Western Digital does not believe in SSDs, Santa Claus

The holidays are upon us and, at a time when many are set to celebrate their faiths and beliefs, Western Digital's Senior VP for Marketing Richard Rutledge is clarifying one of his company's: now is not the right time for SSDs. Apparently WD only "enters markets that exist," and while we could understand about him being unsure of the many spiritual entities banded about this time of year, we're rather confident the competition are believers, and they have plenty of milk and cookies laid out for holiday shoppers. Rutledge did indicate WD is looking at creating both low-end SSDs for smartphones and ultraportables as well as high-end ones for "enterprise" applications, but only "when they present appropriate opportunity." Hurry up and get with the program, WD, or you're going to be left crying and holding a lump of coal while all the other companies bring their increased revenues to show and tell.

[Vince @ Nov 24th 2008 8:01AM]

I have to say I don't blame them; they obviously have R&D going on with SSD drives, but the market price is still too high. Give it about three or four months, and WD will drop a slew of good-sized drives at good prices.

[OneLove @ Nov 24th 2008 10:44AM]

300 GB velociraptor SSD FTW!

[Lowest Ranked @ Nov 24th 2008 12:11PM]

Yes, nothing like a 10,000 RPM SSD.







???

[Testies, Testies, 1, 2... 3? @ Nov 24th 2008 3:29PM]

"In related news: Exxon Mobil doesn't believe in Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology"

[Evoss @ Nov 24th 2008 5:30PM]

Yes exactly agree with WD.. ssd expensive sit

[John @ Nov 24th 2008 8:12AM]

Considering you guys just posted an article on Dell adding $100 for 32GB SSD, I have to say that the guy has a point. Average consumers want speed, but at this point, the price per gig and the incredibly low amount of storage you get just doesn't make it worthwhile.

[aznofazns @ Nov 24th 2008 10:08AM]

I think I can attest for the majority of non-filthy-rich PC gamers when I say that, even though the speed of SSD is enticing, I'd much rather spend the money on a 2nd/better graphics card. After all, SSDs only improve load times, not framerates. Besides, WD has got plenty of blazing fast HDDs out there that the other companies don't have.

[Jason @ Nov 24th 2008 11:20AM]

Not to mention, it's WD! Once the SSD market IS affordable and hot, it won't matter who came out with what first because these guys have a name in the industry. I think they're wise to hold off.

As per another argument that they should be spending money on R&D now so they don't get left in the dust...that's a bogus argument too. It's a PCB, NAND Flash, and a controller chip...that's it. It's an idiot box, really. For a company like WD, it'll take about 1 week of R&D to get where they need to be once it's affordable to do so.

[bur40win @ Nov 24th 2008 8:12AM]

WD is aware of the current market conditions. They know that sales will be very poor this holiday season, especially for expensive items such as SSD drives, and so they are timing their entry into this market when there is a better chance of being fruitful.

[Flashpoint @ Nov 24th 2008 8:17AM]

You are right.
With the DOW so low and analysts certain this will be the lowest spending Christmas in the past 25 years, it is obvious that whatever choices companies make right now will be of tremendous impact later on.

But, doesn't it make more sense to buy low and sell high?
Shouldn't western digital get in now and start manufacturing new SSD technologies while things are going badly?

[r3loaded @ Nov 24th 2008 8:57AM]

@Flashpoint

That's how the smart investor thinks. Unfortunately, it only applies if the investor has any money left to invest in the first place...

[Fred @ Nov 24th 2008 8:22AM]

As if any of their competitors have compelling SSD offerings for consumers. Enough with the 'we decided X is hip so anyone who does not offer X is a dinosaur" attitude, Engadget.

[offroadering @ Nov 24th 2008 2:56PM]

Yeah! leave that to Apple!

[Daza @ Nov 24th 2008 8:33AM]

Makes perfect sense to me. WD will just wait until there is significant increase in the uptake of SSDs and they will enter the market then. This is not the right time to be exploring new technologies, they should focus on their current lineup and reducing expenditure as much as possible to get through the GFC.

[C @ Nov 24th 2008 8:42AM]

Not only is the price high, but your average non-geek doesn't even know SSDs exist...let alone it's benifits.

Meanwhile your average high street vendor will always face an uphill battle selling less space for more money.

SSDs are great, they're just not great for business.

[reakt @ Nov 24th 2008 8:55AM]

That's not true though, is it? Apple have been selling SSDs for more money than their HDD versions of products for ages. Take the ipod touch or high-capacity nano ipods that have far less capacity compared to that of the ipod classic yet cost a lot more. I think even non-geeks understand the benefits of a solid state device or they see the drawbacks of a device that is bulkier, heavier and has moving parts making it more likely to go wrong.

