Can someone explain me what is the rationale in that SMR, which is supposed to be slow but high density, is used for the bottom of the barrel low capacity HD models instead of for the high capacity archive ones? I mean, just see THIS photo:
https://www.servethehome.com/what-wd-red-plus-means-for-the-industry/wd-blog-2020-06-23-table/
6 TB SMR models vs 14 TB CMR models? It makes NO SENSE. It should be the other way around. SMR should have been used to introduce slower but higher density HDs at competitive prices where the GB/U$D ratio outmaneuvered SSDs performance and latency advantages. Instead, they used SMR to just drop costs with absolutely no advantage for the consumer. Was WD so ridiculous autodestructive that instead of attemping to give more incentives to keep buying HDs, they instead gives an ethical pretext to go buy more expensive SSDs just so that I can raise them the middle finger?
I was never fond of WD to begin with. Actually, I hate them since the plant flooding incident in 2011, as it gave both WD, the other HD manufacturers, the middlemans, and why not, the entire HD market, the excuse to spike the HD prices threefold, reduce the warranties and overall HD quality control and reliability. Just the very next year, WD buyed HGST and Seagate did the same with Samsung HD division, with the global HD industry becoming a duopoly, then both posted record profits. Gonna love how the markets and speculation works, right? In the face of something that should be a sad catastrophe with no winners, they just came out stronger. I recall a similar incident with DRAM prices with the Hynix plant fire...
Now I just want to see these corporations with excessive greediness to burn themselves to the ground, albeit there is no guarantee than the next ones that will occupy their spots do better than them. At least I want new names to hate instead of always the same ones. And yes, I'm always angry and I always rant.