Where's the other half of SSD evolution?

[Loa]

Hello,

While I'm quite happy to see newer and much faster SSDs, I'm intrigued by the fact that we don't see big (~512GB) yet slow(er) SSDs on the market. By slower I mean Intel G1 SSD speeds. It seems to me that SSDs keep evolving very quickly, but the price points (by size) remain more or less the same. The drives are much much faster, but not really more accessible.

If Intel were to market an affordable (~400$) 512GB SSD, but with "slow" first gen speeds, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Loa

 

[philipma1957]

Hello,

While I'm quite happy to see newer and much faster SSDs, I'm intrigued by the fact that we don't see big (~512GB) yet slow(er) SSDs on the market. By slower I mean Intel G1 SSD speeds. It seems to me that SSDs keep evolving very quickly, but the price points (by size) remain more or less the same. The drives are much much faster, but not really more accessible.

If Intel were to market an affordable (~400$) 512GB SSD, but with "slow" first gen speeds, I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Loa

AS long as people are buying 80gb and 160gb and then off loading the user folders to 2tb hdds it will never happen. intel is in the business of making money and building .5 tb or 1tb or 2tb ssds lets say in a 3.5 inch unit may not be best for profit.

 

[TheStrudel]

I don't think it's necessarily economically feasible to do what you're suggesting as a product strategy, given the cost of NAND.

Also, the market seems to have settled into a "SSD for software, HDD for data" system and prices are basically supporting that scheme.

 

[ActionableMango]

With everyone and everything going to NAND, there are probably supply/demand issues keeping prices stable.

There is plenty of competition, so I'm sure at least one of the vendors would have tried a low cost solution if it were economically feasible.