Merrill Lynch Update: PS3 BOM Approaches $900

[Alpha_Spartan]

Don't shoot the messenger:

http://rsch1.ml.com/9093/24013/ds/276873_0.PDF

 

[cthellis42]

Is there something around for me to slap my forehead with? Something that makes a pleasant--perhaps comical--thwappy sound while providing a nice, firm smack?

 

[nonamer]

Cell $230? I guess they missed the memo where IBM said yields of Cell are good.

 

[Gholbine]

Good press for Sony.

 

[Sethamin]

This particular analyst seems to be assuming that any PS3 delays are from hardware issues, not software issues. While I don't think this is implausible, I think software readiness is more likely the culprit.

Also, anyone else notice that the numbers for the estimated PS3 cost add up to $800, not $900? Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference - either way it's a lot and probably too high - but that's kind of a big mistake, isn't it?

 

[cthellis42]

Also, anyone else notice that the numbers for the estimated PS3 cost add up to $800, not $900? Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference - either way it's a lot and probably too high - but that's kind of a big mistake, isn't it?

<laughs> "Merrill Lynch is one of the world’s leading financial management and advisory companies..."

<chuckles mordantly for a good 15 minutes>

 

[Tap In]

very thorough report and projections on the next gen industry over the next year + -

thanks for the link

 

[expletive]

This particular analyst seems to be assuming that any PS3 delays are from hardware issues, not software issues. While I don't think this is implausible, I think software readiness is more likely the culprit.

Also, anyone else notice that the numbers for the estimated PS3 cost add up to $800, not $900? Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference - either way it's a lot and probably too high - but that's kind of a big mistake, isn't it?

Thats a good catch on the math.

Interesting that all other things being equal, the 360 will still have $75 cost advantage on the optical drive in 3 years. Thats almost $100 less per box that MS *could* sell the 360 for in 3 years from now. Of course they may choose to not leverage that and just profit more, but the choice of the DVD format for 360 seems wise in terms of reaching a mainstream pricetag $149-199. In 3 years the BR drive would still constitute half of the BOM of a $149 console.

 

[Brimstone]

This particular analyst seems to be assuming that any PS3 delays are from hardware issues, not software issues. While I don't think this is implausible, I think software readiness is more likely the culprit.

Also, anyone else notice that the numbers for the estimated PS3 cost add up to $800, not $900? Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference - either way it's a lot and probably too high - but that's kind of a big mistake, isn't it?

No it adds up to $900 according to their logic, you might be overlooking the $80 near the very bottom of the diagram labled "other components: asics".

 

[nonamer]

No it adds up to $900 according to their logic, you might be overlooking the $80 near the very bottom of the diagram labled "other components: asics".

That still adds up to only $800.

 

[Sethamin]

No it adds up to $900 according to their logic, you might be overlooking the $80 near the very bottom of the diagram labled "other components: asics".

Nope, I saw that. Check your math, it still adds up to $800.

 

[Brimstone]

Sorry, your correct, I must have carried an extra 1 or something. My bad.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Cell $230? I guess they missed the memo where IBM said yields of Cell are good.

they said they are improving very quickly, not that they were good, big difference.

 

[pc999]

Why would a bigger RSX be (so much) less expensive than the Cell

 

[expletive]

Why would a bigger RSX be (so much) less expensive than the Cell

And half the price of Xenos

 

[nonamer]

Because they're making it up as they go along? That's my guess.

 

[Bobbler]

Comical, almost.

 

[Serenity Painted Death]

Almost?

That is outright hysterical.

 

[Powderkeg]

Also, anyone else notice that the numbers for the estimated PS3 cost add up to $800, not $900? Doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference - either way it's a lot and probably too high - but that's kind of a big mistake, isn't it?

Yes, but you have to read the sentences carefully...

the initial bill of materials for PS3 could approach $900.

a processor that we think will cost Sony at least $230 per unit initially.

So yes, if you just look at the table, the math is wrong, but if you read the text they are clearly including a buffer that's not listed on their table. If you look at the table closely you will notice that they also don't include the cost of the case, fans, controller, or power supply either, so there goes part of that buffer.

 

[expletive]

I know we've been through this before but keep in mind that this is Merrill Lynch - not Joystiq or engadget. It absolutely behooves them to be right and base reports like this on credible evidence. Not saying theyve gotten it right here but i believe theyve used whatever resources and info at their disposal to get as close as possible.