Billions in U.S. solar projects shelved after Trump panel tariff - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-solar-insight/billions-in-u-s-solar-projects-shelved-after-trump-panel-tariff-idUSKCN1J30CT <comment><USER3> It's interesting to contrast this with further details released recently from Xcel Energy's competitive bidding in Colorado, which had some unbelievably low prices for wind, solar, and solar combined with storage:

[https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithiu...](https://pv- magazine-usa.com/2018/06/07/worlds-largest-lithium-ion-battery-1-gwh- solarpower-xcel-energy-colorado-wind-power/)

They're planning a GWh of grid storage attached to 700MW of solar, at a cost of 3.0-3.2 cents/kWh, which completely beats the cost of coal. And that's without taking in to account coal's massive costs that it doesn't pay, in terms of our health (COPD, mercury consumption in fish, etc...).

We have some absolutely awful leadership in this area that is trying to kneecap the future of our country. Colorado's process makes me hopeful that by 2022, this will mostly be in our past. But losing several years of a technology shift is nothing good for the US.

<comment><USER4> I'm all for solar. I use it myself. But I cannot wrap my head around these prices. They seem far too low. If this reality or is this companies trying to win bids, trying to get their feet into doors?

Solar takes space. It takes far more land than coal-fired plants. But land prices are going up and everyone expects interest rates to go up too. So how can they afford to acquire and maintain the needed land at these prices?

<comment><USER5> Sorry you were downvoted for asking a legitimate question. Other commenters have spoken to the land piece, but not to the actual solar/storage cost side. Most of these insanely low bids are produced based on extrapolating the cost decline of solar and storage to the future point where the plants will actually come into operation. If they had to buy everything right now, they might not be able to achieve those costs per kWh, but plants take time to build, so there is an assumption of further declines in acquisition and operating costs over the next several years baked in (in this case, the target date is 2023).

<comment><USER4> If these are speculative then I would call them artificially numbers, artificial because they are based on predicted markets rather than real market dynamics.

I wonder though if it is safe to predict a continuous drop in panel prices. A few years ago Germany saw prices rise due to increased demand, demand fuels ironically by subsidies. And there is a good chance that the US administration might deliberately cripple the solar market, either by increasing costs or reducing demand (ie the proposed mandate to buy coal/nuclear energy first). Give that unpredictability, these low bids are more business strategy than a reflection of actual costs structures.

<comment><USER3> These aren't "predicted markets" this is the actual market itself. These are the real bids and contracts. It doesn't get more real than that.

If you think that these providers are going to default, well, then that's a bet you can make. But these are the people with skin in the game that are betting real, actual money and the future of their companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The number of jobs involved in this scam is trivial either way. The point of solar power manufacturing is not to make up jobs for people to do; it is to convert our energy to a source that doesn't kill people. If our planet is really at a slight risk of danger, and if solar panels somewhat ameliorate that, then it is stupid to prize a few thousand jobs. Last month the economy created a net 233k jobs---in one month. The economy is $19 trillion and we are waging a PR war over $1B vs $2.5B.

Federal reserve and fiscal policy are 1e9 times as important to job creation as this tariff. Would it be bad for the economy if someone invented a machine to make solar panels cheaply without any labor at all? No. That would be good because we could have lots of solar panels and save the planet.

Important to remember these tariffs were not conceived of as a job creation scheme. They were created to produce a windfall for investors who bought the bonds of bankrupt US solar companies. [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-23/jpmorgan- centerbridge-get-distressed-debt-help-from-new-tariffs)

I think that, for the White House, the tariffs have an added benefit of quashing an industry that more and more competes with coal. For reasons of graft, an obnoxious "heartland" brand and some weird fetishization, this administration is deeply obsessed with coal---one of the worst industries in the country to work for, which kills countless people via pollution.

<comment><USER7> I think lost jobs are used as a big talking point because it resonates with the average person.

One of the primary arguments given by certain political figures as to why we need tariffs is that it will protect American jobs. So by showing that it costs more jobs than it protects, that can help the average person realize that tariffs do not protect jobs, at least not in all cases.

<comment><USER8> One day jobs will be a dirty word. If something creates jobs, then we don't want it. Something that creates work out of nowhere is a bit like nagging. Nobody wants that!

<comment><USER9> Here here! Let's make it happen.

[http://tlalexander.com/machine/](http://tlalexander.com/machine/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are two ways to look at this story.

You can take it at face value and you can wring your hands over what this story apparently is trying to convey.

Or you can understand the way companies and politics and the media manipulates perception to get outcomes they want.

On the second point, let's read between the lines.

So 2.5 billion is "canceled or frozen". Okay, what percentage is canceled and what percentage is frozen? How many of these projects were actually going to happen anyway?

I have been a part of numerous attempts to manipulate public opinion by claiming that projects were canceled that never were going to happen anyway or making a big show of "freezing" things, when everybody knows the project is going to go through eventually.

In many cases "freezing" is indistinguishable from "we can't do anything right now and we are just waiting to get everything rolling".

I mean, I used to be involved with a company that made up a whole PR campaign about switching to another company for a key contract just as a negotiating tactic, when internally we knew that we weren't going anywhere. This campaign came complete with actual (truthy) quotes from real engineers at the company saying we were considering switching vendors. Of course it wasn't a lie, because we did have a five minute conversation internally about how we were thinking about switching companies, but the intention was never serious.

I am aware of a venture just several weeks ago that fed the media completely manufactured narratives, and these narratives were dutifully swallowed uncritically and subsequently disseminated as fact. In this case, the company needed justification for doing something, so it called up a "friend" and had the friend issue a press release that a certain thing was getting "canceled". We all know internally that it's bullshit and eventually this thing will happen.

So maybe everything here is really true, and may be $2.5 billion of contracts aren't going to happen. Or maybe this is the solar industry playing politics and attempting to create a narrative and pressure the administration to lift the tariffs.

So, I would ask people to re-examine their confirmation bias and/or stop being so credulous.

<comment><USER11> Please offer some facts or evidence to clarify it then? All you are offering is an opinion.

<comment><USER12> An opinion is "a view or judgement about something not necessarily based on facts or knowledge". What he offered is mostly not an opinion in that it's mostly him relating his personal experiences on this topic; which probably, if we are to give him the benefit the doubt, are factual events that actually happened.

<comment><USER13> I disagree. To me, it appears as mostly opinion with personal anecdotes presented as evidence.

The opinion esentially boils down to "Don't trust this story or the media in general, only credulous individuals would believe what this story is saying, if you read between the lines you will come to the same conclusion that I did, after all, my personal experiences back up my opinion that this story is bullshit"

<comment><USER14> You are creating a ridiculous straw man. He didn't claim the media is a bunch of liars. The media can't dig into the details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check whether the projects would happen at all.

The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are incentivized to report contracts. If you don't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility can't be independently established.

On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way. Of course, they don't thats just PR 101.

<comment><USER13> > _You are creating a ridiculous straw man... The media can 't dig into the > details and verify every detail of every press release. If a company claims > contracts are frozen or canceled there is no way for the media to check > whether the projects would happen at all._

Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?

> _He didn 't claim the media is a bunch of liars._

He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general". I don't see how you can read anything else other than that out of my comment, so I would appreciate it if you would point out the part of my comment claiming he said that the media is bunch of liars.

> _The "personal anecdotes" are a series of observations about contracts that > are publicly reported combined with an understanding of how companies are > incentivized to report contracts. _

His comments are literally unverifiable personal stories from his own experiences, there is no way around it. He could have at least said "companies have been known to do x" and then shown evidence of x (though his own argument precludes his ability to use any media sources as evidence of x), then we could examine the particular case he presented and determine if the facts of that case align with the opinion he is presenting. As as of now we're just taking his word for it.

> _If you don 't believe him or find him very credible you don't need to take > his word for it, he's just some random guy on the internet whose credibility > can't be independently established._

... OK? Once again, you're just repeating my own reasoning back to me, he's a random person on the internet spitting out anecdotes to bolster his opinion, not someone presenting evidence that can be independently examined without trusting his stories.

> _On the other hand, you can undercut his argument by providing evidence that > companies always report contracts in an evenhanded way_

First of all, it is impossible to demonstrate proof that "companies always x" and it is disingenuous to ask for such evidence because we don't rely on "always"-level confidence for proof of anything. Further, I am not trying to "undercut his argument" at all, I am critiquing the flawed reasoning that his personal anecdotes are a legitimate reason to disregard this particular story and the media in general.

