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

I wouldn't be so sure. I've seen analyses making the case that this new phase is unlike previous cycles and DRAM makers will be far less willing to invest significantly in new capacity, especially into consumer DRAM over more enterprise DRAM or HBM (and even there there's still a significant risk of the AI bubble popping). The shortage could last a decade. Right now DRAM makers are benefiting to an extreme degree since they can basically demand any price for what they're making now, reducing the incentive even more.

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/storage/perfect-s...

Nothing costs trillions.

A waiver is a waiver. The cost is per square mm. It’s pure supply and demand

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

Aside, $203 USD back then would be about $276 USD after inflation. Not a primary effect, but contributory.

Time to start scouring used-PC sales to reclaim the RAM and sell it for a profit?

The funniest thing is that somehow the executive class is even more out of touch than they used to be.

At least before there was a certain common baseline derived from everyone watching the same news and reading the same press. Now they are just as enclosed in their thought bubbles as everyone else. It is entirely possible for a tech CEO to have a full company of tech workers despising the current plan and yet that person being constantly reinforced by linkedin and chatgpt.

We need better antitrust and anti-monopoly enforcement. Break up the biggest companies, and then they'll have to actually participate in markets.

> There's too much group-think in the executive class.

I think this is actually the long tail of "too big to fail." It's not that they're all thinking the same way, it's that they're all no longer hedging their bets.

> we have made the rewards too extreme and too narrowly distributed

We give the military far too much money in the USA.

Centralized planning is needed in any civilization. You need some mechanism to decide where to put resources, whether it's to organize the annual school's excursion or to construct the national highway system.

But yeah in the end companies behave in trends, if some companies do it then the other companies have to do it too, even if this makes things less efficient or is even hurtful. We can put that onto the human factor, but I think even if we replaced all CEOs with AIs, those AIs would all see the same information and make similar decisions on those information.

There is pascal's wager arguments to be had: for each individual company, the punishment of not playing the AI game and missing out on something big is bigger than the punishment of wasting resources by allocating them towards AI efforts plus annoying customers with AI features they don't want or need.

> Right now are living through a new gilded age with a few barons running things, because we have made the rewards too extreme and too narrowly distributed.

The usa has rid itself multiple times of its barons. There is mechanisms in place, but I am not sure that people really are going to exercise those means any time soon. If this AI stuff is successful in the real world as well, then increasing amounts of power will shift away from the people to the people controlling the AI, with all the consequences this has.

If you get paid for being rich in proportion to how rich you are -- because that's how assets work -- it turns into an exponential, runs away, and concentrates power until something breaks.

how is this centralized planning? It’s a corporate decision making operating in a free market to optimize for what majority shareholders want (though the majority of shares are owned by few).

>It is a weird form of centralized planning [...]

It's a form of "centralized planning", except it's not centralized at all.

Every corporation is a (not so) little pocket of centrally planned economy.

The only saving grace is that it can die and others will scoop up released resources.

When country level planned economy dies, people die and resources get destroyed.

Why not follow the time-honoured approach and put the data centres in low-income countries?

>AI is the first industrial breakthrough in a century

Is it?

Usually companies run out of resources before they screw up global prices in massive markets.

If it was a couple billion dollars of memory purchasing nobody would care.

What's odd about this is I believe there does exist a winner takes all technology. And that it's AR.

The more I dream about the possibilities of AR, the more I believe people are going to find it incredibly useful. It's just the hardware isn't nearly ready. Maybe I'm wrong but I believe these companies are making some of the largest strategic blunders possible at this point in time.

For example: allocating the resources to only few industries deprives everyone else: small players, hobbyists, gamers, tinkerers from opportunities to play with their toys. And small players playing with random toys is a source of multiple innovations.

Unless I get all the resources I want, when I want, all at low prices, the market has obviously failed.

Gamers at least enjoy their GPUs and memory.

The tone from the AI industry sounds more like a dependent addict by comparison. They're well past the phase where they're enjoying their fix and into the "please, just another terawatt, another container-ship full of Quadros, to make it through the day" mode.

