if AI companies buying a lot of future RAM caused the prices to spike, why wont the fabs just announce that they will also increase their capacity in the future?this should cancel each other out and lower the cost of RAM right now.
>>107840152
>>107840157Based, knew she wasn't a freetard
fucking her raw until she understands economics
dram makers have lost a lot of money overproducing in the past. even on good years for them it's barely profitablethey're not going to dramatically build more fabs unless they know demand will remain consistently high
>>107840152Increasing production, especially of complex shit like modern chips, takes time.
>>107840152New fabs cost like 50B$. The AI buble can burst at any moment, causing the market to crash and the 2nd hand market to spike -> 0 demand.No manufacturer wants to go with that risk.It would be most clever to reduce fabsize desu.
>>107840152Because they make more money by creating an artificial shortage because of monopolies.
>>107840382>No manufacturer wants to go with that risk.Correction: there's not enough competition to force a manufacturer take the risk.
>>107840152The manufacturers dont give a shit of you or large enterprises need more of them at a cheaper price. They are perfectly comfortable with the current arrangement, after they decreased their capacities early in 2025
>>107840152Fabs don't want the price of their product to go down though OP.
>>107840152what we really should be increasing the production of is fox sexi think, that if fox sex were to be mass produced, then gamers wouldn't need as much memory
>>107840410Correction: there's not enough competition to force a manufacturer to take the risk.And there's no antitrust initiative to force a dismantlement of the current monopolies to force prices down. That is all. Your politicians and the leading lawyers of your countries are just letting it happen, likely being paid for it too.
fabs don't want to take the risk because they know behind the scenes that the data center boom is not going to last very long
>>107840415Well most people would struggle to do anything if there were government enforced mass produced sex foxes around.And the birth rate of normal human beings would plummet while human-fox hybrids would skyrocket.
>>107840435Wrong, they are a monopoly and are therefore risk averse to the point where they refuse to take the risk to increase the scale of production. Monopolies in the market make a risk averse, stagnant market and that is what we're beginning to see with semi-conductor producers. Learn to economics.
>>107840152I have an idea.We lie out of our asses, make convincing enough papers and powerpoints for investors to get them to invest in "downlaodable RAM". We sell it as the next big thing, and if we get enough money being thrown our way the price of RAM will eventually go down from people thinking you can just download it.It's fool proof! Or at least it counts on people being fools to work!
>>107840152>why wont the fabs just announce that they will also increase their capacity in the future?Because they won'tFabs know that the AI memory boom is a short term thing and won't risk overcommitting resources on itThey'll keep producing the same amount of RAM, and don't really care if it goes to consumers or datacenters
>>107840402Why would the amount of manufacturers change that?If I had a company like that, i wouldn't. If most of the people I know had one, they wouldn't either. It is just logic, not lack of diversity.Of course at some point you might have a retard doing exactly that, so I guess you are right to a degree, but I don't think that argument makes sense. It is not the problem here.
>ITT people responding to AIslOP as if it's a real poster
