Hard Drive Prices Hitting New Lows

Lucas123 writes "The average price of notebook hard drives tumbled to $53 in the third quarter of 2007, from $86 in the same period during the previous year, according to a survey by a market research firm. The price drop can be accredited to competition among six vendors, enormous demand for PCs and consumer electronics as well as evolving flash memory drives. 'Lower-capacity notebook drives showed smaller price drops, while newer high-capacity drives saw massive price drops ... Notebook drives with 320GB of storage will drop as a result of the addition of new features, while prices will stabilize on lower-capacity notebook storage devices like 80GB hard drives.'"

Enormous demand equals lower prices?

[spun]

Me fail economics? That's unpossible!

Re:Enormous demand equals lower prices?

[Kopiok]

It could be that the enormous demand is making mass production more profitable, and also leading to cheaper manufacture methods.

Re:Enormous demand equals lower prices?

[JonathanR]

No. Economics doesn't work that way. What it is is enormous investment in captial equipment combined with the lag between initial investement and full scale procution eventually leads to market oversupply, which is why the prices are reducing. Prices are lowered, margins get tighter, so production is ramped up to compensate.

Unless there is an opportunity to continue introducing 'premium' products (i.e. large capacity, or new features) using the same production technologies, then the margins get so tight that the weakest producer goes bust and/or is bought out by one of the stronger players.

Re:

[Calinous]

Memory manufacturers know this - oversupply (due to desire to increase market share, overestimation of demand and so on) leads to decreased prices. It happened before, it will happen again.
      Anyway, as the market sends more money in laptops than in desktops, increased production lessen the R&D costs per unit sold, and economies of scale allow lower prices also. High competition forces cost cutting measures (if I have a huge profit, I don't need to cut costs)

Re:

[aztracker1]

Now, just explain that to the gas conspiracy theorists... different market, but the same rules tend to apply... Then again, I work from home 4 days a week...

Re:Enormous demand equals lower prices?

[Itchyeyes]

Enormous demand only means increasing prices if supply stays limited. As the article notes, though competition to meet that demand is fierce between the vendors, meaning increasing supply with demand and increased economies of scale, hence lower prices.

Being born causes death

[spun]

I must have missed the place in the article where the author makes the claim that enormous demand equals lower prices. Here I was thinking that it was the enormous supply. Brought on by competition, yes, which was brought on by the demand, yes, but that's a whole chain of cause and effect.

To say that enormous demand means lower prices is about as meaningful as saying that being born causes death.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Enormous demand equals lower prices?"

Enormous demand + high competition = lower prices.

Not unpossible.

Re:

[UncleTogie]

Enormous demand + high competition = lower prices.

Not always. Enormous demand + high competition + low supply == high prices...usually.

Re:

[TheRaven64]

Only in the presence of a cartel. In the absence of a cartel, the producer with the lowest overheads will expand to meet the size of the market, eliminating the 'high competition' part of the equation. At this point, you have a monopoly and the price rises to whatever the market will accept.

Re:

[spun]

Well, that's true, but not the point. Enormous demand equals higher prices which means more sellers entering the market, i.e. high competition. And then prices fall. It's a system, and the chain of events leads to lower prices. But the direct effect of higher demand is higher prices, and it is simple economic illiteracy to claim otherwise.

Enormous sloppiness

[fm6]

And in fact TFA doesn't say that. It does say that PC demand is way up, but doesn't draw a connection between that and falling disk prices.

There is a connection, but it's the other way: cheaper drives means cheaper PCs mean more people buy PCs.

Re:Enormous demand equals lower prices?

[morcego]

That is not "unpossible".

Mass production is only viable with high demand. I'm not sure if you ever tried to negotiate shipment from a Taiwanese company. When they say 100, they are talking about 100 thousand units. 10K units is what they call a "small shipment". But I digress.

Anyway, a good part of the cost of a product is related to development. Creating new technologies is expensive. Several other costs don't scale directly with the number of items. So the greater the production, the smaller the cost per unit.

Add to that 5 other companies doing the same math, competing for the same market, and the prices will drop the higher the demand.

Ever since Henry Ford, the simple law of "supply and demand" is not so simple anymore. More often than not, the higher the demand, the lower the prices.

