in the ass by the hot/crazy scale of SSDs and the return rates made it not worth including them because it seemed like it was barely 2 months that both were using SSDs in their kits before switching to Seagate 500gb HDDs instead. You'd think the increased performance and the lower than HDD prices would have made them hang onto the SSDs longer but if its like what I've seen and what many of my fellow system builders have told me the SSDs still have too high a failure rate for the masses. after all with HDDs being high Joe Blow wasn't buying any externals for backups and talking to other builders you pretty much have to constantly back up the SSDs in case you wake up one morning to find its crapped itself and died. I know my gamer customers bought top o' the line SSDs only to have the drives fail in less than a year and a half so they went back to raptors in RAID over dealing with worrying if the machine will fire today or not.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    43. Re:Market pressures. by karnal · · Score: 1

      I've got 2 400GB drives in my server. My typical upgrade path followed every 2 years to buy new drives, but due to lack of money and then the drive production dropping off, I haven't bought for nearly 4 years. On the good side, I haven't needed much more storage (have 1tb "scratch" drive for junk on my machine that isn't crucial) and I keep everything backed up in two places.

      --
      Karnal
    44. Re:Market pressures. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I grew up with film, but burn shots like they are free. Hell I burned film like mad. That said, getting the perfect shot is more important then getting the shot .3 seconds before and the shot .2 seconds after. I hate laggy digital cameras. Have to resort to video frame grabs.

      My folks on the other hand, also bring back hard drives full of pictures. To be fair they are in their 80s. Even my mom has a quick shutter finger now.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    45. Re:Market pressures. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      Don't start. This is /. Next a greybeard will post about stringing core onto wires by hand. (We used to dream of stringing core...we used relay storage. We used to dream of relay storage, we stored data by writing it onto a loop of magnetic wire, if you wanted it back you had to wait for it to loop around, the thing was it was a party line and you never knew how long the loop was today...and we liked it.)

      Unable to overcome to compulsion.

      6.25 M$/Gbyte ($100/16K)

      Drive price is similar, ST-225? POS stepper motor drive, 50% failure out of the box, Seagate hasn't changed, which is amazing as the only connection is the name.

      I once paid $500 for a 100K floppy drive, which was the fast storage. Now get off my lawn.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    46. Re:Market pressures. by cong06 · · Score: 1

      I need to learn from that older generation, I don't even take that many pictures, I just hate sifting through them...

    47. Re:Market pressures. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about your workload. If it's more disk latency bound than CPU or GPU bound, would you possibly benefit more from the addition of more RAM, instead of moving to an SSD?

      He actually said the opposite: his workload is CPU/GPU bound. Was talking about getting a SSD once he has a computer that's disk bound.

    48. Re:Market pressures. by houghi · · Score: 2

      Or just learn to live without it.

      I have lost several TB in data. Personal pictures and movies are the greatest loss, I guess. Somehow the world did not come to an end and it feels refreshing ditching all that data I never actually used or looked at.

      Nobody really cared or cares that it is lost. Otherwise I would have had people asking about it.

      Look at any hoarders tv show and then look at your HD and ask yourself if you really need all that stuff on your HD.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    49. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did somebody start a HD Futures market???

      Why did I not get the memo??

    50. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Went down? Not yet!

    51. Re:Market pressures. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      look at your HD and ask yourself if you really need all that stuff

      Ain't that the truth.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    52. Re:Market pressures. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      What's old becomes new again.

      In ancient times, primitive humans would gather frosty beverages and group to listen to and copy albums to reel-to-reel "servers". They passed media between them on "cassettes". Some bands allowed taping at concerts, and fans sneaker-netted cassettes between them.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    53. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that'll be it. Are you a moron or something? Did you actually bother to write this shit?

      "Perhaps it encouraged some end users to get more creative with data storage techniques, resulting in more efficient systems that can do more with less bulk storage capacity."

      Why of course! That's BOUND to be what happened, isn't it?

      I'd seek help if I were you, you fucking idiot.

    54. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, how is one supposed to be "efficient" with regards to JPG, MP3, and other highly-compressed file formats?

      Start burning stuff to DVD

      Just make sure you don't go with dual-layer discs. Many people don't realize it, but the "DL" actually stands for "data loss".

    55. Re:Market pressures. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      In ancient times, primitive humans would gather frosty beverages and group to listen to and copy albums to reel-to-reel "servers". They passed media between them on "cassettes". Some bands allowed taping at concerts, and fans sneaker-netted cassettes between them.

      And that allowed a band, with no marketing expense to speak of besides word of mouth, and little record label support, to develop a worldwide following of fanatical devotion. Does anyone think that if Justin Beiber fell off the face of the Earth anyone would care in a year? Would anyone listen to his music in a year?

      And yet, if one of the ex-roadies of the Grateful Dead plays a show in some backwater club, he'll fill the room, even seventeen years after they broke up. Their music still sells, they still have fans.

      It shows that people power is much much greater than the power of the corporate state, despite what the corporate media would have you believe.

      A bunch of goof-offs with bongo drums were able to completely transform the political discussion in the Republican Party just by hanging out in a park and getting in the way of some rich guys. Last week, Mitt Romney said something about how he wanted to make sure "the 1% paid their share" and I thought, "Shit, those hippies actually did it. They won."

      Last week, there was a poll of the most important issues for American voters, and "the debt" had dropped FOUR PLACES, from #1 to #5, and only 4% of the people polled said it was the most important political issue, 2 places behind "fairness".

      Yes, we do not have to do as we are told, whether in the way we consume media, or the way we use the Internet, or the way we live our lives, or the way we allow ourselves to be governed.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    56. Re:Market pressures. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      Yeah for us it was the SAS 15k disks. seems they have the bigger sizes, but the lower end are no where in site. Our department spends around 10 million a year on hardware and even that wasn't enough to twist the vendors arm to find us the disks we wanted.

    57. Re:Market pressures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm you pay more than 100% tax on HDD??

      or will in 6 months or so? wow, thats harsh!

    58. Re:Market pressures. by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

      I grew up with film as well. To begin with, it was free (for me, not for my parents). Then I got the reality hammer which said "Get a paper route, you're costing too much in photo processing!" At which point I started missing some absolute gems. Glad when digital went mainstream, always been shopping for decent cameras. My brother bought himself a Canon EOS 50D accouple weeks ago, it's a bag of shite - low resolution (10MP I think), tiny ass screen, doesn't do low light at all, it's slow as hell, yet he's all over it like an Italian lover. Three hundred quid he's wasted there. I went PC World, had a go along the shelf, and settled on a Samsung PL22 compact. That thing does bloody everything, even HD video (720p), I've taken timelapse nightsky shots with it(!), it does sports shots at 6+ frames/sec, 3 seconds between full resolution (14MP) shots and it's instant shot and very fast AF sensor/motor even in low light. Best camera I ever owned.

      --
      Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  2. Relief Already Here by DakotaSmith · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is kind of old. I'm a college professor in a computer science department. Our students were affected at the beginning of this term (we offer free external hard drives on which to keep their work). About four weeks in, the supply opened back up. We initially issued 16GB flash drives, and now they all have their 320GB USB drives.

    --
    Microsoft leads to Bluescreen; Bluescreen leads to downtime; downtime leads to suffering.
    1. Re:Relief Already Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those external drives have interestingly been a cheaper way to buy a 500GB of storage for some time already, in some markets. Internal OEM drives have been about 20-30% more expensive than a USB drive of equivalent size.

  3. Price relief to come some time later. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Granted, the drop in supply was more abrupt than the restoration of supply, so one would expect prices to follow the same curve.

    It may be too much to hope that this leads to more geographic diversity in manufacturing, but I hope it's at least produced some lasting acceleration toward solid-state storage.

    1. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      "If and when an SSD fails, the failure is likely to be catastrophic with total data loss. HDDs can fail in this way too, but often give warning that they are failing, allowing much or all of their data to be recovered." (source: Comparison of SSD_with hard disk drives).

      Yes, everyone should have backups. That said, the ability to restore a small amount of data very quickly from a backup sure beats having to restore a very large data set in its entirety, and I've witnessed many more instances of total data loss with SSDs than I ever have with legacy HDDs.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    2. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I actually thing that SSD's should be for the Operating System and applications. General user storage should be on standard HDD. This provides the best speed benefits with reliability. It also is a more cost effective solution for most people. I am much more likely to be able to afford a 30GB or 60GB SSD than a 512GB SSD. But that's all most people would need for applications and the Operating system. It also helps compartmentalize potential damage, etc...

    3. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by Githaron · · Score: 1

      That is how I do it. I have Windows 7 and my programs on a SSD and then a hard drive to which I created two folder junctions: one for unusually large programs (video games) and the other for user data.

    4. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Hell, for my MacBook Pro, I have my entire OS X setup and applications on an SSD. - Data is on a 1 TB hard drive stuffed in the DVD slot. I also back up the SSD to the HD so if the SSD goes tits up, I hold down an extra key and boot into the slower hard drive.

      An SSD can make even a sluggish 3 - 4 year old laptop feel like it's a spring chicken. Better than Geritol. I just wish I had access to a similar upgrade.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      I agreed up until the SSD bit. Yes, there does need to be some geographic diversity in manufacturing. I'm still not 100% sold on SSDs for Terabytes of information.

