3 ms·

what if they have a bunch of flash products already made? They need to get rid of that product first before they make it worth less.

by jtmcmc 14y ago

mikeash 14y ago
They're talking about delaying commercialization from a year out to sometime farther. There's no way they have a year's worth of flash products sitting in inventory.
- batista 14y ago
  It's not only products siting in inventory. It's also: 1) products sitting in store fronts and retail, that will be unsold if they announce something new. 2) Investments (in the billions) they have made for flash production. You don't just kill all the money you have invested to build a flash plant because there's a new better technology. Not if you can delay the introduction of said technology until those costs are absorbed, and the investments have paid for themselves. 3) materials they have ordered for flash production. Volume deals to manufactures for metals and the like can run not just one year ahead but several. Selling the old stuff for a while is not even about price-fixing, if you think at this level, it's something natural that benefits all companies involved. They all have: factory stock, retail stock, investments in flash technology and volume orders on materials to absorb before making the jump.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    This all strikes me as an example of a sunk-cost fallacy. Either memristors will make more money, or they won't. If they will, it doesn't matter that you have a billion dollars invested in X that won't be useful anymore, because you've already spent that money. If memristors won't make more money than making flash products using existing infrastructure, then it's not ready for commercial use and there's no conspiracy behind the delay.
    - knewter 14y ago
      This is very clearly not the sunk cost fallacy. In this case, they are delaying making money (thanks to collusion + patents most likely) and they are still going to recoup their currently 'sunk' costs. The sunk cost fallacy is continuing to put money into something explicitly because you're counting the previously sunk costs instead of justifying it by "the remainder to be spent < the expected return value." In this case, that's not the calculation that's being made at all. Anyway, still enjoyed your comment :)
    - batista 14y ago
      >This all strikes me as an example of a sunk-cost fallacy. Either memristors will make more money, or they won't. If they will, it doesn't matter that you have a billion dollars invested in X that won't be useful anymore, because you've already spent that money. That's nothing like the "sunk cost fallacy". For one, in the sunk cost fallacy you cannot get your "sunk costs" back. But those companies CAN (and will), sell their old flash tech stock.

what if they have a bunch of flash products already made? They need to get rid of that product first before they make it worth less.

by jtmcmc 14y ago

what if they have a bunch of flash products already made? They need to get rid of that product first before they make it worth less.

mikeash 14y ago

They're talking about delaying commercialization from a year out to sometime farther. There's no way they have a year's worth of flash products sitting in inventory.

batista 14y ago
It's not only products siting in inventory. It's also: 1) products sitting in store fronts and retail, that will be unsold if they announce something new. 2) Investments (in the billions) they have made for flash production. You don't just kill all the money you have invested to build a flash plant because there's a new better technology. Not if you can delay the introduction of said technology until those costs are absorbed, and the investments have paid for themselves. 3) materials they have ordered for flash production. Volume deals to manufactures for metals and the like can run not just one year ahead but several. Selling the old stuff for a while is not even about price-fixing, if you think at this level, it's something natural that benefits all companies involved. They all have: factory stock, retail stock, investments in flash technology and volume orders on materials to absorb before making the jump.
- mikeash 14y ago
  This all strikes me as an example of a sunk-cost fallacy. Either memristors will make more money, or they won't. If they will, it doesn't matter that you have a billion dollars invested in X that won't be useful anymore, because you've already spent that money. If memristors won't make more money than making flash products using existing infrastructure, then it's not ready for commercial use and there's no conspiracy behind the delay.
  - knewter 14y ago
    This is very clearly not the sunk cost fallacy. In this case, they are delaying making money (thanks to collusion + patents most likely) and they are still going to recoup their currently 'sunk' costs. The sunk cost fallacy is continuing to put money into something explicitly because you're counting the previously sunk costs instead of justifying it by "the remainder to be spent < the expected return value." In this case, that's not the calculation that's being made at all. Anyway, still enjoyed your comment :)
  - batista 14y ago
    >This all strikes me as an example of a sunk-cost fallacy. Either memristors will make more money, or they won't. If they will, it doesn't matter that you have a billion dollars invested in X that won't be useful anymore, because you've already spent that money. That's nothing like the "sunk cost fallacy". For one, in the sunk cost fallacy you cannot get your "sunk costs" back. But those companies CAN (and will), sell their old flash tech stock.