IDK, it's pretty risky. Doubling production means youre taking a bet that the bubble is not going to burst.

Why not both ™ ?

There's more competition in the storage market than RAM. Someone was going to do it, might as well be them.

sales volume

When my 4 TB drive died ~15 years ago I thought to myself I'd just wait a few months and replace it with 8 TB for the same price. Then the floods happened.

Then prices almost were finally at that level again. And then AI started gobbling everything up.

Yeah, 2TB SSDs are honestly fine for everything except bulk storage.

Consumers aren't buying large drives like this, those are intended for data centers. And if they're increasing production aimed at those capacities, that means smaller capacity stock opening up for consumers.

Straight to the datacenters. And once they get their five years out of them, straight into to the shredder.

Wouldn't want any normies getting their hands on them, and having ideas of not using whatever subscription cloud computer bullshit they've forced on us by then.

I have 4x8tb drives that have way too many hours on them

would probably take like 2 to 3 days to write zeros across the entire disk. but hardware or software based full disk encryption can make 'erasing' a disk (make the data irretrievable) very fast.

You get games that are several hundred gigabytes these days - high resolution art assets are big.

Filling up a 1TB drive is easy. 100TB, yeah, that's a lot of space.

Don't count bytes, look at what they can store: 1TB will hold like four to eight recent AAA games.

Even if you do need 100 TB of storage, I feel like it'd be a lot better to have multiple smaller drives rather than one massive one. To be fair, though, I'd expect such large drives to be targeted mostly to commercial customers.

Really depends on what you store. If you archive videogames like i do, 100TB is a good place to be, and redundancy means you need more than one.

Larger storage is good for videos (think Blu-rays, 4K videos are very big! Security camera feeds could also take up lots of space), and you might also want to host for multiple users (for family, friends, or a business)

But yes, _100_TB is a lot. 8-24TB (before memory became super expensive) was reasonable for most consumers, usually in a RAID configuration for redundancy. Multiple smaller drives are more reliable and modular than a single big one!

Without going into video media, I've got around 2-3TB of photos (in RAW format) and my ripped/downloaded music collection is about the same size. Probably got about 5TB of device backups and a similar amount of retro games ROMs/disk images

I think between my desktop PC and server I've got about 70-80TB of storage (though not all of it is usable for redundancy)

I could see myself building a new NAS in a couple of years that would make use of a few of those drives if the economics work out

Why?