      --
      The game.
    6. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      more instances of total data loss with SSDs

      There's a reason that Intel costs a little more...

    7. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by philip.paradis · · Score: 1

      Two of the SSDs I've seen suffer catastrophic failure were Intel. Maybe nobody ever got fired for buying Intel, but the drives became instant paperweights anyhow.

      --
      Write failed: Broken pipe
    8. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by fa2k · · Score: 1

      "If and when an SSD fails, the failure is likely to be catastrophic with total data loss.

      I don't have any practical experience, but shouldn't SSDs just become read-only when they fail? Or is the failure not due to wear-out of the flash cells, maybe.

    9. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by fa2k · · Score: 1

      I am much more likely to be able to afford a 30GB or 60GB SSD than a 512GB SSD. But that's all most people would need for applications and the Operating system.

      I don't know about these "most people", but after I'd put windows 7, MS office, some drivers, java and python on my 60 GB SSD, it was close to 30 GB already. After that it was a constant pain to redirect every bloody installer to D: instead of C:. Now I'm the happy user of a 40 or so GB read cache and a 16 GB swap partition (for hibernation, though I haven't used that yet). Only problem is that it's flushed on reboot, but I just avoid rebooting unless I have to. No management required, just one big speedy / . I'll be using caching until I can put 2 1TB SSDs in RAID1 with data checksums.

    10. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by Tapewolf · · Score: 1

      "If and when an SSD fails, the failure is likely to be catastrophic with total data loss.

      I don't have any practical experience, but shouldn't SSDs just become read-only when they fail? Or is the failure not due to wear-out of the flash cells, maybe.

      On my OS disk, a third of the data turned to goo 360 days after the drive was installed. I was able to copy the important data off, which was useful because there were a few handy scripts and stuff not on the backup list at that time. The fascinating thing was that it was only the blocks of disk which contained data that had failed - there was a largeish chunk of unused disk which was absolutely fine. In any case, I went back to a spinning disk for now.

    11. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Considering the failure rate of SSDs perhaps you should consider tweak? Remember to backup your life before starting.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:Price relief to come some time later. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      My one and only SSD (so far) was an Intel. It was fast, but until the tech matures some more I'll stick to HDDs.

  4. Hey, now... by Lose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Your average Granny-user remains clueless and storing gigs of uncompressed bitmaps on their system.

    It's not all their fault, really. MSPaint doesn't have JPEG support in Windows 98.

    1. Re:Hey, now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not all their fault, really. MSPaint doesn't have JPEG support in Windows 98.

      I hate to be a pedant, but, actually, yes it does. It's just that your average Granny-user thinks JPEG format is for sissies.

  5. Ahhhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    relief!

  6. im just glad those hippie protestors by decora · · Score: 0

    got their heads beaten in back in 2010. i mean, if they had unions or labor laws, there's no telling how high hard drive prices might be.

    oh by the way, fight sopa! its about freedom.

  7. Something wrong here... by Tastecicles · · Score: 0

    ...how does a production shortfall of less than 50% result in a price hike of *over 300%*??

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
    1. Re:Something wrong here... by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...how does a production shortfall of less than 50% result in a price hike of *over 300%*??

      This curve should explain it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:Something wrong here... by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Panic?

    3. Re:Something wrong here... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Depends on the slope of the supply-demand curve.

      Econ 101.

    4. Re:Something wrong here... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      1. Big OEM contracts agreed long in advance takes priority, so everything had to be absorbed by the spot market which is much smaller.
      2. If you don't have a HDD, you practically can't sell a new machine and for many commercial services not buying is not an option.
      3. As smart people in the market realize what was about to happen, they made sure to buy now "just in case" emptying the market.
      4. Even OEMs started to fear the shortage and started buying HDDs in the spot market as insurance.

      Sum of all of the above = it probably took a 300% price hike until sales dropped 25% to match supply. Spot sales probably had to drop 50-80% for that to happen.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Something wrong here... by matty619 · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. I was practically screaming at my monitor about parent being modded +4 insightful. I'm holding back on making a political statement regarding economics at this point.

    6. Re:Something wrong here... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      I did #2 I bought a handful of terabyte Hitachi drives...on sale at some less than agile big box retailer. I repeated that a couple times till the hammer fell.

      I like the drives, they are quieter than seagate.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    7. Re:Something wrong here... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      How much will you pay for the air you need if there was a shortfall of 20%?

      Right now it's free. So it'll be a price hike of infinity percent.

      --
    8. Re:Something wrong here... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just to elucidate, a x% reduction in amount of HDDs does not translate into an x% increase in price (which is impossible since the units are different). It results in an x% reduction in number of people who can buy HDDs.

      Pretend that 100 people want to buy one HDD each. If there are only 50 identical HDDs, that doesn't mean that the price goes up 50% (or 100%). It means that only 50 people can buy HDDs. The other 50 have to go without.

      Sort everyone by how much they're willing to pay for a HDD, from lowest to highest. Then the highest price that the 51th person is willing to pay for a HDD is the new market price. If he's willing to pay just 10% more, then the price for HDDs goes up 10%. If he's willing to pay 300% more, then the price for HDDs goes up 300%. His price is higher than the first 50 people are willing to pay, so they choose simply not to buy a HDD at his price. Consequently there are only 50 people left who want to buy HDDs, and only 50 HDDs for sale.

    9. Re:Something wrong here... by sethstorm · · Score: 0

      We wouldn't be in this mess if we had price controls.

      --
      Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
    10. Re:Something wrong here... by kiwimate · · Score: 1

      I.e. a simple hedging strategy.

      The other part (which the GP obliquely touched on without calling it this) is Supply Chain Management theory. If you don't know anything about SCM, it's a lot more mathematical and complicated than you might imagine.

    11. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Thanks for a great explanation. BTW, this is also exactly why markets are fundamentally unfair and flawed systems. When there is a resource shortage, the richest person can *always* get an item, and the poorest person can *never* get an item. It's just a system of entitlement and privilege based on numbers in a bank account.

    12. Re:Something wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      unfair and flawed? Everything is limited... what other way do you know of that's more fair to divy 50 drives between 100 people?

    13. Re:Something wrong here... by demonlapin · · Score: 3

      Unfair? How would you like to apportion them?

      In a resource shortage, yes, the very wealthy can always get what they want. Here's a hint: the very rich can always get what they want, period. They're rich. In the worst-case scenario, they can bribe whoever is in charge of things. Hard drives, however, are both a consumer product and a business product. Business products are valued much more highly, for good reason - they are the tools you use to make money. Practically, the price increases led me to use a spare 1 TB HD to build a DVR, instead of buying a 2 TB drive. In a year or two, I'll get a 3-4 TB drive for a price I feel is fair, and in the meantime someone's company has gotten a 2-3 TB drive to use for their database.

    14. Re:Something wrong here... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      Yes, we'd be in a much worse one.

    15. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are plenty of alternative ways to allocate resources.

      For example, there's the round robin method. Put 100 people in a queue. The person at the front gets served and must go to the back of the queue afterwards. So the first time there's a shortage, people #1 to #50 get the drives. The second time there's a shortage, people #51 to #100 get the drives.

      Another method is to pick 50 people out of 100 randomly and let them have the available drives. This doesn't require to implement a queue, but has a small chance of overlap in repeated allocations.

      The point here is that fairness requires that all individuals are served equal amounts over their lifetimes, which can't happen in a market as the OP showed.

      If you think about it, this problem also shows up in all modern operating systems. There are limited resources like CPU, memory, disk, etc, and the process scheduler has to decide how much time to give to each running process. How do they do it? They certainly don't use markets. What if they did? You'd have "rich" processes that hog all the CPU time, and you'd have "poor" processes that couldn't get any CPU time at all. It would be a crazy fun Linux kernel patch, though :)

    16. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2
      See my other comment on the thread.

      Another funny thing about markets is how they invariably get replaced by rationing when the survival of a nation is at stake. When the German U-boat blockade of England in World War II prevented supplies coming in, the lowly, suboptimal, rationing method was more reliable and fair than free markets (Incidentally , it also prevented rioting and a civil war. What do you think would have happened if half a million of the poorest British subjects suddenly were unable to buy any food *at all*?)

    17. Re:Something wrong here... by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Your other post approved round-robin. That just pushes the competition into the secondary market, where people realize that they got a hard drive worth $200 for $100. So they resell the drive, the cost to the business remains the same, but the transaction cost goes up. Great! UPS, FedEx, and the Postal Service win!

      Rationing for survival is not more "fair" than a market. It means that the state provides goods at a price lower than their actual cost in order for the poorest to be able to purchase them. It's just another form of welfare, and is no more or less legitimate or fair for being so.

    18. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      In a resource shortage, yes, the very wealthy can always get what they want.

      Sorry, I meant to reply to this. That point is somewhat irrelevant. The unfairness I'm talking about isn't that the rich are privileged. To be sure, it's distasteful, but not a fatal flaw on its own. The fatal flaw is that in a resource shortage, the very poor never get anything (in a free market economy). A fair system has to ensure that all the participants regularly get access to everything that's being traded.

