Q&A with Micron's VP and GM of Memory(morethanmoore.substack.com) |
Q&A with Micron's VP and GM of Memory(morethanmoore.substack.com) |
"Are memory manufacturers a tight oligopoly engaging in tacit price collusion?"
The problem is that while AI has increased memory consumption and brought an upcycle, during the downcycle, mega-buyers like Apple caused various issues, and the production equipment that was scaled back during that time is now leading to supply shortages in the upcycle [2]. Apple fans probably won't admit it, though.
The memory industry itself has a characteristic where even a slight drop in demand causes prices to plummet, and even a slight shortage in supply causes prices to skyrocket. Elpida is a classic example. It's a structure where a company that loses in competition simply cannot survive by staying small.
[1] https://www.eetimes.com/apple-accused-of-nand-price-manipula...
[2] https://9to5mac.com/2026/06/25/micron-exec-suggests-apples-a...
It seems like they only represent a fraction of the demand side, but wield an outsized influence over supply?
Seems very similar with Apple, using their closed technology to maintain an oligopoly position, which makes them able to pressure suppliers and perverse the market.
Just as a point of fact, Micron and its peers have in the past operated an illegal cartel that engaged in a price fixing conspiracy to manipulate the cost of RAM.
> mega-buyers like Apple caused various issues, and the production equipment that was scaled back during that time is now leading to supply shortages in the upcycle [2]. Apple fans probably won't admit it, though.
That's Micron's problem. Nobody held a gun to their heads and made them accept the prices Apple was offering. Micron willingly took those deals.
It's just that in the context of the current price surge, the biggest factor varies depending on how you look at it, but hardware manufacturing itself has problems with fixed-cost structures and demand monopolies. It's a problem of sunk costs. If fab utilization drops, losses pile up. In other words, a fab has to run 24/7.
So the problem is that if a fab stops running, astronomical losses begin, so it's natural to hesitate in investing in production facilities. And that hesitation is driven by fundamental issues of supply and demand. That's also why memory became expensive.
Ultimately, it seems you agree that the current prices were formed by these voluntarily created conditions, right?
There are also cases where other companies back consumer lawsuits, right? In the end, I don't think it's too late even after a verdict comes out, but you might think differently. Here's my take:
In any case, both Apple and Micron are corporations. Both are capitalists, so they're not virtuous and they act in their own self-interest. The question is which side should bear more responsibility.
In my case, I think Apple bears more responsibility. You, on the other hand, seem to think the supplier's responsibility is greater. Either way, I respect your opinion.