How can it be that one minute there's stories on how Apple is buy up all the flash memory in the world and constraining supplies for everyone, and the next minute they're holding off because demand is slow?

obvious

Apple is holding off on buying flash memory to let the market saturate to the point of being a glut. This will spiral prices downward, at which point Apple will swoop in and snag big orders at low-low-low prices.

Not obvious

My point is, previous stories said apple was buying up all there was that was available, and the complaint was they were leaving zero supplies for all the other companies that desperately needed them. Apple was keeping anyone from getting any. Now, Apple's not buying, and suddenly there's slow demand.

You make it sound like not buying while the price is artificially high (low demand, emphasis on profit) is not something a smart company, *any* smart company, wouldn't do or shouldn't do, as if it's unethical. There's nothing to indicate they stopped ordering while production levels were high, high on expecations of big sales that were pulled out from under them like a rug.

If only you could argue and posit when it makes sense, and not just to be argumentative and incendiary.

Re: Not obvious

My point is, previous stories said apple was buying up all there was that was available, and the complaint was they were leaving zero supplies for all the other companies that desperately needed them. Apple was keeping anyone from getting any. Now, Apple's not buying, and suddenly there's slow demand.

Right. What's the point? Apple had orders/contracts for large amounts of ram. Those contracts aren't forever. So if said contracts expired (and Apple has all the RAM they need right now), then they'd let the go and those other people can swoop in and get their RAM they need. But without Apple's big orders, the demand isn't the same.

You make it sound like not buying while the price is artificially high (low demand, emphasis on profit) is not something a smart company, *any* smart company, wouldn't do or shouldn't do, as if it's unethical.

First, where did you get the 'facts' that the price of the flash ram is artificially high? Or that there's low demand? According to all reports before this one, demand was high (and Apple had all the RAM, neither here nor there).

Oh, wait, you're not going to be critical of Samsung's desire for profit over market share, are you? Because I don't know how to break it to you, but this is exactly what Apple does. Their computers sell at 30% margins. They could sell more and increase market share, but they prefer profit. There's nothing wrong with that. If you own a Mac, you then are agreeing that it is a company's decision to do this.

But that does NOT make the price 'artificially' high. In fact, one could argue the price is 'correct', while others sell at artificially low prices in order to gain market share or to sell their stock, in lieu of profit.

Another example used on these boards are all the people claiming netbooks will be the death of all PC vendors, because they sell at close to cost. As such, there is little to no profit made. But if all netbooks suddenly jumped in price 20% as the companies decided they needed to actually make money, would you argue that the price was artificially high, or that they finally learned that you can't survive selling on shoestring profits?

Second, you used so many negatives in your statement, I have no idea if you're being critical of me for not buying RAM at current prices, or that they should be, or what. So excuse me for not answering that part of your complaint.

But if you read the above article, it points out that Apple has been criticized for 'reserving' more memory than the order, thus freezing out others and jacking up the price for any other vendors, while Apple still gets their stock. They question it's ethicalness of it, not me. (And if Apple is trying to corner the market in this way, it is at the very least sleazy business practice - ethics are a hard thing to nail down, but you would think the RAM vendors wouldn't sign such contracts that tie up too much stock that may not be sold).

There's nothing to indicate they stopped ordering while production levels were high, high on expecations of big sales that were pulled out from under them like a rug.

So are you saying that Apple's sales of iPods/iPhones have flattened? That's news to lots of people.

If only you could argue and posit when it makes sense, and not just to be argumentative and incendiary.

Well, if you could argue in a coherent sentence, that would help too. But I wasn't arguing. At most I was positing. And everything I said is what any company would do (esp. one who spends so much on this stuff), including Apple.

And in case you didn't notice, it only makes sense, since the flash ram market is very cyclical.

...

*So are you saying that Apple's sales of iPods/iPhones have flattened? That's news to lots of people.*

No, I am not. I have no idea how you got that idea.

*First, where did you get the 'facts' that the price of the flash ram is artificially high? Or that there's low demand?*

I did not say anything about facts. I read the article. "Slow demand for flash drives and camera cards, as well as Samsung's emphasis on profit over market share, are understood to be factors."

It's easier to hold a sane conversation with a wall than with you. There's no sense in trying to talk to you, since you live in your own little world.