you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 4 days ago (22 children)

No. RAM prices skyrocketed because the major manufacturers that supplied the consumer market shifted their production capacity toward AI data centers, creating a supply shortage in the consumer market. This effectively turned RAM into a high-demand commodity rather than the relatively accessible consumer product it once was.

RAM continues to be expensive because competing manufacturers have not stepped in to meaningfully increase supply for the consumer market. Instead, manufacturers are prioritizing the substantially more lucrative AI data center market, leaving consumers with fewer options and less competition for available supply.

Judging by the title of your post, I'm convinced you don't understand what competition actually means in the context of economics. Competition isn't simply the existence of multiple companies. It's the willingness and ability of those companies to enter a market, increase supply, and compete for consumers by offering better prices.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    It's very likely also due to cartel behavior between the big three memory manufacturers, something for which they have been convicted in the past.

    I think they used the AI demand shock as an excuse to raise and maintain their prices to the insanity they are today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    Absolutely. Large public companies like nothing more than to corner the market and be the only supplier circumventing the necessity to compete with other companies. Ideally legislation would prevent this from happening. Alas, this is the world that we live in.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (19 children)

    Even though I agree with you, I think OP is saying the same thing but in a nutshell and with more emotion than logic. They’re not wrong but not correct because it’s not the full answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 4 days ago (18 children)

    CEO of OpenAI Sam Altman, a billionaire, said he thinks it's terrible for people have RAM. He said it in the context of being against local inference. It's really not hard to see what they really think. They want to hoard all the RAM and make you rent it from them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (17 children)

    Ah that’s a didn’t perspective. I see what you’re saying now. Well done.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 4 days ago (16 children)

    We live in a weird late stage capitalist situation where the producer sees the consumer as competition which is why we're seeing the artificial scarcity and GPUs just sitting idle in warehouses.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 4 days ago (15 children)

    Once again, you are misusing the word competition. Consumers aren't producing RAM, adding supply to the market, or competing with another company for sales.

    If these companies want to rent computing power to consumers while reserving the RAM supply for themselves, they are consolidating control over the market. That's a supply-side market concentration issue, not competition between consumers and manufacturers.

    Sam Altman, OpenAI, and other tech executives don't view the consumer base as competition. They view consumers as potential customers for their computing services. They want to own the infrastructure and rent access to it. A consumer renting computing power from a company isn't competing with that company.

    You're confusing two entirely different economic concepts. You're wrong, and I'm not saying that to be mean. I'm simply pointing out an objective distinction in how competition works in economics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 4 days ago (14 children)

    Why would I buy what they're selling when I can run their product on my gaming computer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 days ago* (13 children)

    I have no idea... Why would you buy what they're selling if you can run it on your gaming computer?

    You doing something on your own in the same way a company would do it for profit still isn't competition as defined by economics.

    You still don't know what competition means.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (12 children)

    No, you just don't really understand what you're reading and you're arguing shit the guy isn't even saying.

    ITT: Talk of ECONOMIC COMPETITION in the sense of a multiple companies chasing the same consumers, and there is also LITERAL FUCKING COMPETITION FOR WHO GETS TO USE THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF CHIPS PRODUCED.

    He keeps talking about the second point and you keep pointing at the first one, which isn't really what he was fucking talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 4 days ago (10 children)
  • [–] -2 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    Don't thank him he has no idea what he's talking about. You're just agreeing because he's on your side. You still don't know what competition means or why your statement is not only wrong but makes no sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    You're going to argue with that guy about what he meant by what he wrote?

    And you think somehow you know better than he does, about what he wrote?

    And somehow we're all assholes for noticing that you actually CAN'T read fucking minds, and apparently can't read English off a website?

    ok you can go back to disappointing your parents now. I've had more than enough of being incorrectly mansplained at by an illiterate narcissist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    At this point in the conversation, I generally consider this sort of response to be a concession, particularly when you can't actually factually address anything I've said and instead resort to "nu-uhh" and "you're stupid."

    I have to say, being called illiterate by someone who writes this kind of contrived drivel is the sweetest irony. Not only do you fundamentally misunderstand the concept of competition in the economic sense, but you also apparently don't understand what the words literate, narcissist, and mansplain mean.

    We're definitely done here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (5 children)

    I wish we were done, but I feel like you're just going to go to post after post and pretend you can read those people's minds, too.

    So grats, you're LemmyHerpes now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)

    I have no idea where you got this idea that I'm trying to read someone's mind. Your statement about people being competition as the reason RAM prices went up is factually and objectively incorrect. In fact, we know exactly why prices went up. I corrected you and explained why you were wrong. You simply don't understand what competition means in the economic sense.

    Apparently, this is offensive to you, and I've somehow become a mind reader in the process. I don't know, man... It all seems pretty straightforward to me. At this point, all that's left is for you to concede and move on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Look at the downvotes, dude.

    The only person who agrees with you is you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    Lol. You think I care about downvotes? One of the most unreliable metrics to judge the factual basis of a statement.

    If you actually looked my original comment it's upvoted. So there are others that think I'm right. Which also doesn't matter to me. Because I'm right.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago

    And there we have it. Yes, I can come across that way. It's actually a rather interesting phenomenon on the internet.

    Take someone like Professor Dave on YouTube. He can be absolutely vicious toward people he debunks, and audiences applaud him for it, often because the people he's criticizing are demonstrably spreading misinformation or making objectively terrible arguments.

    Yet when I adopt a somewhat abrasive tone while doing essentially the same thing, suddenly I'm the worst person imaginable.

    Here's the distinction people seem to struggle with: I have absolutely no obligation to be nice, agreeable, or easygoing when correcting someone who is confidently presenting misinformation. I saw a statement that was factually incorrect, corrected it, and pointed out that the OP didn't understand the subject matter they were attempting to discuss.

    People may not appreciate being confronted that way, but their discomfort doesn't make my argument arrogant, incorrect, or mean-spirited. Being nice is a social preference, not an intellectual obligation. And being abrasive doesn't automatically make someone wrong any more than being polite makes someone right.

    You seem to be treating niceness as the standard by which an argument should be judged. It isn't. The standard should be whether the argument is factually sound.

    Say what you mean and mean what you say. Everything else is window dressing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago

    This is the entirety of OP's post. It is factually and objectively incorrect. It doesn't have a second point, and it barely has a first.

    Consumers competing to buy RAM because of some supposed scarcity simply isn't happening. If you have the money, you can buy all the RAM you want. It's in stock practically everywhere; it's just incredibly expensive. That's an entirely different kind of market dynamic. It's called demand. The idea that consumers are somehow fighting over a limited supply of RAM is nonsense.

    Companies aren't chasing customers or anyone else for that matter. They're supplying RAM to whoever is willing to pay the most for it, i.e., data centers and AI technology companies. They're actively prioritizing those customers and refusing to supply the consumer market. That's the exact opposite of competing for consumers.

    If a new company enters the market and begins supplying RAM to meet consumer demand, there will be very little competition for those customers. In fact, consumers will buy from them hand over fist because there's an underserved market waiting to be supplied.

    I 100% understand what I'm reading, which is precisely why I'm commenting on it and explaining not only why this isn't competition but also why OP fundamentally misunderstands what competition actually is.

    Apparently, you're also struggling with some rather basic, ninth-grade economics. 🤷

    And the sheer confidence with which you proclaim such simple-minded nonsense is... incredible.

  • source
  • parent