top 91 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 171 points 4 months ago (41 children)

They're basically saying the AI companies are going to keep demand elevated to the point that supply will never catch up. It's possible but with variables like public backlash, unrealistic power requirements, eventual financial and AI regulation, I would bet on a painful collapse.

  • source
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] 70 points 4 months ago

    There’s always a collapse on the horizon, I believe many of these stories are worst-case scenarios or a way to help billionaires believe their own hype and swallow the turds to keep capitalism on life support.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 52 points 4 months ago (34 children)

    Nah they're saying the like 3 places that manufacture RAM won't drop their prices after

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 4 months ago (26 children)

    The Chinese fabs should be producing lots of RAM by 2030.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Old/current ram or new ram? Probably be moving on to DDR6 then

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

    We could always just not, and use whatever RAM we can get. I'd rather have a thriving market with slightly worse RAM than motherboards that require a RAM no one can afford.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    DDR2 Prices are up 60% as AI datacenters are slapping together whatever hardware they can get.

    There is NO affordable RAM, and this is by design.

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

    Nope it is for legacy systems which are not upgraded to new standard.

    "Of course, today’s PCs don’t use DDR2, so we’re likely to see the impact of these price increases landing in areas like embedded systems, networking equipment, industrial controllers, automotive electronics, and other long-lived devices that were designed around it and are too costly to requalify on newer memory generations like DDR4 and five."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Even if that's true, I'm predicting either AI companies just buy all of that too. Or the US government doesn't allow the import of it because it's from China

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    China will be running out of people soon. Their birth rate has been in collapse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    China will not collapse. It produces too many goods and its economy is too strong. Birth rates aren’t a problem to the point that they undermine manufacturing.

    If someone tries to tell you the story that China will collapse and they seem credible, just reach out to me. I have a bridge for sale that will help you short the Chinese collapse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    The problem is they modify goods, not produce them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Intellectual property shouldn’t exist. If China wants to “steal” ram designs and sell them for cheaper, then LeT tHe fReE mArKeT wOrK

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    We'll let the runaway inflation after the AI crash eat away at the currency's value until RAM is back at the old value, even with the much higher prices, then wait for wages to catch up a bit. By then they'll have a nice unsold supply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    People aren't saying AI is going to disappear, although that wouldn't be a bad thing imo. When people talk about an AI crash they're talking about the trillions in investments by the major companies that have been operating at a loss and have no monetization plan that could feasibly recoup even a fraction of that amount. Open source models are nearly as good as the big guys now, and nobody is going to pay hundreds or thousands a month just to keep using chatgpt or Gemini.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I would bet on painful collapse, because the whole model is "winner takes all", which means there is an awful lot of duplication. Even if it ends up more like a commodity with multiple players (because why pay for super powered AI for a task if there is a cheaper low powered alternatives?), the constant scale up makes no sense at all economically. We're already well into diminishing returns with each scale up, and the models continue to be fundamentally flawed.

    Lenovo are right that prices won't go back to "normal" - I think there will be a huge crash in prices due to oversupply when the AI boom ends, and some of the big AI companies collapse.

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

    We don't even know if it's currently being produced at greater numbers (as far as I'm aware). The only public info I've seen is that the data centers that haven't been built will need all of the produced RAM based on handshake deals (not contracts). The RAM makers themselves are doubling down on the bubble by investing into the AI generators as well as increasing costs to insane levels in the process which surely reduces the amount of items sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    Wrong line of thinking.

    They want you to stop holding out and just buy their crazy high (along with everyone else) priced stuff so they move inventory and make some capital.

    If their ram claim ends up true (I call bullshit) they make some sales and they go happily along.

    If their claim ends up being false, they still made those sales and no one remembers or cares how "wrong" they were about it.

    Saying this is basically a no lose guess for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    no they are not. the article was clear. after the ai boom, the memory companies wont drop proces because you dont have a choice.

    my new soap box - the government should regulate this industry because its very important to society and there should be prive caps.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 57 points 4 months ago (14 children)

    I wouldn't say "never," but it's very likely that RAM prices will not return to pre-AI (read: bullshit) levels. Many markets do this; hike up to crazy levels during a boom, come back down 80%, rinse and repeat.

    The only thing that might put a stop to it is competition or the unicorn business that focuses upon everyday consumers and not purely profit (lol). I'm hopeful China is able to be a spoiler to this current tech hegemony, given general US hegemony is basically over, but the home computing market is probably fucked in the meantime.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 4 months ago* (6 children)

    maybe i'm naive, but if it's so profitable to make RAM in the long-term, why wouldn't competition emerge? I get not investing in the startup costs just for a bubble, but that's not what we're talking about here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Capital/time intensive start up costs make it a barrier to entry. This is why the prices are so high. Supply is inelastic because the producers know this is a bubble. If they do the capital intensive thing and the bubble pops before realizing the additional capacity, they are left holding the bag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Yes, that's literally what I said about bubbles. The assertion in OP is that RAM pricing won't go back to pre-bubble prices. If that is true, RAM manufacturing will be incredibly profitable post-AI-bubble and competition should emerge eventually.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    It takes double digit billions to start a manufacturing plant and that's when you already have people who know what to do.

    Most countries can't really afford this in their budgets and I'm saying countries because it'd be a stupid endeavour for most private enterprises to even attempt. CXMT (DRAM) and YMTC (NAND) absolutely are sponsored by China, which is the only real way to get one of those companies going these days.

    Google, Apple, etc could start their own memory companies if they wanted to. But it's a hell of an expense to justify to your investors.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    I'm hopeful China is able to be a spoiler to this current tech hegemony

    As awful as that sounds, I bet that's what will happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    That's what I'm guessing. The consumer market is a multi-billion dollar industry. If Micron, Samsung, and SK Hynex are too big for it now, that's them leaving money on the table for others. Smaller companies will kick up, like those in China, and they'll gladly take the money left for them. It'll just take a while for them to get there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    The thing is, are they really leaving money on the table? Higher prices means less customers, yes, but also higher profits per unit. We don't actually know right now how many people would be willing to pay these new prices: if it costs twice as much but half the customers are still fine buying it, then profit stayed the same. And with no choice, I suspect much more than half are going to pay double.

    Of course, the people who wouldn't do that are a potential market, but they are also a much lower profit margin. Comparably, that's probably not that much for these people.

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

    There's a whole segment who are going unserved because of those high prices. Gamers across the board and enthusiasts, the entire consumer market, because RAM is too expensive. Someone else figures out how to make RAM at scale and undercut the fake inflation of the cartel could make billions easily. That's money sitting on the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Why wouldn't China just charge the increased prices, same as the DRAM cartel? Primarily they want to make money.

    Unless they offer below-cost RAM for a few years to drive the competition out of business before jacking up their prices of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Because that's not how you make money from the household consumer market. We're already there, and people aren't able to buy RAM.

    You don't make money from product that doesn't sell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 38 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Expect an import ban on Chinese made ram to be coming soon.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Expect an import ban on Chinese made ram to be coming soon.

    Yes. I do half-way expect that.

    Of course, I also look forward to investing in novelty keychains, which just coincidentally come with a free teddy bear, which itself has a couple of RAM sticks sewn inside.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Thinking about that is most of the packagers for RAM are in china. Even if that silicon wasn't pressed in china, the company that actually buys up the modules slaps them on dims or sodiums, and ships them with custom Packaging are in China.

    There is a whole middle step that most of us are completely missing, between the actual memory manufacturers and the distributors.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 4 months ago

    Oh course not. Why lower them when they can keep the prices high and pocket the profits? When you live in hell you can't expect the devil to not profit on the vices.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    It's obviously to Lenovo's benefit to have people believe that RAM prices will not drop, so that they will not wait out the current price surge.

    The price will drop if supply exceeds demand, and if competition increases.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Supply demand economics was a great concept in grade 8, but in the real world, price fixing and monopolies rule unchecked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Imagine if all of us cared about the regulatory capture rampant in the baby formula industry they gave us that US baby formula crisis at the start of the decade, as much as we care about our computer memory.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    That assumes Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron won't have competition in the next few years, but that's already not true with the Chinese CXMT and YMTC. And the more they drive the prices up, the highest the reward for a new competitor to get established. They have a few good years (for them) charging these prices, but it won't last.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago

    Sure the prices will go down a bit, but never to pre-bubble levels. This is the new "market rate" now.

    Invisible hand creates best prices when there is infinite supply, many suppliers, elastic demand. None of that exists and neoclassic economics is bullshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago

    Yeah, I'll be there waiting for them to rotate their inventory at a loss when it does go down. Meanwhile, fuck Lenovo.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago

    Oh, I better then go ahead and buy them at high prices before it turns out in 2-3 years that he was wrong.

  • source
  • [–] 43 points 4 months ago (20 children)

    Quite frankly, we abuse ram anyways. So much software uses way more ram than is actually necessary. I think this may be a catalyst to software fundamentals. Doing far more with far less.

