• garbage_world@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 day ago

    We don’t know, but we have another explanation: consumers went to buy from all three memory manufacturers at once, offering the same, high price.

    • als@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The problem lies in 3 companies owning a monopoly on dram production and all conspiring together to make things shit for everyone who isn’t them

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          They very much can when they’ve been proven to collude to keep prices up.

          If any one of them started making more RAM, they’d make a lot more profit than the other two. If all 3 did, they’d all still make a bunch of profit, but not as much as right now. They have an agreement that nobody ramps up RAM production so everyone gets to keep super high margins.

          In the past they’ve literally agreed upon a target price to keep…

          • GoatSynagogue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            You’re alleging that they’re doing this. Zero proof.

            3 companies can’t have a monopoly. It’s literally in the definition of the word monopoly.

      • garbage_world@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        The problem is the fact demand is higher than supply, which memory manufacturers are trying to solve.

        If they’re competing with each other, which they are, it’s not a monopoly.