{ "docId": "019dd923-622c-750b-8b98-491cf8c853e8", "docSlug": "3b36a8e60d92", "documentTitle": "Pure Storage, Inc. (PSTG)", "authorId": "53_Kerrisdale_Capital", "authorName": "Kerrisdale Capital", "documentKindSlug": "research-note", "documentKindLabel": "Research note", "sourceTypeSlug": "short_seller", "sourceTypeLabel": "Short seller", "presentationDate": "2025-09-01 00:00:00", "orientation": "portrait", "aspectRatio": 0.77272725, "pageNumber": 18, "pageCount": 35, "prevPage": 17, "nextPage": 19, "slideType": "preempt_rebuttal", "function": "preempt_rebuttal", "density": "balanced", "nDataPoints": 1, "notes": "Includes a testimonial from a data storage product manager at a leading hyperscaler to support the argument.", "elementsJson": [ "paragraph", "quote_block" ], "metadataConfidence": 0.95, "imagePath": null, "slideHref": "/slides/019dd923-622c-750b-8b98-491cf8c853e8/18", "deckHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b98-491cf8c853e8", "deckJsonHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b98-491cf8c853e8.json", "deckAnchorHref": "/decks/019dd923-622c-750b-8b98-491cf8c853e8#slide-18", "components": [ { "bbox": null, "kind": "callout", "text": "It is uneconomical and simply unnecessary to spend ~5x more on flash to store data that will be accessed infrequently, as any latency from HDDs is explicitly accounted for by service level expectations.", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Visual emphasis", "toolSlug": "visual-emphasis", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd952-fb90-708a-8691-647288d46cdc", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.41, "w": 0.78, "x": 0.11, "y": 0.09 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "issue that, as Meta presents, yields a graph that the pro-flash camp loves because it implies that HDDs are becoming a “worse” product over time because of a supposed inability to fully capitalize on their increasing density.", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "3b62a457-0659-4309-9b8a-c6e606ae252c", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.22, "w": 0.78, "x": 0.11, "y": 0.42 }, "kind": "paragraph", "text": "Importantly, the concept of access density is largely irrelevant in the context of hyperscaler mass storage implementation. That is, to accommodate workloads that access data from low-cost cold storage but which are latency-sensitive...", "attrs": null, "subkind": "paragraph", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "b5480400-1759-4b64-8224-2db0d0177009", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": { "h": 0.23, "w": 0.78, "x": 0.11, "y": 0.66 }, "kind": "quote", "text": "a lot of the data that is being stored in the world is actually non-performant data. It doesn’t actually require a lot of the performance that the SSD vendors generally like to talk about...", "attrs": null, "subkind": "testimonial", "toolName": null, "toolSlug": null, "confidence": null, "componentId": "57a7b5b4-5c4f-48e2-b780-c10458fccb24", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null }, { "bbox": null, "kind": "quote", "text": "a lot of the data that is being stored in the world is actually non-performant data. It doesn't actually require a lot of the performance that the SSD vendors generally like to talk about...the 10% use case where you really need performance, that almost becomes a corner case...when I say 10%, it's actually very generous; it's actually even lower than that...hyperscalers look at this and say, for my 90% use case, I'm gonna be using HDDs, and for the 10%, I'm gonna be using analytics and AI to be able to determine which pieces of data I need to pre-cache or pre-warm and store on SSDs. Even for AI [workloads], you don't need to have a shotgun to kill a fly because a lot of these hot types of data are very, very predictable. A simple analytics algorithm would be enough for you to identify which videos or which photographs are gonna be accessed, and at which timeframe. — Data storage product manager at leading hyperscaler", "attrs": null, "subkind": null, "toolName": "Authority citation", "toolSlug": "authority-citation", "confidence": null, "componentId": "019dd952-fb90-708a-8691-6a73b2f1564a", "frameworkName": null, "frameworkSlug": null } ], "metrics": [], "tools": [], "frameworks": [], "arcBeats": [ { "to": 23, "from": 11, "beatId": "043f4323-8300-47cd-bd67-d0d7b1e3780a", "arcName": "Problem-Agitate-Solution", "arcSlug": "problem-agitate-solution", "beatName": "Preempt Rebuttal", "beatSlug": null, "evidence": "The document preempts potential rebuttals to its arguments", "position": 2, "confidence": 0.8, "parentBeatName": null, "parentBeatSlug": null } ], "loops": [ { "to": 32, "from": 5, "name": "Cost Of Inaction", "slug": "27-cost-of-inaction", "bestFor": "Urgent budget requests, compliance, risk mitigation", "matchId": "f175e9df-40bd-4f68-b964-eed15e12ff5a", "evidence": "The document highlights the risks of investing in Pure Storage", "position": 0, "objective": "To highlight the risks of investing in Pure Storage", "structure": "The Status Quo -> The Hidden Costs Accumulating -> The Future State of Inaction -> The Tipping Point", "confidence": 0.7, "description": "Quantify what happens if the audience does nothing" }, { "to": 23, "from": 10, "name": "Quick Win Big Bet", "slug": "47-quick-win-big-bet", "bestFor": "Transformation planning, 100-day plans, resource allocation", "matchId": "7a3fb01b-6d25-4fa6-b338-aeb407c58cc3", "evidence": "The document presents an alternative view to Pure Storage's TCO analysis", "position": 1, "objective": "To present an alternative view to Pure Storage's TCO analysis", "structure": "The Full List -> Quick Wins (Low effort, High impact) -> Big Bets (High effort, High impact) -> Sequenced Roadmap", "confidence": 0.6, "description": "Separate initiatives into immediate wins and longer-term strategic bets" } ], "imagePathAlt": null, "thumbSrc": null, "thumbSrcAlt": null, "locked": true }