Print 28 comment(s) - last by aqwan135.. on Dec 20 at 8:16 PM

  (Source: Toshiba)

64GB flash module innards  (Source: Toshiba)
Apple is likely to benefit from Toshiba's latest NAND flash development

Advances in NAND flash technology are coming at a rapid pace these days. One of the leaders in the market is Toshiba, and the company today has announced its efforts to bring a new 64GB NAND flash module to the market.

The new 64GB package is composed of 16 32Gb NAND chips built using a 32nm manufacturing process and also incorporates a dedicated memory controller. Toshiba is already sampling the 64GB module and it expects mass production to begin during Q1 of 2010.

Predictably, Toshiba says that the new high-capacity chip is aimed at smartphones, notebooks, and digital video cameras. However, the most high profile devices likely to use the new chips will be future mobile products from Apple.

Apple's current range topping iPod touch and iPhone 3GS models use 32GB NAND flash modules. The iPod touch uses two modules to achieve its 64GB capacity, while the iPhone 3GS only has room for one module (due to its added wireless radios) making its maximum storage capacity just 32GB. This latest development from Toshiba will being maximum capacity for next generation iPod touch and iPhone models to 128GB and 64GB respectively.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

SSD implications
By docawolff on 12/15/2009 9:50:34 AM , Rating: 3
Help me understand--does this mean that we will be seeing a drop in the price of SSD's? Or is this an unrelated technology?

RE: SSD implications
By Souka on 12/15/2009 11:01:48 AM , Rating: 2
I don't believe so. This technology is about more capacity in a smaller size, and speed isn't a priority.

SSD's are sorta the other way around.

RE: SSD implications
By inperfectdarkness on 12/15/2009 11:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
it may not lower the price, but it almost assuredly will help increase capacities.

RE: SSD implications
By PandaBear on 12/15/2009 11:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
No it won't. The cost is the die itself, stacking them together save space in PCB, but not in yield or cost. The risk of 1 mistake killing 16 dies are going to make it cost more than having 16, 8, or even 4 chip with the same number of total dies.

Smart phone may use it to save space, that's about it.

The additional problem is that you now have only 1 channel, instead of fanning out all these dies for multiple channels to increase performance. So This is not going to make anything faster or cheaper, just physically smaller.

RE: SSD implications
By mindless1 on 12/15/2009 8:41:20 PM , Rating: 2
Use of these chips would probably either substantially raise the price or lower the performance.

Right now the performance depends largely, among other things, on paralleled chip access. It means you can't reduce the number of chips beyond the point of parallelization so if you still have "n" number of chips but they are twice the capacity, your product could conceivably cost twice as much.

However, we don't know the pricing nor if a single chip with twice the capacity would otherwise, on it's own not parallelized, have the same performance. It's quite possible it won't.

On the other hand, continual advances in flash tech should tend to lower price:capacity, but it would be in a chip design optimized for lower cost or higher performance rather than peak storage density.

RE: SSD implications
By kufeifie on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
RE: SSD implications
By aqwan135 on 12/20/2009 8:16:16 PM , Rating: 1

fr ee sh i pp ing

(jordan shoes) $32

(air max) $34



By StevoLincolnite on 12/15/2009 8:27:00 AM , Rating: 4
I thought that was a picture of Steve Jobs for a moment, had to look twice.


Not worth it
By thekdub on 12/15/2009 12:09:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think its great that Toshiba is creating high-capacity chips for mobile devices, but frankly, I also don't like the fact that Apple may very well be the only company to benefit from this due to their vice grip on the flash memory market.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash Apple's products here, but I really don't like their underhanded tactic of ordering/hoarding so much of this memory that other companies either cannot purchase it or have to pay an expensive premium to get it. This tech simply isn't worth it if only 2 products on the market are able to use it.

RE: Not worth it
By melgross on 12/15/2009 4:26:41 PM , Rating: 1
That's mostly nonsense about Apple. We have one or two supposedly "well placed" individuals, whose names we don't know, making unfounded accusations. Big deal.

The way these deals work is that a company goes to as many companies as make the product they need, state a minimum number and possible maximum number of product they may need, and get pricing guarantees based on that minimum order.

As there is no way to know the actual number of sales for the device the product will appear in, there is no way to give an actual number of chips needed. They can only give estimates as to what they think they will need. So they may have estimates of 45 to 55 million iPod sales for the coming year. They reserve an option on enough chips to fill a possible 55 million devices, but if as likely, sales fall somewhat short, leftover chips are released for general sale.

This isn't done for the entire year at once but on a monthly basis. So if Apple needs 4 million chips for one month, but reserved perhaps 4.25 million, the 250 thousand gets released. As chip production is continuing, Apple gets production from later production, and it begins all over again.

So to some people this may seem as though Apple is holding the chips hostage, they aren't. It's just the fact that they are such a big player, that their needs make it seem that way.

The reason why there have been chip shortages, and high prices has been well documented. As before several years ago when memory chip prices fell quickly, chip companies closed plants to reduce production and raise prices. This is why chips have been in short supply, and prices have risen. Since Apple is such a large user, chip companies would rather give them preference as there is one very large, prepaid order they have to deal with, rather than many smaller ones. This is the way it works in business. Smaller manufacturers will have to pay higher prices always, and when supply is restricted, unless they can get their orders in quickly, they will lose out to much larger companies.