More seriously, I could see some legitimate value in saying "no, you can't buy every transistor on the market."

It forces AI players to think about efficiency and smarter software rather than just throwing money at bigger wads of compute. This might be part of where China's getting their competitive chops from-- having to do more with less due to trade restrictions seems to be producing some surprisingly competitive products.

It also encourages diversification. There is still no non-handwavey road to sustainable long-term profitability for most of the AI sector, which is why we keep hearing answers like "maybe the Extra Fingers Machine cures cancer." Eventually Claude and Copilot have to cover their costs or die. If you're nVidia or TSMC, you might love today's huge margins and willing buyers for 150% of your output, but it's simple due diligence to make sure you have other customers available so you can weather the day the bubble bursts.

It's also a solid PR play. Making sure people can still access the hobbies they enjoy is an easy way to say you're on the side of the mass public. It comes from a similar place to banning ticket scalping or setting reasonable prices on captive concessions. The actual dollars involved are small (how many enthusiast PCs could you outfit with the RAM chips or GPU wafer capacity being diverted to just one AI data centre?) but it makes it look like you're not completely for sale to the highest bidder.

Or you could look at reality where it generates fake social media posts s lot and we could all ask, why is this valuable?

What do you think happens when the majority of consumers are priced not only out of bread, but also circuses?

> Is there any way to avoid this kind of market failure?

There are potentially undesirable tradeoffs and a whole new game of cheats and corruption, but you could frustrate rapid, concentrated growth with things like an increasing tax on raised funds.

Right now, we basically let people and companies concentrate as much capital as they want, as rapidly as they want, with almost no friction, presumably because it helped us economically outcompete the adversary during the Cold War. Broadly, we're now afraid of having any kind of brake or dampener on investments and we are more afraid of inefficiency and corruption if the government were to intervene than we are of speculation or exploitation if it doesn't.

In democratically regulated capitalism, there are levers to pull that could slow down this kind of freight train before it were to get out of control, but the arguments against pulling them remain more thoroughly developed and more closely held than those in favor of them.

There is a way, and if anyone tells you we have to go full Hitler or Stalin to do it they are liars because last time we let inequality cook this hard FDR and the New Deal figured out how to thread the needle and proved it could be done.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the flavor of politics on tap at the moment.

Sam Altman cornering the DRAM market is a joke, of course, but if the punchline is that they were correct to invest this amount of resources in job destruction, it's going to get very serious very quickly and we have to start making better decisions in a hurry or this will get very, very ugly.

A tax on scale.

Yeah I know HN is going to hate me for saying that.

If a big company and a few small companies all have identical costs for producing a product, society is better served by having it produced by the few small companies than the one big company.

Once "better served" is quantified, you know the coefficient for taxation.

Make no mistake, this coefficient will be a political football, and will be fought over, just like the Fed prime interest rate. But it's a single scalar instead of a whole executive branch department and a hundred kilopages of regulations like we have in the antitrust-enforcement clusterfuck. Which makes it way harder to pull shenanighans.

I bet that friendly Chinese entrepreneurs will sell inexpensive E1.S to m.2 adapters, and maybe even PCIe riser cards for putting an OAM and a bunch of fans, and maybe even an HDMI output. Good hardware won't be wasted, given some demand.

I imagine the cost is primarily in the actual DRAM chips on the DIMM. So availability of RDIMMs on the market will affect DRAM prices anyway. These days lots of motherboards come with Oculink, etc. and you can get a U.2 PCIe card for rather cheap.

I put together a small server with mostly commodity parts.

AI GPUs suck for gaming, I have seen a video from a guy playing Red Dead Redemption 2 on a H100 at a whooping 8 FPS! That's after some hacks, because otherwise it wouldn't run at all.

AI GPUs are stripped away of most things display-related to make room for more compute cores. So in theory, they could "work", but there are bottlenecks making that compute power irrelevant for gaming, even if they had a display output.

I wouldn't mind my own offline Gemini or ChatGPT 5. But even if the hardware and model were free, I don't know how I'd afford the electricity.

I'm thinking second-hand and new-old-stock, with less demand for it.