Thread

1. ocd · 1790861971 · focus · HN ↗

   I'm not a business guy, but I think I would be very worried if I created any opening (even on the very long term) for competition to justify itself being built up to meet demand (or national security requirements of other countries) on an industry I mostly control, because I prioritized extremely high prices for a few years that might have the effect of changing the arithmetic for potential competitors that wouldn't have done it before.

   It makes me consider whether there would be retaliation in later years against the US intellectual property system in countries other than China. While RAM is a tangible product, the areas it serves aren't really.

   1. radford-neal · 1790870747 · focus · HN ↗

      If I understand this comment correctly, it's saying that Micron and the others would be better off selling RAM at below the price they could get, in order to keep competitors from deciding to enter the market.

      Such collusion might well be a violation of anti-trust law, but in any case, it wouldn't work. If they decide to sell at below-market price, they must (by definition) be preventing some customers from buying by some non-price mechanism (eg, only selling to companies run by other members of the CEO's family). Potential competitors would then see an opportunity to sell to these excluded customers.

      1. cyanydeez · 1790878507 · focus · HN ↗

         It also ignores the giant CAPEX and OPEX required for any competition. This isn't banana stands or book publishing, or whatever.

         These are billion dollar+ funded operations that take multi-years just to see if you can compete at the levels required.

         All these comments show up every time, like there's a memory faerie land where you just put on your memory faerie hat and walla! Memory!

         So bizarre.

         1. kylestanfield · 1790883005 · focus · HN ↗

            Everything is a conspiracy. The elites refuse to wave their increase-manufacturing-capacity-instantly wands.

            1. cyanydeez · 1790888160 · focus · HN ↗

               I mean, we can assume the people who make the memory love getting huge prices for it. But beyond that, I just dont see why someone who invest several multi billion dollars to squeeze into a potential window that may or may not last 3 years. Especially with how volatile the whole AI bubble is.

               1. bigbadfeline · 1790889932 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Especially with how volatile the whole AI bubble is.

                  There's nothing volatile about the AI bubble, it's been going on for a while regardless of cost and that will continue because of politics - which is rather transparent.

                  > I just don't see why someone who invest several multi billion dollars to squeeze into a potential window that may or may not last 3 years.

                  Interesting, Chinese companies don't seem to know this, they're investing bigly in RAM and other silicon despite being sanctioned and tariffed up the wazoo. Should we tell them that it's a crunch for no more that 3 years so they don't waste themselves for nothing?

                  The more interesting question is why Chinese RAM is hugely tariffed, if not for preserving the crunch and its monopoly pricing?

                  > I mean, we can assume the people who make the memory love getting huge prices for it.

                  Your mistake is to think of the RAM makers instead of the systemic reasons for the problem, these would have to include tariffs, sanctions, subsidies, etc that drive market pricing, RAM manufacturers and their potential competitors.

                  1. cyanydeez · 1790901771 · focus · HN ↗

                     Oracle just sent a force majeur to their data center in texas essentially telling them they can't expect to get paid for several years...

                     And you're trying to say someone should go out and invest 5 years, multiple billions in investment to catch up to today memory prices?

                     You arn't paying attention.

                     1. bigbadfeline · 1790909406 · focus · HN ↗

                        > Oracle just sent a force majeur to their data center in texas essentially telling them they can't expect to get paid for several years...

                        Is this what you're talking about:

                        "Oracle has issued a force majeure notice regarding its New Mexico AI data center project, known as Project Jupiter. This legal move is intended to allow Oracle to delay payments if the project does not meet its expected completion date in 2028."

                        This has nothing to do with memory prices and everything to do with too much cash chasing too few physical goods used in construction and power generation, which is a systemic problem upstream of RAM overpricing.

                        > And you're trying to say someone should go out and invest 5 years

                        Did I say that? Where? I talked about Chinese silicon makers who work in a very different system. As to why we have a monopolized market, check [1].

                        > You arn't paying attention.

                        Attention is all you need - not me though, I've got enough of it. Check again the last paragraph of my previous comment to understand why.

                        [1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49927315">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=49927315

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.