• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Western Digital's Kodak moment

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
On Amazon I saw a WD 1tb "blue" SSD for $279. I said to myself, "That's not a good price at all. Who would buy it for that?" I researched the reviews a little bit and discovered that in addition it doesn't get good marks from those in the know, being essentially a rebranded Sandisk X400 (WD bought out Sandisk).

What's incredible to me is that WD and Seagate, two huge, well-established and very successful hard drive manufacturers, got so far behind the curve when it came to getting into the SSD market. They are now trying to catch up by buying out wannabe companies that were already in the SSD market but small players. They let other companies like Samsung and Crucial who had ties to memory chip manufacturers get the jump on them. WD and Seagate were essentially boxed out of the SSD niche for lack of chips as the nand chip production world wide could not keep up with demand.

It reminds me of how Kodak persisted in making film and film cameras when the world was moving over to digital photography and almost went down the tubes. And still, Kodak is a shadow of the company it used to be even though they finally started making digital cameras.
 

RJARRRPCGP

Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
On Amazon I saw a WD 1tb "blue" SSD for $279. I said to myself, "That's not a good price at all. Who would buy it for that?" I researched the reviews a little bit and discovered that in addition it doesn't get good marks from those in the know, being essentially a rebranded Sandisk X400 (WD bought out Sandisk).

What's incredible to me is that WD and Seagate, two huge, well-established and very successful hard drive manufacturers, got so far behind the curve when it came to getting into the SSD market. They are now trying to catch up by buying out wannabe companies that were already in the SSD market but small players. They let other companies like Samsung and Crucial who had ties to memory chip manufacturers get the jump on them. WD and Seagate were essentially boxed out of the SSD niche for lack of chips as the nand chip production world wide could not keep up with demand.

It reminds me of how Kodak persisted in making film and film cameras when the world was moving over to digital photography and almost went down the tubes. And still, Kodak is a shadow of the company it used to be even though they finally started making digital cameras.

Kodak pretty much went under by 2012! Kodak discontinued all camera manufacturing in 2012, if not before!



On Amazon I saw a WD 1tb "blue" SSD for $279. I said to myself, "That's not a good price at all. Who would buy it for that?" I researched the reviews a little bit and discovered that in addition it doesn't get good marks from those in the know, being essentially a rebranded Sandisk X400 (WD bought out Sandisk).

What's incredible to me is that WD and Seagate, two huge, well-established and very successful hard drive manufacturers, got so far behind the curve when it came to getting into the SSD market. They are now trying to catch up by buying out wannabe companies that were already in the SSD market but small players. They let other companies like Samsung and Crucial who had ties to memory chip manufacturers get the jump on them. WD and Seagate were essentially boxed out of the SSD niche for lack of chips as the nand chip production world wide could not keep up with demand.

It reminds me of how Kodak persisted in making film and film cameras when the world was moving over to digital photography and almost went down the tubes. And still, Kodak is a shadow of the company it used to be even though they finally started making digital cameras.

Looks realistic for an SSD. If it were a spinner, then it would be 2011 all over again!
 

Jeff G

Member
Joined
May 22, 2016
Kodak pretty much went under by 2012! Kodak discontinued all camera manufacturing in 2012, if not before!

Kodak is all but gone after their bankruptcy. I don't think they have any consumer products at all now.


Looks realistic for an SSD. If it were a spinner, then it would be 2011 all over again!

Looking at Newegg, Crucial has a few cheapers options at the 1tb capacity, but other than that the $275 WD is the next cheapest. After that, you're looking at the $300+ level so $275 sounds about right for a 1tb SSD.
 
OP
trents

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Well, it's also true that compnent prices in general have bend ticking up lately. RAM is more expensive than it was earlier this summer. And I've seen 1tb SSDs under $230 on several occasions in the last 6 months. Mushkins, I think.
 