Re:

[billcopc]

If I were manufacturing the cheapest junk ever build, I'd want to coax my suckers into buying big too, because the same client won't be coming back, ever!

Seriously, we need to turn this garbage culture back around. Things are being designed to the very limit of human tolerance. I don't need gadgets that break every six months, I already own a f**king car.

Re:

[mpe]

Anyway, a good part of the cost of a product is related to development. Creating new technologies is expensive. Several other costs don't scale directly with the number of items. So the greater the production, the smaller the cost per unit.

Also building a plant of manufacture something together getting it up and running can be a high initial expense.

Re:Enormous demand equals lower prices?

[Gospodin]

Ever since Henry Ford, the simple law of "supply and demand" is not so simple anymore. More often than not, the higher the demand, the lower the prices.

That's a shame - you were on a roll, writing the truth, etc. Then you wrote the above and went right off a cliff.

There's a lot of economic illiteracy in this thread, so let me clear up a couple of things. The law of supply and demand is basically a static law, making the implicit assumption that the supply and demand curves won't change (i.e. that supply and demand respond only to price, ignoring capital improvement, consumer needs, etc.). Since it's (nearly) always the case that, ignoring these other factors, higher prices result in lower demand and higher supply, the demand curve is downward sloping the the supply curve is upward sloping. Therefore, if the demand curve shifts up (which is what we mean when we say that "demand has increased"), the price will go up.

What you're talking about is that suppliers are predicting this and building out capital to expand capacity. This shifts the supply curve up. When both the supply and demand curves rise, the price may rise, stay the same or fall, and volume always increases. Your contention that prices will fall is simply untrue - what is true is that since marginal unit cost of production (esp. of tech products) tends to fall over time, supply can sometimes be increased dramatically. This is all perfectly captured by the old, boring law of supply and demand.

Thank you.

[spun]

I knew there would be a lot of people trying to explain why higher demand would equal lower prices, but I also knew there would be people like you, who actually understand economics, who would set them straight.

Re:

[david.given]

Your contention that prices will fall is simply untrue.

But they do fall. Always. (Well, for mass produced goods.) The unit cost of mass producing an item falls as the number of items being produced rises --- this is what mass production is for. Therefore, if demand rises, then eventually (as you say) more production capability will be built and supply will increase --- but now they're being produced more efficiently, therefore they're available at a lower price. The causality chain is clear: if demand goe

Re:

[Gospodin]

There are all sorts of events that can mess up your clear causality. What if labor costs fall relative to capital? What if the cost of a key input goes up? You're certainly correct that as a general rule increased production (not demand, though - you slightly misspoke on that point) leads to lower marginal unit costs of production. But this rule is not as universal as the law of supply and demand and certainly does nothing to invalidate it, as the GP was implying.

Re:

[petermgreen]

It depends on what the product in question is.

In the short term high demand generally means higher prices. As the price rises demand decreases and supply may increase until supply and demand are once again balanced.

In the long term for manufactured goods high demand means that design, factory setup and other fixed costs can be amortised over more units. In a competive market where supply is plentifull that will drive prices down.

Re:

[sootman]

In a roundabout way, yes. Enormous demand leads to competition and economies of scale.

Breaking news

[Stormwatch]

This news just in: technology advances and gets cheaper. Film at eleven.

When News Breaks...

[Tetsujin]

Coming Summer 2008:

Roger Moore is a technology analyst caught up in a web of deceit and decreasing prices in the new suspense thriller: Moore's Law!

Re:Breaking news

[Sloppy]

It sort of is news. My experience up to now is that bang-per-buck increases, but the price of a widget didn't necessarily change much, even if this year's widget was 50x bigger/faster/more_reliable/prettier than the widget of ten years ago.

In 2000, I bought a video card (Matrox G400MAX, which I'm still using) for about $160, I think. What does a video card cost today? It's hard to say, since there's a lot of variety. But speaking very generally, a video card costs about the same.

Re:Breaking news

[matt21811]

I studied this with hard disks and my data showed that the "sweet spot" hard disk (the drive with the best bang for buck) has actually steadily decreaased over time.
You can see the chart at the bottom of this page:
http://www.mattscomputertrends.com/harddrives.html [mattscomputertrends.com]
look in the Annual Sweet Spot Price Trends section.

Basically, my data disagrees with you. The average drive is getting cheaper.

Re:Breaking news

[dgatwood]

I'm not so sure about those trends. At least in the U.S., my experience has been that the average drive is slowly getting cheaper, but only if you pay full retail. What I'm seeing in my purchasing is a greater and greater reluctance by merchants to deeply discount hard drives. Where once we had $80-100 mail-in rebates, we now have $30 mail-in rebates or no rebates at all. The actual cost from what I'm seeing is staying roughly the same at the sweet spot. The only difference is that now I pay $100 at the register instead of paying $160 and getting a $60 rebate check after several months. Don't get me wrong---I much prefer not having to deal with the rebate B.S., but you can't ignore that comparing raw prices is something of an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Your mileage may vary, of course. I haven't looked back at register receipts or anything, and it probably doesn't help that I've sworn off Western Digital after a long string of premature drive failures. The brand limitations and the departure of several manufacturers from the market makes any useful tracking a bit harder for me. That said, I'm not perceiving prices (at the sweet spot) as being significantly lower than they were five years ago.

Re:Breaking news

[matt21811]

Australia doesnt have a retail culture of rebates. It never has had one. The price used is the lowest advertised price found in a reputable computer magazine. This means the prices are good representation of what people payed for the drive at the time. It's Apples to Apples.

Re:

[danomac]

In the long run it seems to be going down. But what about years 94, 95, and 98? We could be in store for another spike. Those spikes are not really predictable, nor is their duration.

Did you guess I'm a pessimistic person? :o)

Re:

[default luser]

You've got a nice set of data, but you fail to note one thing: your "sweet-spot" price graph is bottoming-out.

You can't expect to see drive prices freefall forever. There is some minimum amount that drive makers have to charge to recoup the cost of building a sealed metal container, an electric motor, a high-precision metal/glass disk, and a high-precision GMR head and actuator. The cost of aluminimum and rare earth magnets all have minimums, and those are about as low as they'll ever get.

In the past, dri

Re:

[HockeyPuck]

Mod this parent down... not insightful.

In 2000, I bought a video card (Matrox G400MAX, which I'm still using) for about $160, I think. What does a video card cost today? It's hard to say, since there's a lot of variety. But speaking very generally, a video card costs about the same.

You bought a G400MAX in 2000 for $160, a card with the exact same capabilities 7 years later would certainly cost less today. Now what you may trying to say is that "a reference card" (which you G400MAX could be classified as, always costs "about $160", however the capabilities of "a reference card" increase year after year.

Re:

[desmodromic]

um, hello? that's exactly what the "not insightful" parent was saying.

Re:

[Crazyswedishguy]

Hmm, that's actually what he said. He stated that an average video card costs about the same now as it did in 2000, even if you get more bang for your buck now.

His point is that it's surprising to him that a hard drive in a laptop costs considerably less today than last year. He would expect it to have much greater capacity, but cost around the same price as last year.

Re:

[morcego]

His premises are totally wrong.

The "average" video card today is an IGP. So the cost for an average video card is much lower.

Back in 2000 (and before), onboard video was not the rule. These days, most people use it. So the demand for off-board video cards has (and a market share) decreased. Today (guessing here), 1 out of 30 computers uses an off board card (consider business computers here, because you cry foul). Back in 2000, it was 1 in 4, if not more.

Even if you think about offboard cards, the "average"

Re:

[Crazyswedishguy]

I don't disagree with the extensive research you've done, but you've missed the point.

(actually you did contradict yourself, when stating that

the demand for off-board video cards has [...]decreased

and then saying

Even thou [...] the market share of offboard cards has decreased, the absolute number of cards sold has increased

- market share has decreased, but demand hasn't if more cards are sold)

The point is that in general gadgets get better, but year-over-year prices for a "standard" gadget don't change considerably (keep in mind inflation before you start quoting prices from the 80s!).
A standard laptop is probably around $1,200, and that's about what it was

Re:

[morcego]

Actually, you will notice that the phrase "and a market share" doesn't make sense. It was a typo. I intended to write "as a market share", meaning that the relative demand has decreased.

I do understand your post, and I agree it is true for most things. Not (as TFA states) for hard disks. And neither (as I stated) for video cards.

So yes, the concept you are presenting is valid. My point was not against TFA, but against the post using video cards as a valid example. It is not, and I showed.

