Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening • Hacker News Board

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#381

Post by pjc50 » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 8:35 PM UTC

Aurornis wrote: post #327

shevy-java wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you are not alone here being annoyed. I think we need to penalise all who drive the prices up - that includes the manufacturers but also AI companies etc... Those price increases are not normal at all. I understand that most of it still comes from market demands but this is also skewing the market now in unfair manners. Such increases smell of criminal activity too.

> I think we need to penalise all who drive the prices up - that includes the manufacturers but also AI companies etc... You want to penalize companies for buying things and penalize companies for selling things are market rate? There are a lot of good examples through history about how central planning economics and strict price controls do not lead to good outcomes. The end result wouldn’t be plentiful cheap RAM fo…

I think there's a case for banning the sale of services well below the marginal cost of supplying that service - loss leaders, or "dumping" - when it's done on such a scale as AI marketing.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#382

Post by lvl155 » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:02 PM UTC

This problem is so much worse when you look at server mobo configurations that basically jumped from 8 to 12 slots. Meaning you need 50% more sticks to saturate versus Epyc 7003/2. I was hoping to build a Genoa-X server for compute and ram cost just went bonkers (that’s on a nearly 2-yo system). I decided to shelve that idea.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#383

Post by xpe » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:10 PM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #219

xpe wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every corporation is a (not so) little pocket of centrally planned economy. This is confused. Here is how classical economists would frame it: a firm chooses how much to produce based on its cost structure and market prices, expanding production until marginal cost equals marginal revenue. This is price guided production optimization, not central planning. The dominant criticism of central planning is trying to set…

Company prices resources within itself completely arbitrarily. How much the hour of work of an employee A is worth with the company and and how much using paperclip costs has no relation how much these things actually cost in the real money. Once they are acquired by company they are utilized not according to their value but to central plans instead. This way paperclip might get vastly overvalued and scarce while hou…

> Company prices resources within itself completely arbitrarily.

I wouldn’t phrase it this way — to me, this implies unpredictability and/or a lack of rationale. Perhaps you simply mean “internal managers at companies do not necessarily price resources using market mechanisms” which I would agree with.

Many fields of study give insight to the various kinds of distortions that arise from human psychology and negotiation, etc.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#384

Post by autoexec » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:12 PM UTC

lemoncookiechip wrote: post #378

autoexec wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience firefox is "pretty good" about having lots of tabs and windows open if you don't mind it crashing every week or two.

I've not had a crash on Firefox in like a decade, basically since the Quantum update in like 2016.

Try living like I do. I currently have 1,838 tabs open across 9 different windows. On second thought, maybe don't live like I do...

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#385

Post by vee-kay » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:22 PM UTC

kbolino wrote: post #373

ls612 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRAM manufacturers have literally been convicted of price fixing in the past why do you have to white knight for them?

Both stories can be true. The firms can coordinate by agreeing on a strategy they deem necessary for the future of the industry, and that strategy requires significant capital expenditures, and the industry does not get (or does not want) outside investment to fund it, and if any of the firms defects and keeps prices low the others cannot execute on the strategy, so they all agree to raise prices. Then, after the str…

> The firms can coordinate by agreeing on a strategy they deem necessary for the future of the industry.. Then, after the strategy succeeds, they have gotten addicted to the higher revenues, they do not allow prices to fall as fast as they should, their coordination becomes blatantly illegal..

So said and did the infamous Phoebus cartel, to unnaturally "fix" the prices and quality of light bulbs.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-great-lightbulb-conspiracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

For more than a century, one strange mystery has puzzled the world: why do old light bulbs last for decades while modern bulbs barely survive a couple of years?

The answer lies in a secret meeting held in Geneva, Switzerland in 1924, where the world’s biggest light bulb companies formed the notorious Phoebus Cartel.

Their mission was simple but shocking: control the global market, set fixed prices, and most importantly… reduce bulb lifespan.

Before this cartel, bulbs could easily run for 2500+ hours. But after the Phoebus Cartel pact and actions, all companies were forced to limit lifespan to just 1000 hours. More failure meant more purchases. More purchases meant more profit. Any company who refused faced heavy financial penalties.

The most unbelievable proof is the world-famous Livermore Fire Station bulb in California, glowing since 1901. More than 120 years old. Still alive. While our new incandescent bulbs die in 1–2 years.

