I take issue with this forced distinction they are making Micron, like Samsung and SK Hynix, already supplies memory chips directly to third-party brands such as G.Skill and ADATA. Even without Crucial-branded kits, Micron DRAM continues to reach consumers through other manufacturers, meaning overall supply remains largely unchanged. Nobody ever officially suggested the Crucial supply was likely to shift to the other manufacturers for consumers. On the contrary people expect this to be a step towards a general redistribution of manufacturing capacity towards HBM for parallel compute products. By comparison, Samsung exiting SATA SSDs removes an entire class of finished consumer products from one of the world’s largest NAND suppliers. Tom argues that this is why the Samsung move is “worse” for consumers: it directly affects how many drives are available, not just who sells them. If you wanted you could make the same argument as for Micron. Who says the Samsung NAND couldn’t be bought by other OEMs to make consumer SSDs. It’s just as possible as the Micron supply shifting to other OEMs who make consumer RAM sticks. To me neither are likely. The manufacturing capacity both companies are pulling from the consumer market in both cases is going to go to the higher profit margin parallel compute server market. Neither is worse than the other, they are both equally bad news for us consumers.