Usually, companies like Apple are largely to blame. [1]The memory market is said to be an oligopoly on the supply side, but Apple's low pricing and poor margins led to a halt in industry investment. In fact, there were reports in my country, Korea, that SK Hynix was cutting back on electricity usage.(during the downcycle, that is.)
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.
Explain how this works when their phones only capture roughly 20% market share, and their computers only 10%. That is to say nothing of the demand for server memory.
It seems like they only represent a fraction of the demand side, but wield an outsized influence over supply?
They are the largest customer. You don't annoy you largest customer. DRAM manufacture don't care whether the RAM are for Laptop or Phone. And Samsung + Apple combined is nearly 50% of the phone market. The rest are split up between many Chinese companies.
It may be surprising to some having a short / long term contract of DRAM may actually be more expensive than spot price of DRAM. Smaller manufacture likes to take advantage of spot price, since their shipment are usually volatile. Compare to Apple which has been shipping their products and selling them like clock work. Hence Apple will need these contract signed to have guarantee of supply.
And when you are the largest customer for all three DRAM manufactures, they get to play the game better than anyone else.
In the commodity raw materials market, marginal price determination is highly volatile. Usually, even if total market supply exceeds demand by just 5% to 10%, prices crash dramatically. In the end, the 10–20% that Apple holds is the casting vote. Why do you think swing states are so important in elections?
It's a 'allegations,' right? It's not a 'verdict,' is it? I'm not American, so I'm not sure, but in the US, are 'It's a 'allegations,' right? It's not a 'verdict,' is it? I'm not American, so I'm not sure, but in the US, are 'suspicion' and 'confirmation' legally interpreted the same way? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.
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.
The big memory companies have been caught price fixing and been fined for it historically. So I’d wager that it’s bound to repeat itself. As far as Apple being to blame, that’s a weird conclusion.
Literally every other commodity market with only a few players will have price fixing by the definition of those verdict. Since there are limited customer in the market and limited supply. Even without the player actively asking what others are buying or selling the market over time will naturally arrives at an equilibrium.
I got curious because of what you said, so I looked up the plaintiffs, and they're located about 15 minutes away from Apple Park. I'm not sure if this is accurate.
> Usually, companies like Apple are largely to blame
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.
>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.
Then they risk losing Apple as a customer, with empty Fabs running which cost them most money. And pile of stock unable to be covered by any other player in the market.
The power is over at the buy side. The sell side have very little leverage. Hence they some times come together, and then they were called price fixing.
It's true that memory companies formed a cartel in the early 2000s, and I'm not saying the memory companies did nothing wrong.
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?
> “Apple should certainly be blamed for deteriorating the supply and demand cycle in the global NAND flash market,” The Korea Times quotes an un-named industry official as saying. The article goes on to say that the Apple iPhone is proving less popular in China, Japan and South Korea than it has in the West.
Seems like the problem is that Apple is so big it's putting the market under an unhealthy pressure. Kinda reminds my of big supermarket chains pressuring farmers to sell their stock with low to no margin by being the main buyers.
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.
Save your time, has Zero details on the DRAM shortages and price hikes.
This is the Micron top signal.
Here's a question for the VP:
"Are memory manufacturers a tight oligopoly engaging in tacit price collusion?"
Usually, companies like Apple are largely to blame. [1]The memory market is said to be an oligopoly on the supply side, but Apple's low pricing and poor margins led to a halt in industry investment. In fact, there were reports in my country, Korea, that SK Hynix was cutting back on electricity usage.(during the downcycle, that is.)
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...
Explain how this works when their phones only capture roughly 20% market share, and their computers only 10%. That is to say nothing of the demand for server memory.
It seems like they only represent a fraction of the demand side, but wield an outsized influence over supply?
> Explain....
They are the largest customer. You don't annoy you largest customer. DRAM manufacture don't care whether the RAM are for Laptop or Phone. And Samsung + Apple combined is nearly 50% of the phone market. The rest are split up between many Chinese companies.
It may be surprising to some having a short / long term contract of DRAM may actually be more expensive than spot price of DRAM. Smaller manufacture likes to take advantage of spot price, since their shipment are usually volatile. Compare to Apple which has been shipping their products and selling them like clock work. Hence Apple will need these contract signed to have guarantee of supply.
And when you are the largest customer for all three DRAM manufactures, they get to play the game better than anyone else.
For example, if iPhone unit share is 20% but it has double the RAM compared to cheap phones that's ~40% byte share.
What is Apples share across all memory delivered? How does that compare with the 40% of wafers locked up by OpenAI?
I don’t know the answer to either. On the surface I would estimate Apple a large, but not majority consumer overall.
In the commodity raw materials market, marginal price determination is highly volatile. Usually, even if total market supply exceeds demand by just 5% to 10%, prices crash dramatically. In the end, the 10–20% that Apple holds is the casting vote. Why do you think swing states are so important in elections?
Any thoughts on the latest price fixing allegations?: https://en.sedaily.com/international/2026/06/29/samsung-sk-h...
It's a 'allegations,' right? It's not a 'verdict,' is it? I'm not American, so I'm not sure, but in the US, are 'It's a 'allegations,' right? It's not a 'verdict,' is it? I'm not American, so I'm not sure, but in the US, are 'suspicion' and 'confirmation' legally interpreted the same way? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.
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.
The big memory companies have been caught price fixing and been fined for it historically. So I’d wager that it’s bound to repeat itself. As far as Apple being to blame, that’s a weird conclusion.
>caught price fixing
Literally every other commodity market with only a few players will have price fixing by the definition of those verdict. Since there are limited customer in the market and limited supply. Even without the player actively asking what others are buying or selling the market over time will naturally arrives at an equilibrium.
I got curious because of what you said, so I looked up the plaintiffs, and they're located about 15 minutes away from Apple Park. I'm not sure if this is accurate.
> Usually, companies like Apple are largely to blame
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.
>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.
Then they risk losing Apple as a customer, with empty Fabs running which cost them most money. And pile of stock unable to be covered by any other player in the market.
The power is over at the buy side. The sell side have very little leverage. Hence they some times come together, and then they were called price fixing.
It's true that memory companies formed a cartel in the early 2000s, and I'm not saying the memory companies did nothing wrong.
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?
> “Apple should certainly be blamed for deteriorating the supply and demand cycle in the global NAND flash market,” The Korea Times quotes an un-named industry official as saying. The article goes on to say that the Apple iPhone is proving less popular in China, Japan and South Korea than it has in the West.
Seems like the problem is that Apple is so big it's putting the market under an unhealthy pressure. Kinda reminds my of big supermarket chains pressuring farmers to sell their stock with low to no margin by being the main buyers.
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.