Slashdot Mirror
SSD-HDD Price Gap Won't Go Away Anytime Soon
storagedude (1517243) writes "Flash storage costs have been dropping rapidly for years, but those gains are about to slow, and a number of issues will keep flash from closing the cost gap with HDDs for some time, writes Henry Newman at Enterprise Storage Forum. As SSD density increases, reliability and performance decrease, creating a dilemma for manufacturers who must balance density, cost, reliability and performance. '[F]lash technology and SSDs cannot yet replace HDDs as primary storage for enterprise and HPC applications due to continued high prices for capacity, bandwidth and power, as well as issues with reliability that can only be addressed by increasing overall costs. At least for the foreseeable future, the cost of flash compared to hard drive storage is not going to change.'"
Doesn't creating a striped RAID make up most of the performance issues from using a HDD over a SSD? At that point, it's more the bus or CPU that's a limiting factor?
-SaNo
Fairly sure that increases in capacity usually means increases in performance as well. I have not seen any ssd on the market today that illustrates otherwise. .50$ a gig on ssds. Prices have been plummeting. You can get a 256 gig drive for ~100$ . 1TB drives have been almost hitting the $400 mark.
We're down to less than
When 2TB ssd come on the market, you'll see the rest drop in price as well. I'm not quite sure where the author is getting their information. Check the price drops over the last two years and you can see they haven't hit bottom yet.
Today we can have an SSD for the price of $0.50 / GB. It is already good enough.
No, it's not asinine, but a nod to the intellect of the reader. It demonstrates that the writer has confidence that the reader understands what they're saying. It demonstrates humour and it ...
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
I got all the way through the first page. The argument behind this seems to be that prices in the SSD world are higher than prices in the HDD world for technical reasons, and the technical reasons aren't going away so the price gap will remain. Until someone overcomes the technical problems, and the author, who is clearly a world leading expert in this field, doesn't know how the technical problems will be overcome. I think it'll take him by surprise when it happens.
"Is the Chief Priest an Offlian? Do dragons explode in the wood?"
Hard drives never completely obsoleted tape drives, and SSDs will probably never obsolete all hard drives, unless they can amazingly close the gap between SSDs ($0.50/GB) and tape drives ($0.01/GB).
Say what?!?
Crucial M500 480GB = $240 or $.50/GB
WD BLACK SERIES WD4003FZEX 4TB = $260 or $.065/GB
Seagate NAS HDD ST3000VN000 3TB = $139 or $.046/GB
prices are current at newegg
The HDD's are around 10x as cheap per GB.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Likewise, worker bee machines that are pretty much dumb terminals are not going to use SSD. But other machines that people actually do and store work on, that may be something different.
Look, tape is on the order of penny per gigabyte. Hard disks are somewhere between 5-10 cents a gigabyte. SSD is about 50 cents a gigabyte. Many people still back up onto hard disk even though tape is more reliable. We are going to use SSD because there are benefits that justify the order of magnitude increase.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
A 480GB Crucial M500 is slightly cheaper per GB than a 4TB spinning drive right now. I think the 960GB SSD is as well.
Where are you shopping? Crucial M500 480GB $240is $.50 per GB. Seagate 4TB $165 is $.04 per GB.
A 480GB Crucial M500 is slightly cheaper per GB than a 4TB spinning drive right now. I think the 960GB SSD is as well.
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough). I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120. The SSD is 140% more costly or 2.4 times the price per GB.
with spinning rust, you might re-engineer the bulk process that coats your disks, but the boost in recording density depends on changing the parameters of the head. bulk process and one device. compare to flash, where to boost density, you have to tweak each storage cell, controlling for defects and manufacturing flaws, where the yield of each cell multiplies, so defects are exponentially likely.
disks (and to some extent tape) will always have scaling advantages over litho-fabed storage.
you can certainly argue that latency and bandwidth also suffer by the same process - but for the most part, disk performance really is fast enough for most uses. it's a bit surprising that more disk vendors haven't tossed onboard a small flash chip (to all lines of HDs).
We need reliable hybrid drives with 120-160+ GBs of flash memory, instead of the ridiculously worthless 4-8 GB ones we have now.
