NAND Memory On The Rise - Intel Losing Share to Samsung in Flash Memory

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20030910/ON200309102342001721.var&amp;column=P0DFP">http://www.quicken.com/investments/news_center/story/?story=NewsStory/dowJones/20030910/ON200309102342001721.var&amp;column=P0DFP</a><br /><br />The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Samsung is rapidly gaining on Intel in the lucrative flash memory market used in cell phones, cameras and PDAs.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/hansberry/2002/20021202-nandflash.gif" /><br /><br />"During the second quarter, for example, the market-research firm iSuppli Corp. estimates that Intel accounted for 19.2% of all flash-memory revenue, down from 25.5% in the fourth quarter of 2002. Over the same period, Samsung's share rose from 16.9% to 17.1%, just a couple of percentage points behind the Santa Clara, Calif., company."<br /><br />This battle is something savy device users will notice too. Intel's brand of flash memory is the NOR type, which is typically viewed as better for devices like PDAs because apps can be run directly from the ROM. Samsung is pushing NAND memory. It is cheaper, but also has RAM penalties since a section of the devices RAM must be used to hold the code the must be copied out of ROM before it can be processed.<br /><br />The <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB106323240437704100,00.html?mod=technology_main_whats_news">Wall Street Journal article is here</a> but you must be a subscriber to read the whole thing. I've linked to another summary in the topic header.

[townsendtribe]

Okay, so is this article saying that we will soon be getting a pocket pc with more RAM at no additional cost, but our sacrafice is that some of the RAM is used to store the ROM data?

Give me a device with 256 MB and take away 32 for ROM storage, at no additional cost for the boost in RAM and ask me if I care I only have 222 MB RAM!

Am I reading that right?

[Christian]

That's the way I understood it. Personally I think many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...

[townsendtribe]

...many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...

It's the "WE FEAR CHANGE" mantality.

[surur]

...many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...

It's the "WE FEAR CHANGE" mantality.

Try replacing 256 wtih 64 and the calculation comes out very different!

Give me a device with 64 MB and take away 32 for ROM storage, at no additional cost for the boost in RAM and ask me if I care I only have 32 MB RAM! {left over}


I think I would care :|

Surur

[Jason Dunn]

Personally I think many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...

Well, to be fair, NAND in the near term is pretty ugly. Witness the 64 MB Viewsonic V35 with only 36.5 MB of usable RAM. Ouch! When you have 128 MB of RAM it's not such a big deal, but at the low end, NAND is a painful solution... :cry:

[townsendtribe]

Try replacing 256 wtih 64 and the calculation comes out very different! ... Give me a device with 64 MB and take away 32 for ROM storage, at no additional cost for the boost in RAM and ask me if I care I only have 32 MB RAM! {left over}
I think I would care :|

Surur

But that's not what I am saying. I am referring to the fact that the NAND is cheaper, so if we were to pay the same price, we would get more, feasably 256 MB. Then the 32 for the ROM wouldn't matter that much. I'm going a bit outside the box...

[surur]

Personally I think many people have been needlessly upset by NAND memory. It seems to make a lot of sense...

Im of course referring to the needless part. I think those people who actually experienced the current active implementation of NAND had alot of reason to be upset. Maybe in the future things will be alot better.

Surur

[Ed Hansberry]

But that's not what I am saying. I am referring to the fact that the NAND is cheaper, so if we were to pay the same price, we would get more, feasably 256 MB. Then the 32 for the ROM wouldn't matter that much. I'm going a bit outside the box...
I think you are going a bit in left field. :wink:

NAND is not so cheap that we go from 64MB to 256MB devices. We aren't even going from 64-96MB. We are just getting 64MB, small file stores and less than stated usable RAM.

[ctmagnus]

But if people pay for 64MB of memory, they should get 64MB of useable memory. It's kind of insane to have 64MB of data on a 64MB device, but I wouldn't but any device that had xMB memory but only x-yMB usable by the end user.

[Kathy_Harris]

Does the HP 1910 have NAND memory? Between little memory and MS Reader leaks, I am constantly out of memory. My 32 mb 3650 was better with memory!

[Janak Parekh]

Does the HP 1910 have NAND memory? Between little memory and MS Reader leaks, I am constantly out of memory. My 32 mb 3650 was better with memory!
Yes, it does. However, install the updated Reader instead of the one that comes with the 1910. It solves most of the memory leak issues.

--janak

[maximus]

So in a sense, all of you are correct. NAND will be the prominent type of flash memory in the near future, when all PPCs are equipped with 128+ KB.

Well, if NAND is so much cheaper (I read on a ZDnet article that NAND is 52% cheaper than NOR), then PPC OEMs will soon choose to put 256 NAND instead of 128 NOR. Right ?

[Ed Hansberry]

So in a sense, all of you are correct. NAND will be the prominent type of flash memory in the near future, when all PPCs are equipped with 128+ KB
I too long for the day when Pocket PCs have more than 128 KB :lol:

[Christian]

But if people pay for 64MB of memory, they should get 64MB of useable memory. It's kind of insane to have 64MB of data on a 64MB device, but I wouldn't but any device that had xMB memory but only x-yMB usable by the end user.

My point was that in a way, the user isn't paying for 64MB of usable memory, since NAND is cheaper. If device manufacturers choose not to lower the price or increase the amount of memory when switching memory technologies, then the fault lies in their marketing and not in the technology. It would seem to me that excluding such marketing practices, NAND memory should accomplish either reduced prices or increased capacities - both of which are good for the consumer.

[ctmagnus]

If NAND does prevail, one thing I would like to see happen is for manufacturers to state the NAND-ized amount of memory on the box, website etc and indicate the actual amount of memory in fine print.

[Christian]

Manufacturers should definitely indicate the "post-NAND" memory clearly, as some are already doing. The (in my opinion a bit excessive) scandal over the V35's launch showed how important full disclosure can be. Although it seems that this situation is improving at least...

[maximus]

So in a sense, all of you are correct. NAND will be the prominent type of flash memory in the near future, when all PPCs are equipped with 128+ KB
I too long for the day when Pocket PCs have more than 128 KB :lol:

128 GB :razz: