I’m not particularly interested to watch a 40 minute video, so I skinned the transcript a bit.
As my other comments show, I know there are reasons why 3.5 inch doesn’t make sense in SSD context, but I didn’t see anything in a skim of the transcript that seems relevant to that question. They are mostly talking about storage density rather than why not package bigger (and that industry is packaging bigger, but not anything resembling 3.5", because it doesn’t make sense).
The main point is that the disk controller gets exponentially more complicated as capacity increases and that the problem isnt with space for the nand chips bit that the controller would be too power hungry or expensive to manufacture for disks bigger than around 4tb.
I’m not particularly interested to watch a 40 minute video, so I skinned the transcript a bit.
As my other comments show, I know there are reasons why 3.5 inch doesn’t make sense in SSD context, but I didn’t see anything in a skim of the transcript that seems relevant to that question. They are mostly talking about storage density rather than why not package bigger (and that industry is packaging bigger, but not anything resembling 3.5", because it doesn’t make sense).
The main point is that the disk controller gets exponentially more complicated as capacity increases and that the problem isnt with space for the nand chips bit that the controller would be too power hungry or expensive to manufacture for disks bigger than around 4tb.