[kal326 @ Nov 24th 2008 9:14AM]

@reakt
You do know that bringing Apple up in a conversation about competitive pricing and the average consumer is kind of a moot point right?

As for your benefits apparent to non-geeks, those only really apply to pmps as almost all of the other applications of SSD have to fit to a industry standard form factor and the weight savings are negligible.

[Alex @ Nov 24th 2008 9:38AM]

@reakt

Your reasoning is seriously flawed buddy...

The iPod touch is being sold at a higher price than the iPod Classic for a couple of reasons that have nothing to do with storage space. Just off the top of my head I can think of WiFi, TOUCH CAPABILITIES, applications, internet purchasing/browsing, etc. And as far as I know the iPod Nano isn't more expensive than the iPod Classic, it is less. The only reason why people buy the iPod Nano is because they don't have thousands of songs, just a couple hundred good ones.

kal326 hit the nail on the head, in that bringing up iPods in a post based specifically on Hard Drives was pretty ignorant. There are a lot more to iPods than basic hard drives, and don't follow the same line of reasoning.

[C @ Nov 24th 2008 10:20AM]

@reakt

Apple are not your average high street vendor.

With regards to PCs, the public have no idea what a dual core processor actually does besides "process". Instead running on the mantra that the higher the number the better (4GB Ram, 2.4Ghz, 300GB,x10 write speed, 10MB Internet).

Try convincing Joe the Plumber that a 32GB SSD is better than a similar priced 1TB HDD (30x larger) for his family PC. Better yet do it in a normal 20 second TV ad slot...or magazine page.

The HDD manufacting process has been refined to the point where faults are few and far between, space is cheap, and the storage method is pretty much perfected. Tech retailers have no need to jump that ship just yet.

[reakt @ Nov 25th 2008 7:35AM]

OK the ipod touch was a bad example. Consider my other example - the Nano. As someone pointed out to me they're still cheaper than the classic. However, here in the UK, the 32GB Nano is £150 and the 120GB Classic is only £180. Why pay just 30 pounds less for an ipod with a quarter of the capacity of the Classic (not to mention a smaller screen)? Surely non-geeks appreciate the advantage the Nano has? - mainly it's smaller form-factor but also "skip-free playback" according to Apple. Both of these are big selling points and Apple don't even mention the term SSD.

No, I didn't know the comparison to Apple was a moot point (sorry!)

@kal326 - "as almost all of the other applications of SSD have to fit to a industry standard form factor" - I think that's a little short-sighted. Once SSDs take off and come down in price then devices apart from PMPs will have to change in order to accommodate them. I'll use the PS3 as an example. Historically, Sony have launched a smaller slimed-down version of each console a few years after the console has first launched. Each time this has happened, important breakthroughs in hardware design and manufacturing have enabled them to produce the smaller device. And what's going to bring down the price of SSDs? - how about mass production from a leading manufacturer promoting competition from other leading manufacturers? So why shouldn't WD get in early? I agree with Engadget. Apart from games consoles, we have digital video recorders, laptops, etc, etc. All of which can be redesigned to accommodate an SSD and benefit from its smaller form-factor.

[Michael Scrip @ Nov 24th 2008 3:05PM]

Don't forget... MP3 players were all Flash based at first. Apple's iPod was the first truly successful hard drive player. I guess you could say they returned to their roots with the flash-based Nano, iPod Touch and iPhone.

Flash was first, then Apple decided that 1,000 songs in your pocket was cool, then 20,000 songs. After that, thinness and portability was more important. It's all a cycle.

[bjdibbern @ Nov 24th 2008 8:54AM]

Makes perfect sense to me as well, sorry Engadget.

[Magallanes @ Nov 24th 2008 10:55AM]

I think the same, plus :

SSD :ultra expensive.
SSD :less space.
SSD :unstable and slow (in some circumstance).
SSD :unreliable (in some cases and/or models).

SSD is a yes if you want to play as a guinea pig or if you have money to use it (and you don't really care about space), otherwise conventional disk is the option.

[Joseph @ Nov 24th 2008 12:44PM]

more unstable than a MyBook?

[Patriks7 @ Nov 24th 2008 9:13AM]

Well if they would join, wouldn't it bring the prices down faster as there would be another competitor?

[John @ Nov 24th 2008 9:22AM]

Tech prices go down faster due to advances in technology, not due to competition.

[MarbleMind @ Nov 24th 2008 12:48PM]

I call bullshit, John. Tech prices go down awfully well when there's enough competition, no matter how much it hurts the profit. Nvidias GTX200 chipset is a good example there, selling well below designated price levels pretty much right of the bat, because of AMDs competitive pricing policy

[Ricardo @ Nov 24th 2008 9:42AM]

Hard to believe that VP's at WD aren't aware of the Innovator's Dilemma... specially when the biggest case study in the book is about
disc storage. I wish them luck...

