Merrill Lynch's Next-Gen console prediction

[Phil]

Shifty, the word redundancy or redundant-structures is also used to describe elements that are just identical & repeated (regardless what purouse it serves), not necessarely in the context you're expecting it (that they are there incase one is failing).

When Vince says that over 50% of CELL is devoted to redundant structures, he means exactly that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Heh, the old 'what does Redundancy really mean' argument. Been there before.

Okay, so Vince said something different what I read, and in what he said of course I agree, 'coz it's true.

 

[Dave Baumann]

I disagree and would ask for a published thesis that Multi-Chip Module costs scale in relation to technological advancement akin to Moore's guiding law, and also like to see how they've diminished over the past, say, 5 years. Perhaps a paper on MCM advancement or such. Because otherwise your comment is totally unneeded as while both ASICs will scale down in costs, their fixed cost remains.

Its that right now the two core approach is assisting in a higher yeilding part than a single, larger core (at the expense of increased packaging costs) - over time its inevitable that both will be merged into a single core.

I would also posit that it's far easier for a company with no true high-preformance embedded DRAM experience to produce an stand-alone ASIC, with what is an extention of current memory controllers; mate it with an eDRAM module, which itself is an extention of Mitsubishi's 3DRAM concept, and create an MCM than it it to create something akin to a contemporary Graphic Synthesizer.

You can posit lots of things Vince, but that doesn't mean that things don't happen - companies do firsts all the time. However, this appears to be a fairly meaningless statement since we are not talking about a company with no eDRAM experience in the first place - many of the guys that delivered Flipper are there and 1/5 of Xenos's eDRAM module is logic anyway.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Its that right now the two core approach is assisting in a higher yeilding part than a single, larger core (at the expense of increased packaging costs) - over time its inevitable that both will be merged into a single core.

At the moment the two parts are fabbed at different companies with different expertise. When it becomes integrated who'd do the fabrication? Isn't it TMSC and NEC? Are TMSC okay with eDRAM? If they are, why are NEC given the job of the eDRAM part? Or are there moves to advance the TMSC lines to support eDRAM?

Just wondering if there's plans for how to produce the single package, or if it's an intention without a solution at the moment.

 

[liolio]

fisrt, excuse me for my very bad english....
am i the only to think that the point of that ml prediction is not the win or loss of the next gen console war?
the point is that MS will probably do better with x360 than with the first xbox.
the point is also that they can make profits on the hardware pretty easily (it's seem).
for investissors they 're both very good points, they don't care about the winner of console war, they care about profits that all.
the xbox360 is better financial bet than was the first xbox, for that's all this article says.
second, excuse me for my very bad english....

 

[Mmmkay]

One of the biggest differences between ML and everyone else is they are liable if they don't tell the truth. They aren't liable for their predictions as no one is, but are liable for not reporting false information. If their customers use their numbers to buy MS or Sony stock and they are off by a mile, the customer can sue them. Likewise, Sony can sue them for defamation or unfair business practice or whatever. Not saying the numbers are right, but they do have a vested interest in not just using a random number generator to just throw out numbers. The question is, where did they derive these numbers? Did they speak to Sony and MS's vendors directly or did they get them from some analysis model?

If the numbers are even close to their prediction, I'm all for it. It'll force Sony to reduce their prices faster. Good for those of us who wait a couple of price drops before we buy.

Except that it is not a recommendation for its investors:

This research report provides general information only. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes an offer, or an invitation to make an offer, to buy or sell any securities or other investment or any options, futures or derivatives related to securities or investments.

Merrill Lynch does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report.

It is simply an industry analysis commissioned by (in my opinion) an Xbox 360 hardware partner. Its timing is remarkable and content entirely subjective. That is not to say there is no fact in any of the information presented. In fact I agree with the general assessment that the Xbox 360 will be cheaper to manufacture and that Sony's financial state may be an issue for them. The problem is these factors have been spun in this report to an amazing degree.

 

[mckmas8808]

Except that it is not a recommendation for its investors:




It is simply an industry analysis commissioned by (in my opinion) an Xbox 360 hardware partner. Its timing is remarkable and content entirely subjective. That is not to say there is no fact in any of the information presented. In fact I agree with the general assessment that the Xbox 360 will be cheaper to manufacture and that Sony's financial state may be an issue for them. The problem is these factors have been spun in this report to an amazing degree.

