Why on earth!

Margaret

Margaret

Margaret

Permabanned
Joined
15 Nov 2006
Posts
16,474
Was just browsing the hard drives and I noticed quite a few occasions that a 250GB HDD is only about 3 pounds more than a 160, same thing with a 320 it's about 4 pounds more than a 250...etc

Is this a pricing error? As the hard drives were all good makes and the bigger hard drives had more cache in some cases, some even had more cache + less read time. :confused:

Earlier on I nearly bought another 160 Deskstar then found a 320 on the same site for about 6 quid more. (Plus it had less read time & double the cache)

Doesn't make much sense surely someone would rather pay about 7 quid more for a 320GB over a 160. (Or say 3 quid more for a 250)
 
Last edited:
It's simple economics. If a particular product is popular a supplier will get a good deal on a bulk buy which can reduce the gap in prices between different models. Conversely retailers will be unwilling to reduce old stock too much to cut their losses.

On top of that the actual difference in manufacturing cost between a 160Gb drive and a 320Gb drive in the same range is peanuts - the casing is the same, the motor and head drive mechanisms are the same all that is added for the 320 is an extra platter and two more heads.
 
rpstewart said:
It's simple economics. If a particular product is popular a supplier will get a good deal on a bulk buy which can reduce the gap in prices between different models. Conversely retailers will be unwilling to reduce old stock too much to cut their losses.

On top of that the actual difference in manufacturing cost between a 160Gb drive and a 320Gb drive in the same range is peanuts - the casing is the same, the motor and head drive mechanisms are the same all that is added for the 320 is an extra platter and two more heads.
Click to expand...
Ah I get it I suppose. :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom