Slashdot Mirror


Higher Hard Drive Prices Are the New Normal

An anonymous reader tips an article looking at the state of HDD pricing now that the market has had time to recover from the flooding in Thailand and a round of consolidation among manufacturers. Prices have certainly declined from the high they reached during the flooding, but they've stabilized a bit higher than they were beforehand. Quoting: "Are things going to change any time soon? We doubt it. WD and Seagate both reported record profits this past quarter. In Q1 2011, Western Digital reported net profit of $146M against sales of $2.3B while Seagate recorded $2.7B in revenue and $93 million in net income. That’s a net profit margin of 6% and 3%, respectively. For this past quarter, Western Digital reported sales of $3B (thanks in part to its acquisition of Hitachi) and a net income of $483 million, while Seagate hit $4.4B in revenue and $1.1B in profits. Net margin was 16% and 37% respectively. With profit margins like this, the hard drive manufacturers are going to be loath to cut prices. After years of barely making profits, the Thailand floods are the best excuse ever to drive record income for a few quarters. All of this means that while we expect prices to gradually decline, holding off on a necessary purchase doesn’t make much sense."

51 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by angryfirelord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You mean, companies will collude together in order to raise the price of goods in that market? I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!

    1. Re:Really? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You mean, companies will collude together in order to raise the price of goods in that market?

      When there are only two or three competitors in a market, actual collusion is no longer necessary. They simply have an unwritten and unspoken agreement to keep prices where they are. Neither WD nor Seagate has anything to gain by cutting prices that they know their (only) competitor will match.

      Regulators should have never allowed the Hitachi acquisition to happen. The HDD industry was already over consolidated.

    2. Re:Really? by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Preferably by ending behavior that causes sarcastic shock.

    3. Re:Really? by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      your annual profit is $483 million. it's going to cost you about that much to build a new plant so you can sell your product cheaper and get your profit down to $200 million

      these decisions aren't rocket science. i bet your're not running a business

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But ... but ... Free Market(tm)!!1

    5. Re:Really? by alen · · Score: 2

      how is it illegal? there is no democratic government that can force you to invest in something that won't return any profits

    6. Re:Really? by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it illegal for a company to take what customers are willing to pay?

      How is it illegal for companies to simply not lower prices... without colluding with each other?

      Since when are profit margins required to be low?

    7. Re:Really? by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      How is it illegal for a company to take what customers are willing to pay?

      How is it illegal for companies to simply not lower prices... without colluding with each other?

      Since when are profit margins required to be low?

      it's illegal if they've as much as nodded in each others direction to keep to current pricing level.

      the simple reason why the prices are high is that during the hd manufacturing troubles they realised that people will buy the same amount of hdd's even if the cost stays the same.

      (anyhow.. I think 2.5" pricing has gone down).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Really? by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just to extend the argument, Game Theory suggests that there are 2 stables states when you get down to 2 or 3 big players. Either cozy (Biggest firm is the price leader, everybody follows suit. Nobody wants a war) or fierce - no quarter is given by either side.

    9. Re:Really? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      I also have this theory that they really want to push for SSDs and are not interested in improving the prices on regular HDDs. I observed that 1 TB laptops are hard to find if the same shop sells high-end SSD-equiped laptops too. It may be anecdotal, I have observed that in 3 shops. Has anyone made the same observation ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    10. Re:Really? by R3d+Jack · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The HDD industry was already over consolidated.

      Really, Really? The previous margins were tiny; the current margins are thin. I like low prices, too, but I also like companies that produce quality products to stay in business...

    11. Re:Really? by localman57 · · Score: 2

      I doubt it. They're corporations. What they really want is return on investment. They're unlikley to have any great religion with regard to a specific technology. If HDD's do that, then thats what they want to push. If SSDs, then that's what they'll push. And what is in the manufacturer's best interest may not be the same as what's in the retailer's best interest.

      On top of this, add the fact that what the consumer wants may or may not be the most profitable product, and may or may not be what's actually in the consumer's best interest.

      Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure what point I'm even trying to make.

    12. Re:Really? by localman57 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. What you actually want is a business landscape that atracts the occasional new competitor. That's what drives innovation. Look at the fire the Athlon lit under Intel 10 years ago.

    13. Re:Really? by DinDaddy · · Score: 4, Informative

      When there are only two or three competitors in a market, actual collusion is no longer necessary. They simply have an unwritten and unspoken agreement to keep prices where they are

      Ummm ... isn't that what collusion means

      No, to collude, they would need to communicate in some form, written or spoken. Just guessing that the other party thinks like you and acting on that assumption is NOT collusion.

    14. Re:Really? by CSFFlame · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fierce: Nvidia vs AMD and Intel vs AMD. No quarter.

    15. Re:Really? by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Duh, duh? Aside from keeping prices higher than they were before the flood, there's also the fact that Segate felt comfortable enough in their marketshare to drop their five year warranty on drives. Like Verizon adding a $30 "upgrade" fee, that should be telling you something about the competitive state of a market.

    16. Re:Really? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SSDs actually make some sense here, because they use less power, and because they have a limited number of write cycles. A media library isn't written to very often, usually just once for any location, and then it's mainly read-only after that. The main downside, of course, is that at the moment, SSD has a significantly higher cost-per-byte than rotational storage. If the cost-per-byte were the same, even if the speed weren't any better, it'd probably make a lot more sense to use SSD for your media library.

    17. Re:Really? by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's totally false. Intel would be trying to sell you an Itanic chip for 64-bit applications.

      Remember, at the time, Itanic was what Intel was pitching to anyone talking about 64-bit.

  2. New solid state storage by macemoneta · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most articles I've seen indicate that rotational storage (and existing flash-based SSDs) will be replaced within 2 years by memristor-based storage or similar non-rotational, non-flash storage. It makes no sense for hard drive manufacturers to "race to the bottom" when they've already consolidated into 2 major manufacturers and sales have such a short term outlook.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    1. Re:New solid state storage by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Haven't they been saying that for a few decades now? Rotational media will be around for a long time to come, barring any real shattering breakthroughs in solid state media. Some markets, such as laptops and workstations which value speed over capacity, will likely transition to SSDs being the norm within the next 5 years or so, but when you need a lot of storage you'll still turn to hard drives for at least another decade or two. Given that hard drive technology is still having breakthroughs, it will be some time before SSDs can catch up in overall capacity, nevermind price per GB/TB.

    2. Re:New solid state storage by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most articles I've seen indicate that rotational storage ... will be replaced within 2 years ...

      Most articles I read during the 1980s said the same thing.

    3. Re:New solid state storage by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Given that hard drive technology is still having breakthroughs, it will be some time before SSDs can catch up in overall capacity, nevermind price per GB/TB.

      Given the rapid decline in the number of write cycles at smaller process sizes, that may never happen with current flash technology.

    4. Re:New solid state storage by alen · · Score: 2

      its already happening, people are buying smartphones and ipads. even my wife's macbook rarely gets used. she's always on her iphone.

      the computer is mostly a paperweight at home that i turn on once a month to copy photos from my iphone

    5. Re:New solid state storage by MLCT · · Score: 2

      With rotational manufactures proving technology up to 60 TB on a disk (seagate I think), I don't see SSDs touching them for a long time.

      We wan't more storage - and the more storage we get the more we want. SSDs just can't get on the right growth curve - the price/size ratio for SSDs just doesn't scale. Look at the class of "mobile" devices (phones, tablets etc.) - they are topping out for onboard starage at numbers that are pretty poor in a modern context - and the sizes aren't growing. You don't see apple saying with the release of a new ipad, "we are doubling everything: to 32, 64, 128 GB - for no extra cost" - because they can't, the prices haven't come down very much for those sort of sizes over the timespan of a number of years.

      New technology may change things, but I can't see it happening any time soon - new tech introduced takes quite a while to get the economies of scale it needs to beat the incumbent technology.

    6. Re:New solid state storage by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is a "transistors are crappy now vs vacuum tubes working great" argument.

      No, it's a 'flash is running into fundamental laws of physics' argument.

      I suspect another SSD technology will come along to replace it, but flash probably can't go much further unless you add a large oversupply of cells to replace those which die.

    7. Re:New solid state storage by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 2

      You say this hot on the heels of the report of 60TB HDDs by 2016.

      HDDs aren't going anywhere. I think the near-term future is hybrid systems like Intel's Smart Response becoming more advanced and commonplace--moving the files (and/or entire operating system) that you actually use onto the SSD while keeping the big stuff on the HDD.

    8. Re:New solid state storage by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "Rotational media will be around for a long time to come, barring any real shattering breakthroughs in solid state media."

      You mean like the currently-planned 1TB SDXC card format? Take that stuff, make a 2.5" drive, you could dump 16TB into a tiny piece of plastic, epoxy, and silicon.

      Rotational media is only going to stick around because it's CHEAP.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:New solid state storage by paintballer1087 · · Score: 2
    10. Re:New solid state storage by amoeba1911 · · Score: 2

      This doesn't say anything at all - just because you and your wife don't use computers doesn't mean that the rest of the world will stop using computers. As adorable as the ipad is, it is a computer replacement only for people who don't use computers. It's great for media consumption, but an ipad is not a computer.

      I have an ipad. I am not much of a media consumer: I don't like watching movies on a tablet, I don't subscribe to magazines, I don't read digital books and I'm not too big on facebook/twitter scene and portable gaming isn't my thing... so for me the ipad is just a big paperweight. But I can imagine for media consumers it is better than sliced bread - all the things they needed a computer for many years ago they can now do it on the ipad, good for them. That doesn't mean ipad is a computer replacement - it's only a computer replacement for people who didn't use computers in the first place.

    11. Re:New solid state storage by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 2

      We want more storage

      Speak for yourself ; for my work, which has some fairly heavy data sets, I muddle through on a 64GB SSD. I'm tempted to upgrade to a 128GB model, because it's sometimes a bit tight and I'd like to have room for my music collection (12GB).

      Games ; I currently have a 1TB partition devoted to game installs. It's not remotely full yet.

      Video : this is the biggie. My HTPC currently has 1TB of storage as well. Paradoxically, I think it would probably be better if it had less storage - we just tend to accumulate a huge load of old crap that we're never going to watch. It might be nice to rip all my DVDs for instant access, but that's a pretty tedious task.

      Backup : I don't back up my video, because it's not that critical to me (all being broadcast video, it came free, so I don't value it much). Because my work drives are small, I don't need much backup. My current 2TB external drive has more than half it's space free, and I'm not selective about what I back up, and have a 3 month retention time.

      I have about 2.5TB of storage lying around on my desk not even wired to anything. Most of it is a single 1.5TB drive.

      Now ; my backup strategy is not sufficiently paranoid. While most of my work is stored elsewhere in VCS repositories anyway, I could conceivably be inconvenienced by a failure. So I can see a need for a second backup device, which would need to be 500GB of storage. I currently have 5 times this lying around on my desk, so my problem isn't storage, it's apathy.

      The people who do need all this storage, I'm sad to say, are probably torrenting a lot, because that's the only way a consumer accumulates that much data that they don't have a read-only media copy of already.

    12. Re:New solid state storage by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Haven't they been saying that for a few decades now? Rotational media will be around for a long time to come, barring any real shattering breakthroughs in solid state media. Some markets, such as laptops and workstations which value speed over capacity, will likely transition to SSDs being the norm within the next 5 years or so, but when you need a lot of storage you'll still turn to hard drives for at least another decade or two. Given that hard drive technology is still having breakthroughs, it will be some time before SSDs can catch up in overall capacity, nevermind price per GB/TB.