A hybrid with a 1:30 or 1:20 ratio of flash to platter (200 GB for 4 TB for instance) would pretty much be perfect for anyone, even enterprise applications if RAID controllers cooperated with the hybrid caching properly.
We do not need 100% flash, just give us a practical median.
In fact, I guarantee if someone made a hard drive with a controller with an mSATA slot for adding a SSD and offered the controller to be setup as pass-through (act as two drives) or caching (SSD keeps a cache of platter), it would sell like crazy.
An mSATA would fit easily beneath a standard 3.5 inch platter hard drive.
http://www.notebookreview.com/...
Damn, why didn't I think of this?
People, is it true? Would the market bear a "Republican Technology News" site?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The article is a bit weird. It keeps saying to ignore consumer: low price, cheap parts, focus on mobility as inapplicable to enterprise. But then it focus on enterprises disks that aren't far removed from consumer models rather than enterprise models like IBM's flash solutions (ex 840: 33T per U so more than 1P per rack). If we are going to look at enterprise flash I don't understand why you would focus on smaller solutions. Obviously the $8-14g price is even higher but it is at those price points that flash makes sense because it is allowing virtualization to replace multiple servers and thus replacing real estate, network and energy costs not raw HDD costs.
I guess if the article is just saying that mid sized server solutions (say $5-100k) are unlikely to go all SSD before 2020 I have to agree. But I think it should have been more specific. Once you exclude the consumer space and the mass storage space we are probably talking a tiny fraction of the whole HDD market.
I have a 120 gig Sandisk Extreme 2 SSD and as a performance upgrade, you really can't do better than an SSD, assuming a minimum of 4 GB of ram. I was a little skeptical of claims when I bought it, but I can vouch that people aren't messing around when they talk about instant boot and zero-second loads times for applications. Mileage may vary depending on the brand and model, research and watch the specs closely. A paltry 120 gigs by itself is not enough for me or most people these days so I balance things out by installing the OS and applications on the SSD, while most files go onto a hard drive. This means a slight change in workflow, but it is entirely worth it.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
10 times ago I heard about IBM and others working on new technologies to replace memory. Holographic cubes, MRAM, ... Are they still 10 years away?
The article is mainly talking about from now will 2020. I'd have to agree I don't think it will happen by 2020. I suspect even by 2030 mass storage solutions on HDD will still be around. It took a very long time for HDD to kill off tape entirely.
A 480GB Crucial M500 is slightly cheaper per GB than a 4TB spinning drive right now. I think the 960GB SSD is as well.
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough). I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120. The SSD is 140% more costly or 2.4 times the price per GB.
Even that comparison is a poor one. Really this all depends on your mission.
If all you want is an OS drive for your Chromebook/etc, then you want to look at the cost of 16-32GB of SSD and that is as cheap as any hard drive you could get in that size configuration. The SSD is an obvious choice here.
If you want to store your video collection and your options are RAID HD or SSD, then you don't care how big the individual drives are so you look at price per GB. That usually will end up costing $80-110 for the hard drive in any year - the only thing that changes is the size. That will get you about 2-3TB of HD, which is about 4 cents/GB. Compare that to something like 50 cents/GB for SSD. Clearly if you're storing video the SSD is a really bad choice.
When you look at HD prices you need to stay close to $100. You don't save much money by cutting capacity below that, and you don't get much capacity by spending more than that. I'm not as familiar with the dynamics of SSD, but I imagine that they too tend to have a sweet spot, and it only makes sense to compare apples to apples.
Sorry, that is totally unintellegible
Time for bed, said Zebedee - boing
due to continued high prices for capacity, bandwidth and power
How the hell is power an issue? SSD's consume something around 1/100th of the power that a hard drive does.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
That comparison is meaningless because a 4TB is at a premium price. If you think you need 500GB, use should compare a 500GB HDD with an SSD (480GB being close enough).
Although 4TB drives are still at a premium, I don't think it's unreasonable to compare a much larger spinning disk, as you can get a 3TB drive for around $110.
I can get a 500GB 7200RPM SATA drive for about $50. A Crucial M500 is about $120.
