DRAM Price Fixing Investigations 246
An anonymous reader writes "A few days ago after FTC antitrust charges against Rambus were thrown out, the U.S. Department of Justice and EU have both begun probes against the 4 largest memory makers in accusation of price fixing during 2001/2002. News.com.com has information regarding the pending EU investigation. Anandtech and Silcon.com both have primers on the U.S. investigation. If you thought you paid too much for RAM in 2002, chances are you may have been more right than you originally thought."
I need some clarification... (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's say I have a monopoly on widgets, or myself and my compeptitors agree to keep the price of widgets artificially high.
At what point are we no longer allowed to sell our widgets at whatever price we see fit? When do we cross over into breaking the law for price fixing?
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
That is where you cross the line
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or the printer manufacturers for price fixing on toner cartriges?
You see what I'm getting at? When is it illegal?
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
When you agree with another company to both keep the prices high. This stops one of the companies in the agreement from undercutting the other to achieve more sells, and keeps the profit margins for both in the agreement (artificially) high.
What you choose to do within your own company (razors, cartridges) is entirely up to you...
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect in those cases you have specifically designed a product that nobody else can make because if they do make it you'll sue them for copyright violation and/or DCMA violations. You don't have any motivation to lower your prices if nobody else has any motivation to make cartridges for your particular line of razors or printers -- mainly because they all have their own lines. If a third-party tries to make them you'll just sue them out of existence.
This might not be illegal per say but it's just as bad imho. My ass it costs $35 to make a 15ml blank ink cartridge or $10 to make eight replacement cartridges for my Mach Three Turbo.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Insightful)
Then that's a monopoly on that market... Which isn't in and of itself illegal. Prices couldn't be fixed in this case, because by definition, more than one party is required to fix the prices!
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:4, Informative)
If I remember my economics correctly, this is not true.
The competition between various economic entities just lower the prices, until reaching in perfect competition the cost of the last unit you will produce (marginal cost). But a monopoly can just fix the price, then swallowing a part of the customer saving, and wasting a part of the overall income (because fixing the price higher is just taking away some money the customer would have saved otherwise, and because raising the price automatically lower the quantities sold, thus triggering what has been called the Dead Weight Loss). It's really hard, actually, to determine how a price is fixed. From a neo-classissist point of view, which is probably one of the wrongest one, but probably the less disturbing one too, it is the value of how much work you put to produce that unit (FIXME if I'm wrong).
So, indeed, competition is good for pricing, but monopolies and oligopolies (?) are present, and sometimes justified when they are selling public goods with strong scale savings, in economic sectors that require huge investments (plane construction, water, electricity, etc.).
Monopoly isn't, as far as I know, forbidden in itself. This is preventing other companies from entering your market that is strictly forbidden (such as lowering the price so that new companies just can't bear the investment costs at such rates, or fusionning, or agreeing to keep prices high, or...)
And the original question is well valid, because when examining the legislations, you just notice that public goods monopolies aside, trials were intented when companies infringed on the very interest of the government, and when the government *could* have a chance to make those suits become effective.
Just to add my 0.002$, didn't you wonder why you just can't know how much you will pay your plane ticket, depending on when you buy it, from where (internet, phone, cashier) you buy it, and from which social class you belong ? It's just because those companies make their best to make you pay the max price for your ticket. Some very precise microeconomics studies are made to understand how much you are ready to pay for this seat on this plane. And this why, when you discuss, you can find people next seat who paid 30-50% more than you. For just the same crappy food, and tight seat...
This is the power of business ! :)
My economics english is bad, I know it. I never used such terms. Sorry...
Regards,
jdif
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2, Insightful)
slight flaw... (Score:4, Insightful)
A creator is granted copyright on something the moment that it is created regardless of whether the creator is a company or an individual or whether it took lots of money/effort or almost none to create.
Copyright is granted to give the creator a chance to make money from a creation, but the lack of such "return on investment" does not necessarily stifle creation..."Art for art's sake" and all that...
A bit more to the topic at hand, it does sometimes seem quite wrong that a copyright/patent holder can simultaneously price gouge the customer and prevent others from sometimes even mimicking the product and sell it at a lower price...I can understand patents on products that are quite expensive to develop, but as the grand-parent post said, razor refills and ink cartridges?...c'mon.
Actually...I guess I am somewhat split on the topic. On the one hand, as a creator (photographs and sometimes music) I can understand the desire to control how a creation is used, but on the other hand, as a consumer I would really like a cheaper product. There must be some kind of balance in there, right? Or must everyone be a profiteering glutton?
wrongo (Score:3, Informative)
Wrongo. They are given patents because they apply for them, regardless of what it costs to make said product. Even if there IS no product. Or if it is just an idea.
Copyrights are something inherent, you don't have to be assigned
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Interesting)
companies are given patents or copyrights for products that involve huge costs to develop. If it wasn't for copyrights, these companies would not make the initial investment because it would be significantly harder to earn back the cost if everyone could just copy your product.
And yet it is still not clear from a quantative standpoint exactly how much of a term of exclusivity is optimal for patent protection and for copyright.
You're right: if the term is too short or non-existent, you'll get less new pr
The law applies, but not the intent of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't believe me, then look at the profits HP makes on selling printer refills compared to _all_ of it's other business wings combined. (over half the total revenue). The fact that all printer manufactors engage in the same policy can be regarded as a new way around the price fixing problem.
Lets face it, the industry is deliberately vendor locking their customers and then charging ridiculous prices. Mum and Dad get sold on a wonderful printer that costs only $150, but then sigh in resignation when the salesman tells them that _all_ the ink cartridges are very expensive.
So they get around price fixing charges by all producing different (but functionally identical) components and over charging for them. Seems like the price fixing laws need to be fixed.
Re:The law applies, but not the intent of the law (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies shouldn't be punished for poor consumer choices. A customer who buys an ink jet printer should know that ink cartridges are expensive. There is an option to buy a laser printer, which has a higher initial price, but longer lasting cartridges. Quit micro-legislating businesses. Instead, get consumers to make more
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
While nobody else can make "Gillete Ultra Mach3 Turbo Platinum Edition refil blades", many other companies can and do make razor blades, not to mention a number of companies making electric razors. This effectively caps what Gillette can charge for its refils, there is some premium folks will pay for what they perceive brands name quality and superior product is worth, after which they will opt for the Schick Quattro, or maybe the Safeway d
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
Soetimes you're caught in a monopoly, and sometimes you aren't. For example, if you go with the leading edge razors, they seem to have some legal protection in the design of their replacement blades. This would be supported by the fact that they usually release 2 blade types for each handle (usually adding a lubricating strip in the second generation replacement). If you buy the ne
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are allowed to set the prices as they wish, and hence get into price wars from time to time
This is all fine and dandy, until the two managers get together and say, 'You know what, if we agree to keep our prices at $2.00 per burger, we both will make more money.' At that point it's illegal.
Gillette is not going with razorx and making deals nor printer manufactures.
understand?
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Insightful)
When there's going to be a price increase, one airline has to announce its increase to the world, they can't tell the competition first. Now, for a few hour, that airline is $20 higher than everybody flying the same route... who's going to buy tickets that route from that airline? Nobody. The ball is now in the court of all of the other airlines that fly that route... if they agree it's time for a price increase, they'll move their prices up to match. However, if a major player disagrees, they'll keep their prices where they are, and eventually everybody who raised their prices will realize this isn't going to stick, and the company that originally stated the fare hike will retract it.
Fare cuts move the same way. Once somebody announces a cut, everybody else has to either match it or wait for the airline who made the cut to get locked out of the market by filling up their planes.
That's how fair play happens without collusion. Those in charge of the prices have to guess what they other guys are going to do in the future, but once it's public information, everybody can use that info.
Gasoline (Score:2)
Locally, we had some of the cheapest gas in probably the entire province (Canada). Longtime gas-stations kept trying to raise the price, bumping to the 70-80c range. However, two of the newer stations in town - both attached to grocery outlets - consistently stayed 8-10c+ under the competetion.
