It's pretty clear one company is making a terrible strategic error with their chosen technology funding. HAMR or MAMR. Or are both companies leadership full of hot helium? STX claims 2TB/sq.in. with MAMR isn't know to be possible, while WD says it is and it can scale to 4 TB/sq.in. WD says HAMR has a fundamental reliability limit, while STX says no problems with our design.
Who do you think is making a catastrophically bad decision? At least one company is, if not both.
My suspicions about massive numbers of weird F8cks working for Seagate is once again confirmed.
You read my mind, Ravi is an indian Learner. WTF hired them? Oh wait, STX management.
HAMR is just a lie we tell wall street.
Seagate have been working at HAMR for the last three years and are still strugglung to get it right.WD will have other options whereas seagate dont.
HAMR or MAMR is not important. Just check SSD market share. WDC managers are great! STX managers are idiot.
When Ravi is done, it will not matter what Seagate technology they manufacture. SanDisk, anyone.....
He will disrupt business to a degree that Seagate will be forced to sell to pay for his mistake. He'll be fat and happy, just like Learner. Ravi does not account for any business continuity. I don't know why the board or those that hired him can see what us idiots at the bottom see plainly. Must be the water at those Silicon Valley golf courses.
WD has strong footprint in flash. Even if MAMR fails, it does not matter so much. Not the case for STX. STX has to “all in” HAMR.