<comment><USER14> >> it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)

I fail to see the relevance of assigning blame here. If you grant what he suggests then you can apportion blame in a variety of plausible ways.

>>... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?

I'm not sure there is any reasonable solution here. Industry claims, especially projections, can be quite dubious at times. It's difficult to explain why when you are trying to appeal to a wide audience, however. The media just isn't in a good position to verify or discredit claims like that.

>> Where is the strawman? What you've stated here is literally my argument, that is, it's not the media's fault that billion dollar titans of industry lie to the media for profit, especially because the media lacks the necessary access to verify the claims, so all they can do is report the claim as stated (which is what they did)... or are you suggesting they just never report on industry claims?

You just said his argument was "don't trust this story or the media in general." His claim was that in certain circumstances the surface implication of the media's reporting of PR numbers is very misleading. That's it. It's quite a simple statement that in no way implies what you have repeatedly suggested he claims.

>> He actually did make that claim farther down this thread, however, I never accused him of suggesting that, all I said was that he is suggesting we "don't trust this story or the media in general".

I'll take your word for it; he must have deleted it or it is hidden although I can't find it on the thread. I would be surprised if he did that because it is quite a ridiculous statement that would expose him to ridicule and is logically unnecessary for his argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Just a day after this article:

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers- predict-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/06/researchers-predict- economic-downturn-if-fossil-fuel-investment-goes-unchecked/)

It's almost as if they want an economic catastrophe, as long as it happens when the other guys are in office.

<comment><USER16> There seems to be no real sound logic to the current admin's economic decisions. I am not considering short term political moves as logical or helpful

<comment><USER17> Then put your money where your mouth is and short the market, because your opinion about the direction of the economy is not supported by either facts or public opinion. Perfect opportunity for you to get rich.

<comment><USER15> I am not shorting the market, that doesn't make sense for my situation, but I am betting against it. Rather than buy shares of stock-based funds, which I consider to be overvalued, I stopped adding cash to my IRA and started sending the money to the mortgage company instead. That way I get a guaranteed 3.75% return.

3.75% may be small compared to the long-term returns of the market, but it's awfully attractive compared to a net negative return on securities that lose value over the next few years.

<comment><USER18> Me too... I sold all my stocks. In the process of deciding what to do with my money to safeguard it against a Trump recession.

It hurts to watch the market continue to climb, but I am confident Trump's short-sighted actions will cause pain.

Putting my money where my mouth is, as they say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Somewhat curious as the media was not as dramatic when the EU did solarimport tariffs: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-13-501_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-13-501_en.htm)

But then, the EU also imposed import tariffs on steel.

The USA has solar panel production companies, so would be interesting why they are not being utilised more, as that is what import tariffs are for - <USER2> protect local industry from cheap imports.

<comment><USER20> The US imposed tariffs on Chinese and Taiwanese solar panels as well in 2014.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy- environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy- environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html)

Prior to 1914 and for most of the history of the US the bulk of Federal government revenue was tariffs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm surprised they didn't mention China's recent announcement to slash its subsidies for deploying solar at home.

"Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects expects module prices to drop 34 percent this year and a further 10 percent to 15 percent in 2019 after China cut financial support to developers and halted approval for new projects in June."

The estimate of 34% would make up for the tariff.

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china- s-n...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/china-s-new-solar- policy-may-delay-india-s-plan-to-make-panels)

</comment><comment><USER22> Its interesting that the USA is strategically trying to go back to being the manufacturing country and China is strategically trying to become the innovation country. Its like China and the USA want to swap places.

<comment><USER23> China is probably realizing that their free cut of others IP is about to run out. If they cant steal out IP, and we can't exploit their labor, both countries will have to get better. I'm thinking this will boost both countries at the same time by growing the respective lagging economy (innovation or manufacturing)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> >House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) said finalizing the tariffs was another example of Obama's resolve.

>"Today's decision by the President to impose tough tariffs on Chinese solar imports is just the latest step by the Obama Administration to get tough on foreign companies who don't play by the rules," Hoyer said in a statement. "I applaud his move, which will help American manufacturers compete here at home and overseas."