This man knows what he is talking about. You've hit the nail on the head.

 

[Sis]

This man knows what he is talking about. You've hit the nail on the head.

I love how when someone disagrees with something, there must be a conspiracy, sight-unseen.

Please. The report is not outrageous as I've outlined numerous times. You disagree with it. This obviously must mean the authors are hacks who were bought off.

.Sis

 

[London Geezer]

I love how when someone disagrees with something, there must be a conspiracy, sight-unseen.

Please. The report is not outrageous as I've outlined numerous times. You disagree with it. This obviously must mean the authors are hacks who were bought off.

.Sis

The article seems to shamelessly only focus on MS's advantages completely ignoring Sony's advantages. Whether he was bought out or not, the article is shamelessly one-sided, whether you agree or not with it.
Unless you think that Sony has no advantages over MS (which in itself is an outrageous statement), the article is over the top with its Sony iz teh doomed scenarios.

 

[g35er]

It is simply an industry analysis commissioned by (in my opinion) an Xbox 360 hardware partner. Its timing is remarkable and content entirely subjective. That is not to say there is no fact in any of the information presented. In fact I agree with the general assessment that the Xbox 360 will be cheaper to manufacture and that Sony's financial state may be an issue for them. The problem is these factors have been spun in this report to an amazing degree.

But at the very least, could not Sony or one of their vendors sue for defamation or unfair business practice or what not if ML reports false numbers? If the numbers are that far off, and if it negatively impacts their business on a partner level and they can prove ML was just making the numbers up, Sony or the vendors have a case, despite the disclaimer. Again, as a public entity, they are allowed to be wrong in predictions, but they can't just knowingly issue false statements.

Originally Posted by Merrill Lynch
Merrill Lynch does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports.

Gee, I wonder which company they're referring too? Seems obvious who they favor.

 

[expletive]

Except that it is not a recommendation for its investors:




It is simply an industry analysis commissioned by (in my opinion) an Xbox 360 hardware partner. Its timing is remarkable and content entirely subjective. That is not to say there is no fact in any of the information presented. In fact I agree with the general assessment that the Xbox 360 will be cheaper to manufacture and that Sony's financial state may be an issue for them. The problem is these factors have been spun in this report to an amazing degree.

That doesnt change the fact that they cannot pull data out of thin air. The items you quote are standard disclaimers on everything they (and every other financial firm) publish. They are not peculiar to this specific report and dont hold any more or less weight as it relates to the material contained in it.

Also, conflict of interest does not mean 'license to make this up'. I dont think anyone in here was using MLs opinion as to who would 'win' to make their argument. The discussion revolved around the analysis on the costs of each console and the potential for the 360 to be much cheaper come late 2006 and what WE thought that would mean. This information still needs to be based on facts that they have access to. I dont remember every post in this thread but i never said ML would be right or wrong, just that this report does provide insights on strategies and console costs. From there i made my own suppositions on what it could mean in the larger picture if things went this way.

 

[expletive]

The article seems to shamelessly only focus on MS's advantages completely ignoring Sony's advantages. Whether he was bought out or not, the article is shamelessly one-sided, whether you agree or not with it.
Unless you think that Sony has no advantages over MS (which in itself is an outrageous statement), the article is over the top with its Sony iz teh doomed scenarios.

This is a report from a financial firm, they focus on things like costs, selling price, time to market, etc. It shouldnt be a surprise as every financial analysis we've read on the consoles talks about the exact same things over and over.

If youre looking for a report that says "if teh RSX has 40 shader pip3s the 360 is in deep shit" from a major financial institution youre going ot be disappointed. The cell doesnt mean anything to them, BR is locked in a format war so that holds much less wiehgt as well.

For reports that focus on cost and pricing, we've all pretty much known for awhile now that MS has an advantage, and they SHOULD becuase of their hardware decisions, cost is integral to their strategy. So im confused as to why, when a financial firm doing a financial analysis, gives MS the edge, its shamelss and biased.

 

[London Geezer]

So im confused as to why, when a financial firm doing a financial analysis, give MS the edge, its shamelss and biased.

