Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SSD Prices in a Free Fall

networkcomputing.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 336 posts

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#181

Post by ams6110 »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #109
samstave wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, 240SSD for The fact that it can take two internal drives (both SSD) is awesome - so having dual 240GB drives allows for plenty of space. I have a 1TB external that I glacerize my other stuff to. Also, get a Flickr account which can host your 1TB of pics for free (money for nothin')... and you wont consume space on your local box with pics.

> Also, get a Flickr account which can host your 1TB of pics for free (money for nothin')... and you wont consume space on your local box with pics. Just make sure you understand the privacy repercussions of hosting your data on Flickr.

Just realize that to transfer 1TB of data at typical ISP speeds will take many days.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#182

Post by lttlrck »

rodgerd wrote: post #176
brownbat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point, although we should also talk about the way storage use has shifted. I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies. When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all…

> When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all my needs (thanks to changes in internet services). You seem like a very atypical use case. You can't be playing any of the modern AAA games, for example.

how is not playing AAA games atypical?

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#183

Post by kw71 »

mapt wrote: post #155
theandrewbailey wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they still haven't returned to the pre-flood trendline last I checked. They have. I remember buying 2TB drives a year before (2010). I paid about $200 each. Last year (2014), I bought 4TB drives for $130 each. That's about 3x improvement over 4 years, right?

Appled to oranges. In 2010, you overpaid by more than 100%: http://slickdeals.net/expired/2495085-79-99-seagate-barracud...

Apples to oranges. Can't compare the seagate junk to a quality WD or Hitachi that's far more likely to still be spinning _today._

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#184

Post by coldtea »

rodgerd wrote: post #176
brownbat wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great point, although we should also talk about the way storage use has shifted. I used to have some massive programs installed, a lot of digital media and video games at one point. Now Steam / GOG / Blizzard "stores" my games when not in use. Google / Apple / Pandora / Spotify "stores" my music. Amazon or Netflix "stores" my movies. When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all…

> When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all my needs (thanks to changes in internet services). You seem like a very atypical use case. You can't be playing any of the modern AAA games, for example.

Or have Creative Suite installed.

Or any modern sample library (which can get to 80GB for a single piano).

Or any video editing projects and/or templates.

Just some examples of professional stuff (for graphic designers, musicians/producers and videographers) that take huge space.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#185

Post by qzcx »

ad_hominem wrote: post #72
peter303 wrote: post #58

HP is working on a memrister based SSD with density of Flash and the speed of transistors http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/536786/machine... .

I believe they killed that off http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/207897-hp-kills-the-machi...

Not killed off so much as delayed due to lack of ability to mass produce at a decent price point so far. It is far from scrapped. It was over hyped and optimistic to begin with. It just hit the reality that it has several decades of work to catch up on to be on the same page as current tech.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#186

Post by brianpan »

slg wrote: post #124
white-flame wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at the sweet spots, because that's really what many people will buy: Best $/GB HDD on pricewatch.com: $0.024/GB for 2TB at $48.95 Best $/GB SSD on pricewatch.com: $0.387/GB for 240GB at $92.95 That's a 16x price increase, not 10x.

I wonder if those sell simply because of their positions in the market. Is the average consumer knowledgeable to know whether they need 240 GB, 2 TB, or 6 TB? Or do they simply compare prices and sizes and choose whatever they think is the best value? A 2 TB drive might just be another example of the 2nd cheapest wine trick?

There are 3 reasons people need to buy a new computer- too slow, ran out of HD space, or too slow and ran out of HD space. It was true 10 years ago and even more true now. Backup your 32GB phone a few times and you're wondering where all the space went.

It's more like insurance. You buy as much as you can afford. That's why it's painful to by a new MacBook Pro these days. 1TB is very expensive compared to the 1TB I could afford 5 years ago.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#187

Post by coldtea »

curun1r wrote: post #125
Teckla wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So does this mean Apple will finally stop shipping a 16GB iPhone as entry level? Not to mention the iPad. The original iPad came out over 5 years ago with 16 GB of storage. Entry level iPads still have 16 GB of storage. Given that iOS has gotten bigger and retina iPads made a lot of apps bigger, entry level iPad storage has actually regressed considerably. Pretty confusing, given that flash prices have gone down cons…

Complaining about overpriced/limited storage options in the iPad/iPhone is like complaining about overpriced/limited food options at a sporting event, airport or any other venue where you've got no other option than to buy from an approved vendor. With lock-in comes higher prices.

There's no lock-in what's at play here for most people. You can get a tablet/smartphone from several vendors, including Samsung, Google and Microsoft and people switch from iOs to Android and back all the time. It's not like apps are a huge investment or that it's hard to move your data across.

These people WANT to buy the iPad/iPhone, instead of something else. So a more accurate response would be "with desirability come higher prices".

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#188

Post by rodgerd »

lttlrck wrote: post #182
rodgerd wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I ran an HDD, I wanted a TB. Now that I'm running SSDs, 80 GB seems to meet all my needs (thanks to changes in internet services). You seem like a very atypical use case. You can't be playing any of the modern AAA games, for example.

how is not playing AAA games atypical?

GTA V made more money that most successful movies. Gaming is not an obscure niche, and AAAs are the blockbuster movies of the genre.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#189

Post by jldugger »

discardorama wrote: post #36

Cheapest 1 TB SSD on Amazon: $350 Cheapest 1 TB HDD on Amazon: $40 Expecting a 10x drop in prices in 1 year is ludicrous. Even if the prices follow a pseudo Moore's law and fall by half every 18 months, you're looking at at least 5 years before they reach parity. And in the meantimg HDDs would have gotten cheaper; so expect even more time for parity. In other words: ain't happenin' in 2016.

Data! http://www.jcmit.com/flash2015.htm

You can see there's about a 10x difference between the two on the logarithmic scale chart. The trend is slightly faster for SSD, but a quick straightedge-on-monitor projection suggests the intercept is closer to 2015, if ever.

Re: SSD Prices in a Free Fall

#190

Post by rorykoehler »

lucb1e wrote: post #133
rorykoehler wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SanDisk . They have always been quick to replace them. The last one they even upgraded to a much more expensive model which makes me think the issue was being widely experienced. If I were to buy today I would buy Samsung as I have heard they are much more durable. Incidentally it was a Samsung phone that died though I don't know who made the memory for that.

Same issue here with a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 whose flash memory died. Luckily (or was it luck...) it died about a month before the 2-year warranty ran out and I had it replaced within a week for free. Pretty unheard of service, but still, I've always wondered why that thing died.

Same phone but unfortunately mine was just out of warranty. It seems to have been a thing with them.
Post reply on HN