Re:

[Calinous]

Matrox was a bit of a speciality builder of video cards. When taking into account an G400Max, you should compare it with today's professional graphic cards (the cheaper models, yes, but professional - FireGL from ATI or Quadro from NVidia).

Re:

[morcego]

Don't tell it to me. Tell it to the guy who said it was the "average" video card of those days.

Re:

[Dahamma]

You can clearly see you are wrong by just looking at prices in the aggregate (ie whole computer systems, ie all computer components put together - CPU, memory, HDD, GPU, display...). A top of the line laptop from 5 years ago was twice what a top of the line laptop costs today. Desktop computers have undergone the same or more.

Of course, there will always be the early adopter/enthusiast/moron who wants to pay $600 for a graphics card. But if you are willing to settle for 2/3 the performance at 1/3 the pri

Re:

[Sloppy]

Cheaper than a C64 in 1983? ;-)

Re:

[Dahamma]

A 1983 MSRP of $595 is almost $2000 in 2007 dollars... so, yes! ;-P

Re:

[Tom Womack]

But most people don't need a video card nowadays, it's integrated in the north-bridge chip on the motherboard, and the difference between a board with video on the motherboard and without video is about twelve pounds, for video a lot better than the G400MAX can offer. The way to get things really cheap is to lose the PCB and interconnects entirely, and put them on a chip that you'd have had to manufacture anyway.

Re:

[timeOday]

Actually notebook hard drive technology and pricing was relatively stagnant for years. I'm glad to see it advance again.

well, duh ... ?

[weighn]

Lower-[end technology] showed smaller price drops, while [higher-end technology] saw massive price drops

whodathunkit?

Cheap enough to use powers of two?

[Besna]

Something like 512GB makes it obvious that's 512GiB. And I obviously want 512GiB in my laptop.

This IS news

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously things get better and cheaper as time goes on - but you spend the same. One year you get a 20GB drive for $100, the next year you get a 40GB for $100, the next year 80GB for $100, etc. What's happening now is that people are getting bigger drives for much cheaper than the previous year.

Re:

[tppublic]

What's happening now is that people are getting bigger drives for much cheaper than the previous year.

The article is making a statement on $/drive. You're referring to $/bit. The problem is that $/drive is also impacted by bit/drive.

Thus, your case is not necessarily what the report says, since it's only measuring the average drive price, and not the price per bit.

The scenario could just as easily be:

One year you get a 20GB drive for $100, the next year you get a 40GB for $100, the next year 40GB

Re:

[ChrisA90278]

That's one idea that the size of a $100 dive falls. That means people want/need a larger drive but can only spend $100.

What's happened now is that the $100 drive has gotten larger than people need so finally that can drop down to the $80 drive

Also, Loss Leaders

[Glowing Fish]

I am assuming that a lot of this comes from pressures from customers, or retail stores, to keep prices down. At least on flashy equipment that customers will go for. I've noticed that RAM and hard drive prices are getting ridiculously cheap.

Some things, however, seem to be way overpriced. Go to bestbuy.com (for example), and do a search for items like parallel, power, USB, VGA or DVI cables. A parallel cable, for example (a fancy gold one, true) costs $29. A six foot USB cable costs $35. Even a power cable costs $12.

Hard drives have lots of moving parts, and chips and electronics. Cables are, more or less, lengths of wire, with probably around 50 cents worth of copper in most of them. I am assuming that stores are keeping down prices on flashy items so they can then get customers to pay way too much for utility items.

Re:Also, Loss Leaders

[TrekkieGod]

Some things, however, seem to be way overpriced. Go to bestbuy.com (for example)

Well, you picked a place that sells way overpriced stuff. Especially cables. People keep telling me how HDMI cables cost $100, and if you're trying to buy them at Best Buy, you do find them at that price (although, I'm now finding "cheaper" cables. $49.99 [bestbuy.com] is the cheapest I've found there. It says it's an "xbox hdmi cable", I assume microsoft doesn't have a proprietary plug and that's just a regular hdmi cable. If it's not a regular hdmi cable, then the cheapest is a $79.99 4' cable instead. On the other hand, if you do a simple google search, you'll easily find 6' cables for $6.99 [firefold.com]. Same for most other cables.

