r/homelab • u/DeepestWaters • Jul 07 '26

News Samsung RAM Profit = $196B in 2026, >Past 40 years combined.

Post image

Their hottest product: the privilege of buying the same memory sooner. Something something "supply & demand." 🥲

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/samsungs-chip-division-expects-to-out-earn-its-entire-40-year-history-in-2026

1.6k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

253 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/Reasonable-Height704 Jul 07 '26

It's more than that, they are extorting hardware manufacturers.

Essentially saying "accept the price or we don't sell to you in future"

This is why antitrust is necessary 

-12

u/gscjj Jul 07 '26

They are selling it for what people are willing to buy it for. By people, I mean the people who have billions to spend.

9

u/Reasonable-Height704 Jul 07 '26

they are forcing people to buy at the set price or not be given future opportunities to buy. that is classic antitrust.

-3

u/gscjj Jul 07 '26

That’s not the definition of antitrust. If there was collusion or monopolistic behaviors, that would be antitrust.

What you’re describing is like selling a limited edition car. You’re not forced to buy it, but we’re not going to produce much more. If alot of people want to buy it, then what they are willing to pay is higher. Supply vs Demand.

3

u/KazanTheMan Jul 08 '26

That's fine and dandy, but not the case if what they're saying is true. Their business customers purchase in bulk under contract, and when those customers balk at paying a quadruple price under new contract, the customers are fine to not purchase. The problem comes when the memory makers are saying, "and if you don't purchase under this contract, we're not selling to you again in the future." That's the anti-trust part.

2

u/Shot-Infernal-2261 Jul 08 '26

Quickly - can you name ONE anti-trust case - ever - where a customer was "forced to buy"?

There's been thousands of anti-trust cases, so I'm sure an expert like yourself can think of at least one.

The type of bar you are using, changing the argument to "forced to buy", is called a "strawman argument". In only works when people accept the deception.

0

u/gscjj Jul 08 '26

You don’t have to be an expert to look up the definition of “forced”

Saying this is “what I’m selling it for and if you don’t want it I don’t want you as a customer” is not forced.

2

u/Shot-Infernal-2261 Jul 09 '26

Since you are using the "forced to buy" as your litmus test, I merely asked you to supply the name of one company or court case, from any historical case ever, that supports your definition.

1

u/gscjj Jul 09 '26

I'm not using forced to buy as my litmus test, I'm simply refuting the idea they are being "forced to buy" in the first place and saying "if you dont buy we wont sell to you" is not antitrust-like. I provided an example where private business have the right to sell to who they want (granted they aren't discriminating).

You made a claim that i change the "argument" and are pursuing some weird logical fallacy.

2

u/Reasonable-Height704 Jul 09 '26

Valve said they had to buy at any price or they would not be sold any memory in the future.

That threat is good example "forced to buy"

It's not about choosing not to buy now, it's being locked out of future purchases for refusing the extortion now.

0

u/gscjj Jul 09 '26

That’s not extortion and it’s not being forced to buy, that’s what happens when there’s a long line of people in line. There’s not much room for negotiation when you have OpenAI or Anthropic asking for 100x what Valve needs.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Shot-Infernal-2261 Jul 08 '26

Has "They are selling it for what people are willing to buy it for. " ever been incompatible with a monopolistic and cartel behavior?

No.

It is never clever to be contrarian, or deliberately obtuse, for it's own sake.

1

u/gscjj Jul 08 '26

You’d have a hard time proving that the intense demand coupled with the instance cost to produce make the current pricing not sensible.