[QUOTE=Kenshin;2698661]But that’s an obvious contradiction. How can a company without strong profit base survive? Especially if it’s a US company. I know very many here on this community love the name OCZ. But just how many of them would be paying 20% or 50% more just to save OCZ? Would any of you pay $700 for a 500GB OCZ SSD when a better Samsung SSD costs $300 just because you want one more small competitor to remain in the market? $10 million is by no means a big money. Semiconductor companies regularly invest $10 billion at once just to stay rather than go ahead of the competitors. Any individual, any company could invest $50 million or $500 million into OCZ, but nobody did. You want cheaper OCZ drives. That only means you want OCZ profits to drop. Which means you want OCZ to go out of business.[/QUOTE]
I have yet to buy any SSD. But I’d consider paying 20-50% more if I thought a product was of better quality than the cheaper mainstream product. As a total non-consumer of SSDs, I have no opinion of any brand differences in this market.
Small doesn’t have to mean unprofitable. Small is a relative term, ie smaller than Samsung or Intel, but that doesn’t mean tiny. I’d rather have 6-8 smaller to medium sized competitors, than an oligopoly of 2 or 3. However, this is often the long term outcome. There comes a point where a few big names become entrenched, wield enormous influence over tangential factors, and it’s no longer viable for anyone else to enter or compete.