The lesson...stuff is getting cheaper, but you need to shop around before you buy. These days, with the convenience of the 'net, you have no excuse not to.

Re:

[edmudama]

I've used monoprice.com for a lot of my HD cabling, they all seem to be of excellent quality, and order processing is fast.

Re:

[Glowing Fish]

Perhaps you misunderstood my point, because your point is the exact same as mine.

This is my point exactly, that cables and whatnot are cheap, if you shop well. I know this, I work in a store that sells USB cables for a dollar and power cables for 25 cents.

Which is why, see, I made a point about "loss leaders". Those are underpriced items (sometimes above cost, sometimes at, sometimes below) that retailers use to get customers into a store so that they will pick up other items that are being sold at very hig

Actually...

[TrekkieGod]

Perhaps you misunderstood my point, because your point is the exact same as mine.

Sorry, I did understand your point, but got stuck on the cable thing and didn't finish the argument. My fault.

The point I was trying to make was that bestbuy just sells overpriced stuff. Period. They're not selling hard drives as loss leaders to get people to buy their other stuff. Their hard drives (cheapest internal 500gb $139.99) [bestbuy.com] are also overpriced compared to other places ($99.99, same specs) [newegg.com]

They're especially bad with things that are supposed to be extremely cheap, like cables, but nothing

Buy Cables Elsewhere

[Kenshin]

Last month I bought a printer at Future Shop. It was a great deal. Then they wanted $30 for a 6' USB cable. I said, "Thanks, but I don't need one."

I took the printer, and walked across the street to a dumpy local computer place. I bought a 10' USB cable from them for $5, and since they saw me coming from Future Shop they laughed (knowing the situation) and knocked the tax off too.

NEVER, EVER buy cables from Future Shop, Best Buy, or any other place like that.

Re:

[Belial6]

Take a walk into a 99 cent store sometime. Most of them now carry USB and Firewire cables at... You guessed it... 99 Cents. It is hard to believe that people are spending upward of $20 for a cable that obviously can be sold for $1 at a profit.

Re:

[geekoid]

You do need to look at quality..no I am not talking about some magical the bits will sound better quality, I am talking about the connectors and the connections to them, as well as the connector shielding.

Re:

[Belial6]

Which is why you should keep paying $30 for cables. I have never had a problem with the $1 cables, so I keep the other $29 for something else. Your experiences may be different, but your warning sounds like a lot of FUD. Of course it is worries like yours that keeps people paying $30 for a USB cable.

Re:

[TheRaven64]

A free market depends on an informed buyer. Any situation in which the seller has more information than the buyer is not a true free market (as such, free markets are about as common as invisible pink unicorns).

Re:

[revengebomber]

Cables are, more or less, lengths of wire, with probably around 50 cents worth of copper in most of them.

But lengths of wire are essential to anything, right up to starships! Here, let me show you some of the various lengths of wire I used to build mine...

iPod question

[ThirdPrize]

Any idea what the largest hard drive you can get into an 80Gb iPod Video case is? Would it work out cheaper than getting a new higher capacity iPod?

Re:

[xouumalperxe]

Trouble is that iPods are made with 1.5" drives, which are nowhere near as popular as 2.5" or 3.5" drives, so much harder to actually get your hands on. Also, I have no clue what sort of price you'll have to pay for the one unit you want for the iPod case, as most of the 1.5" market is in the small device sector (mostly video/music players, I'd wager), and not really aimed at direct sales to the public.

Re:

[TheRaven64]

Unless they've shrunk them recently, the use 1.8" drives, not 1.5". I am somewhat amazed by the density of these drives; you can get an iPod with the same capacity 1.8" drive as the 2.5" drive in my MacBook Pro. When I bought the PowerBook that it replaced, the largest 1.8" drivers were a quarter of the capacity of the PowerBook's drive. I'm quite surprised we don't see them in subnotebooks.

Base conversion problem?

[dfsmith]

Anyone else notice that 0x53 == 83. Maybe the price only dropped $3 and they're taking no chances now that G no longer means "giga".

At least I'll have porn.

[Usekh]

Well with petrol prices going up I won't be able to get anywhere And with food prices soaring I won't have the energy anyway But at least I will have plenty of space to store my porn for those long lonely nights at home

Whats after Terabyte?

[headkase]

I have exactly one terabyte of HD space - that much was unimaginable to me only a few short years ago. Remember when Windows 95 only used somewhere around the neighborhood of 50MB? With todays OS storage requirements sitting around one GB it's not unimaginable anymore that someday the OS alone will be a terabyte (although I can't imagine what it would contain) and overall hard drives will be truly unimaginable sizes by todays standards.

Re:

[Chabil Ha']

I can't imagine what it would contain

Lot's of useless shiny.

Re:

[guderian68]

Exabyte is 1000 terabytes, or 10^18 bytes.

Re:

[epylar]

An exabyte is 1,000,000 terabytes. (An exbibyte is 1,048,576 tebibytes.)

Re:

[MBGMorden]

Nope, a exabyte is 1,048,576 terabytes. These terms were defined at the begining of the computing age, and no ammount of emo whining is gonna let them be redefined to something different. Several hard drive manufacturers just lost a class action lawsuit using the logic you just posted.

Re:

[Tribbin]

There are distribution creators pushing to many different directions. One of them is keeping it small. I think the growth of the 'operating system' will more or less flatten out.

http://damnsmalllinux.org/ [damnsmalllinux.org]

Re:

[ianare]

I certainly hope so. How shiny do you need your icons?

Re:

[petermgreen]

IIRC DSL is woody based. If that is still the case then unless they have been doing a lot of work themselves the software is probablly littered with security holes. Maybe acceptable for a livecd but not for a main desktop OS.

Re:

[danomac]

Remember when Windows 95 only used somewhere around the neighborhood of 50MB? With todays OS storage requirements sitting around one GB...

I don't know when you last looked at OS requirements being around 1GB, unless you meant 1GB of RAM. Sure, I can get linux installed on a 3GB hard drive (albeit really cramped), but Windows? Not a chance... The mainstream uses XP (for now) and a clean install with patches sits around 4GB. A bare-bones install on Vista on my laptop is almost 9GB. I don't know exactly wha

Re:

[IANAAC]

The mainstream uses XP (for now) and a clean install with patches sits around 4GB.

I don't believe this to be true. I have a fully updated XP install, albeit in VMWare, that takes just under 4 Gig with full Office 2003, as well as several other third party apps.

Re:

[syukton]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte [wikipedia.org]

Byte, Kilobyte, Megabyte, Gigabyte, Terabyte, Petabyte, Exabyte, Zettabyte, Yottabyte.

Interesting to note that from Terabyte onwards aren't in the default word dictionary for Firefox v2.0.0.9.

Anyhow, what would be in a futuristic one-terabyte OS? Well, name something your operating system does now and imagine how it could be better. Instead of a calendar, an entire multimedia almanac. Instead of a system clock, a functional world (or possibly even off-world/world-neutral) cl

80GB prices WILL go down significantly

[switcha]

How do i know 80 GB prices are sure to drop drastically?

I just bought one.

time for economics 101, zonk

[blueZ3]

Higi demand doesn't drive prices down. Competition might be a factor, as might economies of scale. Demand, not so much

Re:

[Locklin]

You're forgetting that with most technology, R&D is much more expensive than production.Thus, the more you sell, the cheaper the overhead (per unit).

Re:

[TheDugong]

So competition and economies of scale can exist without demand?

MS-OS = 75% of disk

[peter303]

Dont worry, when you up grade tp 200GB, the Vista service pack will consume 150GB.

Too bad

[ShawnCplus]

Well it looks like it now costs more to drive to the store than it actually does to buy the hard drive.

Great for a portable music collection

[bulletman]

I find these notebook hard drives to be great for a portable music collection. I just copy my home iTunes folder to a notebook drive in a USB enclosure, and take it to work. I can't put songs on my work hard drive (backing up costs money), but no problem if I take the hard drive with me. I also rip exclusively in lossless formats.

Stephen

Streaming

[meehawl]

I just copy my home iTunes folder to a notebook drive in a USB enclosure, and take it to work.

Carrying disks?!? I just use Media Center [jrmediacenter.com] to stream my audio and video over the internet [jrmediacenter.com] from my server to whatever clients I like. I've used Media Center because of its single-click client-specific transcoding and its great tagging/smartlists. However, of late, I've been increasingly using VLC [videolan.org] and Orb [orb.com] to stream more media to my phone [cnet.com]. Anyway, the point is, carrying a physical disk is a postmodern sneakernet that s

3G

[meehawl]

not all workplaces are going to be happy about downloading music on the Internet all day

Oh, I route through my tethered phone to avoid any workplace/college firewalls or snoops without having to SSH everything and go through anonymous DNS. On a bad day the Sprint/Verizon EVDo gets around 800Kbps. On a good this this can go up to 1.5 Mbps. It's actually enough to do good DIV/H.264 video at decent framerates, and more than enough for video. $30/month for unlimited streaming including voice is a steal.

Someone should tell Microsoft

[angle_slam]

Microsoft is selling the 120 GB hard drive for the Xbox 360 for $180 [amazon.com]. For the same price, you could get a 750 GB hard drive [newegg.com] for your PC. Or, you could buy a 160 GB hard drive for $50.

Re:

[Emetophobe]

Microsoft is selling the 120 GB hard drive for the Xbox 360 for $180. For the same price, you could get a 750 GB hard drive for your PC. Or, you could buy a 160 GB hard drive for $50.

Your numbers are a bit off, since the Xbox 360 (and the Playstation 3) uses a 2.5" notebook drive, not a 3.5" desktop drive. For $180, you could get a 250GB notebook drive (not a 750GB desktop drive). Other than that, you're still right about Microsoft overcharging people for a 120GB drive.

From a quick look at newegg:
Western Di [newegg.com]

Falling hard drive prices

[dsgrntlxmply]

I invited an OEM sales rep. for a disk manufacturer to give a presentation a few years ago. He told of their lights-out automated factory. It would have been cool to see pictures, but it is difficult to take pictures of a lights-out factory.

Examining the price/capacity trendline on his slides, I projected that by perhaps 2009, they would be paying customers to take the drives.

This leads to one of three possible conclusions:

1) Disk drives contain something foul that someone is willing to pay to be ri

80GB is "lower capacity" now?

[bh_doc]

Does anyone else find it amazing that we are at a time where 80 gigabytes can be called a "lower capacity" hard drive without laughing? I remember a time when simply *adding* a hard drive to your machine was a significant upgrade, and I'm only 24.

Re:

[Da Web Guru]

I have a pair of 120GB drives and a 200GB drive just sitting around because they are *too small* to use anywhere else (all of the other drives I use in my other computers are at least 320GB). I remember being excited to even be able to hold that much data in my hand...

That's great

[Kanasta]

but when will 2.5" enclosures support more than the 120G the current roof seems to be at? Esp those digimate devices seem to support only 80G!

"Accredited"?

[uhlume]

Really? What body accredited [reference.com] these price drops, and for what where they accredited?

Still Too High

[Doc Ruby]

750GB drives, at $154, are still 17% higher per GB than 500GB drives at $88, even though there are 1TB drives.

When the 750s are within a few percent of the 500s, I'll be excited again. And screaming for 1TB for under $160, what I was paying for 250GB last year.

Why does the oil price not affect hard drives?

[master_p]

Almost everything else has gone up in price the last few months, and the excuse is the price of oil. But hard disks have lots of parts that are indirect products of oil, so someone would expect that the prices would not be decreased so easily.

Re:In other news

[Tetsujin]

Clinton remains unelectable.

Hey, now, that Lewinsky chick said his election was just fine!

Re:

[weighn]

Clinton remains unelectable.

Hey, now, that Lewinsky chick said his election was just fine!

yeah, Voteagra will have that effect

Re:

[noidentity]

Hey, now, that Lewinsky chick said his election was just fine!

I didn't know she was Asian.

Re:

[Bluesman]

It just struck me how shocking the Lewinsky scandal news must have been to native speakers of Asian languages.

Re:

[AK Marc]

Clinton remains unelectable.

Which Clinton, the one that was elected to president twice, or the one that is currently serving in the elected office of Senator? Either way, the "unelectable" has been elected. Unless you meant Chelsea Clinton.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

how about this:

[geekoid]

Stock market continues to hit new highs in lows.

Re:

[wilsonng]

I just found out that more than half of the things in my computer are really 'garbage'. Maybe I should not be keeping it in the first place. it just made looking for the right things so hard. But then storage is so cheap.... that sometimes in the same hard drive, I could find myself having three copies of the same data.