Attempting to blame Apple for this is nuts.

By trivik12 on 12/15/2009 11:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
how many phones have 32GB memory. Just iphone/Nokia n97/n900/x6. I think only ipod touch and sony a845(which is available only in japan) have 64GB PMP.May be toshiba may not be a nand supplier for sony/nokia.

I wish Microsoft/Cowon etc launch 64GB players but currently they are not.

So when it comes large nand chips apple seem to be the only relevant global players. So I dont see anything wrong with this news.

I wish things were different and Xperia X10 or HTC high end phones have 32GB+ built in memory but they dont believe in having large built in memory.

Wow, even more capacity...
By bigdawg1988 on 12/16/2009 1:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
that you won't be able to use because you can't connect to AT&T on your iphone. hee hee

By Mjello on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
By ebakke on 12/15/2009 9:06:48 AM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. They're reporting on a technological advancement, and merely mentioning along the way that one company in particular is likely to see huge benefits. Your argument is like saying CNN ought to be payed by Shell for reporting that a new oil field was found and Shell's going to benefit (or I guess, ought not to report it).

By Chapbass on 12/15/2009 9:32:58 AM , Rating: 2
To be quite honest, going into this article the first thing I thought was exactly what mjello was thinking.

Looking at the article just by itself, one might think yeah, its just one company. But if you look at the recent history of articles/blogs at DT, you see a massive apple bias.

While I can't guarantee it (obviously), I DO feel that if the massive gain would be from HP or Dell instead of apple, we wouldn't see the 2nd part of this article. Just my opinion :)

By Brandon Hill on 12/15/2009 9:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, Apple is the one pulling many of the strings when it comes to NAND flash for its iPods and iPhones...

Also, note the use of the Grinch as the article thumbnail for the DailyTech article...

By Chapbass on 12/15/2009 11:10:19 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that Apple does have the opportunity for a big gain here, I'm just stating that it feels more like AppleTech around here than Dailytech. Thats fine if others dont feel that way, but it seems like every day is a new article about apple, one way or the other.

By Brandon Hill on 12/15/2009 11:16:06 AM , Rating: 5
Microsoft, Apple, Intel, etc. are some of the biggest names in tech.

Accordingly, we feature a lot of articles that talk about -- you guessed it -- Microsoft, Apple, and Intel.

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we post an article talking about AT&T/Apple, we're labeled as Apple haters. If we post an article that remains somewhat positive to neutral on Apple, we're labeled as Apple lovers.

If we write an article about a security vulnerability in Windows 7, we're haters... rinse and repeat :)

Bottom line, if we find relevant news, we're going to post it. If you don't want to read about the topic at hand, you can always move on to the next story :-)

By bhieb on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
By Natfly on 12/15/2009 1:20:56 PM , Rating: 1
I wouldn't call it bias so much as name dropping to increase readership/interest. Apple is no more relevant to this story than the hundred other companies that use nand flash, however they are the number one company to cause a stir.

By bhieb on 12/15/2009 1:46:23 PM , Rating: 4
Bias, slant, spin. Does not really matter, and your 100% right. A story about Toshiba's new NAND is bleh, but throw in some Apple and voila a story. That is kinda the OP's point though, sensationalism for the sake of sensationalism. I don't blame DT, I've always said if I wanted a just the facts ticker I'd read the AP. Editorial spin is what makes the stories here worth reading.

Why I replied to Brandon, is that I get sick of his "whoa is me" attitude that they cannot win. When in fact stirring up drama/interest IS exactly why they mentioned Apple. I never said it was wrong, it was technically right, but call a spade a spade. It was there to make a bland story more interesting. Drama is GOOD for DT, and that is fine as I'd hate to see it go away, but just don't act like you don't mean to stir things up a bit.

By tastyratz on 12/15/2009 12:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say I was surprised to see anyone accusing dailytech of a pro apple bias, usually its the other way around.

Everyone has their opinions and spins but you absolutely nailed it in your reply here - tech news is tech news and its made by whatever camp has the most of it.

By mcnabney on 12/15/2009 9:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Nowhere in the article did it state why Apple would benefit more from this new product than any other manufacture that uses NAND memory. All it described was that this new product which provides double the data density would allow for Apple products that had double the storage. Wow. Really? And Apple is the only company who might use this?

By Shadowself on 12/15/2009 10:37:59 AM , Rating: 4
Actually many, many companies will use this.

However, Apple is one of the, if not the , leading user of these types of chips. Apple does huge buys of these top end chips and locks up a significant fraction of the production -- sometimes paying as much as $500 million up front for guaranteed delivery.

Whether we like Apple's products or not is irrelevant to this simple fact. Personally, I'd prefer it if the next generation, top of the line iPod had an SDXC slot in it. But considering that it's Apple that will never happen.

By Mjello on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
The new 64GB package is composed of 16 32Gb
By PAPutzback on 12/15/09, Rating: -1
By somedude1234 on 12/15/2009 8:51:42 AM , Rating: 5
16 x 32 Gb = 512 Gb (Giga-bits)

512 Gb / (8 bits per byte) = 64 GB (Giga-Bytes)

By IdBuRnS on 12/15/2009 8:56:16 AM , Rating: 2

16 x 32 gigabits = 64 gigabytes

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki