Businesses raise prices all the time. Every introduction to economics text will tell you that when demand goes up, prices go up. It should seem obvious that prices go up because sellers raise them.
I understand this. The question I have is, is it the manufacturer’s wholesale prices increasing the prices or the retailers? Hard drive prices have always been much higher outside the U.S. and reports are percentage wise, they’re much higher in Asia, where demand is highest. That’s understandable, but again, the question is, is it because of wholesale price increases or retail? I understand that it’s probably a bit of both, but are manufacturers really raising their wholesale prices by 50-100%+ and retailers just following suit?
It’ll depend on the agreements they have with their vendors. I would expect that most of those agreements have terms (1 year, 6 months, etc) where the HD Man agrees to provide X drives at $Y/each. They wouldn’t be able to increase pricing until the end of that agreement. I’m speaking specifically of their deals with Dell and the other big PC sellers.
Reports are that for now, the large scale buyers, particularly Enterprise and datacenter buyers, who comprise the majority of sales are unaffected because of what was written above. If I see Costco selling hard drives (which they probably don’t have a continuous buying agreement for) for twice as much as a couple of months, I’ll accept that wholesale prices have risen that much because of Costco’s policy of a max 15% markup on all their items.
The question is not clear. The question in the thread title was answered above. Otherwise you seem to be asking about an opinion on the future prices of disk drives.
You’re correct on both counts. I accept that manufacturer’s can raise prices arbitrarily based on market demand. What I don’t accept is the claim by the poster on the other forum that since the manufacturers have a taste of higher profits, they continue to maintain their pricing. Which leads to:
Manufactures can set the price of their product at what ever price they want. The market place will determine if they are sucessful or not.
Isn’t price gouging only for natural disasters? Likewise, price fixing and collusion requires companies illegally agreeing to keep their prices artificially high. Prices go up in the markets all the time and that’s not price fixing.
I’m not saying the manufacturer’s are in collusion to increase wholesale prices, that would be illegal. What I’m in disagreement with is the other poster’s claim that prices after this temporary rush will remain high without price fixing.
After the 2011 Thailand flood, it wasn’t until 2013 that hard drive prices returned to pre-flood levels. There where claims that the prices should have come down much quicker as the manufacturers quickly (of course at great expense, reflected in their initial pricing) ramped up production in their existing factories.
I’ll bet this is true. Do you disagree? In the short term, the companies may do things like extend production shifts into overtime or add an extra shift to produce more goods if they have the capacity. Goods produced at overtime wages cost more, so they will only do that if prices are high enough to justify the extra cost per unit.
I don’t disagree at all. What I’m contending is that the increased costs will eventually be recouped, just a in 2013 and prices will return to pre-rush levels, not remain artificially high just to maintain higher returns.
According to this and previous articles, actual physical sales of drives has been down for the past year or so, but total storage capacity sold is up. So in theory* the manufacturers could ramp up product production in time, meeting and hopefully for them, not exceeding demand.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomcoughlin/2021/02/07/in-2020-hdd-companies-shipped-over-1zb-of-storage-capacity/?sh=28cd5d064894
*Of course subject to long term return on investment concerns. It’s likely that this current rush and boom in sales will eventually, hopefully sooner than later, burn itself out as small scale mining becomes less profitable.