2012: [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us- hits-...](http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/261363-us-hits-china- with-solar-tariffs)

2014: [https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy- environme...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/17/business/energy- environment/-us-imposes-steep-tariffs-on-chinese-solar-panels.html)

There's a pattern here of pervasive industry lobbying going back to Solyndra, for anyone claiming this is unusual.

</comment><comment><USER25> Before Trump's tariffs were even a twinkle in his advisors' eyes we (where "we" == some of we domestic OEMs developing new solar power products) were facing a more difficult market due to federal tax credit phase outs. Would have been OK but for the damned tariffs and erratic leadership scared the hell out of the money people who decided the company was better off shelving its solar interactive inverter product line - and we were in the sub 10 cent/kw pricing - in favor of using corporate $$$$ for financial engineering (acquisitions) and distributions to owners.

IMO the root cause of lots of these failures is the absence of consistent, thoughtful policies, and leaders.

</comment><comment><USER26> According to FRED there seems to be a glut of coal plants [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CAPUTLG2211S) .

</comment><comment><USER27> Side point, I was under the impression that Chrome was going to stop videos from auto playing but videos on Reuters still play by default. Any ideas why? Thanks.

<comment><USER28> Muted autoplay is always allowed. Working around these changes for one of our products right now.

[https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay-p...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/09/autoplay- policy-changes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> >Those investments were driven by U.S. tax incentives and the falling costs of imported panels, mostly from China, which together made solar power competitive with natural gas and coal.

Why not manufacture the panels in the US? It would create jobs and save the environmental impact of shipping billions of dollars of panels across the pacific- freight ships are brutal when it comes to emissions.

<comment><USER29> Because those costs are externalities that aren't properly factored into the cost of panels anywhere. The same is true for pretty much any product with an environmental impact in either it's creation or transport to market. The few places it does get factored in and regulated are places like fishing where the entire industry nearly crashed because of overfishing. Hopefully the same doesn't have to be true before other environmental externalities like shipping pollution get regulated properly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> You get what you vote for... or at least what your Constitution interprets the vote as being for.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is excellent, we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain. Energy independence is tantamount with security.

<comment><USER32> > we need innovation in the US solar panel supply chain.

Completely agree but reducing competition could backfire and create less innovation (due to less incentive to compete / innovate) than more.

> Energy independence is tantamount with security.

This only helps if you are talking non-renewable energy. A country can stop their oil shipments, they have leverage there. They can't typically take away solar panels.

Now one could say that they can take away the supply of new panels and slow US adoption of renewables. But isn't that exactly what the President is doing here? It's like saying I might be shot at some point so I might as well shoot myself in the foot now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Meanwhile, California is requiring solar panels on all new housing starting in 2020. These two things are going to make housing even more expensive. I guess Trump doesn't mind screwing California a little bit more.

<comment><USER3> No, solar on single family homes makes them _less_ expensive. It's a cash flow positive move, and if it wasn't, the body that enacted that would not have been allowed to enact the regulation.

<comment><USER14> >> No, solar on single family homes makes them less expensive.

Then why in the world would they have to regulate it?

>> the body that enacted that would not have been allowed to enact the regulation

That 100% wrong legally. No one ever has been able to avoid regulation by claiming that the regulation imposes a net cost. That's the entire point of a regulation, to shift behavior in the absence of direct economic incentives.

In reality, this regulation is a tradeoff between higher net costs for new home builders and the need to reduce carbon emissions.

<comment><USER3> You don't understand, the body that enacts these regulations enacts them on the basis of cost savings. It's the California Electricity Commission:

[http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/savings.html](http://www.energy.ca.gov/efficiency/savings.html)

There is no net new cost, overall, this is all win, and if it were not, the standards would not be allowed to be set. In particular, on average, the CEC found $80 of savings on $40 of finance cost:

[http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_b...](http://www.energy.ca.gov/releases/2018_releases/2018-05-09_building_standards_adopted_nr.html?platform=hootsuite)

Now, you seem to be implicitly assuming that if this cost savings were true, it would already be done by builders and consumers. However, human behavior is sticky. Even though this is a good idea now, it takes people a long time to realize that.