    It's the only thing we are empowered to do, buy less ram and use software that runs smoothly with less ram.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    At work we were upgraded to 16GB last cycle. 8GB would've been plenty if not for all the shit that forcibly runs in the background. Now even the 16GB models are struggling, and I mean struggling sometimes. While my userspace apps use less than 2GB.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    I'm going to guess you're talking about Windows, correct? I work on a laptop (must be about 5 years old already) that I brought up to 64 GB RAM when I bought it (it was way cheaper than ordering with that, so I got it with 8 and then upgraded) only because sometimes I play on it. But when steam is not running and I'm just working, I've never seen it use over 2.7GB of RAM. Evidently, it has always run on some Linux distros (PopOS, Fedora, EndeavourOS and now CachyOS). The world is rigged to make all these things artificially expensive. Windows is a resouce-hogging malware that costs money, the computer parts manufacturers inflate prices to see if they can get away with it, the computer manufacturers go with that and then do the same, and we end up paying 10 dollars for what should otherwise be 1 dollar. As another person said, I also believe this will allow China RAM to catch up, which will end up flooding the market with same quality products, if not better, at way better prices. This will probably take a couple of years, but with their government subsidizing technology and most of their international markets the way they are in China, the funds will be readily available. Plus, China companies tend to enter difficult markets at a loss to take a good place if necessary, which is great for consumers. Just look at the blow they put on Mercedes, BMW and Porsche last year in Germany with BYD. Things will get better for us on the RAM front, it will just take a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago* (1 child)

    Yeah, most people can probably be totally okay with 16GB (~150€ new, 50€ ddr4 used) too!

    We seem to have forgotten that RAM has always been ludicrously expensive, except for a little while a couple of years ago.

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

    16GB feels so low, but if we have to make due then the software we run needs to be crafted better. It's entirely possible. Also ddr4 is plenty good. I wager no one can tell the difference between ddr5 and 4 or even 3 honestly

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Run less software then. You can do that today.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    You don't have to run less as long as you choose good software.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Also true.

    But if you choose to run software that uses a lot of RAM, ask yourself why you haven't created an alternative that doesn't use a lot of RAM. If the answer is "I don't have the time to", then that's probably also why the developer hasn't made it use less RAM.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    The answer to that question is that they're either lazy, ignorant or both. :D

    In all seriousness. I can imagine that a lot of developers who work on commercial products are given about 20% of the time and resources needed to make a good product. I don't blame them for doing what it takes to not get fired.

    That's why libre source software is so important!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    Yeah turns out that RAM is cheap and dev time is expensive. Compared to what devs charge their employers in western countries, RAM is STILL cheap.

    With libre software, your employer isn't bleeding money for every day spent on optimization.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    It's more likely they are not incentivized to. When you are writing software for a living, typically there days the companies you work for prioritize delivery speed over everything else. If they prioritized memory constraints, software would use less memory.

    When you are rewarded for features and delivery, you end up with shit like electron. Not to even begin talking about how a whole generation of developers learned to code for the web and never touch os level dev....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Well why would they prioritize memory constraints? It has literally no change to their bottom line.

    Say you're paying an engineer 100k a year. Reasonable cost in a western country, US based would be more like 200k+ when taxes and everything are involved. Tell him to spend 20% of his time optimizing memory usage.

    Now how much money are you spending to increase your userbase by maybe 0.01% (there can't be that many people who'd uninstall software they need just because it uses more RAM than they'd like)? And that's for every engineer you tell to spend time optimizing.

    Memory consumption only becomes important to the authors of the software when it's on the backend and you're serving so many users that your annual server costs get into millions, at which point you can save enough money that optimization is starting to be worth it.

    It sucks, but it is what it is. For everyone to start building super optimized software again, we'd all first have to move to 512 MB Pentium 4 machines so using more memory would actually mean lost revenue via lost customers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    I think this may be a catalyst to software fundamentals.

    It's not that fundamental. It's just corporations skipping the optimizing step and just shipping because that looks better for their project deadline and budget. As long as complaining is limited and sales don't drop they don't care.

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

    Agreed. Only way this happens is either open source, or new companies that recognize it as a competitive advantage. Get new users to favor your software, they grow up to get jobs and advocate for it there. It's a gamble and a long game though

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Optimization will actually get much worse because software will be designed to run “in the cloud” on servers that have much more resources than the average budget pc or smartphone that 90% of users use for computing. You will own nothing etc etc

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

    Software has been running in the cloud for nearly 2 decades at this point. But yes, I get your point. Their master plan is to get us all on terminals and use their clouds as a giant mainframe more or less.

    Doesn't have to be that way though. Not all tech needs to be the latest and greatest. So long as it's secure and is feature complete who cares how it looks.

    Ironically, with LLMs at our disposal, making new software is easier than ever. In the hands of skilled engineers tasks that took weeks take days. It's more realistic now for a single dev to sit down with a goal like "let's remake X software, but a 10mb memory limit". We can prototype this kind of stuff faster than ever, so we can use the very tools causing this problem to solve this problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›