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

Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

en.sedaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–209 of 209 posts

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#201

Post by ampersandwhich »

dheera wrote: post #152
foresto wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qt Widgets are good.

No, they suck. No swiping, no pull-to-refresh, no multitouch zoom, the calendars dropdowns are horrible to use, the buttons look like something out of Windows 3.1

"They suck" might be a bit harsh, but as someone who has used the Surface line of devices since they became good, I agree with your general sentiment. I have similar issues with COSMIC and Plasma 6 on my new laptop.

In my opinion, computer touchscreens are one of those things you don't realize how nice they are until you've already gotten used to them and are faced with the sub-par alternative. Say what you will about Windows 11, but it is extremely good for touchscreen interaction. That is not by accident. I strongly believe that any UI that takes touch seriously will significantly enhance its KB+M experience as well because it has knock-on effects on the UI. It's a bit like mobile-first. When you stop treating touchscreens as an afterthought, you are forced to become a better designer. You start thinking more clearly about information density, visual hierarchy+feedback, and most ironic of all, it makes keyboard navigation even more pleasant. I would love to see more focus on touch-friendly desktop apps, even if only for those secondary benefits.

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#202

Post by science4sail »

foresto wrote: post #155
dheera wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they suck. No swiping, no pull-to-refresh, no multitouch zoom, the calendars dropdowns are horrible to use, the buttons look like something out of Windows 3.1

Those are touchscreen actions, uncommon in desktop apps. Did you forget that this thread is about avoiding Electron bloat? (Also, it has a theme engine. The buttons don't look like something out of Windows 3.1 unless you use a Windows 3.1 theme.)

This seems to be an implication of the current market. Since most humans (and thus most consumers) use a phone or tablet as a primary computing device, it's unthinkable to make a consumer software UI that isn't mobile-first or touchscreen-focused.

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#204

Post by vablings »

varispeed wrote: post #85
vablings wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not what price fixing actually is. In the UK "price matching" is a one-to-many relationship meaning that the price of goods is set to the "lowest available" Price fixing is a many-to-one all the manufactures agree to the highest prices they all agree on and set it there.

You are arguing semantics. Effect is the same.

The effect is literally the opposite of what was described. It provides a downward pressure on pricing and it's all open.

If you think a private agreement to fix the price at an artificially inflated level is the same as a public offer to lower the price based on competitors, I have little hope for any business venture you may partake/undertake

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#205

Post by varispeed »

vablings wrote: post #204
varispeed wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are arguing semantics. Effect is the same.

The effect is literally the opposite of what was described. It provides a downward pressure on pricing and it's all open. If you think a private agreement to fix the price at an artificially inflated level is the same as a public offer to lower the price based on competitors, I have little hope for any business venture you may partake/undertake

It cuts both ways. Downward pricing can be used to remove competitors who cannot give up that much of margin.

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#206

Post by AnthonyMouse »

steveBK123 wrote: post #179
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A business can choose to artificially restrict supply if they want, there's no mandate that they must meet demand. There is, however, no incentive to do this when prices are high unless you expect competitors to do likewise, since otherwise you're just handing the business to the others when they increase production. Which strongly implies that if that's what everybody is doing, they're colluding. > The hard part i…

> Which is the problem when that's what's happening, and why we should maybe change the law to infer the collusion from the outcome in cases where prices are high yet nobody is responding by increasing their market share. No one has a crystal ball. Soviet planners figured that out eventually. You cannot punish people for lack of crystal ball outcome foresight. Are we going to punish Micron for not planning a new fab…

> Are we going to punish Micron for not planning a new fab 3 year ago when they had no margin and Apple was squeezing them to the bone?

This is why you expect the response to happen over a short period of years rather than absolutely instantaneously.

> Or wait, they were already trying to build one in Upstate NY that is stuck in NIMBY red tape. Do we co-indict Kathy Hochul?

Yes, definitely.

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#207

Post by the_solenoid »

mschuster91 wrote: post #175
the_solenoid wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMPORTANT CONTEXT TO MY ANSWER: There is no such thing as a free market There are 3 suppliers in the world that together have ~90% of global DRAM manufacturing capacity. I did not say they definitively were a cartel, but the effect is the same: raising prices together, lack of competition (via market consolidation etc) means there is no viable way to make more capacity in any kind of reasonable time frame, and they a…

> Now, I find it odd that to this day, there are still only 3 suppliers and ram prices (and SSD prices) have not really followed a reasonable pricing curve save for a few maybe a year pre-thecurrentnonsense, where it was getting closer to what I would have expected The core problem is, there is only one company making top-of-the-line lithography processes. Even if you are a government - ASML (and their suppliers) are…

thats why if has to be either completely gov controlled or a public/private non-profit. Letting a cadre of companies hold the world economy hostage is just not good for anyone. This is not just for ram/ssds, theres lots of core components to modern life that are held by too few or one company.

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#208

Post by itopaloglu83 »

brookst wrote: post #149
Stitch4223 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is no agreement, then the magic term is "tacit collusion." Why not ask the same ridiculous amount of money your competitors do? People seem to be paying for it. Their fault. If suppliers have sufficiently different products, they can make some more expensive, others cheaper; on average, everybody pays more. A high barrier to entry might help such practices. That doesn't mean I'm saying this is what is happen…

Yeah your qualifier is important. If I have zyngots and suddenly the price goes through the roof, it is not collusion or illegal for me to raise my prices. Tacit collusion requires at least signaling. There has to be some intent. Like in the US rental market where Realpage coordinates tacit collusion. But if there is legitimately demand for far more memory than can be produced, it seems silly to claim collusion to ra…

As George Carlin once said, these people know what’s good for them, they all went to same schools, and hang out at same places, they don’t need to have a secret meeting to collide.

Re: Samsung, SK Hynix, Micron Sued in US over Memory Price Fixing

#209

Post by vablings »

varispeed wrote: post #205
vablings wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effect is literally the opposite of what was described. It provides a downward pressure on pricing and it's all open. If you think a private agreement to fix the price at an artificially inflated level is the same as a public offer to lower the price based on competitors, I have little hope for any business venture you may partake/undertake

It cuts both ways. Downward pricing can be used to remove competitors who cannot give up that much of margin.

That's a different argument to what you first stated. Regarding price consumers are not as one dimensional as you are led to believe.
Post reply on HN