[Blacksheep @ Nov 24th 2008 10:00AM]

I think WD is right to wait on SSD. Yes, they are most likely the future and they are damn fast, but they still have problems and cost far to much for small storage sizes like 32gb or less. In 2-5 years I'm sure we'll start seeing 200 gig SSDs, and that's when it will be worth it, assuming they also do not cost $1,000!

[Billy Gun @ Nov 24th 2008 10:10AM]

Buy a PC with 16, 32 even 64gb looks just insane to me, even if it's a netbook.. we are in TB days, you can get a 64gb pen drive for around U$ 130 on ebay.

[brian @ Nov 24th 2008 1:47PM]

"Buy a PC with 16, 32 even 64gb looks just insane to me, even if it's a netbook."

I am still running 2x 74 gig raptors in a RAID 0 as my main system drive. I have a 1TB drive for storing files and media.

2 x 64GB SSD's in RAID would be fine to me, the performance improvement would be welcome and the size is not much of an issue since everything except windows and the programs/games I have installed currently are on my other drive.

[Sean Burchett @ Nov 24th 2008 10:20AM]

Data recovery costs anyone? WD has made a smart move here as well not only due to manufacturing costs and demand but also due to disaster recovery problems.

Anyone have numbers on how much it costs to do data recovery on an SSD? I know traditional platter drives are fairly expensive and this cannot be cheap to try and work on.


I also have a lot of clients who use these external drives as their sole backup solution (against recommendations) and can only imagine WD took this into consideration.

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Nov 24th 2008 10:39AM]

Please try to stick to reporting on new electronics and gadgets, and leave the commentary on business strategy to The Economist.

[toxicpiano @ Nov 24th 2008 12:25PM]

sounds like a bag of hurt to me

[digitallysick @ Nov 24th 2008 12:39PM]

I just bought an SSD, so WD, you can mark that as a loss for you guys

[Michael Scrip @ Nov 24th 2008 3:09PM]

Who makes that drive, how much did you pay, and has that company made any money on SSD development yet?

SSDs are an experiment for now. Plattered hard drives are still bread and butter. There's only a handful of hard drive manufacturers anyway. And even fewer making SSDs. But, like any other new technology, it will get cheaper and more commonplace.

Thank you for taking the jump!

[Joseph @ Nov 24th 2008 12:43PM]

Makes sense. It is like the american auto-manufacturer.

SSDs don't break anywhere close to as often as HDDs. WD doesn't want to sell something that has a life of more than a year, they would be losing precious monees.

[Wwhat @ Nov 24th 2008 3:23PM]

There are more benefits than speed/seektimes, one that plays for me is noise, I tend to update by adding drives, and since drives make noise I have them spin down after some time, now the annoying thing is that to spin up and have windows continue (it stalls like mad for the wait as you know) takes too damn long.
Another thing is that windows only has one setting for all drives in regards to spinning down, you can't say 'spin down c: after 60 minute of idle, but spin down D: after 10 minutes and E: after 30'. it's stuck in 80's technological state of 1 setting, for your 20MB drive..
With a SSD you don't need to spin them down and my experience would greatly improve by immediate responsiveness after not using the HD for a bit (I hope and assume).

[rstevens @ Nov 24th 2008 3:29PM]

First my last name, now my lettering! ;)

Let's be mutual fans-slash-fake cousins, Tim. I need a new cousin.

[Adam @ Nov 24th 2008 4:04PM]

Someone at Engadget reads dieselsweeties!

[charlie @ Nov 24th 2008 4:18PM]

What happened to the rumored 20,000 rpm Raptor? That was all over Engadget and the other tech blogs earlier in the year.

On the topic of SSDs... I just built a computer and did some research, and found that only the more expensive SSD models actually offer any improvement in transfer speed. The more affordable ones actually were slower than high quality 7200rpm drives. It didnt seem like anywhere near worth it. If I wanted a faster storage solution I would have gone with a raptor.

[Funke, Tobias Dr. @ Nov 25th 2008 9:57AM]

Interesting. Thanks for posting, as you've saved me at least some of the time required to reach that conclusion.

[jfjb @ Nov 24th 2008 6:31PM]

I think they just want to empty their shelves of old stuff -- HD -- before giving them away with yet another promotion at Wallmart.

[jfjb @ Nov 24th 2008 6:34PM]

I think they want to get rid of the old stuff -- HD -- in order to empty shelves of unsold rebranded oddities before they feel obliged to make a deal with Wallmart for yet another super 150% rebate. Ah-ah-ah.
No, I'm not laughing, only coughing.

[jfjb @ Nov 24th 2008 6:34PM]

oops, I double-clicked

[Bastian @ Dec 22nd 2008 1:33PM]

WD should get a Naughty List certificate from http://bestsantasletter.com :)