Witness all the people in this thread that seem to doubt it's not a cost saving measure. Even taking a small peak at the cost of solar should reveal how much of a cost saving measure solar is in California. Even residential, which has high labor costs, and where 30% of the cost of an install goes to customer acquisition costs. For new large builds, that customer acquisition cost goes away, so it becomes an even better deal. And you've already got people on roofs, building them, so it becomes yet an even better idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Wouldn't correcting the large trade deficit between China and the US result in a net job increase in the long run?

It would take several years but we can build factories in rural parts of the US(you know, where people voted for Trump) or even in Mexico.

<comment><USER7> It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole which corporations can use to get around restrictions.

<comment><USER35> > It will never happen. There will always be some lower labor cost region > where manufacturing jobs can be sent, and there will always be some loophole > which corporations can use to get around restrictions.

It will _have_ to happen. IIRC, the US has trade deficits with pretty much every country it trades with. At some point, those places are going to get tired of trading real goods for IOUs and IP, especially once there are competing providers of IOUs and IP.

<comment><USER7> Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant -- they'll be trading with each other where appropriate.

Isolationist policies result in the obvious: isolation.

<comment><USER35> > Those other countries have developing economies and populations. It won't be > long before the other large countries stop seeing the US as significant -- > they'll be trading with each other where appropriate.

Which is why the US needs to redevelop its economy to be able to produce more things that those countries might actually want to buy besides agricultural products. The IOU-based trade-deficit policy isn't going to cut it long term.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There's no fighting the future, regardless of whether this administration likes to bury its head in the sand.</comment>


Bump is letting users send paid apps (on Android)? - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers/browse_thread/thread/87de33d5ef8c69fc

<comment><USER2> Bump does not allow users to share paid apps for free. All we do is share a link to the App Market so your friend can find the app (and hopefully purchase it) easier.

The key part of this post is: "(I haven't tried actually sending the paid app, so maybe it fails at that point - can anyone confirm? I hope to be proven wrong here)"

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I was pretty sure that was incorrect, though I didn't try it myself. I figured you guys might want a chance to reply, and I saw that you did.</comment></comment>


Apple SSDs and the fusion drive ripoff - <AUTHOR> http://www.mactrast.com/2012/11/apple-ssds-and-the-fusion-drive-ripoff/ <comment><USER2> Fusion Drive is just one of many options available. You could get even better performance from a RAID array of SSDs.

Most of what people pay Apple for is sorting all this stuff out, while many of us are capable of creating all sorts of hardware stacks most people just want something fast that they can store lots of stuff on, fusion drive delivers that.

To consumers it's a tradeoff between price and management, and to be fair for most people an extra $250 is probably well worth it to them vs. how complex managing that storage is to them. Fusion Drive is sold on consumer surplus not commodity.

Consumer surplus is the same reason programmers are so valuable to the economy, industry would rather pay someone else to figure out all this complex technology than invest the time in learning it themselves and saving themselves the cost of a programmer.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article is a piece of shit.

1) It explains nothing about how Fusion Drive works. In fact, it muddles the waters by likening it to SSD cache technologies, while it's simply not a cache at all.

2) The sources it links are speculation posted right after the announcement, when no technical details were available. Of course, the details have since come out and have been analyzed in detail, but the writer ignores that.

3) The custom SSD connector on laptops has absolutely nothing to do with Fusion Drive, since FD _is offered on desktop machines only_. The Apple laptops that have the custom connector come with pure SSD storage: there is no spinning HD to use for FD.

4) But at least that gives the writer an opportunity to claim that the custom connector makes it impossible to buy upgrades from third parties... only to then mention a third-party that makes compatible upgrades in the very next sentence. What?

5) You can use Fusion Drive on your entry-level Mac mini or iMac, actually. In fact, you don't even need a new Mac at all, and there are no hacks to do: it's all right there in OS X.

<comment><USER4> On point 4, the writer is correct.

You can buy mSATA SSDs from many different manufacturers and they will work in any computer with a standard mSATA interface. By changing the shape of the connector, you can't use any of those drives in your Apple laptop. Only one company, OWC MacSales, has come up with a solution, but these only work with Apple laptops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting, but I'd like a second opinion on this. Not that I don't believe Apple isn't fully capable of ripping off its customers, but the general tone of the article ( _That's OK, though – those repair costs and inflated hardware upgrades go directly to feeding hungry Apple technicians, and buying Jony Ive's next custom-designed Italian sports car._ , really?) makes me question its objectivity.

<comment><USER6> This article is completely accurate - there's nothing new or innotivative about fusion drive when compared to what was in the market years ago- it's pure marketing. I know the anti apple tone of the article made it seem unfairly biased, but it's totally correct in this case.

<comment><USER7> > _This article is completely accurate - there's nothing new or innotivative > about fusion drive when compared to what was in the market years ago- it's > pure marketing._

Pardon me but it's the first time ever I heard about tiered storage ( _not_ caching hybrids which is handled by the drives themselves) being available outside of datacenters. Doesn't explain the +250$ price.

Besides, the whole tone of the article is full of useless hatred. The point could have been made without such aggressiveness.

What's more, the proposed solution is ludicrous:

\- buy an external SSD

\- install OSX on it

\- wipe the internal disk

\- manually manage files/applications/whatnot to be stored on the SSD _or_ the disk.

I can't even begin to describe how such a scheme is brittle and contrived.

Can we stop pretending everyone out there is technically inclined? To us technical folks who know how to actually build the CoreStorage tiered array, 250$ may look like a steep price, but to the huge amount of real people out there, the convenience is well worth 250$, and for those it's not worth, well they'd stay with a spinner anyway.

<comment><USER8> Motherboards with a slot for a cache SSD have been available for quite some time. See, for example, [http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Smart- Response-Te...](http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Storage/Intel-Smart-Response- Technology-SSD-Caching-Z68-Tested/Boot-Option-ROM-Boot-Performa)

<comment><USER9> Did you completely ignore the comment you replied to? Fusion drive aka tiered storage is _not_ a cache.

<comment><USER8> Truth be told, I wasn't aware of the difference. I am now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm not sure I agree with his premises (so, I also don't agree with his conclusions).

A cheap, slow, bottom-of-the-line 128GB SSD (with lots of negative reviews on Amazon[1]) is $85, and Apple is charging $250 (the author _lies_ at the end by calling it $450 to make it more sensational!) for it, so that's evil? And anti-consumer?! How about Fusion Drive's seamless integration with OS X? How about the fact that it works as a "single" logical drive (which is preferred over multiple logical drives if you were to purchase HDD/SSD separately)? How about "you don't have to worry about putting _which_ file, _where_ "? That's not worthy of putting in your BOM - only hardware is worth paying money for?

If it's just a minor software tweak, then I (in good heart) suggest the author to quit his job and create an equivalent for Linux/Windows and sell it for half what Apple sells FusionDrives and make a huge amount of money.

I've been wanting to buy one of those shiny Seagate Momentus XT ($180 for 768GB version) for almost two years I think, but apparently it's not good. The firmware is buggy as hell, especially for Mac. I remember there was a thread on Seagate's support forums with like a thousand angry messages, and after 2 months someone from Seagate told that "they're reaching out to some select customers to iron out minor problems that some people were having" and it took them months (again) to fix them. So it's not like "fusing" HDD and SSD is a solved problem...

Bottom line: We pay Apple, Google (well, indirectly), Intel and others to make decisions for us. I can buy a (slower) $85 SSD, put it in my Mac Pro and try to make it work like a fusion drive (which, contrary to what the author said, is _not_ a caching mechanism!), or I can give Apple $250 for something that's better than that and be sure that my data wouldn't be removed because of some stupid configuration (and save hours of maintenance). I prefer paying for the service.

Edit: I love this comment from the article: _OMG… The parts in a Ford, and the parts in a Mercedes cost almost the same, but Mercedes is RIPPING OFF customers by over-charging!_

Edit 2: I forgot: The author clearly doesn't understand what FusionDrive is, and still thinks it's a caching system! _(despite apparently reading the Ars article (that gets the facts right)_ and* the ExtremeTect link-baity article (that got the fact terribly wrong, but later corrected the article at the end)*.

[1]: <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00826WE9Y>

<comment><USER11> > If it's just a minor software tweak, then I (in good heart) suggest the > author to quit his job and create an equivalent for Linux/Windows and sell > it for half what Apple sells FusionDrives and make a huge amount of money.

<http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org> for Linux

<https://blogs.oracle.com/brendan/entry/test> for ZFS

And yes, Fusion drive is effectively a caching system.