Kenrou

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
The specs aren't too bad for the price ;)

https://www.amazon.com/Blue-Interna...d=1478300518&sr=1-3&keywords=wd+blue+1tb&th=1

- Sequential read speeds of up to 545MB/s and sequential write speeds of up to 525MB/s.
- An industry-leading 1.75M hours Mean Time To Failure (MTTF) and several error-correction technologies for lasting reliability.
- Optimized for multitasking to simultaneously run resource-heavy applications without system slow-down.
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
What's incredible to me is that WD and Seagate, two huge, well-established and very successful hard drive manufacturers, got so far behind the curve when it came to getting into the SSD market. They are now trying to catch up by buying out wannabe companies that were already in the SSD market but small players. They let other companies like Samsung and Crucial who had ties to memory chip manufacturers get the jump on them. WD and Seagate were essentially boxed out of the SSD niche for lack of chips as the nand chip production world wide could not keep up with demand.

I would imagine that if they are profitable enough to purchase another company that they are just being wise and levelheaded with their earnings and looking towards future expansion. By purchasing an existing company they can gain access to all of their existing infrastructure for a cheap price and then put them to work making product that is up the the WD standards. In the meantime they still have to deal with existing stock that was purchased in the merger? This might be WD's bid to enter the SSD market and remain viable -- only time will tell. We will have to see if they bring a better offering to the table later on.
 
OP
trents

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
I would imagine that if they are profitable enough to purchase another company that they are just being wise and levelheaded with their earnings and looking towards future expansion. By purchasing an existing company they can gain access to all of their existing infrastructure for a cheap price and then put them to work making product that is up the the WD standards. In the meantime they still have to deal with existing stock that was purchased in the merger? This might be WD's bid to enter the SSD market and remain viable -- only time will tell. We will have to see if they bring a better offering to the table later on.

Makes sense but I still marvel that they didn't jump on the SSD bandwagon earlier.
 

knoober

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Makes sense but I still marvel that they didn't jump on the SSD bandwagon earlier.

it speaks of a conservative company policy with an eye towards selling current stock before moving into new tech. SSD's are still "new" to the consumer market and havent been affordable to the average consumer for very long. They have had hybrid drives and nand cache on their drives for quite a while, but perhaps they were waiting for flash nand to be more profitable or something. I look forward to seeing what WD will put forth for SSD in the future, honestly, because they (IMO) have had such a solid line with the Blue/Black/Red HDD.
 

bob4933

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
solid-state-drive-market.png


judging by this chart (yes, its a dubious chart that may or may not be correct), it appears WD got into the market at a fair time. I believe purchasing an already established, yet smaller, company that is already producing SSD's was a VERY smart decision on their part. Even last year, a 240gb SSD was more of a niche novelty item than a true consumer grade item. What, 150$ for 240gb?

With changes in fab processes, even "entry level" SSD's are performing at modest levels of performance. My ocz trion 150 480gb cost me 84$, so I bought 2 of em! Performance is over 500mbps read/write, and the access times are fast enough for my uses. Anything faster than sata can handle (At this time, pcie/m.2) has almost no real world benefits over a sata ssd. We're talking a second or two for windows boot times, negligible gains in load times of games, and the only real places youre going to see benefit are LARGE file transfers and benchmarking.

So no, I dont think WD is having a "kodak moment". My 2 cents is all :)
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
solid-state-drive-market.png


judging by this chart (yes, its a dubious chart that may or may not be correct), it appears WD got into the market at a fair time. I believe purchasing an already established, yet smaller, company that is already producing SSD's was a VERY smart decision on their part. Even last year, a 240gb SSD was more of a niche novelty item than a true consumer grade item. What, 150$ for 240gb?

With changes in fab processes, even "entry level" SSD's are performing at modest levels of performance. My ocz trion 150 480gb cost me 84$, so I bought 2 of em! Performance is over 500mbps read/write, and the access times are fast enough for my uses. Anything faster than sata can handle (At this time, pcie/m.2) has almost no real world benefits over a sata ssd. We're talking a second or two for windows boot times, negligible gains in load times of games, and the only real places youre going to see benefit are LARGE file transfers and benchmarking.

So no, I dont think WD is having a "kodak moment". My 2 cents is all :)
QFT!!