And the problem here is that you're comparing a 500GB spinning drive to a 240GB SSD. If you truly want to compare space to space, then you'd need to spend around $240 for a 480-500GB SSD. That makes the SSD 4.8x as much money, and around 10x more per GB. And, it's even worse with a 3TB disk, as it's still half the price of the ~500GB SSD, but has 6x the space, making the SSD cost 12x per GB.
That said, I've got SSDs as boot disks in all my systems, but obviously use hard drives to store large amounts of data.
Forfty percent of people know that.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Platter drives have been artificially held high for the past few years... and it will burn them unless they start budging on capacity and price, as SSDs will continue to drop.
With 5TB and 6TB drives finally making it out into the consumer space, platter drive pricing may finally start dropping, but will it be too little too late? Will there be enough of a market now in the consumer space to support the larger drives? I suspect the average user has plenty of storage already - perhaps to the point of full porn saturation - but more seriously... how much drive space does Grandma need for her cat pictures and baby videos? 2TB is probably more than enough, and within the year, she'll be able to save all that to a 2TB SSD that boots her e-mail/web browsing machine in an eyeblink.
Of course, the platter drive makers have brought on this trouble themselves... like the DRAM price gouging back in 1994 (The Sumitomo explosion supposedly endangered epoxy resin supplies, prices of RAM tripled overnight), platter drive makers have taken the same opportunity to create a scarcity to drive prices up and keep them up. They also delayed higher capacity platter drives, giving the SSD makers an opportunity to catch up. They can't keep this up and stay in business.
"10 years away" == "not in the foreseeable future". If we had all the technology that should be here after a "10 years away" deadline from some lab, our world would look like a Star Trek episode. I mean more than just the flip phones.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
SSDs are built off silicon chip manufacturing processes, and thus the pricing reflects that. If you look at chips such as RAM with similar feature size (e.g. 28nm) and how many chips go into an SSD, I speculate that you'd see the pricing is not that far off if comparing chips of similar feature density and size as they'd reflect the same manufacturing costs. Maybe higher for SSD, as it is a newer technology than RAM which has been around for a very long time and perhaps benefits from some efficiency of scale or other manufacturing optimizations that have developed over time.
HDD killed tape?
I thought it just pushed it into long term storage.
I don't see tape being killed off until magnetic density in HDDs hits major diminishing returns. Even though there is only one tape drive maker these days (Quantum with the LTO line), they can keep advancing tape because the media has a lot more area than a HDD platter (or a stack of platters.) An average LTO-6 tape is 846 meters long, and that is a lot of space, even with factoring in the physical contact that the media has to go through.
It would be nice to see a consumer grade tape drive that can run from USB 3 or 3.1, especially if WORM cartridges were available, with media about 1TB native in capacity. Couple this with some decent backup software, and it would come in handy to mitigate data loss. Tape's advantage is that it is inexpensive, easily stored (drop a cartridge, and if there is no physical damage, it will still work), and can be set read-only in hardware.
I've wondered if a HDD maker could make archival grade hard disks, with media that can last 25 years or so. This might require multiple sets of read/write heads (similar to a drive that had two sets and could access different data sets at the same time independantly.) Couple that with a form factor that is easily grippable/manipulable by a robot, and that would replace both VTLs and real tape libraries.
Lets be honest here - outside of a small percentage of users doing raw uncompressed video operations HDD are more than fast enough. Drives and OS both offer large caching of high use objects which reduces seek/startup time differences to a very small amount. The biggest difference is on start up and even there.. do those 5, 10, 15 secons extra really matter that much? How often are you booting? Or even resuming from hibernation if thats your thing?
As to power, idle is now around 5 or 6 watts and standby around 1. Even in a laptop the difference in power use between hdd/sdd is not going to make or break the deal. Your screen, however, another story.
I agree that hybrid storage is great, but it can "easily" be done in software (there's a couple of projects for Linux, like bcache, as well as ZFS, and there's an Intel driver in Windows). Then you can pick the size of the SSD and HDD at will, and optionally make a RAIDs of the HDDs and SSDs to mitigate against the increased failure probability.