      SSDs have already surpassed hard drives in capacity, with 16TB being offered on a single SSD. SSDs are less than $1 a gigabyte. True, much more than hard drives, but 11 years ago when hard drives were $3 a gigabyte and 7 years ago hard drives were 50 cents/gb. Now hard drives are less than 1 cent a gigabyte, so how long do you think it will take SSDs to get there?

      SSDs have the huge advantage that everyone wants them. Every device needs fast access and transfer rates with low power usage in as small a space as possible. More devices means more sales means lower prices as they ramp up production. I have a feeling that by the end of 2012 people won't even be considering a hard drive in a PC anymore, everyone will just buy SSDs.

      Hard drives will never win the capacity war, not when they can currently put 64 gigabytes on a space smaller than your fingernail and that includes the memory controller and case.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    13. Re:New solid state storage by Microlith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's what technology like PCM is for. As you shrink the lithography, PCM purportedly gains in reliability due to the reduced amount of material needed to actually store the bit.

      That and, unlike memristors, you can actually buy PCM now, and while the price per MB is still quite high... it exists in volume and isn't vaporware, which memristors by and large still are.

    14. Re:New solid state storage by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The people who do need all this storage, I'm sad to say, are probably torrenting a lot, because that's the only way a consumer accumulates that much data that they don't have a read-only media copy of already.

      I have 4TB of video storage on my MythTV box because my girlfriend complains if it's deleted the CSI episode she didn't watch from six months ago.

      Usage expands to fill the available space.

    15. Re:New solid state storage by goeken · · Score: 2

      You are forgetting that most HDs do not get replaced because they ware out they are replaced when a new computer is bought or they become to small to be of any use.

    16. Re:New solid state storage by localman57 · · Score: 2

      This is a "transistors are crappy now vs vacuum tubes working great" argument.

      No, it's a 'flash is running into fundamental laws of physics' argument.

      I suspect another SSD technology will come along to replace it, but flash probably can't go much further unless you add a large oversupply of cells to replace those which die.

      I don't think so. I think that eventually, people will stop buying storage all together, and just put their data in the cloud.

      pff...

      BA HA HA HA HA HA!

      Oh, shit. I'm sorry. I tried to say it with a straight face. I really did. But I just can't do it.

    17. Re:New solid state storage by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My laptop consumes around 20W for normal desktop use. The HDD is rated at something like 1.5W. Cutting 20% off that 1.5W will have a negligible impact on battery life.

      Ah, but we're neglecting the rest of the system. While the laptop hard drive is busy loading data, the rest of the system is consuming 20W. If it takes a minute grinding away to do something (and you're waiting for it), that's 20W-m of energy used up. If a more efficient SSD cuts it down to 20 seconds, that's 6W-m, and you get to do your stuff sooner. Win-win - laptop consumes less energy while waiting o nthe hard drive, user gets going faster.

      Basically, individual component battery life measurements aren't as relevant as whole system power measurement.

      It's just like the old Tom's Hardware report that SSDs consume more CPU, when in reality it's because the SSD is returning data faster so the CPU is busier giving it new I/O to do.

      Hell, an SSD can give an older system new life - I have an old work laptop with a core2duo ("Vista Ready" to give you its age) in it. Replaced its hard drive with an SSD (from 160GB down to 120GB), damn laptop super-snappy and responsive.

    18. Re:New solid state storage by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very few people need 4TB, the current largest hard drive. I'd argue most people are happy with 500gb.

      Where HAVE I heard this before?

      Oh, yeah, now I remember!

      Me: We should go ahead and buy the 85MB HD for the new comp - we'd fill up a 40MB too fast..

      the Wife: No, it'll be YEARS before we could fill up 40MB - why pay the extra couple hundred for space we'll never use?

