Merrill Lynch Update: PS3 BOM Approaches $900
- Thread starter Alpha_Spartan
- Start date
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
I refer you to Mr. Wibble's quote.
Thank you Wibble.
scooby_dooby
Legend
you asked why sony might respond to a ML report. I told you why they might, and don't really see how your quote is relevant.
They're already disputing the ML report with regards to launch timing.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28527
They're already disputing the ML report with regards to launch timing.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=28527
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
That quote is relevent because it also responding to the person I was quoting earlier in this thread (expletive). He was asking why didn't Sony throw out a response for Blu-ray, Cell, or RSX current yields. And I asked why would Sony have to work on ML's time?
scooby_dooby
Legend
And the answer is because Sony is a publically traded company and Merril Lynch advises stockholders. Which is probably the reason they've ALREADY responded!
mckmas8808
Legend
scooby_dooby said:
They responded with a broad statement. Not the statement that expletive was looking for. He was asking about RSX, Cell, and/or Blu-ray drive yields too. Sony said nothing about that extra stuff.
dukmahsik said:
Why would MS cut prices if they already have a price advantage over the PS3? All that would do is make them lose more money and create an impression of technical inferiority for their product.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Brad Grenz said:
*hint* they might also grow their install base,
analysts (for what they're worth) see the system cost coming down 50% by the end of the year, I wouldn't imagine a pricedrop is too far fetched.
scooby_dooby said:
A price drop would be warrented if it's needed to undercut the PS3, but they won't drop price until they absolutely have to. This gen Sony has simply matched Xbox pricing. Despite having an older system and much lower manufacturing cost they don't bother to drop the price further. One of the main reasons is to not give the impression that the PS2 is worth less than an Xbox, even if they are cheaper to produce. Undercutting on pricing as a strategy didn't exactly rocket the Dreamcast of Gamecube to number one.
And I think analysts overestimate the speed with which cost can be reduced on the 360. But that's to be expected when we're talking about bad guessers.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Brad Grenz said:
Sony was in a totally different position as markt leader, MS is the underdog and need to take as much marketshare as possible.
The reason Sony never dropped the price lower than XBOX is because they didn't have to, they were in a secure position.
As far as the effect of pricing on dreamcast or gamecube, we have no idea how those systems would have sold with higher prices. The lower prices could've contributed greatly to their overall sales, we don't know.
I don't think the whole 'impression of being cheaper' thing hols any water with real consumers. If you can make it $100 cheaper, and it plays cross-platform games with the same level of quality, gamers are smart enough to know which is the better deal.
In other words, if PS3 is signifigantly more expensive, it will have to prove it's worth it graphically, otherwise, if the consoles have the same percieved performance, a price drop will have a great affect on spurring 360 sales.
It doesn't matter how cheap the 360 is to buy, the PS3 will sell out. Given that, MS's goal is then to make sure they have significant presence so that people will settle for 360s when the PS3's are out of stock.
If MS has a stable base, they could probably make due with dropping the Core price and keeping the Premium at $400. Hit two markets and be profitable in both.
If not, a price drop will be required to keep adoption rate high enough.
If MS has a stable base, they could probably make due with dropping the Core price and keeping the Premium at $400. Hit two markets and be profitable in both.
If not, a price drop will be required to keep adoption rate high enough.
scooby_dooby
Legend
By dropping the price to $250 on the core they could target a completely different audience than the people buying PS3's at launch for $400+.
It's not really a matter of whether PS3 will sell out, but rather, growing the install base as quickly as possible through 2006 and 2007. A pricedrop would help do that.
It's not really a matter of whether PS3 will sell out, but rather, growing the install base as quickly as possible through 2006 and 2007. A pricedrop would help do that.
Who said their goal will be growing the install base by holiday 2006? It might be profitability, depending on how big the install base is by that time.scooby_dooby said:
Isn't it $800 in the news, not $900 as in the thread title?
Where does that extra $100 comes from.
How does the $800 compare to xbox360 "reported" manufacturing costs of $715?
Where does that $85 go in PS3, the Blu-ray disc, inbuilt Wi-Fi and extra ports?
If the numbers are correct, then I guess we can rule out at least the standard harddrive and standard wireless controller on PS3 "Core" pack
Where does that extra $100 comes from.
How does the $800 compare to xbox360 "reported" manufacturing costs of $715?
Where does that $85 go in PS3, the Blu-ray disc, inbuilt Wi-Fi and extra ports?
If the numbers are correct, then I guess we can rule out at least the standard harddrive and standard wireless controller on PS3 "Core" pack
What's a BOM?
Bill Of Materials
Bill not having anything to do with Bill Gates
All the stuff PS3 is made of... screws, plastics, wires, leds, diodes, switches, optics, pins, chips, fans, valves, pumps, motors...
Bill not having anything to do with Bill Gates
All the stuff PS3 is made of... screws, plastics, wires, leds, diodes, switches, optics, pins, chips, fans, valves, pumps, motors...
Last edited by a moderator:
rabidrabbit said:
... Alright, alright... "Bill of materials" was enough...
I was thinking of something naughty but that's just me. I know what manufacturing costs are.