When multiple drives aren't an option, in laptops, the problem with hybrids is that you lose out on the non-performance advantages of SSD: low power usage and durability. The controllers could improve on this, by shutting down the hard drive and doing more writeback caching, but current hybrids lose on these points. (my laptop has a 256GB SSD, which I find about a factor 2 too small. I can't sync my /home there so everything on it becomes temporary and a syncing chore. Still I wouldn't change it for a bigger hybrid of the current generation, even if there was space for one, due to the decreased mobility).
We already have almost every version of this, hybrid drives for laptops, software techniques that mimic this but they're all fairly stupid and unpredictable, training it to cache the right things take time and suddenly what used to have SSD performance might have been evicted. If you're the kind of user who needs >100GB you probably know what it is taking space. Put your big media (video, photos, music) on D:, everything else like applications and documents stay on C:. The only really tough call is games which often have a huge install size but also app code that benefits from being on an SSD, Steam lets you define multiple library folders so you can have one on C:, one on D: but no easy way to swap them in and out, for now the only supported way is uninstall and reinstall on the other. There are workarounds for that though.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The Samsung 640 EVO 240GB has been $138 recently at Amazon ... check the price history at camelcamelcamel: http://camelcamelcamel.com/Sam...
...a more interesting article summary would read "a number of issues will keep HDDs from closing the performance gap with flash for some time". I'm not willing to give a vendor money for more space: I already have too much - and new PC's ship with more GB than an average user will ever fill.
But as a consumer I will pay for more speed: especially since switching from HDD to SSD is a material improvement (as opposed to spending the same upgrade money on a CPU that's 15% faster). And businesses definitely see the benefits, especially in common virtualized environments: where IOPs are precious and expensive to obtain with traditional HDD arrays. We could run a lot more VMs on the same RAM and CPU at work, once we slapped a couple SSDs in the drive trays.
I have a fileserver that will be fed replacement HDDs as they die, but that's it. Every other computer I touch gets nothing but SSDs.
I don't have 2013 figures but 2012 tape was down to $1.06 billion (drives and media) falling at a rate of 30% annually. I'd say the media is dead. The problem is the price isn't going down much. We are still near $.01/g which gets you in the range of bad HDD. BTW most commercial RAID allow for read only.
The issue of longevity is a very big advantage of tape. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of data doesn't need decades of retention. It is just a small fraction that does, in which case that small fraction can just be redundant and duplicated in with whatever other long term storage solution is needed. It is possible that tape might find some tiny niche and stabilize but that's going to be close enough to dead.
Heck, when it comes to long term storage I still think microfiche is a good solution for long term storage. 200 years from now I have no idea if a tape is readable or the data format will be usable but I'm pretty sure people will still have magnifying glasses.
I think the theory behind caching is that what *should* work best is just keeping a list of the most frequently accessed blocks on flash, since, well, that's what you access most frequently. I would be nice to have a config tool that would be able to flag file(s) or directories as "always-cache".
I think the parent is mostly right in that most of the hybrid drives just have too little flash to really provide a lot of meaningful acceleration. 8 GB just doesn't cut it against 750 GB of platter. More flash capacity would also allow you to reserve some meaningful space to cache disk writes.
Mmmmno. Hybrid drives are convenient, I give you that, but they are very limited in what sort of information they have about the data and its uses and if/when a new filesystem format comes around which the drive's firmware doesn't understand the drive falls back to dumb block-based caching. Cache done on OS-side of things have access to things like frequency of use, what sort of situations are the files used, expected ranges of reads and writes in the various aforementioned situations, new, improved filesystems, actual content-type, which user or users are logged on and so on. The hybrid drive, for example, cannot know who is logged in or that the user likes to e.g. listen to certain playlist while doing image-manipulation -- it doesn't know how to predict these situations and preload/cache things accordingly.
So if Fusion is always 20 year away and 10 years === not in the foreseeable future does that mean 20 years == hell frozen over?
No we don't. Hybrid drives are stupid. The added software complexity alone makes them a non-starter for anyone who wants reliability. The disparate failure modes make it a non-starter. The SSD portion of the hybrid drive is way, WAY too small to be useful.
