| ▲ | sandworm101 2 hours ago |
| Supply will not meet demand. What incentive do the handful of dram manufacturers have to end the party? This is what happens when legal monopolies finally win control. Dont't worry. The patents will expire in a few decades. Our grandkids will see DDR5 get cheap again. The system functions as intended. |
|
| ▲ | aDyslecticCrow an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| Patents is not the issue here. Not even close. The up-front investment of a memory fab is measured in billions, and takes years to construct and get running. The margin on the chips themselves is terrible, so without scale its not worth even trying. DDR5 is a industry standard that takes some effort to conform to, but the licence fees is a drop in the bucket to the cost of creating a fab. The fabricators were cautious about increasing production, and slow to start planning. It takes further time to build up capacity, and if the demand drops down, they may end up producing dram at a loss when the market flips over to oversupply. The demand whiplash could kill any company that dared betting on increasing production. See the "bullwhip effect" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullwhip_effect which has killed semiconductor fabricators before. There is a discussion to be had about how to maintain national semiconductor production in Europe and US as a strategic industry, but historic attempts have all failed. |
| |
| ▲ | Closi 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Billions is nothing in this market - if the market is supply constrained in the medium term then the hyperscalers will purchase their own route to manufacture (e.g. through coinvestment). Also that's not what the bullwhip effect is - although I know what you are saying. The bullwhip scenario is about the effect of communication and batching through various layers in the supply chain, this is more similar to the cobweb effect/theory. |
|
|
| ▲ | 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | fitblipper an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I have fairly simplistic view of the economics involved here. Could you explain why the ability to sell more chips wouldn't be sufficient enough incentive to increase supply? |
| |
| ▲ | brookst an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Not the person you’re replying to, but RAM has historically been a boom-or-bust business, and companies that invest to meet demand during a boom cycle usually have that new capacity come online just in time for the bust. If it was just variable costs and new capacity was available today they’d do it. But there are substantial fixed costs and delays to increasing capacity, and that uncertainty makes it risky. | | |
| ▲ | bigbadfeline 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's such a nonsensical argument, it holds for every other business too and in this case it's just a lame excuse for monopolization. If you are that chicken and can't stomach competition you should not be in business anyway. The current RAM manufactures were convicted of conspiracy to manipulate prices back in the 2000s or thereabout, doing so is their modus operandi, but this time the government is participating in the racket. |
| |
| ▲ | AlotOfReading 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Let's imagine you're drilling oil instead. You have to spend billions of dollars over years finding and developing a new oilfield to make any profit back. And once you have it, you have to continuously spend enormous amounts of money to keep producing it, which means your effective price floor is higher than the current stable price. Now it's 2021 and someone gets a tanker stuck in the Suez, sending the price of oil sky-high. How long does the ship have to be stuck before you spend those billions of dollars on a bet that it'll recoup before someone gets the ship out? | |
| ▲ | the_snooze an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bringing on new fabs takes many years and billions of dollars. You're exposing yourself to a lot of risk if you build now and find that the gold rush is over by the time your new capacity is online. | | | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|