The only thing the US could feasibly implement is forcing micron to allocate a certain amount of its production for consumer use

▲

alex43578 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Why? Why is consumer use vs corporate use a higher and better priority meriting such an intrusive regulation?

▲

angoragoats 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Because extreme corporate use, that is, what is happening now where a majority of supply is locked up ahead of time via B2B back-room deals, is anti-consumer. Unregulated, it is easy to see how this could lead to a perpetual "rent everything" dystopian environment for consumers.

▲

alex43578 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Every use of DRAM is a corporate use, with the best consumer-friendly examples like Apple’s efforts to hold down prices (until today) being thanks to “back room deals”. Nobody’s buying some DRAM to build a memory stick in their garage.

Apple, Raspberry Pi, Supermicro, and OpenAI all have the same claim to supply you do: you can buy it with money, with the seller being allowed to charge what they want. In fact, high prices are going to be the only way to stimulate supply and encourage the billion dollar investment in additional memory fabs. Price controls or other supply-killing mechanisms are known not to work - it’s Econ 101.

	▲	angoragoats 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You ignored the part where I mentioned "extreme" and "locked up." To be fair I wasn't necessarily clear what those meant. I'm specifically referring to the deal(s) that OpenAI signed which reserved an outsized chunk of the memory supply, for what is apparently speculative future hardware that hasn't been built yet, or at least to build hardware that no consumer or business will ever be able to physically purchase. Hopefully you'll agree that there's a difference between even a large buyer like Apple reserving a large chunk of DRAM supply to put in their products that they sell to consumers, and the anti-competitive behavior by OpenAI that I describe above.