      We had a similar discussion a few years later, with the players swapped, when we were debating 300MB and 500 MB.

      And again when we debated 2GB v. 3GB.

      And 20GB v 50GB

      And 500GB and 1TB....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  3. It doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This really is Economics 101. The maximum profit margin comes at the point where the supply curve and the demand curve meet. Raising prices above that point results in fewer sales and therefore less profit. Companies won't stop following this rule just because they have an "excuse" for raising prices. Partly because they didn't need an excuse in the first place, but mostly because they still have to compete with other companies.

    1. Re:It doesn't work that way by Fallingcow · · Score: 3, Funny

      This really is Economics 101. The maximum profit margin comes at the point where the supply curve and the demand curve meet. Raising prices above that point results in fewer sales and therefore less profit. Companies won't stop following this rule just because they have an "excuse" for raising prices. Partly because they didn't need an excuse in the first place, but mostly because they still have to compete with other companies.

      Maybe you should have stuck around for Economics 102.

    2. Re:It doesn't work that way by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      Maybe you should have stuck around for Economics 102.

      If Econ 102 contradicts Econ 101, then someone messed up. At worst, the rules taught in 101 may not hold in all cases—but the boundaries should have been part of the 101 curriculum.

      Anyway, the concept of supply vs. demand and the optimal price-point are fundamental to all levels of economics. There is nothing wrong with what the GP wrote. The part which was omitted, however, is that the "excuse" of rising costs pushes out the marginal producers, reducing the supply and thus raising the optimal price-point for those who are left. How much that price increase depends on a number of factors, including the elasticity of demand, the degree of competition, and existing production margins (i.e. how much the suppliers can afford to absorb before it becomes more economical to close shop or shift to a different product).

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    3. Re:It doesn't work that way by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      If your basic physics classes didn't at least mention that the Newtonian formulas are only approximations, and not valid for very small dimensions or very high energies, then you should probably ask for your money back. Similarly for qualifiers about static situations and ideal materials. For the problem domain those basic science classes are concerned with, the approximate formulas are perfectly valid. The higher-level classes require different formulas only because they have an expanded problem domain. Similarly, Econ 101 covers a limited problem domain, with assumptions like purely voluntary interaction. Given the same problem, Econ 102 should give the same answer. However, knowing Econ 102 allows you to address a wider variety of situations, such as specifically how the economy is negatively impacted by coercion.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  4. It kind of does. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    In a perfectly competitive market with elastic supply and demand and where there are completely rational and well-informed consumers and producers, yes, your description of the market works.

    The problem is, this is a case where there are only two major suppliers, demand is relatively inelastic, and the vast majority of consumers have no idea what a hard drive costs to make. In other words, what you're seeing is more like monopoly utility pricing - and that means that as long as higher prices can be reasonably justified to the consumer (flooding in Thailand!) the producer can set and maintain higher prices basically at will.

  5. Re:Record profits come at a cost.... by sexconker · · Score: 2

    Why do profits come at a cost? Sure for the consumer but for the manufacturer? Lower warranties further increase profits. It's a win-win for them.

    Because when I can't buy a new hard drive that's guaranteed to last more than 2 years I don't buy a new hard drive.

  6. Re:Its a cartel by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 2

    To be fair, quality should go /up/ with the acquisitions so long as you buy drives that were made at the formerly Samsung/Hitachi plants. They didn't buy out those companies then raze all their manufacturing resources and there's no immediate reason to refit the plants and thus reduce reliability. Now, if five years down the line they're not maintaining the plants and they let tolerances slip that'd be a problem.

    Granted, I am unsure how the floods affected individual plants, so if it's primarily the high quality plants that were scrapped and they are not rebuilt or rebuilt to a lower standard that would be a problem.