Lea
Re:Gasoline (Score:2)
Again, so long as the mutually-profitable prices come as a result of reading each other signs, it's legal. It's only illegal if they start spreading their price information to competitors before offering it to the public.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a protectionism scheme between a manufacturer and resellers. If the reseller wants to carry the product, they agree not to sell it below the manufacturer sets. This protects smaller companies, like EB or Game Stop, from a place like Walmart who might be tempted to sell the units at or below cost to get people into the store.
Is it legal? I don't know. I don't like it, but
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
The justice department generally tries to avoid procecutions for anti-trust violations, which are very expensive and prefers to regulate the market by barring mergers which would reduce competition. However there was a ton of case law generated on these subjects from the turn of the century through the 1970s when suits were more common.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Informative)
I see only one company in this question so the answer is no.
Or the printer manufacturers for price fixing on toner cartriges?
If you found out that Epson, HP, Lexmark, etc. all agreed on the price of toner cartriges you would have a case. HP could charge $1000 for toner and it would not be illegal unless they had a deal with Epson, Lexmark, etc. to keep the price high.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
That is where you cross the line
The legal term is price collusion. I'd really like of someone could investigate gas prices. That's who I think is artificially keeping prices high.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
I live in Columbus Ohio. On the off chance that I need gas, it's a given that the price will be anywhere from 1.89/gal to 1.99/gal (for the 87 octane style...)
Now, on the days I DON'T need gas, the price has been as low as 1.59/gal. Why is there such variation? Also, if I go about 20 minutes out of town (to the truck stops) it's pretty steady at about 1.59/gal. What gives with the ups and downs?
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
The guy in the fuel station up the road I could plainly see was a penny cheaper, yet still punters came in and bought gas (petrol) from us like they always did.
Now I drive for a living and the money for my fuel comes out of my pocket. You can believe that I shop at Tesco fro my fuel. They guarantee to be cheaper than anywher
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously though, for the in town prices being higher there are a couple reasons. The cost of operating on more expensive land works its way into the price. There may also be city taxes involved as well.
As far as why it fluctuates from week to week, you should view the gas station as a very small futures market. They don't price the gas they have now based upon how much they paid for it. They price it based upon how much it will cost
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Informative)
Other gas stations make their money from maintenence and parts, or cigarettes, or deluxe car washes... you get the idea. Ever notice how few gas stations that only sell gas are left? That's be
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet we see more and more stations with debit/credit card payments right at the pump.
Ahh.. paradox..
Not really (Score:4, Informative)
Stations have looked at it. Turns out the people who use the pay at the pump are the people who would only buy gas anyway (often with the same credit /debit card that skims ~3% off the sale price), while those who buy the stuff inside go inside and buy it anyway.
With pay at the pump the don't need a clerk ($) to ring up sales for those who are only buying gas. Clerks costs money, if you can get by on one less clerk because of pay at the pump you are saving 5 bucks and hour. That adds up fast.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
That is where you cross the line
I'd like to point out exactly where "that" is in the sentence:
myself and my compeptitors agree to keep the price of widgets artificially high.
Some people seem to be missing the part about there needing to be two parties in collusion.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:2)
This would not be a monopoly but a cartel.
Re:I need some clarification... (Score:5, Informative)
If you all independently arrived at price X as being the point you can reasonably profit when taken against manufacturing costs, it's legal.
Whee! Here comes another check... (Score:5, Funny)
Man, I just deposited my $13.86 RIAA check yesterday.
If the money keeps rolling in like this from Big Greedy/Evil Organizations, I may quit my day job.
I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:2)
Even if that were true, it would be because PC133 isn't as common as it used to be. All new systems are using DDR (for the most part) nowadays, so manufacturers are not making as much PC133. Low supply == Higher Cost.
That being said, shuttle yourself over to Pricewatch [pricewatch.com] to find yourself 128MB PC133 sticks for $15.
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:2)
I paid $175 for a 32kB memory expansion... (And yes, that was before the invention of eBay.)
Not to speak of even higher prices for 5MB harddrives.
Re:that's nothing! (Score:2)
That's nothing! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:2)
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:5, Funny)
I realized this was happening years ago. My solution? Run with just 16 MB of RAM and a 4 GB swap partition. Sure, my machine gets a bit pokey but it keeps the cartel from stealing my money.
Ahh, my 'ls' from December just finished!