Though one point of clarity is the IOPS and particularly small file/4k writes is where one tends to notice a difference in drives, not in sata limited bandwidth on large files.
 

HankB

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Location
Beautiful Sunny Winfield
I think the situation with SSDs vs HDDs is a little different from film vs. digital. For years after film was introduced, it produced superior images in terms of resolution and (I think) color gamut. Digital was "good enough for the Internet" but simply not good enough for print work. If SSDs were deficient in any way in the early days, it was in terms of price and capacity while they excelled in terms of speed and latency. (I suppose digital photography did excel in terms of speed to 'printable image.) There was never a time when SSD storage was lower quality than HDD storage. Was there ever a time when we thought that SSDs would not eventually replace HDDs? I think in photography there was the feeling that digital would never surpass film. In hindsight we know it was only a matter of time. Kodak's mistake was not recognizing that in time. Nikon, Canon, Fuji and others seem to have made the transition without difficulty.

WD is late to the party and SSD technology is so much different than HDD technology it does make sense to purchase it. Personally I think Sandisk is a good choice since they are a reputable player in the flash market.
 

bob4933

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
QFT!!

Though one point of clarity is the IOPS and particularly small file/4k writes is where one tends to notice a difference in drives, not in sata limited bandwidth on large files.

Honestly, I have no idea what matters, I just look at benchmarks and compare time of various benchmarks that are most applicable for my uses. For most persons, I cant think of a reason to purchase m.2/pcie for any reason other than "because you can", or form factor (itx stuff).
 

EarthDog

Gulper Nozzle Co-Owner
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Location
Buckeyes!
I agree. Though I can tell you I notice a difference between my m.2 pcie x4 and a fast Sata drive. Obviously in boot times its faster, opening some applications are also faster. Is it worth it? Likely not for most. My point was though that it isn't bandwidth bit 4k performance which really makes a tangible difference for most... and even with a m.2 pcie 4x drive, the differences on paper are not huge either.
 

caddi daddi

Godzilla to ant hills
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
I can't tell you what the benchmarks for drives really mean, but once in a while I fire up win xp on a spinner and it makes me feel ssd's of any type are........ for lack of a word.... ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!
 

bob4933

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
I can't tell you what the benchmarks for drives really mean, but once in a while I fire up win xp on a spinner and it makes me feel ssd's of any type are........ for lack of a word.... ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!!!!

http://techreport.com/review/29221/samsung-950-pro-512gb-ssd-reviewed/4

This is kind of what I mean. Boot times for PCIE, m.2 and SATA are all pretty damn similar for gaming and utility loads. I have yet to find a benchmark that makes m.2 or pcie/nvme "superior" to sata for any operation I perform. "I" being probably 90% of consumers.
 
OP
trents

trents

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
I think the situation with SSDs vs HDDs is a little different from film vs. digital. For years after film was introduced, it produced superior images in terms of resolution and (I think) color gamut. Digital was "good enough for the Internet" but simply not good enough for print work. If SSDs were deficient in any way in the early days, it was in terms of price and capacity while they excelled in terms of speed and latency. (I suppose digital photography did excel in terms of speed to 'printable image.) There was never a time when SSD storage was lower quality than HDD storage. Was there ever a time when we thought that SSDs would not eventually replace HDDs? I think in photography there was the feeling that digital would never surpass film. In hindsight we know it was only a matter of time. Kodak's mistake was not recognizing that in time. Nikon, Canon, Fuji and others seem to have made the transition without difficulty.

WD is late to the party and SSD technology is so much different than HDD technology it does make sense to purchase it. Personally I think Sandisk is a good choice since they are a reputable player in the flash market.

Exactly my question. I was asking why WD was "late to the party." I wasn't debating the merits of m.2 pcie vs. SATA. I think HankB is correct in stating that part of the reason is that SSD technology is so different than spinner hard drive technology. Companies that had already focused on producing memory had leg up both from a technology standpoint and a supplier standpoint. I'm still surprised WD waited so long to get into the fray.