  7. Just reviewed prices online - what's the big deal? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems like the 2TB desktop (ie, 3.5") disk is about $110. That's not so bad, considering I bought one for $95 about a year ago, before the floods. A 3TB is $160, about the same as last year from my recollection.

    Of course, if you're buying 4x (say to build or replace a NAS), then you do see a noticeable cost difference, but it's not even 25% more.

    A 16% (or even 37%) margin is does not indicate windfall profits or ludicrous extortion.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  8. Fundamental problem with economics by istartedi · · Score: 2

    Companies are run by people. People are NOT rational. Alan Greenspan cited this as a problem, although IMHO Greenspan's bigger problem was to accept that corporations are people and then to assume that they were rational.

    Rational actors maximizing profit is theory. Reality is insane people "managing" things into oblivion. If the HDD manufacturers try to squeeze the market to the point where solid state displaces HDD everywhere, and they fail to extract maximum profit because they are greedy, that will not surprise me one bit.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  9. Ya well there's some new evidence by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's called the "SSD" section on Newegg. You are right that head-in-the-clouds type tech people have been saying that magnetic media will get replaced, but it has just been wishful thinking. However now it is. SSDs sell quite readily. They aren't going to displace HDDs tomorrow or anything, and I'd say that 2 year timeline is a bit optimistic, but they are already making big in roads.

    While they don't compete in terms of storage/$ they are getting to the point where they are cheap enough for enough storage that people find them worthwhile. That's all it really takes. Few people actually need 2TB of storage, the idea that SSDs have to be dead equal to HDDs is silly. Many people will decide they can get on just fine with 160GB and would rather have the speed.

  10. Re:Its a cartel by fnj · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I recently bought four more so-called "Samsung" 2TB (I already have eight REAL Samsung 2TBs) quick, hoping to get some before the invevitable slide in quality got too bad. And it's GOING to happen. Seagate's corporate policies are going to gut QC and make manufacturing and redesign shortcuts. It's only a matter of time; probably not very much time. When my drives arrived, they had ST part numbers next to the old "HD204UI" designation - and they say "Made in China". I'm crossing my fingers. So far, so good. But I have no idea what I'll do in the future.

    An optimist would say that at least some of Samsung's superior design and QC derived reliability will hopefully rub off on the new Seagate. I'm not an optimist. I'm afraid I think your five-year estimate is optimistic. In point of fact, I don't know of any assurance or even indication that they are using the same final assembly plants that Samsung did. For all we know, they are buying the same components (until they can swap in shittier components), and then slapping them together in some inferior jobbed-out Chinese plant.

  11. Re:Just reviewed prices online - what's the big de by kiehlster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The big thing I see is that warranty lengths have dropped off to 3 years from 5 years on many of the high-grade models that are selling today. They still sell 5 year warranties, but at a premium. The real cheap ones have dropped to 1 year warranties. Are prices back to where they were before the floods? Almost. Is product quality back to where it was? Nope.

    I'll be waiting a little longer until I build myself another RAID. I believe we still have another quarter or two before we see the prices hit their baseline. I've been extending my purchase time frame by doing some serious house cleaning.

  12. My charts say otherwise by subreality · · Score: 2

    And by "my charts" I mean camelegg: http://camelegg.com/product/N82E16822152245

    The market spiked and it's slowly returning to normal. It hasn't bottomed. I think that the time required is a combination of rebuilding manufacturing capacity, backlogged demand slowly being filled, and simple price inertia.

  13. Small difference by MoldySpore · · Score: 2

    The 1TB Samsung (good solid main drive if you aren't using SSD's) drive I was paying $59 for before the shortage and the floods for all my personal and customer's builds is now down to $79.99. And you can get 3TB drives for around $170 again as well. Not bad IMO. I'm sure in another 3-6 months the prices will drop again for the holiday's. The price for that 1TB drive was $79.99 around this time last year as well. Only some manufacturers still have outrageous prices, most notably Western Digital.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."