|
|
|
|
|
by dunmalg
1751 days ago
|
|
>we should mandate some form of this technology so we don't waste foundary output on throw-away parts (planned obsolescence). That's not planned obsolescence. Planned obsolescence is INTENTIONALLY rendering a product unusable/undesirable in order to sell more product. A prime example is changing the chapter questions in a college textbook to force new students to buy new books that teach the same thing. Things that are NOT planned obsolescence but people mistakenly think they are include cheap inkjet printers (they last as long as any reasonable person should expect).... or NOT including an expensive oxide layer regenerating heater in a THUMB DRIVE that's only intended for casual file transfers, not long term storage of frequently changing data. Ans really, does it make sense to MANDATE a complex heating scheme for flash drives? The way drive capacity and usage continuously scales upwards, old drives would be pointless long before they died. Do you REALLY still use old 32 megabyte flash memory in today's age of terabyte drives? |
|
"The new product stores 4x as much but lasts less than 1/100th as long" doesn't sound good, but that's the reality of what NAND flash industry is like. Meanwhile what little SLC is still available but priced far above what the cost/capacity would suggest, encouraging use of the cheaper and less reliable stuff. Manufacturers playing tricks with things like "SLC cache" and the like. Doesn't that seem suspiciously like planned obolescence?