“NAND flash prices have continued to rise, with demand being stimulated most recently by reports that Apple will roll out a new audio-video product adopting NAND flash memory. Apple was recently reported by Reuters to be scheduling a product launch next week, with speculation being that the company will introduce an iPod that can display videos,” Hans Wu and Carrie Yu report for DigiTimes.
“Prices for NAND flash memory in all segments rose at least 1% yesterday, with the 8Gbit segment increasing 2.8% to more than US$52 while 4Gbit prices rose 2.54%, according to DRAMeXchange,” Wu and Yu report.
Full article here.
Related articles:
Disgruntled iPod also-rans accuse Samsung of ‘damage’ by selling Apple cheap NAND flash memory – September 29, 2005
Apple’s iPod nano forces price cuts on flash-based MP3 players in Taiwan – September 15, 2005
Apple’s music competition having tough time and the iPod nano won’t help them – September 14, 2005
Piper Jaffray: Apple seeing high demand for iPod nano – September 14, 2005
Apple iPod nano 32GB possible in second half 2006? Samsung unveils new flash memory NAND chips – September 12, 2005
Also-ran MP3 player makers miffed by Apple’s impossibly low price for iPod nano – September 09, 2005
Apple introduces iPod nano – September 07, 2005
Apple stomps competitors in flash-based MP3 player market – September 02, 2005
This won’t affect Apple because they have a high volume purchase agreement in place. However, Creative, Dell and several others are going to suffer.
Hmm, not really sure why…if it’s a video capable iPod, it’ll use a HD, not flash memory…
Makes no sense. a video iPod could only have hard drives. Flash is too expensive to have the capacity needed for video.
Wow. am i first?
MW: Long as in . .. I “long” for more Apple products.
It uses a hard drive and NAND flash to cache the video as not to drain the battery keeping the hard drive spinning.
ITG
Flache cache! Flash cash!
Would 1G be sufficient?
Aye – the NAND would be used for brains, not storage.
The price of red curtains also went up
Using flash as a cache is a very odd idea. Usually you would use DRAM for that, but it might be that flash is cheaper, and it allows a lot of rewrites these days. DRAM is much faster, but perhaps you could have a small DRAM cache and a large flash one. It would certainly be an interesting design.
MDN word “through”, as in “it would probably be a write-through cache”
This shows you how greedy these people are. This is all based on a rumor of a possible vPod, that’s just insane!
Haha… I don’t know why, but, Sally G, that has to be one of the funniest things I have read today. Thanks. It made me do one of those office-cubicle laughs, you know, where you try to hold it in, but it somehow comes out of your nose.
Yes, SallyG gets MDN funniest post of the day.
The Dude abides.