<comment><USER10> I can't view the oracle link (<http://www.oracle.com/splash/rpls/embargoed.html>) - it's something enterprisy I'm sure, so it's even more expensive than FusionDrive (with much better support and more features), but the Linux thing you linked is a caching system, which FusionDrive is _not_.

> _Fusion drive is effectively a caching system._

Oh... No, it's not. It's a block-level tiering solution which (mostly) promotes important "blocks" automatically and intelligently when computer is idle (so as not to slow things down when the user is working).

 _Very_ , very different from caching, very different technology (Apple has been working on CoreStorage, Apple's logical volume manager for years).

Ars article[1] has more info.

[1]: [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive- ho...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-how-it-works- and-how-to-roll-your-own/)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the Ars link, very informative. Based on this article, it looks more like a kind of intelligent, dynamic RAID0 than a cache, which makes me dubitative with regards to its reliability (talk about multiplying SPOFs...). I'd rather go for a smaller SSD holding the system in this case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Does it make things faster: yes

Do you have to buy it: no

I don't understand how people write long articles about Apple's pricing strategy. They can charge whatever they want and people will pay whatever it's worth to them.

From the technical point of view:

There is a nice Ars Technica post on how Intels SRT differs from fusion drive:

[http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive- ho...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-how-it-works- and-how-to-roll-your-own/)

An excerpt:

> Intel SRT does not handle writes this way—whether it's operating as write- > back or write-through cache, SRT mirrors writes (immediately or within a > short amount of time) down to the hard disk, which is not the observed > behavior. Plus, as has been noted, SRT currently doesn't work with SSDs > larger than 64GB. It is absolutely clear that Fusion Drive does not use SRT.

As you can see, Apple does what it's best at:

1\. Take existing technology

2\. Improve it

3\. Polish it

4\. Sell it.

It's this final touch, attention to detail and hassle free operation that people seem to be willing to pay premium for.

</comment><comment><USER13> Disagree. It's not that overpriced to have a native SSD pre-installed for $250. Sure, it's more than buying it alone, but most other companies would charge similar prices for Apple is doing here.

</comment><comment><USER14> Huh, I thought we established that the fusion drive didn't use the same basic cache idea as Intel SRT? There was an Ars article[1] that came out shortly after the new FDs did that did a lot of actual digging and came to the conclusion that, as I understood it, the SSD is ALWAYS written to, and then those storage blocks are, when needed, relocated to the HDD.

In other words, I call bullshit on this whole article's technological assessment. (Though I can't disagree that it's kind of pricey, but not so much as to be called a "ripoff", at least objectively)

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive- ho...](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-how-it-works- and-how-to-roll-your-own/)

</comment><comment><USER15> We need more writers like this, to show the world what such evil companies are capable of doing to their consumers - They take your money, then they rip you off and ask you for more. Well done Apple.

<comment><USER6> That's not evil; that's capitalism. Apple is literally doing it's job: they are extracting maximum rents.

<comment><USER15> Claiming something to be revolutionary while it's not, modifying standard connectors to remove your choices and charging you more for that _is_ evil.

<comment><USER16> "Claiming something to be revolutionary while it's not" - This is simple marketing. A business needs to say _something_ to differentiate itself from its competitors.

"modifying standard connectors to remove your choices" - I'd argue they did it for performance issues, not some conspiracy to get you to buy their adapters. Modifying things to suit a different purpose is engineering.

"charging you more for that is evil." - You charge what your customers will pay, not what it costs you to produce. It's a business, not a charity.

Take emotion out of it and just look at the facts.

<comment><USER17> The article mentioned that the pin layout is the same, only the shape is different, so I don't buy the performance explanation. It's a change so that they're different and not the first one.

Claiming something vaguely true may be marketing. Claiming something incorrect and calling it marketing is at least dodgy.

<comment><USER16> Shape may not be directly related to performance, but I'd guess it's similar to the argument for the iPhone not having a removable battery (i.e. the housings and connectors required would restrict the size of the battery itself thus resulting in shorter battery life.) I'm not saying it's the same case here, but knowing Apple's preference towards a compact and efficient use of space, I wouldn't rule it out.

