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

Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

mooreslawisdead.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#141

Post by NathanielK »

pixelpoet wrote: post #101

I like how one of the reference links betrays how the article itself was researched, possibly written; HN hides the end of the url, which is "utm_source=chatgpt.com": > https://www.economist.com/business/2025/11/19/cracks-are-app... You have to appreciate the irony :)

The real disappointment is none of the sources are linked in the text. Instead, it's just random underlined words, the classic chatgpt over formatting with lots of extra underlining and bolding. I appreciate that a 10-15 minute long article summarizes a 25 minute video, but it's hard to hide the real author.

Quite lazily done and just not pleasant to read.

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#142

Post by tyleo »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #139

With the amount of hatred for anything OpenAI it’s not surprising the author chose a clickbaity title. HNs quality of posts are going down and instead of objective analysis I often see very polarized and flamy articles, titles etc.

That’s funny, I found the post high quality and interesting despite agreeing with your point about the title.

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#143

Post by Loughla »

marcosdumay wrote: post #137
swatcoder wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was not the "free and global market" I thought we were supposed to have at this point. Perhaps you haven't noticed but the pendulum has been swinging the other way for a while already and has a lot of momentum behind it. It's mentioned off-hand because the ongoing return to a multi-polar global order is covered elsewhere already, across dozens of articles every day.

> has a lot of momentum behind it Does it? It's mostly the US pushing against globalism right now. Trump managed to unite almost the entire world.

Is it? I'm fairly certain many countries have had a very strong showing from nationalist parties in recent years, or am I way off base?

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#144

Post by butvacuum »

nerdponx wrote: post #123
armaautomotive wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think OpenAI plans to trade the semiconductor market? This would only apply in that scenario.

It's interesting that this isn't actually illegal to do except in the specific context of an exchange market. I did a very cursory search of the US Code and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and yeah, unless there's some additional legal precedent or other applicable law I didn't find, then this might just be a gap in the law. It even seems to skirt around notions of illegal vertical integration. For example in thi…

Let's not forget that if it's not illegal now, it could be illegal in a matter of days. Add 12 if a president decides to sit on their thumbs, it's happened before.

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#145

Post by misswaterfairy »

JSR_FDED wrote: post #124
arjie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guys, these are silicon wafers not bars of steel. You can't just stockpile 40% of annual capacity in a warehouse long-term. I would be incredibly surprised to find that any such large scale storage facility exists. Any storage of undiced wafers is temporary while the manufacturing pipeline proceeds. You've seen the pictures of clean rooms and stuff. There's no way you spend all that effort to make the wafer and then…

Really, you don’t think there is enough storage room in the world? It would require half of one distribution center of a major retailer.

> It would require half of one distribution center of a major retailer.

That also meets the specifications of a clean room, and is actively maintained as one?

If OpenAI bought 40% of the annual capacity of finished memory, with the goal of using it in their server farms ASAP, that's one thing.

But unfinished wafers that still need to be protected to finish the manufacturing process, that OpenAI itself does not have any capability to do?

That to me looks like a preemptive strike against competitors, which also affects any other industry that requires RAM, in an attempt to develop a monopolistic position.

I can't see how this isn't a massive national security issue for any country that needs devices requiring RAM for new systems and maintenance of existing ones (pretty much all of them...) to manage critical infrastructure, national defence, public and social services, and so on.

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#147

Post by christophilus »

gizmodo59 wrote: post #139

With the amount of hatred for anything OpenAI it’s not surprising the author chose a clickbaity title. HNs quality of posts are going down and instead of objective analysis I often see very polarized and flamy articles, titles etc.

I’ve been on this site a while, and it has always been like this.

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#148

Post by brewdad »

arjie wrote: post #96
hodgehog11 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy it. It's easier to make this argument for companies that are building their own hardware, since they know it can be immediately used. OpenAI's move is tantamount to hoarding for the sake of strangling competition. There was plenty of supply to allow for their plans without this move (especially since they will probably go bankrupt at this rate).

How exactly could they 'hoard' this? There's no place in the world to store that much undiced wafer. It will all go bad.

Granting this premise is true (I have no idea), that makes it even worse. They would deliberately be hoarding 40% of the global supply not to lock in for future growth but simply to make sure no one else gets to have it. It’s figuratively setting chips on fire.

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#149

Post by behnamoh »

am17an wrote: post #81
arjie wrote: post #19

There's nothing dirty about this deal. When making a large deal with one vendor he didn't disclose to them that he was making a deal with another vendor. That's pretty normal when you're trying to buy a lot of stuff. Otherwise, they can collude to shake you down. I'm not thrilled about this genre of "guy I don't like does totally normal thing so it's bad". It's too engagement baity. EDIT: Though even that may be wron…

It's bad for consumers period. A deal that hampers 40% of global supply shouldn't be a thing, it's predatory. I know DRAM is not a necessity, but considering that PCs are going to be affected means this affects real things like schools and hospitals. There's being smart while making a deal and there's knee-capping the market with your leveraged to the tits business

but where do we draw the line? Would 39% be okay? and who's gonna draw the line and enforce it?

Re: Sam Altman’s DRAM Deal

#150

Post by roenxi »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #112
roenxi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who in the developed world doesn't have a few luxuries? Pretty much all of history people have had to make do with RAM being a lot less accessible than it is now. It isn't essential and people can still buy RAM in the rare situations where they actually need it. There is nothing here worth invoking the legal system over. OpenAI can buy huge amounts of RAM if they want. Good luck to them, hope it works out, looks like…

DRAM is one of the categories of advanced semiconductors that the US considers important enough to national security that exporting it to China is forbidden. It's a fundamental industrial product.

Yeah. Companies like OpenAI need a lot of RAM. That is why they just bought up what is apparently a material chunk of the market.

There is a certain level of crazy that crowds can find when people identify something as a fundamental industrial product critical to national security and simultaneously someone is calling for companies buying a lot of it [0] to be made illegal. If something is critically important to industry then companies should be encouraged to dump as much money as they like in the sector. Otherwise industry will suffer.

[0] And OpenAI is probably going to turn out to be closely associated with US national security too.

Post reply on HN