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:2)
Ahh, my 'ls' from December just finished!
Must have been a very small directory.
Re:I remember when 64MB of RAM was $1000 (Score:2)
James
Cheaper memory? (Score:4, Funny)
Uhh...no (Score:5, Interesting)
I paid 70 for a stick of 512mb in 2002. That may be expensive compared to now, but with my first 486 I paid the same price for a 4mb stick. Unless you own a server farm, what's 10 per half a gig or ram?
Re:Uhh...no (Score:3, Interesting)
Price Fixing? (Score:3, Informative)
Class Action! (Score:2, Funny)
Price fixing lawsuits are hard to try..... (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm willing to give any company the benefit of the doubt, it does seem rather suspicious that Micron chose to sell off their PC arm and focus instead on, the implied, more lucrative memory manufacturing business line. Circumstantial yes, but it never made sense why Micron would sell of a business line that was the only good alternative to Dell.
That being said, it's really hard for the DoJ to prove a conspiracy existed to fix prices of memory between manufactures. IANAL, however from my understanding basically a "smoking gun" would be the only way a conviction could be had - some emails between companies discussing price or marketing strategies perhaps. Other than that, it's almost impossible to get a price-fixing case with a favorable outcome for the prosecution.
Re:Price fixing lawsuits are hard to try..... (Score:5, Informative)
We have since gone to Dell, which are admittedly more expensive, but they work properly and have good support (though lately G'nesh Singh Bhudanaramading keeps answering the phone when we call- we never know what he is talking about, but when a new network card appears the next day, it usually fixes the problem...)
Re:Price fixing lawsuits are hard to try..... (Score:2)
Re:Price fixing lawsuits are hard to try..... (Score:2, Interesting)
"The consensus from all suppliers is that if Micron makes the move all of them will do the same and make it stick."
smells of gunpowder.
Re:Price fixing lawsuits are hard to try..... (Score:3, Interesting)
They lost $521 million [micron.com] in 2001
They lost $1025 Million [micron.com] in 2002
They lost $1273 million [micron.com] in 2003
Re:Price fixing lawsuits are hard to try..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Micron owned ~60% of MicronPC. The business was losing money at a fantastic rate and shareholder pressure was on Micron to divest itself of businesses that were not part of its core competency. MicronPC itself was straying well out of its own core business by operating a rather poorly-run Internet services company, as well as making a huge departure from its niche of being a no-compromise performance PC company. MicronPC was a terribly mismanaged company.
Micron either sold or closed a number of other businesses as well. The company used to be in the construction management business, RFID business, flat panel display business and property management business. They even manufactured semiconductor processing equipment. The problem was, though, that the company was a semiconductor manufacturer. During the dot bomb days, that was well and good, but, like many other companies that strayed from what they did best, when the bubble burst, Micron was stretched a little thin.
But, to the point, Micron did not sell MicronPC. They donated their entire holdings to the Micron Foundation. MicronPC "sold" (and by "sell" I mean that they paid Gores to take the business) the computer business to a turnaround company and merged with Interland to further its ISP business.
It's possible that 6 or 7 years ago MicronPC was a good alternative to Dell, but, up until a year or so ago, that certainly wasn't the case. As soon as MicronPC started trying to directly compete with Dell, the company began tanking. The product quality suffered tremendously and the company simply didn't have the management quality necessary to make the jump from a niche manufacturer to an industry giant. It's interesting that in the past year, MPC is now making a profit and building a focused range of no-compromise systems...much as it did in the early days.
Micron Technology recognized what was happening at MicronPC years ago and pretty much turned its back on MicronPC quite a while before the company split up.
-h-
Toner and Ink (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Toner and Ink (Score:3, Informative)
My answer (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Toner and Ink (Score:2)
WTF? More odd-ball /. comparisons (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to see the price of a good steak go down. Cows seem so simple, I wonder why meat costs so much. A cheap calculator is far more complicated to manufacture. Yet the prices are very similar.