If you care enough to want the performance benefit you either go with a pure SSD (which is what most people do these days), or you have a separate discrete SSD for booting, performace-oriented data, your swap store, and your HDD caching software.
-Matt
Tape is far from dead...
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
No I don't want hybrid drives. I'm on my third year on my OCZ Agility2. In the same time 3 1TB spinning drives have developed bad sectors. I'll keep them separate...
(I like your controller idea, kinda similar to what Intel does on newer chipsets)
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
OK what data do you have. I have for 2012 it was down to $1.06 billion (drives and media) falling at a rate of 30% annually. What are your figures?
In fact, I guarantee if someone made a hard drive with a controller with an mSATA slot for adding a SSD and offered the controller to be setup as pass-through (act as two drives) or caching (SSD keeps a cache of platter), it would sell like crazy.
This already exists. It's called Intel Smart Response Technology and it's been available on motherboards since it was release three years ago in 2011. It works with both mSATA and standard SATA attached drives.
:-(
Most people just haven't paid the extra $100-200 to buy an SSD to cache their HD not to mention the technical know-how required to install the drive and setup the BIOS and software correctly.
What we need is systems that are sold with this already built in so users don't have to do it manually. But that adds $100-200 cost to the system and many shoppers look at the price tag first when they're buying a new computer
This is actually a very interesting proposal. While I imagine the engineering and programming would be a relative nightmare*, it would provide a number of options for hard drives.
While it wouldn't double performance in most cases, especially not sequential operations, for random operations it'd be almost as good as two drives. Maybe better if the access is typically really random and one head can 'field' mostly the outer disc calls while the other catches the inner disk ones.
*Just look at the difference between programming a single thread application and multi-threading!
I don't read AC A human right
Having followed this for some time now, one thing I don't get - why do people go for SATA SDDs instead of all the way for PCIe ones? Cost can't be the reason, b'cos the only reason to prefer flash memory to the usual hard disk media is performance. It wouldn't make sense to put a PCIe interface on an HDD, since there is no way the HDD could provide the data at that speed. But flash is different, and can. So it only makes sense to go w/ SATA/PATA HDDs if cost is the issue, and PCIe SDDs if performance is. But I just don't see the point in going w/ SATA SDDs, where one gets all the disadvantages of both SATA and SDDs, and the only advantages of SATA - cost - is probably more than offset by the disadvantage of SDD - which is again cost.
So someone explain to me again - what's the case for going w/ SATA SDDs at all?
Other reason for having the OS on SSD is that one doesn't frequently change the OS data - it's mainly read, except for times one does an OS update. Given that the endurance of SSDs are lower than that of HDDs, it makes sense that something that's less frequently updated would sit on an SSD, while user data, which is frequently updated, would sit on an HDD. Also, the OS is a fixed size, and would typically be something like 16GB. So one could get an SLC SSD - one w/ the highest performance, w/ a PCIe interface, w/ a low enough density to avoid blowing up the cost of the configuration, and just use it for the OS.
Also - how big is the OS itself - in terms of Mb/Gb? Windows 8.1 is overall some 16GB, from what I understand, so how big would the kernel be? Reason I ask is that so far, PCs have had a NOR flash of 4Mb for their BIOS. Given how memory densities have grown, there is the scope here to grow the BIOS flash and contain within it the entire kernel of Linux/*BSD/Windows8.*, and then let the rest of the OS reside on the storage.
That way, the system is more secure, since there are ways a BIOS flash can be protected by hardware (Write Protection states, for one) and other things that fall in Userland can go into an SSD or an HDD, depending on the system configuration. User data, such as movies, can go into the HDDs.
The paper is from Steve Swanson's group at UCSD, *not* Microsoft Research.
And the reasons for slowdown with more bits per cell: (a) writing is done in incremental steps, which have to be smaller for the more precise levels needed for 8 or 16 levels per bit, requiring more steps, and (b) the charge on a flash cell can't be measured directly; instead the chip can measure which cells in a page are above (or below) a threshold voltage, so sensing 16 levels requires 15 separate read operations.