Though the Phoebus cartel was dissolved in the 1930s due to government pressure, its impact still shadows modern manufacturing. Planned obsolescence didn’t just begin here… but Phoebus made it industrial.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0U5uU6nzgO8

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#386

Post by artimaeis » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:31 PM UTC

vee-kay wrote: post #385

kbolino wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both stories can be true. The firms can coordinate by agreeing on a strategy they deem necessary for the future of the industry, and that strategy requires significant capital expenditures, and the industry does not get (or does not want) outside investment to fund it, and if any of the firms defects and keeps prices low the others cannot execute on the strategy, so they all agree to raise prices. Then, after the str…

> The firms can coordinate by agreeing on a strategy they deem necessary for the future of the industry.. Then, after the strategy succeeds, they have gotten addicted to the higher revenues, they do not allow prices to fall as fast as they should, their coordination becomes blatantly illegal.. So said and did the infamous Phoebus cartel, to unnaturally "fix" the prices and quality of light bulbs. https://spectrum.iee…

The Phoebus cartel didn't collude just to make the light bulbs have a shorter lifespan. They upped the standard illumination a bulb emitted so that consumers needed fewer of them to see well. With an incandescent you have a kind of sliding scale of brightness:longevity (with curves on each end that quickly go exponential, hence the longest lasting light bulb that's so dim you can barely read by its light). The brighter the bulb, the shorter the lifespan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#387

Post by lazide » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:45 PM UTC

fragmede wrote: post #375

lazide wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non sequitur of the day? Anyone who owns shares in US companies (most people here) both are ‘going home with’ the companies involved, and are buying ‘the bags’. Not to mention all the people buying the bonds used to fund the whole AI data center buildout, which is a ton of probably pension funds and old folks planning for retirement (also probably more than a few millionaire/billionaires!).

Not to blame the victim, but if you're not in control of how you spend your money, that's really on you. Don't try and put that on someone else.

Hahah, if you think anyone even knows how much of their money got spent on this, you’re living in fantasy land.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#388

Post by bombcar » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:48 PM UTC

robotresearcher wrote: post #342

bombcar wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Olds remember the years around '95 when RAM stayed the exact same price per megabyte for what seemed a decade.

I paid about GBP 20K for the 192MB RAM in a Sun SPARC 5 workstation in 1995. That’s maybe $27K USD in 1995 dollars. Gulp.

There is or was a website that would let you plug in an Apple computer, and then tell you what you'd be worth if instead you'd bought Apple stock.

I put my G4 PowerBook into it once, and then vowed never to look at it again.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#389

Post by Workaccount2 » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:51 PM UTC

jimnotgym wrote: post #251

sbarre wrote: post #6

I'm so mad about this, I need DDR5 for a new mini-PC I bought and prices have literally gone up by 2.5x.. 128GB used to be 400$ in June, and now it's over $1,000 for the same 2x64GB set.. I have no idea if/when prices will come back down but it sucks.

Interesting that Samsung put their prices up 60% today, and a retailer who bought their stock at the old price feels compelled to put their prices up 2.5x. When the AI bubble bursts we can get back to the old price

In the scenario where they don't raise prices, they sell out immediately. In the scenario where they do raise prices, it's too expensive so you don't buy it. In the scenario where they keep prices low, and do a lottery to see who can buy them, you don't get picked.

No matter what, you are not getting those modules at the old price. There are few things that trip up people harder than this exact scenario, and it happens everywhere. Concert tickets, limited releases, water during crises, hot Christmas gift, pandemic GPUs, etc.

Once understood you can stop getting mad over it like it's some conspiracy. It's fundamental and natural market behavior.

Re: Samsung's 60% DRAM price hike signals a new phase of global memory tightening

#390

Post by 1718627440 » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 9:59 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #377

1718627440 wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is confused. Here is how classical economists would frame it: a firm chooses how much to produce based on its cost structure and market prices, expanding production until marginal cost equals marginal revenue. This is price guided production optimization, not central planning. That's the case in a healthy competitive market. Once you have a monopoly or an oligopoly, you get into central planning territory.

Ok, but recall the context (see above): I’m saying one can understand how firms operate without making a connection to central planning (setting production targets and investment decisions from the top-down without prices). Economists have concepts and models for monopolies and oligopolies — and the way they operate are quite different from the practice of central planning. I’m talking from within the frame of econom…

I agree, that this discussion isn't based on proper economic terms, but on laymen understanding.

The claim isn't that it is exactly like central planning like a state, but very similar through the view on the whole society. You have a powerful caucus, no longer bound by reality (competition), making decisions, that they think are good, which effectively set the pace for the whole economy field. Whether this caucus formed through rigged elections or by inheritance of companies isn't all that relevant. It would be quite a different story, if the state would enforce its monopoly on (political) power and governing, but it refuses to do so now-a-days.

> The relevant questions for oligopolies (strategic behavior, barriers to entry, tacit collusion) are completely different from central planning questions (calculation problems, information aggregation, incentive alignment).

The observation on these oligopolies, that are now larger than some states is, that they seem to lack in their strategic reasoning and are more built on vibes of their leader, which is subject to blindness due to sycophants, much like in an authoritarian regime. Also they tend to treat the whole market as their internal planning problem.

> but here in the case of economics, we don’t need to bend words when other fitting concepts are readily available and battle-tested.

I think a majority of commenters on HN are not as well-versed in Economics as you, so would value elaboration on modern monopolies. I think they differ a bit from classical monopolies in their amount of ties to the government and interference into elections. Not that lobbying isn't typical for monopolies, but modern monopolies seem to not need to lobby anymore, but simply do and dictate.