[insert your nonsensical comparison here]
Re:Toner and Ink (Score:2, Interesting)
Sod the cartridges. They are cheap and easy to manufacture. The ink itself though, is expensive. A while ago I had to undergo so HP presentations for retailers ( Think of a peptalk... I did leave with a rocking HP mug btw :) ) and part of the whole talk included as to why the prices on all equipment is to be considered decent, despite the public's idea of ink being ridiculously expensive. The reasons given were vague, partly marketing speak, partly due to the fact we had a shipment arriving at the same time
Uh huh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Similar economics exist for the HP and Epson printers I've owned.
And, the ink is just as good, if not better. I've done both color comparisons and long-term (2 years in sunlight) fad
Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read cases where the same laws have been used to prosecute companies no matter what they do:
A law that you can't know you're breaking in advance is no law: it's a license for prosecutors to go after anybody.
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:5, Informative)
If you price your product BELOW COST, you can be accused of predatory pricing. Without this rule, no small manufacturer could ever reasonable compete against an established one. The one with the large market share would simply undercut the competition by selling at a loss and ride on its existing resources until the competition went under. If you set a price higer than a competitor, it is used as evidence of an "abusive monopoly position" Only if coupled with other factors, such as anti-competitive \ exclusive contracts with related parties. Case in point, Microsoft's contracts with computer OEMs preventing them from bundling other OSes on the same computer as Windows. BeOS - overall, a superior product - went under because of precisely this. They had no chance to compete and prove themselves on an open market because of Microsoft's restrictive contracts. (which, in turn, no OEM would break because of Microsoft's ownership of the home market)
If you set the same price as a competitor, it is evidence of "price fixing"
CAN be, but only very rarely. As was pointed out in another post above, price-fixing \ cartel cases are spectacularly difficult to prove and usually require a "smoking gun" as evidence. The government even launching such a case is itself evidence that they have a load of proof on their side. Otherwise, it's assumed to be the result of normal market pressures. (why, for example, all the major computer brands cost about the same - prices have trended downwards since the 80s until it's hit a point that it's extremely difficult to get any cheaper and still profit. That's not price-fixing, it's the Free Market actually working as it's supposed to.)
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:2)
So this was predatory price fixing??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So this was predatory price fixing??? (Score:2)
Um... How can it be "predatory" if everyone is engaging in the practice? By definition, predators require prey.
Anyway, I was responding with general arguments against the equally general arguments of the parent. I didn't mention the specific RAM case once
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:2)
There are, otherwise, two issues at play. First of all is that the X-Box is being kicked
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:2)
If BeOS had been allowed to be bundled on thousands or millions of home computers, there would have bee
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:3, Informative)
However, I have been involved in training and training others on competition and competition law.
You're not quite right in saying the same laws are being used - it's the same overall competition legislation, but the three cases you've mentioned relate to very different clauses and laws within that legislation.
I can't speak for the US, but in the UK it's basically like this. .
1. You can only be accused of predatory pricing in a specific circumst
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:3, Interesting)
How is a "loss" for software calculted? If you sell 1 copy for $10 million or 10 copies for a $1 million, the result is the same (assuming the physical media and distribution price is zero). What if they sell it for $1 and sell 10 million copies? How can software really be sold for a loss? It is not a physical product that nee
Re:Anti-trust can bite my ass... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you set a price lower than your competitor, you can be accused of "predatory pricing"
Only if you enter a market with a price that's below cost with the intent of raising your prices once you've knocked out your competitors.
If you set a price higer than a competitor, it is used as evidence of an "abusive monopoly position"
Huh? If you have a competitor, you can't abuse your monopoly because you don't have one.
If you set the same price as a competitor, it is evidence of "price fixing"
Price fixing can't happen if the prices aren't even, but there's still more that needs to be proven. Is there an under the table agreement to keep the prices where they are? If so, that's price fixing, if not, then that's just the free market having agreed on a price... any player can try to deviate from that price if they want to, but moving up would mean less market share, and moving down would lower profits in a way that wouldn't be made up by the volume.
WTF? Is it still 1993?!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:WTF? Is it still 1993?!!! (Score:2)
Re:WTF? Is it still 1993?!!! (Score:2, Informative)
Try a search around, PC100 is not nearly as cheap as it used to be, due to diminished supply and demand for faster stuff. Of course, used is another matter altogether, YMMV.
Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
Market fixes itself in this case (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Market fixes itself in this case (Score:4, Insightful)
The alternative point of view would be to say, at the time they (allegedly) did this, they obviously felt that this illegal act would bring them higher profits. That the market would shift to deny them their profits could not be forseen. So at the time, it was an illegal act with the intention of garnering ill-gotten gains. (allegedly)
While I can see your position, from a larger societal standpoint, I can't support only prosecuting cases of illegal acts in the event that they succeed. Taking that standpoint would, in some ways, encourage illegal (AKA antisocial) actions, since the odds of being caught and punished suddenly go down.
Re:Market fixes itself in this case (Score:2)
This is in part why some business people would be able to get off the hook if they just cooperated with the investigations, but instead overcompensate and get charged for covering up the crime they thought they comitted even though they didn't quite make it.
Re:Market fixes itself in this case (Score:2)
Rambus was expensive, deal with it. (Score:2, Insightful)
When rambus hit the streets it was way too expensive, incompatible and a one man show. The price was only one factor, and allthough a major one, I think many regarded rambus like people regard intel itanium. An incompatible architecture that is way too expensive comparing to the competitors
I was just thinking about RAM prices... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying that price fixing shouldn't be punished but that comparison pretty much puts things in context. When it comes to putting together a PC, getting a decent amount of memory isn't as financially crippling as it once was.
Prices in 2002 weren't bad (Score:4, Funny)
Too Bad About Rambus (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO is doing just about the same thing as Rambus, but with much less success. Participate in Linux/UNIX standards groups, but later claim to own those standards and begin suing everyone.
so, class action lawsuit soon (Score:5, Interesting)
In the past month, apparently I've been involved in at least 3 class action lawsuits. Both my wife and I got checks for $13.86 from connecticut's part in suing the record labels over overpriced CDs. Both of us have gotten paperwork regarding whatever claims are against Microsoft and software purchased in the late 90s (couple window versions, offices, etc.). I just submitted something for a company who were apparently inflating their stock value (or something) while I owned a number of their shares. And I can't even recall doing anything to get involved in the lawsuit to begin with. That's the best part. Christmas in March. I love it.
So, when are the consumers going to sue and and how do I convince the authorities to go after Corsair, as that's the only memory I purchased in that timeframe?
Re:so, class action lawsuit soon (Score:2)
> to go after Corsair, as that's the only memory I purchased in that timeframe?
You must have to rent storage space for all your receipts.
My dad talks about.... (Score:4, Funny)
Back in the day when punch cards were book marks...
Back in the day when minimum wage actually kept you alive...
Back in the day...
-Grump
price of memory stuck for two years (Score:5, Informative)
The price plateaus when a chip generation matures. The next 4x generation seems a bit delayed.
and.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Racing to the bottom (Score:5, Insightful)
Much of the time, there's no money to be made. Much of the time, just about everyone runs at a loss. The industry is also cyclical, and sometimes there's good money to be made. It doesn't help that it takes serious time to build a chip, so build-to-order doesn't really work very well. There's also time involved in packaging chips into a usable form, especially because it may involve transportation to a remote site. This aspect may be key, later.
IF there is price-fixing involved, and I suspect that there really isn't, it's the general idea of flattening out the bottom of the price curve a little in the cycle. I suspect it's far more likely that memory makers have decided, "It's just not worth bringing memory to market for less than $xx.xx." Remember the thing about packaging? At some price point, it may be better to not even bother packaging chips. It may even be better to grind them back into sand. Each manufacturer has different costs, but they're all doing the same thing. I suspect that they all have different, but similar package/hold/destroy price points for their chips.
This might appear to be price-fixing, but isn't. It's simple economics.
Years back, I bought my Mom a pair of earrings made from defective 4Mbit chips I had worked on for 6 or 7 dollars. At the time, perfect chips were selling on the open market for $4.50.
after the kobe earthquake (Score:2, Insightful)
be thankful they dont limit the supply again, debeers style.
It's too late now (Score:2)
Even if the case went the way of the consumers two years later, the damage has already been done.
Maybe big brother should investigate microsoft. (Score:3, Interesting)
What about DDR in early 2003? (Score:3, Interesting)