How come the HDD giants didn't get on board with SSD's?

Still won't replace HDD's until they lower in price per GB. This 15TB samsung drive costs $5k-10k+ by most estimates, vs a cheap 10GB HDD that has proven reliability etc.

They will in data centres. Speed and reliability offsets some of the cost. But mainstream, correct, but it won't be long!
 
You think? Mechanical hard drive development has pretty much hit a wall the last few years. SSD prices and capacity will likely match and exceed that of mechanical drives within 5 years, if not sooner.

More devices have HDDs now than ever before; cars, games consoles, set-top boxes etc. As long as HDDs remain cheaper and more economical than SSDs there'll continue to be a huge market for them both in consumer electronics and mass-storage for enterprise.
 
More devices have HDDs now than ever before; cars, games consoles, set-top boxes etc. As long as HDDs remain cheaper and more economical than SSDs there'll continue to be a huge market for them both in consumer electronics and mass-storage for enterprise.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/h...rd-disk-drives-hit-multi-year-low-in-q1-2015/

Hard disk sales are falling. Datacenter sales are already flat, even though it's a growing sector (ie SSDs are driving the growth).
 
For datacentres that rent out servers - who pays the price of the SSD - the end-user.

So until the end-users/customers want to pay the extra for SSDs then HDDs are not going anywhere.
 
More devices have HDDs now than ever before; cars, games consoles, set-top boxes etc. As long as HDDs remain cheaper and more economical than SSDs there'll continue to be a huge market for them both in consumer electronics and mass-storage for enterprise.

Personally I think a lot of you are missing a major point.

For majority of uses even 64gb ssd's are more than enough and these are already throw away items, and even 128gb could now be considered that - they are worth pence to manufacturers buying in bulk

So many more issues with mechanical discs in comparison ( power usage, physical size, the mere fact they are mechanical and therefore by definition less reliable)

Everythng by the very nature is becoming cheaper so everything from a mobile phone, to a tablet, to majority of other consumer electronic items are more likely to share as many parts as possible. 18 mnths ago the 128gb iPhone was the largest (easily available) phone on the market - now its already in midrange phones.

Large capacity ssd's are on the way ( to retail) its inevitable as jokster suggested. Its making less and less sense to make larger mechanical disks. By 2020 there will be as large ssds as there are mechanical now (6tb readily available / 8tb if you look a little) in retail - if not ssd's replacement :)

.
People renting datacentre space are highly unlikely to be interested in the "mechanics" of what the servers are comprised of. Primary concern is availability and redundancy etc - not componant technology which will be completely invisible. Is it powerful enough and is it widely available.

Those building their own is another matter, but heat, noise, power and physical size all work massively in ssds favour already
 
Last edited:
For datacentres that rent out servers - who pays the price of the SSD - the end-user.

So until the end-users/customers want to pay the extra for SSDs then HDDs are not going anywhere.

Datacentres will care about lifetime cost - so lower power use and better life are big factors regardless of what the consumers want. Performance too is desirable for them as the less time CPUs spend waiting on IO the more they can do -> the more customers you can have, the more money you take.

Purchase price is one fairly small part of the picture,. which is why SSDs are dominating the market. It's mostly end-users that can be easily swayed by purchase price, not business.

(Also quite a few customers will require performance so will specify SSD anyway)
 
Back
Top Bottom