Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Data Storage

Sony Shuts Down Nearly Its Entire Memory Card Business Due To SSD Shortage (petapixel.com) 32

For the "foreseeable future," Sony says it has stopped accepting new orders for most of its CFexpress and SD memory card lines due to the an ongoing memory supply shortage. "Due to the global shortage of semiconductors (memory) and other factors, it is anticipated that supply will not be able to meet demand for CFexpress memory cards and SD memory cards for the foreseeable future," the company said in a notice. "Therefore, we have decided to temporarily suspend the acceptance of orders from our authorized dealers and from customers at the Sony Store from March 27, 2026 onwards. PetaPixel reports: The suspension includes all of Sony's memory card lines, including CFexpress Type A, CFexpress Type B, and SD cards. The 240GB, 480GB, 960GB, and 1920GB capacity Type A cards have been suspended, as have the 480GB and 240GB Type B cards. The full gamut of Sony's high-end SD cards has also been suspended, including the 256GB, 128GB, and 64GB TOUGH-branded cards and the lower-end 512GB, 256GB, 128GB, and 256GB plainly-branded Sony cards, which cap out at V60 speeds. Even Sony's lower-end, V30 128GB and 64GB SD cards have been suspended, showcasing that the SSD shortage affects all types of solid state, not just the high-end ones.

It appears that only the 960GB CFexpress Type B card and the lowest-end SF-UZ series SD cards remain in production. However, those UHS-I SD cards are discontinued in the United States outside of a scant few retailers and resellers. "We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause our customers," Sony concludes.

Comment Re:First against the wall (Score 4, Insightful) 74

Railing against age verification while an orange man is sending the military into your cities, destroying your way of life and antagonizing the whole world against you is priceless.

Age verification is not what is being discussed, and only an incredibly simple person who is completely unable to imagine ramifications of what is obviously ubiquitous identity verification would make such a drastic mistake. This kind of technology is an obvious component of "sending the military into [our] cities" and "destroying [our] way of life" and is in fact exactly what the followers of the orange piggy are promoting. Did you not notice what's going on with e.g. flock? Fucking wake up and learn to pay attention, fascism enabler.

Comment Re:Non-commercial use only (Score 1) 79

Maybe the legal experts could sit down and work out how to modify licenses (including the GPL/LGPL) to be for non-commercial use only?

That's easy. You just put "for non-commercial use only" in the license and give the license a new name. Then no corporate entities use it and therefore they never give anything back to the project and it dies. Mission accomplished?

Comment Re:We must normalize paying for worth (Score 1) 79

Comparing this to tipping is the wrong approach because tipping is fucking stupid. The problem with your analogy is that the executive are going to a for-profit business that isn't paying its employees properly.

I thought it was a stupid analogy until I read that. This is essentially what's happening, who's working where is the only difference. The executives love it specifically because they don't have to pay the people doing the work. We do need to solve that problem. If we're not going to solve it with UBI, which remains the simplest way to solve a long list of problems like this, then it's just going to need to be solved in some other way.

But just like best solution to the tipped wage problem is to eliminate it and make everyone pay a living wage, the best solution to this problem is UBI.

Comment Re:Time for a tax. (Score 1) 79

Perens' Post Open licensing approach is interesting but creates a two-tier ecosystem: "free for individuals, pay for commercial use" sounds clean until you realize it breaks the fundamental property that made open source eat the world.

This is on brand for Perens, who was part of the OSI effort to take over the whole idea of "Open Source".

What's actually needed: mandatory contribution structured as a fee, not a license restriction. Here's one way to do it. Small flat fee on all US commercial revenue above $5M (the entire world runs on OSS, everyone pays to maintain it), larger marginal fee on companies whose products directly incorporate OSS.

Holy shit just get it from the general fund, spending shitloads figuring out who pays how much and arguing about it in court (which is what will happen, guaranteed) is dumb when we all benefit from foss.

Comment Re:If payment's required to access open-source sw (Score 1) 79

Consider how IBM / Red Hat are actively overriding the licenses of the software they distribute.

This is a real problem.

Consider how coding LLMs copy without attribution open source snippets found by their company spiders.

This is also a real problem.

Consider how Google locks up Android code by making closed source play services effectively essential.

This is not a real problem. Google gives away the OSS code as required. You are free to use it as you like. If you don't like being hobbled by play store requirements you can use the other pieces to build a system which isn't like that. There are already systems which do this which prove it.

Consider how web sites use modified open source tooling without sharing their added code back.

That's why we now have the AGPL. You're free to use it for your projects.

We live in a different world.

The web site model is the same as the microcomputer or mainframe or SaaS model (which is old AF, consider Compu$erve) so that part isn't new. It's just come back.

I really don't think people are taking the IBM/Redhate problem seriously enough. It's open and flagrant violation because it clearly violates the additional restrictions clause.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now this is a totally brain damaged algorithm. Gag me with a smurfette." -- P. Buhr, Computer Science 354

Working...