On CNET: Keep your software up-to-date
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

August 24th, 2007

Why aren't small drives cheaper?

Posted by Robin Harris @ 2:32 pm

Categories: Disk drives

Tags: Disk, Vendor, Form Factor, Robin Harris

Smaller Is Better, So Why Isn’t It Cheaper?
I’ve been wondering when the 2.5″ form factor will replace the 3.5″ drive. After all, the 100,000,000x increase in areal density has seen the extinction of 24″, 14″, 9″, 8″ and 5.25″ form factors. Areal density keeps increasing, so why haven’t we yet migrated to 2.5″ small form factor (SFF) drives?

Related to that I wonder why SFF drives are so much more expensive than 3.5″ drives. Check it out yourself: a 160 GB 3.5″ costs about 2/3 that of a 160 GB 2.5″. Here are some answers.

Why SFF drives should be cheaper than 3.5″s

  • Lower material costs. SFF drives weigh a fraction of larger drives. Doesn’t metal cost something?
  • Smaller, slower motors and slower, cheaper electronics. Bit rates off the head are significantly lower at 5400 RPM, so the signal processing chips should be cheaper.
  • Shipping and distribution costs lower. A lot more SFF drives fit in a 40 ft. container, the shipping cost per drive should be noticeably lower

Not everything is cheaper just because it is smaller.

  • Read/write heads are the same, per platter, but you need more for a given capacity. R/W heads are a major cost in disk drives, which is why moving from 4 platters to 3, or from 3 to 2 is a big deal for vendors and prices. SFF disks are smaller, so at a given capacity SFF drives require more heads. Today, an 80 GB SFF drive costs the same as a 160 GB 3.5″.
  • Learning curves. As production volume rises, costs drop. 3.5″ drive volume is much higher than SFF. The move to notebooks is helping, but 3.5″ drives go into lots of other applications, such as arrays, that SFF drives haven’t penetrated.
  • SFF margins are higher. I want drive vendors to be profitable and they are making good money from SFF drives.

Anything else?
I sure hope the vendors aren’t getting together in some back room somewhere and divvying up the market. That would be wrong, illegal and very, very stupid.

I would appreciate it if a reader from the industry would give us their take on this in a comment or write me directly. Use an alias and bare all - I’ll never tell who sent me the email. Contact info at StorageMojo.

The Storage Bits take
In The Innovator’s Dilemma, a must-read book for every storage aficionado, Christensen makes the case that form factor changes have been the prime mover behind the rise and demise of most disk drive companies. Now that we are down to so few vendors I doubt that will happen again. Most vendors make all sizes, unless, like Toshiba, the specialize in small form factors.

Consumers are driving disk costs today. As long as we keep choosing capacity over power and size SFF drives won’t take off beyond notebooks. But every other form factor transition had the same problem. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Comments welcome, as always./

Robin HarrisRobin Harris has been messing with computers for over 30 years and selling and marketing data storage for over 20 in companies large and small. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.


Email Robin Harris

Subscribe to Storage Bits via Email alerts or RSS.

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 25 Talkback(s)
Larger Disks Spin Faster
The outer circumfrence of the 3.5 inch Drives have the potential to hold more data that can be accessed faster if the density is equal. If you take two drives 2.5 vs 3.5 and spin them at the same spe... (Read the rest)
Posted by: ceh4702 Posted on: 09/06/07 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Not rocket science  croberts | 08/24/07
Because you are paying for capacity.  B.O.F.H. | 08/26/07
HIgher data density?  jinko | 08/27/07
Doesn't it cost money to increase density?  CobraA1 | 08/26/07
You are paying for a few things.  osreinstall | 08/26/07
2.5" drives have failed me more than 3.5".  kraterz | 08/26/07
More important- why not FASTER???  Steve Summers | 08/27/07
actually, it is faster roughly doubling every year or two  maldain | 08/27/07
Small = lame  cquirke | 08/27/07
Multiple actuators/drive for faster access?  filker0 | 08/27/07
In the computer biz - smaller is rarely cheaper  CattleProd | 08/27/07
Economies of scale.  Bozzer | 08/27/07
Slower signal processor?  rdcook01@... | 08/27/07
Cases  wjarvis@... | 08/27/07
I thing the real point is this!...  pcguy777 | 08/27/07
I don't know about cheaper but . . .  zarthan@... | 08/27/07
Higher price for faster access  jmchugh@... | 08/27/07
Duh: Why doesn't Intel sell 65 nm chips for less...  stormculture | 08/27/07
Actually, Intel DOES sell their 65nm transistors for less  R HarrisZDNet Moderator | 08/27/07
Don't read this waste of space  marketmaven | 08/27/07
SFF Drives WILL expand and take over the market - it just takes time  TSGlassey | 08/27/07
It's a matter of demand  mflemming@... | 08/28/07
being used in servers now  tony@... | 09/03/07
Evil OEM Killer Drones  ceh4702 | 09/06/07
Larger Disks Spin Faster  ceh4702 | 09/06/07

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

Click Here
advertisement

Recent Entries

advertisement

Archives

Favorite Links

ZDNet Blogs

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Smart Tech Expert advice on innovations in healthcare and the green technologies that make it happen. Find out more
  • Smart Business Discussion and advice on management issues that revolve around making your world smarter and more useful. More Smart Advice
  • Smart People The best and worst moves in the management and strategy trenches. Learn More