      Your example illustrates this perfectly. You forego access to a new 2TB drive, which leads you to change your behaviour, while a company with more money to spend on hardware isn't inconvenienced in the same way. But you implicitly accept that because you have faith that the prices will come down, and your projects are merely deferred in time. You expect to get something you want eventually, so you feel this is fair.

    19. Re:Something wrong here... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      'Fairness' should factor in importance of the drive. Funnily enough, increasing prices does that quite effectively.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    20. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your other post approved round-robin. That just pushes the competition into the secondary market,

      Not at all. There's nothing inevitable or deterministic in your suggestion. The secondary market isn't relevant to all the participants of the primary round-robin system. Most participants will use the hard drive they got for their own projects (that's why they joined the round-robin queue in the first place). A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.

      The secondary market is more expensive, but clearly it's a fallacy to postulate that the secondary market somehow overrides or replaces the primary round-robin allocations.

      Rationing for survival is not more "fair" than a market. It means that the state provides goods at a price lower than their actual cost in order for the poorest to be able to purchase them. It's just another form of welfare, and is no more or less legitimate or fair for being so.

      Heh. Let me decode what you seem to be saying. The state ensures that all the population is able to obtain access to goods, and that is exactly as fair and legitimate as letting people die in the streets? Moreover, your argument seems to confuse the meanings of price and cost. In a free market, the price is determined by supply and demand, so actual cost is irrelevant. Why should the actual cost be suddenly such a big deal in a rationing system? You can't have it both ways. If you criticize rationing on the grounds that prices don't reflect actual costs, then you *must* criticize free markets on the same terms, namely that the prices determined by supply and demand don't reflect actual costs either. Finally, if *survival* is at issue, I'd say that rationing is a lot more rational than a free market alternative, irrespective of fairness, welfare or legitimacy.

    21. Re:Something wrong here... by Solandri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BTW, this is also exactly why markets are fundamentally unfair and flawed systems. When there is a resource shortage, the richest person can *always* get an item, and the poorest person can *never* get an item.

      You're thinking too short-term. Say the government forced manufacturers to keep HDDs at their original price and sell them via lottery. The 50 HDDs would sell out. The manufacturers would look at the how much money they're making per HDD, and conclude they don't provide enough profit for them to repair their factories. Consequently, next month when the next batch arrives, there are 50 HDDs again, and 150 people (the 50 who didn't get one last time + 100 new people) wanting to buy them.

      Your attempt at fair HDD distribution means there's a constant shortage. Then one day, some of the poorer people who got a HDD suddenly realizes that he can resell it for a lot more than they paid for it. A black market appears. Lots of other people who don't need HDDs realize the price differential between your fixed price and the true market price provides an arbitrage opportunity, and they enter the lottery for HDDs. Now you have 50 HDDs being produced per month, and 5000 people wanting to buy them. So of the 50 HDDs you're selling via lottery, only about 5 end up in the hands of people who actually need a HDD, the other 45 go to resellers flipping them on the black market for a profit. So most of the people who need HDDs are actually paying the higher price despite your price fixing, and the extra money is going to flippers instead of the manufacturers so there's no incentive for them to fix your real problem - a shortage of HDDs.

      OTOH, if you allow the market price to increase, it provides the manufacturers the resources and the incentive to repair their factories and increase supply. Other companies who used to make HDDs but scaled it back look at the higher price, and say hey, there's a lot of money to be made, we should start making HDDs again. Next month they make 60 HDDs, and the price creeps down. Next month they make 85 HDDs and the price drops some more. And the next back they make 110 HDDs. The 10 extra means people who didn't get a HDD in previous months gradually get theirs. Eventually everyone who previously wanted a HDD gets one. Next month there are 100 new people who want HDDs.

      Now the reverse of the previous situation happens. There are only 100 people who want HDDs, but the manufacturers are still making 110. There's an oversupply. The manufacturers cut their prices below the 100-drive level to try to sell out their drives before their competitors can. The market price now settles at the lowest price the 100th seller is willing to sell for. The extra 10 HDDs carry over to the next month and now there's a 20 drive oversupply, driving the price even lower. Eventually some of the manufacturers see their dropping profit, cry uncle, and scale back production. The manufacture of HDDs stabilizes again at 100 per month, exactly matching demand.

      This isn't a system which favors sellers over buyers. It treats both the same. Sellers are at an advantage when there's a shortage. Buyers are at an advantage when there's oversupply (which is the state the HDD industry has been in most of the time - why IBM sold off its storage division to Hitachi, who is now trying to sell it to Western Digital). The price fluctuations are the feedback mechanism which cause manufacturers to produce more or fewer drives in response to demand. Eliminate it and you break the economy.

    22. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 0

      'Fairness' should factor in importance of the drive. Funnily enough, increasing prices does that quite effectively.

      It does? How does that work?

    23. Re:Something wrong here... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      you implicitly accept that because you have faith that the prices will come down, and your projects are merely deferred in time.

      Well, no, there are just some things I will never be able to afford. A hard drive isn't likely to be one of those things, courtesy of Moore's Law, but if it turns out that large hard drives always cost more than I want to spend, then I suppose I won't buy any large hard drives.

      A fair system has to ensure that all the participants regularly get access to everything that's being traded

      No, it need not do that at all. If you're talking about starvation, then I would be totally on board with providing a food subsidy to people who can't afford to eat - but I want to be honest about it. Price controls are a way for governments to screw over people who own valuable assets. Subsidies are a way to let those people reap the benefit of their good investment decisions.

    24. Re:Something wrong here... by galanom · · Score: 1

      Opportunistic capitalism.
      Greediness.
      How many times alleged production decline increased enormously DRAM price?

    25. Re:Something wrong here... by shentino · · Score: 1

      See also: greed.

      I'm also betting you that prices won't ever come down to their pre-shortage levels unless a glut develops

    26. Re:Something wrong here... by shentino · · Score: 1

      The only shortage of air is caused by pollution.

      Which industry gets away with doing for free.

    27. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      I think you are too quick to simplify the system down to an ordinary market system. If you'll allow me to paraphrase your comment: the lottery system implies that some goods end up in a secondary market. Now assume that the secondary market is the full economy, and apply the usual supply and demand dynamics and claim this is all that matters (because the market is the full economy and the lottery system is being ignored).

      Let's take the steps again, but more slowly and carefully. The lottery system is the official market for the HDDs (or if you like, whoever administers the lottery system has a long term contract with the manufacturers already). What does this imply? It means that during contract negotiations, the manufacturer was guaranteed to get a certain number of orders, and the lottery operator (it might be the state) can rely on a guaranteed supply for a number of years, thereby ensuring bulk pricing.

      Since the manufacturer knows what's going to be required for a long time, his factory is built, fixed and/or upgraded to satisfy the expected orders, money for operating expenses is set aside, and the rest is guaranteed profit.

      What if demand for HDDs skyrockets in the lottery system? Since the manufacturer already knows how much profit will be available, this can be used for increasing output without the risk involved in large free market price fluctuations. So the manufacturer talks to the lottery and they amend the contract. In the lottery, the supply goes from 50 to 100, and the manufacturer still has a guaranteed number of orders and associated profit.

      Now in the lottery system, the increasing demand might be legitimate, ie people who really need the HDDs, or it might be intended for the black market. If there's real demand anywhere in the country, that demand will go into the lottery system, where it is visible by the operator, who can plan contract amendments with the manufacturer. That's because it's cheaper than the black market prices. The arbitrageurs find that the black market is relatively small and limited, and there's no explosion in demand at high prices.

      As a result, the demand in the lottery reflects the real demand in the country fairly well, and the lottery is justified in allowing/requiring increased supply by talking with the manufacturer some more.

    28. Re:Something wrong here... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The problem with your example is that it's well documented that there was a thriving black market in Britain during the second world war, and those willing to pay the butcher the price he wanted for the "extra" sausages he had acquired would eat better than those who couldn't.

    29. Re:Something wrong here... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      You really need that explained? Or are you just trying to get me to say something so you can make a speech about what the word important means?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    30. Re:Something wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It assumes the following logic: If it is more important to you than to someone else, you'd be willing to pay more for it.

      The fairness of this then is inversely proportionate to the gap between the rich and the poor. In absence of any regulation or mitigation this results in effect that the rich people are more important than the poor people.

      In democracies if this is too blatant it can be dangerous for the rich, since the poor people out-vote the rich people. But in many places the poorer people are ignorant and badly educated, and they and their children would likely be stuck in their "caste".

      Extrapolation from this: there is a limit to the amount of resources the Earth has. So who decides how the wealth and resources should be distributed and what is fair?

    31. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Well, no, there are just some things I will never be able to afford. A hard drive isn't likely to be one of those things, courtesy of Moore's Law, but if it turns out that large hard drives always cost more than I want to spend, then I suppose I won't buy any large hard drives.

      Are you saying that you believe it is fair that there are some experiences in life that can never have because the number of zeros in your bank account is too small?

      No, it need not do that at all. If you're talking about starvation, then I would be totally on board with providing a food subsidy to people who can't afford to eat - but I want to be honest about it. Price controls are a way for governments to screw over people who own valuable assets. Subsidies are a way to let those people reap the benefit of their good investment decisions.

      Leaving aside the starvation issue on which we agree, I consider price controls an allocation mechanism. In fact, I dislike the term price control for this, as it suggests that "price" is somehow an important part of all allocation mechanisms. It is really only important in a free market context, which is only one of many resource allocation models. Similarly, when you say that people who are being subsidised reap the benefit of (I assume you meant the others') good investment decisions, you are implicitly setting up prices or investment returns as a central concept for resource allocation, which I disagree with.

      My point is really that, while human beings need resources to exist and pursue their goals, there's no reason why some resource allocation methods are off the table, let alone all allocation methods that don't happen to be based on an ordering derived from the number of zeros in an individual's bank account.

    32. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1, Informative

      Given that this is a discussion, it seems obvious that I'm likely to disagree with your position and that I shall argue against your explanation. But I assure you this isn't personal, I'm only interested in the ideas. Although perhaps the AC has already said most of what should be said.

    33. Re:Something wrong here... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The point here is that fairness requires that all individuals are served equal amounts over their lifetimes, which can't happen in a market as the OP showed.

      That's seems a remarkably stupid way to allocate limited resources.

      We have 15 units of wheat seeds. In order to not starve to death (and replinish seed stocks) we need to plant at least five. There are 6 farmers who could each plant a unit. There 5 bakers who would rather just use the wheat as is to make food. There are 5 artists who would like to make some wheat seed art. There are 15 storers who would like to store the seeds for future planting. There's one crazy guy who wants to burn them. We should randomly allocate them? We should use a round-robin so this year we'll make some art, and next year we'll grow some food?

      And in this fair world of yours how do we decide what to produce in the first place? It finally got to be my turn to use the factory for the year. How do I determine if I should use it to make hard drives, or RAM, or CPUs, or chess pieces (lets pretend factories can swap and choose...)? I have no price information telling me I'll make more money making hard drive due to a shortage after all.

    34. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      We have 15 units of wheat seeds. In order to not starve to death (and replinish seed stocks) we need to plant at least five. There are 6 farmers who could each plant a unit. They have $10, $12.5, $7.45, $15, $50.65, $13.20 respectively in their bank accounts. There 5 bakers who would rather just use the wheat as is to make food. They have $20.10, $14.90, $45.80, $19.15, $25.55 respectively in their bank accounts. There are 5 artists who would like to make some wheat seed art. They have $6.30, $4.10, $200.95, $1.60, $3.80 respectively in their bank accounts. There are 15 storers who would like to store the seeds for future planting. They have $7.80, $15.30, $8.35, $19.80, $12.60, $17.00, $11.70, $9.90, $16.45, $29.10, $4.70, $18.55, $14.00, $34.95, $14.20 respectively in their bank accounts. There's one crazy guy who wants to burn them. He has $39.50 in his bank account. We should randomly allocate them? We should use a round-robin so this year we'll make some art, and next year we'll grow some food?

      No, that's just crazy!

      We should give one unit to an artist, one unit to each of the five bakers, one unit to the crazy guy, one unit each to two farmers, and the remaining six units each go to a different storer.

    35. Re:Something wrong here... by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      the communist method.
      everyone orders the car and the plumber and they'll arrive 10 years from today, for the price they are today.

      sure, the market system isn't fair, but it's fair to the seller - and the normal people who got the disks from some random queue would be selling them on ebay or black markets anyhow if they had higher value than what they paid for.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    36. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Just to elucidate, a x% reduction in amount of HDDs does not translate into an x% increase in price (which is impossible since the units are different).

      That's not strictly true. Percent are percent, and are dimensionless.

      However the reason percentages (or relative changes, delta-Q over Q) are used in elasticities is to make the result the same regardless of whether the prices are in Dollars per hundredweight or Lira per kilogram.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    37. Re:Something wrong here... by Ozrius · · Score: 1

      It assumes the following logic: If it is more important to you than to someone else, you'd be willing to pay more for it.

      The fairness of this then is inversely proportionate to the gap between the rich and the poor. In absence of any regulation or mitigation this results in effect that the rich people are more important than the poor people.

      I wish I had mod points right now!

      Many economics-oriented people don't seem to want to think about that notion about the gap when it comes to fairness.

    38. Re:Something wrong here... by kayditty · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that you believe it is fair that there are some experiences in life that can never have because the number of zeros in your bank account is too small?

      yeah, bro. I want a free Lamborghini. Obama owes me one. I hope you're ready to buy it for me. they're expensive.

    39. Re:Something wrong here... by m50d · · Score: 2

      Not at all. There's nothing inevitable or deterministic in your suggestion. The secondary market isn't relevant to all the participants of the primary round-robin system. Most participants will use the hard drive they got for their own projects (that's why they joined the round-robin queue in the first place). A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.

      Only very briefly. Then the bureaucrats responsible for running the system, or the guys driving the van that delivers them, will realise that they can make life much better for themselves by "losing" half the supply and selling it on the secondary market. Go look at the USSR for what happens when you try and run a society on something like round-robin.

      The state ensures that all the population is able to obtain access to goods, and that is exactly as fair and legitimate as letting people die in the streets?

      Yup. It ultimately depends on how you define fairness - whether the fair way to get more resources is to work for them, or to have more children and have the government confiscate them for you.

      Finally, if *survival* is at issue, I'd say that rationing is a lot more rational than a free market alternative, irrespective of fairness, welfare or legitimacy.

      You'd have to look at the results, and I'm not aware of any proper studies on this. Maybe a free-market system would have let more people starve initially, but also mean the people most vital to the war effort were better-fed and thus able to work harder, ending the war sooner and thus saving more lives overall.

      --
      I am trolling
    40. Re:Something wrong here... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      if it's important for you then you pay xxx amount of money for it. the only reason you'd buy a drive is that it's important to you, the more important it is the more you're willing to pay and not use the money for something else you think of as important. that doesn't mean a market is a flawed system for distributing non-essential goods which will not cause a riot if in short supply(AND in such a case that it would cause riots it would be just as well to just distribute everyone equal amounts of _money_ in the first place rather than distribute the goods to people by some system, that however crashes the value of the money, but it does make the rich less rich if their wealth is based purely on money, and in such case butter etc. replace the money in payments).

      it's only about the fairness of the first sale anyways, if the price out the door isn't the actual market price you'll have a second market form up pretty quickly, which is why I think concerts that sell out in 3 minutes are silly, they should just sell them at higher price for the first week of the tickets being available and then drop the price. would be much fairer than trying your luck with fucking ebayers. it would be MUCH, MUCH fairer and more transparent system than trying your luck with the phone-in queue when the tickets go on sale.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    41. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Are you saying that you believe it is fair that there are some experiences in life that can never have because the number of zeros in your bank account is too small?

      OK, so everyone in the world should have their own personal Boeing 747. But they don't make themselves. So the only way for everyone to have one is to get lots of people to build them. Even if we put everybody in the world to work building them, I doubt they could produce enough for everyone to have one each.

      And of course, if everyone is busy building jet planes nobody's growing food or sanitizing telephones and everybody dies, one way or another.

      In short: resources are finite, therefore it's impossible for everyone to have everything.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    42. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What does this imply? It means that during contract negotiations, the manufacturer was guaranteed to get a certain number of orders, and the lottery operator (it might be the state) can rely on a guaranteed supply for a number of years, thereby ensuring bulk pricing.

      The key point is that supply isn't guaranteed. I know we're reaching the realms of fantasy here, but imagine that a factory gets destroyed by a natural disaster.

      In addition, if there wasn't a shortage, why would we need your cockamamie lottery anyway?

      Now in the lottery system, the increasing demand might be legitimate, ie people who really need the HDDs, or it might be intended for the black market. If there's real demand anywhere in the country, that demand will go into the lottery system where it is visible by the operator

      It would be anyway. As a brewer I don't need to know which individuals are drinking & how much, but I can see how much the pubs (& supermarkets) are buying. Demand pulls through the system, one way or another.

      , who can plan contract amendments with the manufacturer. That's because it's cheaper than the black market prices.

      Why is it cheaper? Because the lottery is free to enter? If that's the case 1) can't you see the obvious flaw there and 2) stop using the word "demand" in conjunction with it, because it's then meaningless in the economic sense of the word.

      Finally, what use is a cheaper price if there aren't any available? If there are 500 people wanting disks and there's only 300 disks, then 200 people aren't going to be affected by the price in any way.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I had never seen this (for want of a better description) "fallacy of unit elasticity" until someone brought it up here back when this HDD crisis started.

      Now it seems every story has some clown repeating it, and other clowns modding them up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    44. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny

      OK, so everyone in the world should have their own personal Boeing 747.

      Let's not be hasty. *You* aren't worthy to have one. Paris Hilton however, is.

      In short: resources are finite, therefore it's impossible for everyone to have everything.

      No, in short: the opposite of "there are some experiences in life that [you] can never have because the number of zeros in your bank account is too small" is "there are some experiences in life that you can only have if your bank account is sufficiently large".

      It's ok to believe that last sentence is fair, and that you aren't worthy like Paris. It's a free country and everyone's opinion counts, more or less.

    45. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      The key point is that supply isn't guaranteed. I know we're reaching the realms of fantasy here, but imagine that a factory gets destroyed by a natural disaster.

      In addition, if there wasn't a shortage, why would we need your cockamamie lottery anyway?

      Supply is never 100% guaranteed. Distribution is not evenly guaranteed in a free market. Instead it is skewed towards those who have the most money to spend. Other systems, such as a lottery, have different properties, like a distribution without wealth bias.

      That's because it's cheaper than the black market prices.

      Why is it cheaper? Because the lottery is free to enter?

      No. Because the purpose of the black market is to resell goods at a higher price. The actual price in the lottery system is irrelevant. The black market price is always higher.

      Finally, what use is a cheaper price if there aren't any available? If there are 500 people wanting disks and there's only 300 disks, then 200 people aren't going to be affected by the price in any way.

      There's no claim whatsoever that a lottery system would give a cheaper price than a free market price. It might for reasons outlined earlier, but there's nothing forcing such an outcome. Higher or lower prices are really not the issue at all. The issue is distribution.

      To take your beer example. Say the pub has only 10 glasses (I know...), and there are 11 thirsty customers that come every afternoon at 5. Each day, only 10 people get to have a drink, and it's always the same 10 people. Why? Because the barman tells them: the guy who pays the most gets the first glass. The next guy who pays the most gets the second glass, and so on. Every day, the poorest customer gets no drink, and that customer is always the same.

      Now you might say that isn't fair. Maybe one of the other customers won't drink one day to give the last guy a chance. But they're all thirsty, every day, and it never happens. Well, the 11th guy never gets a drink unless something happens. Maybe the barman takes out some matches and everybody has to pick one. The guy with the short one goes without a drink on that day. Maybe some other method gets used. Anything's possible.

    46. Re:Something wrong here... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      How much they have in their bank accounts is irrelevant, it's how much they're willing to spend on getting a unit of wheat.

      And of the farmers are the producers of the wheat so if crazy guy really does want to spend $39.50 on a unit of wheat a farmer can profitably pay even more (and covering the interest if he needs to borrow to do so) - since he'll take the unit and turn it into multiple units one of which he can sell to the craxy guy...

      But yes, your point is correct - market economics to assign resources really only works once you reach a big enough scale. At small sizes the communist/feudalist method of the guy in charge telling everyone what they will do works better (especially for the guy in charge) - at least until you get a cray buy at the top...

    47. Re:Something wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This depends on the definition of free market, but in that cirumstance it would also be possible to auction them out by releasing the hardrives into the market one(or a few if there is multiple sellers) at a time.

      In that case #1 have to outbid #2, 2# have to outbid #3 and so on. But only #50 would pay the same market price as in your example. But all these people payed the "market price" even if #1 payed 100% more than #50(who payed 300% more than normal).

    48. Re:Something wrong here... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      For the record. Paris Hilton is dumb as a rock, but she is smart enough not to own a 747. Only John Travolta is dumb enough to 'own' a personal 747. (IIRC it's a semi-retired Quantas 747 they let him use as long as he keeps it airworthy and available for them to use in an emergency, still cost _far_ more then occasionally renting a jet. And he can't turn the interior into a disco.) The Saudi royal family likely has one or two, unless they've already upgraded to A-380s, but not personal ones.

      You have hit on a another good thing about market economies (in addition to them being 'unfair'). They allow stupid rich people to turn themselves back into normal people by spending way too much on stupid ego driven things.

      The problem people like you never see is the basic flaw in your economic model. All command economies (look it up) require unhealthy concentration of power. Power corrupts etc (see history).

      Finally 'there as some experiences in life that you can only have if your balls are sufficiently large.' (Google wingsuit, better yet Google wingsuit death) Is that also inherently unfair?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    49. Re:Something wrong here... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. I was practically screaming at my monitor about parent being modded +4 insightful. I'm holding back on making a political statement regarding economics at this point.

      He could've been modded "Interesting" anyway...

    50. Re:Something wrong here... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You'd have "rich" processes that hog all the CPU time, and you'd have "poor" processes that couldn't get any CPU time at all. It would be a crazy fun Linux kernel patch, though :)

      Simply with process priorities (the "nice" command, for example) you could set up a scenario like this.

    51. Re:Something wrong here... by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      A small fraction only will decide to defer their projects, and sell their drive on a secondary market.

      You mean, everyone who values their drive more than the secondary market price will use it on their project. But what happens when people who don't want or need a hard drive join the queue because they know the secondary market price is higher than the round-robin price?

      You're right that I started mixing up price and cost as terms there near the end. I meant "price" throughout.

    52. Re:Something wrong here... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Paris Hilton has managed, by virtue of having a famous family and being slutty, to make a name for herself and earn quite a bit of money. She's entertained a lot of people along the way. It has nothing to do with her intelligence (although her success at this suggests someone intelligent is behind it all), or her morality, or anything else. She is doing something that people value more highly than what nearly all of us on here do. Don't like it? Don't buy her stuff. Better still, if you think she's such a moron, and that all of her friends are, too, why don't you set up your own heiress trap, convincing them to blow their fortunes on stupid stuff you sell. Bad heirs are often the end of family money - you're just helping them along!

    53. Re:Something wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every day, the poorest customer gets no drink, and that customer is always the same.

      Only the most stupid would come back after about say day 3. He would walk down to another pub or the local store and buy his own beer...

      What you guys are arguing about is artificial scarcity. That has been known for *years* in most econ circles to drive up prices and reduce production. In your case you are producing what is called perfect pricing (thru bargaining). What usually happens is instead the owner would just raise his prices up till the point where the 10th guy would not buy. Then just slightly lower. Your auction house style might produce perfect pricing. But that would mean bargaining with every transaction (and meanwhile your other customers are standing around waiting and maybe thinking of 'hey there is bar across the street'). In the case of a bar (especially say a busy one) he is not going to want to fart around with that. He is going to set a price that covers most of his cost (and get the customer out of his face quickly). If you have low enough business you can bargain on every transaction (and hopefully the rest of your clientele is willing to wait around for it). If you are moving thousands of items a day you do not do that you just do not have the manpower, resources, or time to do it. It is why when you go into a car dealership they are willing to bargain with you. If they move 5 cars that day they are having a good day...

      In most cases artificial scarcity works short term. Then long term the market changes but the rules stay the same. In that condition you will see a shortage of goods and a higher price paid by all. The seller is 'ok' with that. As he covers his costs. The buyers are 'ok' with that as they are willing to pay that price. It is the shortage gap where people start thinking 'hey I am getting screwed'.

      You can also under estimate a price gap. In all cases a price bar always produces a shortage of goods. If it is above the 'optimum' you will have too few buyers at too high of a price. If you set the price bar too low you end up with a too few goods and too many buyers. In both examples you are leaving money on the table and have an unsatisfied demand. To promote some sort of idea of 'fair' which just usually screws both buyer AND seller.

    54. Re:Something wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Travolta is not dumb enough to own a 747, which is why he does not own a 747.

      He's RATED on a 747, but he does NOT own one. His personal jet is a 707.

      Get your facts straight.

    55. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When the German U-boat blockade of England in World War II prevented supplies coming in, the lowly, suboptimal, rationing method was more reliable and fair than free markets (Incidentally , it also prevented rioting and a civil war. What do you think would have happened if half a million of the poorest British subjects suddenly were unable to buy any food *at all*?)

      1) Food is a necessity; hard drives aren't.

      2) Not all food was rationed. Mainly it applied to luxuries. Sure, the unrationed stuff was dull, but it'd keep you alive.

      3) You can't make a hard drive at home, nor find one in the woods. You can, however make your own food. People used to keep chickens in the back yard, grow veg in the garden (ever hear of Dig For Victory?) Country people are adept at finding fruit and mushrooms. Police turned a blind eye to small-scale poaching.

      So apart from it being totally different it's exactly the same.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    56. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Yes, the scheduling algorithm computes the priorities. This would implement a scheduler using some form of currency and a supply and demand based pricing mechanism.

    57. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      How much they have in their bank accounts is irrelevant, it's how much they're willing to spend on getting a unit of wheat.

      They're *all* willing to pay what it takes to get a unit. They might even be willing to pay for more than one unit, but I've simplified it.

      And of the farmers are the producers of the wheat so if crazy guy really does want to spend $39.50 on a unit of wheat a farmer can profitably pay even more (and covering the interest if he needs to borrow to do so) - since he'll take the unit and turn it into multiple units one of which he can sell to the craxy guy...

      No. The crazy guy doesn't spend all his money on a single unit. He is *willing* to spend all his money, but he spends at most the amount that his nearest rival is willing to spend.

      With the numbers I gave, the top artist with $200.95 competes with the top farmer who has $50.65. The price rises until it reaches more than $50.65, and the farmer drops out. Now there's no competition, so the artist purchases his unit for $50.70, the lowest price he can.

      Next, the artist has $150.25 left and he's still the richest individual, so he could beat the farmer for a second unit at $50.70 again, but I'm pretending that the artist is happy with a single unit. So now the farmer is the richest individual, and he's competing with the next one down, which is a baker with $45.85. They compete until the baker drops out, and the farmer pays $45.90 for his unit. Now his bank acount has $4.80 and he's out of the race. The baker has $45.85 and competes with the crazy guy who has $39.50. So the baker wins a unit for the price of $39.55$, and drops out. Then the crazy guy competes with the storer who has $34.95, and the crazy guy pays $35.00 and drops out. Etc.

