I mean, isn't it obvious? There is no demand for massive SSDs. The current "average consumer" capacity has stabilized at 1-2TB for a system drive. It's also what you buy for your PS5s etc. There's just not that many (popular) use cases for larger SSD. Even with gaming, which is probably the most widespread use case for "fast and big" drives, people found out that there's only so many AAA 150GB behemoths that they can play at the same time...
I think you're confusing cause and effect - 1-2 TB is the most common for PS5s because it's still where the price-per-GB sweet spot is. I bought a 2 TB because it was the cheapest per GB at the time, figuring I'd come out ahead financially even if I replaced it with a 4 TB in 2-3 years.
Alas, prices have not come down like I expected. And sure, there's only so many I can play at a time, but I also don't want to have to wait through a reinstall each time I change it up.
If consumers were offered the same space for half the cost or same cost for double the space, I find it likely at least 30% would pick each of those bins.
It's not that people don't want larger drives, it really is that this is what the market is willing to bear and there is NOT sufficient competition to keep prices low.
Then why can I buy 22TB spinner by disks so easily?
I’d love to go solid state, but the cost should be phenomenal.
Judging by comments here, the server options also require a lot of cooling, and keeping the noise down is the point for me (along with keeping heat + power down, and speed).
As an average consumer/data hoarder, why not store those on cheap spinning HDD's? They can stream the data fast enough, and modern NAS hardware gives you easy RAID too. You don't really need super-quick random access to multiple TB's of data, so HDD storage is probably good enough.
