I recently noticed the same (that the tradeoff of price vs. capacity seems odd lately). The author was criticized for failing to notice that one of the drives

I recently noticed the same (that the tradeoff of price vs. capacity seems odd lately). The author was criticized for failing to notice that one of the drives he included in his chart, a Seagate Cheetah, was actually a SCSI server drive: I think this drive must be inadequately described or incorrectly classified online because I had it come up in my own Newegg search results for desktop drives, and I was similarly confused by it. So that's on Newegg or Seagate, not the author. The point of the article is still valid, I think, provided you look at the BOTTOM of his datapoints (though he actually tried to fit a line to the mean). When I say I think the current price/size distribution is odd, I must say what I would expect instead. I think I would have expected one of two things: either that it be like processors, in which increases in price grant diminishing returns near the top end, or to be a kind of "lazy J" shape like RAM (mainstream RAM is cheap, rising in price as you move right, but small, old obsolete RAM can be overpriced rising toward the left). Instead, hard drive pricing seems to be tending to a very linear ratio so there's no obvious best value point anymore. That's the real take-away.