      Your second idea about taking a loan doesn't help. Suppose the farmer with $15 wants to compete with the crazy guy with $39.50. If the farmer can take out a loan, then the crazy guy can too. And the crazy guy has more collateral, so his interest rate on repayments will be lower than the farmer's. If they compete on loans, the total amount (bank account + borrowed amount) for the crazy guy beats the total amount for the farmer.

      But in fact, the farmer with $15 will never compete with the crazy guy. If that was the case, the cost for this particular unit of wheat would be at least $39.50 and probably more. There's a much better way, which is that the crazy guy competes with the storer and the crazy guy wins. Then the storer competes with the next guy and so on, all the way down to the farmer with $15 who competes for one of the last few units. In this case, the farmer will only pay $14.95 or so to beat the next guy in line, which is much more efficient than taking a loan and paying $39.50 or more.

      But yes, your point is correct - market economics to assign resources really only works once you reach a big enough scale. At small sizes the communist/feudalist method of the guy in charge telling everyone what they will do works better (especially for the guy in charge) - at least until you get a cray buy at the top...

      Just to be clear, I'm not trying to argue in favour of communism or a dictatorship, I'm merely pointing out that the invisible hand of the market doesn't provide goods at the lower edge of the wealth scale. This shortcoming is fixed in modern society by welfare, government grants and tax breaks, social networking and preferential treatment, etc. This is so the poor can eat, the poor scientists can send rockets to Mars, the nephew can get a job as a journalist, etc. But those mechanisms aren't formally taken into account in pricing, so we don't really understand theoretically what makes the economy work or not, and whether the results are optimal or not.

    58. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      if it's important for you then you pay xxx amount of money for it.

      Well, I'm happy to pay $2 million for a car, but the snag is I don't have $2 million. But it's sufficiently important to me, so do you think I can get the car?

      (AND in such a case that it would cause riots it would be just as well to just distribute everyone equal amounts of _money_ in the first place rather than distribute the goods to people by some system, that however crashes the value of the money, but it does make the rich less rich if their wealth is based purely on money, and in such case butter etc. replace the money in payments).

      Yes, that's another alternative system. The first thing you'll need to do is prevent inheritance and gifts. Once you die, all your money and assets get taken away. Your kids get an allowance, the same allowance everybody gets, and we all spend that allowance however we wish. Periodically, say once a year, the amounts in everybody's bank accounts are reset, and we all spend the same initial allowance again.

    59. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I never claimed she is dumb. I claimed she is more worthy than Hognoxious. I admit it was a bit snarky, but you are saying exactly the same thing in a more sober way. She is more worthy than you or I. Well, certainly more worthy than I, maybe your bank account is bigger than hers.

    60. Re:Something wrong here... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, I'm having a second discussion in parallel which interferes with this one. The calculation of prices in the other comment depends on some assumptions which aren't met in this example. The allocation of units is unaffected, but the common price paid by all the individuals who receive a unit of wheat, assuming they each only buy one unit, is of course the lowest amount payable here, $14.95. (Imagine that the seller of wheat reduces prices repeatedly until there are exactly 15 buyers).

    61. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How would you like to apportion them?

      Decisions should be made by a committee of people like martin-boundary (547041).

      I'm sure they could be trusted to do it fairly, objectively and competently. History bears out that there is no chance of people with such power exhibiting corruption, nepotism or plain old stupidity.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    62. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I never claimed she is dumb. I claimed she is more worthy than Hognoxious.

      What is and isn't worthy (and how you quantify it - what's the unit?) is purely subjective, and totally irrelevant to the question at hand, namely that when desires outstrip possibility somebody's going to be disappointed.

      I admit it was a bit snarky

      Ignoratio elenchi is what it was. That's a red herring to you.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    63. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      like a distribution without wealth bias.

      You can't distribute what isn't there.

      No. Because the purpose of the black market is to resell goods at a higher price. The actual price in the lottery system is irrelevant. The black market price is always higher.

      You say that the price in your lottery is irrelevant, but then go on to state as an absolute law that it's lower than the black market price. These are contradictory as is obvious if you consider what would happen if the "fair" price you and your bureaucrats set was too high.

      What do I mean by too high? Start with the price in a nearby country and add a premium for the effort and risk in bringing them in from there, then add some more.

      There's no claim whatsoever that a lottery system would give a cheaper price than a free market price.

      No, you just claimed that the market price was always higher. Not the same thing at all.

      It might for reasons outlined earlier, but there's nothing forcing such an outcome. Higher or lower prices are really not the issue at all. The issue is distribution.

      You can't distribute what doesn't exist.

      Maybe one of the other customers won't drink one day to give the last guy a chance. But they're all thirsty, every day, and it never happens. Well, the 11th guy never gets a drink unless something happens.

      He could get a job. Making glasses, perhaps...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    64. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      What you guys are arguing about is artificial scarcity.

      I'm not. There's nothing artificial about a factory getting splatted by a natural disaster.

      Or are you among those who think they've got massive floating backup factories anchored off Atlantis that they aren't using, even though they could corner the market if they did?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    65. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm also betting you that prices won't ever come down to their pre-shortage levels unless a glut develops

      That's kind of a circular argument anyway, but when 16TB drives come out and 8TB are the norm you'll barely be able to give 1TB ones away.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    66. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Put 100 people in a queue. The person at the front gets served and must go to the back of the queue afterwards. So the first time there's a shortage, people #1 to #50 get the drives. The second time there's a shortage, people #51 to #100 get the drives.

      In Soviet Russia, people used to join queues even if if they didn't know what they were for. If it's not something you want, it's still better than nothing, right?

      You might be able to swap it for something. Ooops, that's a secondary market which according to you can't exist.

      If you think about it, this problem also shows up in all modern operating systems. There are limited resources like CPU, memory, disk, etc, and the process scheduler has to decide how much time to give to each running process. How do they do it?

      Clearly you're as knowledgeable about computers as you are economics. In Windows XP it can be done from within the task manager. In Linux it's the command nice. On OSX ... well it came with a manual, why don't you read it?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    67. Re:Something wrong here... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Many economics-oriented people don't seem to want to think about that notion about the gap when it comes to fairness.

      That's because "fairness" is a philosophical, moral & political issue.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    68. Re:Something wrong here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, you've reinvented the shortage economy.

    69. Re:Something wrong here... by Phantom+Gremlin · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your posting.

      Yes it's simple "Economics 101", but too many nerds here on Slashdot don't understand it. Unfortunately they probably still won't understand it even after reading your post. Because their minds are closed, and they're just saying to themselves "that's not fair" without thinking it through.

    70. Re:Something wrong here... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Except that as I tried to say, the farmers take one unit of wheat and produce more units of wheat. Hence if the price of wheat is high they are willing to pay more for the seed to plant, since they'll be able to sell it for more and cover those costs (and the interest on what they needed to borrow).

      And a market economy is never going to be optimal - it's essentially a voting system on what we will wo with our capital. With the people who have a better history of choosing well getting more votes. This obviously breaks down - just because one of my parents was good at doing that doesn't mean I'm good at it when I inherit their votes. Just because my parents weren't good at it doesn't mean I'm not but I don't get the votes to begin with.

      Those things can be reduced by allowing people to move up and down the wealth scalre easily. People who make bad choices lose their money (votes), people who make good choices get more money (votes). Currently the US does very poorly at both of those things, but that's a whole other story :)

  8. Relief? by It's+the+tripnaut! · · Score: 1

    What's so relieving about:


    Due to increased costs of components and materials, HDD prices are likely to rise 30-40% from the level before the floods by the end of 2012, the sources indicated.

    -- FTFA

  9. Good News... by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 2

    ...but, what's keeping 4TB internal drives off the market?

    The 4TB Deskstar has been out for a while...where are Seagate and WD?

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    1. Re:Good News... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      Long story short, it's a 5 platter design and generally they've not been good in the past, too many parts to be reliable. The other manufacturers are probably waiting until they can ship a 4x1TB disk instead of 5x800GB. Hitachi is actually shipping 1x1TB disks in the 4K7000.D and 4K5000.B class, but I guess the yield of perfect platters is too low yet.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Good News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows doesn't support them (at least not without a lot of messing about).

    3. Re:Good News... by Rudeboy777 · · Score: 1

      Seagate is shipping 3TB drives composed of 3 x 1TB platters (as of about Nov of 2011) I don't see why a 4x1TB platter design should be far off.

      http://www.anandtech.com/show/5042/seagates-new-barracuda-3tb-st3000dm001-review

      Pretty excellent drive, it's a shame they lowered the warranty to a not-at-all-acceptable 1 year term :(

      --

      From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc

  10. oh goodie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't wait til Q1 2012 finally comes!

  11. First quarter of 2012? by DragonHawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uhhh... unless they're using some new calendar I'm unfamiliar with, the first quarter is about two-thirds over. The fact that they're using the future tense for something which is already mostly gone makes me wonder just how well informed this article is.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:First quarter of 2012? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the article (not recommended) you'll see that the authors don't have the best grasp on the English language. My guess is that they meant "will have increased", as in, by the time time we finish adding up our production this quarter, it should be around 145 Mu. Considering the writers are based in Taiwan, they can hardly be blamed for not having a complete grasp of the future perfect tense.