Does anyone else remember when bubble memory was supposed to replace hard drives? There's a long road between the current state of post-NAND technologies (Phase Change Memory, spin-torque-transfer magnetic RAM, Resistive RAM, and a few others) and mass-market high-volume chips. If one of them becomes good enough for someone to risk a $5 billion fab on, and it gives more bits per dollar than flash, then it will probably replace flash almost instantly. If no one bets a cutting edge fab, however, it doesn't matter how promising the technology is. (in particular, the "10x better" is based on assumptions that e.g. PCM can be built in sizes vastly smaller than today's flash - of course we don't know how to build the fabrication plants to do that yet. No one has a story for something 10x better at the same feature size.)
The author of the study makes a lot of arguments based on factors that are easily changed, like the configuration of an SSD. However there are a few basic technological trends:
1. Disks and NAND flash are both getting more dense at fairly comparable speeds - disk has been getting cheap faster than flash lately, but may have a hiccup in the next few years. Where flash has conclusively replaced disk is in applications like iPods and mobile where "enough" storage is cheaper than a single disk. (the iPod went flash when 2GB of flash reached $50, which is the price of a micro-disk) It's not going to replace disk for high volume data storage anytime soon.
2. With today's disks and chips, a hard disk drive has a relatively fixed cost (the cost of the factory amortized over the number of drives produced) and similarly flash has a relatively fixed cost (cost of fabrication plant over the number of chips produced in its useful lifespan). The number of bits on each doesn't really matter - that's why packing them more tightly makes the bits cheaper.
3. Disk bandwidth for 7200K drives isn't going to go over say 300MB/s anytime soon with today's perpendicular recording technology - if the disk is moving past the head at a constant speed, the only way to get more bits through per second is to pack them more closely on the platter. And the best you can do by spinning faster is a factor of 2, at 15K. (and those are very low capacity and very expensive)
2 and 3 mean that flash can easily supply cheaper bandwidth than disk - it's the SSD maker's choice how widely they want to stripe data over the chips in the drive. (64 ways isn't unreasonable) There's a huge advantage today, and it will stay the same (see #2) if flash chips don't get faster, and get bigger if they do. (at some point getting that speed may require paying for more flash than you need, but at that point a single disk will be bigger than you need, too)
For years flash was getting slower and less reliable (requiring more complex error correcting codes) as it got denser - that's partly why it got cheap so much faster than e.g. RAM, where you can't cut those corners. The next generation of flash (3D NAND) may reverse that for a while; in addition SSDs are finally a noticeable fraction of the market so there's an incentive for vendors to make faster flash. (3 years ago SSDs were 3% of the flash market, and the rest went into iPods, phones, and removable drives and cards - SSD vendors had to make do with flash that was designed for systems where you don't care about performance)
1) Of course a RAID can be used as a backup. RAID doesn't back itself up itself up but that's a different question.
2) How are tapes any better for linear writing than HDD?
3) Certainly tape drives can go a long time.
4) HDD can be used over and over as well.
5) If the volume of data is small the cost factor goes down which kills the only advantage of tape (other than longevity).
Hybrid drives are stupid
Apple seems to disagree with you.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
For laptops, maybe, but I've got plenty of spare bays in my desktop. I've got the OS and related stuff on a quarter-terabyte SSD, which is very nice, and data storage on a spinning terabyte, which works just fine. Combining the two would probably cost me more and would mean I'd have one storage device that could break in different ways.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I can purchase a 500 Gig SSD for less than a 500 Gig Hd as of 4 or 5 years ago. That's plenty of high speed room for the OS, Program, and mail.
Am I then only one that sees that price gouging is going on with SSDs?
I bought my Corsiar 115gb SSD for $69.99 in July of 2012. That's almost 2 years ago. Today a generic 120gb SSD costs $69.99 from newegg. 5 more gb, same price 2 years later. If I want a Corsiar SSD again, a 120gb one costs $109, $40 *more* than what I paid 2 years ago!
More manufactures make SSDs now and more devices use SSD now, but you're going to tell me years later the prices haven't dropped?
Come on, give me a break, obvious price fixing is going on with SSD prices, I can't be the only one that sees this, when the was last time that prices on computer hardware went up years later? Never? This is just like the one billion dollar LCD price fixing scheme a few years ago, I'm sure this will be in the news a few years from now.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone