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."

26 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 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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...

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

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

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

    10. 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.

    11. 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 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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. 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.

  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. 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
  6. 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.

  7. 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.