Definitely agree with you on your marketing point. If it can be proven incorrect then it's not ok (nor is it legal). I think they use the word "revolutionary" in place of the old go-to "best". Everyone can say they're the best because it can't be proven wrong. It's subjective. Take, for example, a smartphone screen. Objective observations can be made about the screen size, but personal preference makes "best" subjective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am writing this on a Mid 2012 Macbook Pro using a Fusion Drive. How am I using a Fusion Drive on this? I made it myself with three terminal commands. Apple has always charged a premium for their products, this is no different but if you want it for cheaper on a machine where you can install a second hard drive then do it yourself.

[http://www.macworld.com/article/2014011/how-to-make-your- own...](http://www.macworld.com/article/2014011/how-to-make-your-own-fusion- drive.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> Fusion seems kind of half assed. If I want a fast drive, I'll get the largest ssd I'm willing to afford. If I want a cheap drive I'll get the smallest HDD I need.

If you're buying an apple product, pricing is low on your list.

<comment><USER17> Actually they seem to give you more ssd space than need. Compare it with lenovo which throws in a 16gb ssd drive _for free_. I've got it set up as a writeback cache (using flashcache) and honestly don't see a performance difference compared to the whole system being on the ssd. (of course the difference is there, just not noticeable anymore)

That doesn't really match apple's $200+ - lenovo can do it for free to some extent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> So much anger.</comment>


Realstatistics Malware Campaign Leads to Ransomware - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sucuri.net/2016/07/joomla-wordpress-affected-by-realstatistics-infection-campaign-distributing-randsomware-malware.html <comment><USER2> It seems that there is another mass infection on its way. What is really strange for me is the fact that the website from "PCI Policy Portal" is also infected and blacklisted. That is really strange.</comment>


Germany pledges to end all nuclear power by 2022 - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

<comment><USER2> The ironic thing is, that the result of the anti-nuclear-power movement is today that we have these old power plants instead of the modern and secure ones.

The reason for recent movements is the success of the Green party, they won the most recent state elections. Their method is in this matter primarily exploiting the fears of the people. They also serve the need for moral superiority. In the long run is this party damaging like extreme left and right wing movements, who are not successful because of our history.

I am German btw.

</comment><comment><USER3> I upvoted this because I think that it needs attention, especially amongst the more tech/science savvy population of society. Nuclear power has the potential to meet the energy needs of the human race for well over a century while in the mean time we work out the details of more long term and renewable options. It's also safer than many of the current energy sources so the way that the public reacts to it is nothing less than a tragedy.

<comment><USER4> Happening to live in Germany, and near a number of coal power plants, I am shocked by how out of place I am here for not opposing nuclear power.

The short-term alternatives to German-produced nuclear power are mainly coal power (due to massive coal resources in the area) and importing French nuclear power (the French plants are older and many are on the French-German border). I am not convinced that giving up German nuclear plants for French nuclear plants (while keeping the risks due to their proximity and yet losing regulatory control over them) is a good idea.

Long-term alternatives have suddenly had their funding withdrawn. The renewable energy fund was financed by nuclear power plant operators as a condition of their continued operation. The government, latching onto the Fukushima accident, attempted to buy popularity for themselves by calling for no longer allowing these plants to run. The plant operators promptly stopped making payments into the renewable energy fund.

The nuclear plants in Germany are ancient and in terrible condition, and provide around 20% of German energy. I do not think it's a tragedy that they are getting shut down. But I see the insane, purely dogmatic opposition of any new plants, as a national hysteria.

From a personal viewpoint, I get to breathe the coal dust, which is much more damaging and releases way more radioactivity into the air than the nuclear plants do. This is a real danger, an actual damaging factor, rather than a risk. To me, expanding coal power production, which seems the most likely scenario, is a nightmare.

<comment><USER5> As an Austrian I can tell you exactly what will happen as we never built nuclear power in the first place. The new NPP will be built in Poland or the Ukraine and you will be importing the power. Best case with German financing and thus German engineering, worst case financed by Gazprom to have Germany even more at its whim.

Edit: Austria imports 10% of its power from Czech and Slovak NPP that we have no financial interest in that were built after russian designs. But my fellow countrymen will not be corrupted to pick the least bad of the options 1\. Cold homes 2\. Old or unsafe NPP with no Austrian involvement 3\. Newer and potentially much safer NPP to which we contribute some money</comment></comment></comment>