    2. Re:First quarter of 2012? by ChinggisK · · Score: 2

      If you read the article (highly recommended) you'll see that the authors have invented a FREAKIN' TIME MACHINE!!

      FTFY

  12. Drive reliability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has there been any data published about the reliability of the drives coming off of the assembly line now? When the drive makers reduced their warranties, there was concern that production after the flooding would have a drop in quality. Has this been borne out, or was it unfounded speculation?

  13. That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The floods caused, what, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of infrastructure damage? Who's ultimately going to write the final checks that pay for all the repairs (and likely upgrades)? Don't we know who? It will be every person and company that buys those products and the population of Thailand. Ultimately the entire global economy pays the bulk of the cost. The One Percenters who control those factories damned sure aren't gonna foot much of the bill. So... don't be a fool and expect prices to return to where they would have been otherwise. That will take a decade.

    (It's exactly how recessions work: One Percenters feel a pinch in their ability to concentrate wealth, and in a perverse reversal of the Trickle Down theory they make all those they employ suffer instead so that they regain the full extent of that ability. The only difference in this case is that the proximal cause is an obvious natural disaster. Economists have been feeding us lies about such things for decades.)

    1. Re:That's all great, but.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I am a one percenter and what you have written is utter hogwash.

    2. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and the insurance companies. One don't tend to do large business without insuring themselves.

    3. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah? Well put up a counterargument, you lousy one-percenter asstunnel you!

    4. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The insurance companies pay?

    5. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Explain precisely how, then, in a fashion that isn't utter hogwash like your first comment here.

    6. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Yep, it's true. They ride on others' coattails.

    7. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Those would still be One Percenters profiting at the expense of others, right?

    8. Re:That's all great, but.... by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, what exactly are you raging about? Just about every pricing theory from monopoly pricing to perfect competition require that costs be passed to you. If raw material costs go up, the costs are passed to you. If labor costs go up, the costs are passed to you. If people shoplift, the costs are passed to you. If the government adds a new tax, the costs are passed to you. If natural disasters cause damage, the cost is passed to you. Every business operates on margins, that more money comes in through revenue than what leaves through cost. That goes for everyone from the 1%ers to the corner shop.

      Do you expect it to be like in good years they'll take a profit, and in bad years they'll put the money back? Seriously? I wonder how you'd like it if your salary or your bank account worked like that. No, if I owned Newegg I'd expect it to turn a profit whether disks costs $50 or $300, my job is to beat all the other stores trying to make a business, not fight the market forces. In the long run I expect it to be the same for factories, if risk of flooding is a cost of doing business we must account for that and make sure our prices reflect all the costs, it's the ones that don't that are foolish. In short, I find your idea that 1%ers should "foot the bill" rather absurd.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 0

      Where did you get your ideas? Whose agenda bought and paid for your beliefs? Whose gospel did you accept for no good reason? You could have a Slashdot ID of 1 and still be a brainwashed tool for someone else.

      Save your ad hominem for someone who's willing to play that game. Put up or shut up.

    10. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What exactly are you raging about? I was responding to the post and title's implication that everything will soon be 'back to normal' as if nothing had happened.

      I find your idea that 1%ers should "foot the bill" rather absurd.

      Quote, please, the exact portion of my comments where I made that statement? You can't. I never said it. What I clearly implied was that One Percenters don't foot their fair share of the bill.

    11. Re:That's all great, but.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      "The economists have been feeding us lies for decades" eh? You talk in the same way as those who deny that we've ever landed on the moon. Great.

      Unless you want to actually look at the evidence. Go read something like "A Monetary History of the United States." You will get a taste of what real evidence is like, and when you disagree with the conclusions, you have a way to back it up. It's lot different than the trash propaganda someone has been feeding you so far.

      You should also read this. You've fallen into the same trap as the cargo cults, probably the same trap that the 9/11 conspiratorialists and the Obama birthers fall into. Learn how to attack your ideas, like any real scientist does.

      This is, or should be, education 101.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:That's all great, but.... by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Funny

      Shh. We have to keep the 99%ers in the dark.

      BTW, are you going to make the baby-puppy-kitten roast next weekend?

    13. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Well, now we know who authored your gospel. You seem to lack the perspective to recognize that it's just as likely that you are the crazy cargo cultist as it is that I am. That lack of perspective is that way of things with dogmatism and effective self-delusion. Your prison cell is your own mind, regardless how you wallpaper it.

    14. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      I'd like to add that I can't quote any important cult-status figure like Milton Friedman as the source of my conclusions, because the conclusions are ENTIRELY my own. I've been observing and analyzing the economy MYSELF, and drawing MY OWN conclusions, not simply reading some other alleged genius' contrivances and then thinking to myself, "Yeah, it's like that!" That's what you've done. How do I know? Because you quoted him as the source of your own beliefs. Your inability to even recognize it is what dogmatism looks like. Enjoy your prison cell. It's a small one, indeed.

    15. Re:That's all great, but.... by phantomfive · · Score: 0

      See here's the problem, your analysis is off because you don't have any good data. You don't have good data because you reject it when people hand it to you. If you actually read economic papers, instead of random blogs or whatever you do, then you would have the knowledge to come to better conclusions. As it is, you fail, hilariously.

      SO......I'm interested, do you also believe that 9/11 was an inside job? What about the holocaust, do you think it happened?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    16. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      I find it curious that in your mind you associate the conclusions I shared with conspiracy theories, particularly because those theories are adopted by people from some other person, not reasoned out for themselves. That is precisely what I haven't done. You think reading a book by Milton Friedman is an objective source of information, "good data"? How quaint. I rejected what you handed me because it's not even data. Reading economic papers isn't data either: that is the interpretation of alleged data by someone other than you.

      I'm sorry that it upsets you so that someone else has a dramatically different view of what causes recessions. And upset you it did, as your emotionally charged responses demonstrate. I regret playing into your emotional attack at all. What you criticized so strongly wasn't even the core purpose of my comments, just a tangent, but that didn't stop you. You immediately took a holier-than-thou attitude without hesitation and insulted my very character, repeatedly, because you are SO CERTAIN that you have the correct interpretation, and you are incensed that anyone would dare challenge it even indirectly.

      WHY does what I wrote bother you so strongly? How does it affect you so viscerally? Do you still not recognize how delusional that behavior is? Do you still not recognize that the REASON why you responded as you have, in fact responded at all, had nothing at all to do with educating me or attaining a better understanding of objective reality? You had a motive, but it had nothing at all to do with science or furthering it.

    17. Re:That's all great, but.... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      They don't have a "fair share" as they aren't running a charity. All costs need to be covered by the product and nothing else.

      It's perfectly acceptable that the consumer pays for the rebuild, just as it is that they get to pay for the R&D in a new product, or the repayment of the initial investment to build the factory.

    18. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      That's very descriptive of an economic jungle. Jungles have no ethic.

    19. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely correct that we the consumers will pay for rebuilding the factories. Do you know why? The floods and damages are a cost of business. Those costs will be passed on to the consumer. It is not unreasonable for manufacturers to spread the costs of new factories, tooling, training, and loans over the millions of hard drives they will produce.

      These factories destroyed in the floods were heavily insured. They would be insane not to insure them against catastrophic events. the reason for this is so that when there is a catastrophe, they can position themselves to rebuild quickly, instead of going into bankruptcy. That is why you insure your home against fire/natural disaster, so that in the event of a catastrophic event you are in a financial position where you can rebuild.

      You have been spewing propaganda about the 1% and how it will take 10 years for prices to normalize because of the 1 percent. I've laid out what has happened in the industry. Yet, you expect that somehow prices somehow should be lower than what they are, and you think that the 1 percent are somehow irresponsible in this instance, because they aren't paying their "fair share" They are paying, in time and money just to get their factories running again, in taxes to the Thai government, to build roads, and other critical infrastructure.

      That is why you've been attacked, because you've been attacking other people, for no other reason than populist class warfare bullshit.

      P.S.

      Go look at newegg, HD prices are dropping nearly to the point where I would start buying, and I'm one frugal shopper.

    20. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,

      It's a description of the real world. Loans, Factories, Tooling, Electricity, Training, shipping, supply lines, ARE EXPENDITURES
      Do you expect them to lose money by giving you a Hard drive to store your midget pr0n on?

    21. Re:That's all great, but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      Nope, I don't expect that. I didn't write I expect that. I wrote that I expect the One Percenters should suffer the loss in proportion to everyone else. Which they won't, of course.

    22. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, what did everyone else lose? and what did the one Percenters lose?

      The Thai people, lost jobs in the short term, lots of infrastructure, homes, etc.

      The one Percenters lost a source of income for themselves. It is in their interest to regain that source of income, by rebuilding. By extension, it is in the interest of the thai people for the one percenters to succeed, so that they can go back to work, so that they can rebuild their homes, and the Thai Government can tax it's people and manufacturers and have the resources to rebuild their country.

      Stop Vilifying people just because it's popular class warfare bullshit.

    23. Re:That's all great, but.... by Blue_Wombat · · Score: 1

      @macraig: Are you serious or just trolling?

      You don't have to agree with Friedman or anyone else for that matter, but if you are going to hold forth on economics you should at least be familiar with the thought that has gone before, and the evidence that supports their theories. Otherwise, you just come across as a raving crackpot. And what's with the references to "alleged data"? If you feel the data is wrong, say why, and offer better/alternative data.

      I hope that I never get sick and wind up with a doctor who thinks the way you go! "Here, apply this leech to your arm. Don't worry about the alleged data from the blood pressure monitor, it's not even data. No sir, I've never been to medical school or read a textbook, that would be just having an interpretation handed to me by someone else, Reading medical journals isn't even data, it's just the interpretation of alleged data by someone other than me. When I diagnose patients, I prefer to reason medical science out by myself - from scratch. Flu - poppycock - I have reasoned that it's imbalance of flux in your system caused by the full moon - here chew this arsenic restorative"

      I'm not going to launch into a discourse on price as an allocation mechanism, as other posters have already done a pretty good job. However, unless you want to look even more clueless, I would suggest reading up on some of the basic concepts (supply, demand, elasticities, the impact of price controls in a market, and the historical evidence success of non-market/price allocative mechanisms. Start with a search on Gosplan, then one on black markets, and try a good book such as "The Russians" by Hedrick Smith to see how well bureaucratic allocation works as an alternative to markets in practice. Once you have enough background to differentiate your arse from your elbow, feel free to re-enter the fray.

      For the record, I have read Friedman (I have also read Keynes, Adam Smith (v. turgid book), Goodhart, Bentham, Marshall and Marx etc). If that's not eclectic enough for your taste, do please tell me which "cult" I am supposedly in thrall to.

    24. Re:That's all great, but.... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      particularly because those theories are adopted by people from some other person, not reasoned out for themselves.

      It doesn't matter who reasoned it. I don't care if it was you or God. All that matters is the data.

      You think reading a book by Milton Friedman is an objective source of information, "good data"? How quaint. I rejected what you handed me because it's not even data.

      You clearly rejected it without even looking at it. If you had, you would known that it is mainly a collection of data, enough is given that you can make your own conclusions. You fail at basic data collection.

      You don't know how to find good data. Which is why you fail so miserably when trying to make your own conclusions. If you knew how to collect good data, you would do well. If you knew how to attack your own ideas, you would do even better.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    25. Re:That's all great, but.... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Why should they?

    26. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily a natural disaster.
      Look up Tesla and his earthquake machine, and/or EM scalar weapons.

      Anyway, I'll be happy when 2 TB drives hit 80 Euro \ 108 dollars or so.

    27. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends entirely on how many hard drives they need to buy, doesn't it?

    28. Re:That's all great, but.... by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      Right, that is why the secret to a healthy society is relatively high income tax rates for high earners. Forces them to think long term, and that benefits everyone. Trickle down is such bullshit.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    29. Re:That's all great, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! You've found a guy who's managed to breed puppy-kittens! I've gotta get his number, there's a huge market just waiting for them!

      Captcha:curried

    30. Re:That's all great, but.... by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I'm the 1%, I can afford to promote it myself.

  14. uh, huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'll believe it when i see it (i.e. retail availability and prices back to pre-flood levels)

  15. Spoiled and Then Some by StarWreck · · Score: 1

    I was starting to feel spoiled with how low hard drive prices were before the floods. But now, even months after the floors 1TB drives are still more than I paid for 2TB drives before the floods, I don't feel spoiled anymore.

    --
    ... and in the DRM, bind them.
  16. what hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shortage? i haven't bought one in a couple years

  17. Re:Price Fixing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >If anything, economies of scale would have seen to the dramatic drop in production costs and not an increase.
    Have you missed the last few decades of decreasing costs for computer hardware? This price increase is just a blip, and it isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.

    >We should all be running 2TB SSD drives by now but instead the greedy HD manaufacturers just want to squeeze every bit of dough out of the old mechanical HD market instead.
    This looks like a non sequitur.
    Even if all the hard drive companies were fixing prices, what does that have to do with all of us not running 2TB SSDs? If anything rising HD costs would encourage us to seek alternatives.
    Solid state storage just costs more per byte than hard drive platters, plain and simple. There is still a huge market for slow HD storage and there will be for years to come. HD companies aren't just going to stop selling hard drives to "make room" for SSDs or whatever when they have huge investments in HD production and willing buyers.

    Anyway, eventually we will be running 2TB SSD. I'm on my way there: I have 240GB, at work we just bought 800GB.

  18. But this will be like gas prices right? by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Skyrocket the moment they think supply is threatened and then fall back down glacially while waiting for the next disaster or crises. Supply may increase as production ramps up but I'm betting that the middle men and manufacturers will keep prices high for as long as they can. Some manufacturers apparently didn't suffer the same losses but jacked prices up too so this should be no surprise at all...

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  19. Mod parent up by EdmundSS · · Score: 1

    An excellent explanation of how markets drive prices, and why a functioning market achieves better results than the imposition of price controls.

    (Why is it that I never have mod points when they'd be useful?)

  20. Yay landfill! by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

    So 140-145million hard drives will end up buried in landfill in Q1-2012! Yay!!!!

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  21. Meet one of "the some" (since 1996, @ home too) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "RAMDISK is definitely an option again for some." - by symbolset (646467) * on Saturday February 25, @02:53AM (#39156737) Homepage

    Been 1 of the some per my subject-line above, since 1996 with hardware based "True SSD" tech/not based on FLASH ram tech.

    (Plus, @ home since 1991 or so on 16-bit DOS ramdisk.sys, & into 32-bit via software ramdisks based off the MS DDK template, I even did one (GUI front + some 'tweaks' to the base design) as all of them essentially are basically, 32mb in size (lol) & 1997 onward via hardware).

    Yes, @ home too in hardware as well since 1997, 1st in the:

    1.) CENATEK RocketDrive "True SSD" as I call ones based off of 4gb PC-133 SDRAM/PCI-2.0 bus speeds & 133mb/sec. ATA-EIDE bus, tech

    +

    2.) Since 2005 onwards also a Gigabyte IRAM 4gb DDR-2 RAM/150mb/sec. SATA I bus.

    (BOTH on Windows 7 64-bit operating now too, vs. FLASH today (which used to suffer from HORRIBLE write performance, not so bad now, but, only recently for the most part)).

    * They EXCEL in multi-user environs as well, low-latency bigtime, so for instance can you say "DATABASE ENVIRONS ANYONE?" where it really, Really, REALLY matters, and applies itself perfectly.

    APK

    P.S.=> I've been using them since 16-bit DOS 5.0 16mb sizelimits & all, but, that was "big" then, into the 32-bit world in Windows NT 3.5x- Windows 7 currently (many software ones, & hardware SSD's too thru that entire timeframe 1990-2012 present)...

    I use BOTH software &/or hardware ramdisks-ramdrives @ home for better performance (& to a degree/extent, anonymity) to:

    1.) Run programs (or data) where latency matters on them
    2.) %Temp%\%Tmp% environment variables for OS/Apps is pointed to them
    3.) Webbrowser page caching
    4.) Windows pagefile.sys (own partition on it also)
    5.) Logging
    6.) Application temp settings
    7.) Application data storage
    8.) Print Spooling
    9.) Sandboxie location (this one's special because it actually makes it work, and FAST (rarity for it, put it that way))
    10.) & also FAR more...

    So, do they work @ home for better performance too? Yes, bigtime - & software ones do for security in a way, because some are by default or CAN be set to 'reset' on reboot (totally clean) as well.

    For speed though? It's truly noticeably performance-enhancing & massively so in not only being actually orders of magnitudes faster seek/access but also latency...

    Still though, the really nicest part/"side-effect" of that is, also for the fact by doing so as I do above, you're also OFFLOADING your mechanical slower HDD's of those tasks too!

    (And the apps that use them get latency/seek/access gains as well as IO intensive ones too)

    In essence lessening their workloads, caches/buffers of anykind in assisting controllers (as I have in a Promise SuperTrak Ex-8350 128mb ECC RAM onboard for read/write hardware cache on WD SATA II Raptors 10k RPM 16mb buffered Perpendicular Recording Tech utilizing HDD disks).

    (Food 4 Thought!)

    Been doing it here since 1991 in one way (hardware), shape (software), or form... it works.

    Speed up your slowest thing in mechanical HDD's by offloading them, and then using Ramdisks (Hardware) and Ramdrives (Software) to speed up other things & offload the slowest thing in your systems?

    You gain a thousandfold by using many thousands of fold faster drives in either hardware SSD, or software ramdisk...

    Hey/Again - * I think I mentioned this above, not sure, stream-of-consciousness" going here now (rambling, like you) - I've even built my own software one in 32-bit, and was later favorably cited on CENATEK's webpage front page on it, as well as EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com!

    (By also doing work on theirs in code that improved it by up to 40% in performance on its block device driver's caching & HOW TO USE THEM EFFECTIVELY FOR PERFORMANCE, which nowadays is becoming a norm in using them in high TPM environs in DB work

  22. my hard drive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    has never been accused of a shortage, but at 64, it could use assistance