In the end MS supporters will always agree with such articles regardless of the validity of them.
The article is not shameless or biased because it happens to support MS and you happen to agree with them and it makes you feel better to think that Sony iz teh doomed. The article is shamed and biased because it fails to address the advantages Sony has, which you have completely ignored (unless you think that technology is the only advantage Sony has, which in itself is ridiculous).

 

[mckmas8808]

I love how when someone disagrees with something, there must be a conspiracy, sight-unseen.

Please. The report is not outrageous as I've outlined numerous times. You disagree with it. This obviously must mean the authors are hacks who were bought off.

.Sis

who said they were brought off? You quoted me, but I never said anything like that.

 

[mckmas8808]

In the end MS supporters will always agree with such articles regardless of the validity of them.
The article is not shameless or biased because it happens to support MS and you happen to agree with them and it makes you feel better to think that Sony iz teh doomed. The article is shamed and biased because it fails to address the advantages Sony has, which you have completely ignored (unless you think that technology is the only advantage Sony has, which in itself is ridiculous).

Yes thank god for l-b. *Bright white light shines from above with angels singing* This has been my ONLY point within this whole thread. This is the only thing that I've been trying to display myself. The Bolded and underlined sentence is the most important part of the quote. But for some reason people have to say that I am teh bias.

 

[Mmmkay]

But at the very least, could not Sony or one of their vendors sue for defamation or unfair business practice or what not if ML reports false numbers? If the numbers are that far off, and if it negatively impacts their business on a partner level and they can prove ML was just making the numbers up, Sony or the vendors have a case, despite the disclaimer. Again, as a public entity, they are allowed to be wrong in predictions, but they can't just knowingly issue false statements.

They are still in the end predictions based on the information at hand, there's no ground for defamation. This report seems to be a private analysis which was probably not meant for us or even the media. If you haven't noticed yet, this report was leaked onto a forum and has only spread onto blogs and indie news sites which deal with user submitted info. Fairly effective marketing if you ask me.

That doesnt change the fact that they cannot pull data out of thin air. The items you quote are standard disclaimers on everything they (and every other financial firm) publish. They are not peculiar to this specific report and dont hold any more or less weight as it relates to the material contained in it.

Estimates and predictions are not facts. I said that it is quite likely their source information was based in fact but their subjectivity and spin (in my opinion) damages their credibility.

I was replying to someone who put this report in the same league one which gives recommendations to their investors. This report clearly does not and offers disclaimers to that degree. Would those disclaimers be on a report which does give recommendations?

What's the adage? If it's too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[Bobbler]

Expletive: It seems to me you are overestimating ML's actual liability (in this type of document) -- they could just as easily fabricate numbers as I could (example: saying Xenon would cost 200 dollars to fab because I think IBM will charge a hefty fee to MS to do it). They base things on facts, only when facts are present -- otherwise those firms make guesses based on what they see, and what they see isn't always the entire picture or a clear picture.

In this type of document, they are no more liable to produce 100% facts than a forum poster on OA (only ML has a reputation that they care about, OA posters have none -- zing!) -- mainly because they don't have access to 100% facts, and they are only "liable" to write stuff which is "to the best of their knowledge" the truth. They full out say that that document should not be used as in depth analysis or stock decisions. There is nothing to sue about in the document, even if they listed the prices as $1000 for Cell and Xenon. It isn't defamation or libel. That's like me trying to sue someone because someone was writing that I paid 100,000 to build my house when I only spent 50,000 -- I'd have to somehow prove that damage was done to me based solely on the fact that the price of my house was higher than I actually paid.

I personally don't subscribe to the theory that this was paid for by MS and made to put doubt in the minds of everyone about Sony, if it was, its a silly way to do it -- I do however think the numbers were based on little more than guesses based on non technical knowledge of fabrication process (the 160 dollar fab cost for Cell vs. 100 for RSX should tell you that -- and the ability to use the "bad" Cells).

 

[expletive]

In the end MS supporters will always agree with such articles regardless of the validity of them.
The article is not shameless or biased because it happens to support MS and you happen to agree with them and it makes you feel better to think that Sony iz teh doomed. The article is shamed and biased because it fails to address the advantages Sony has, which you have completely ignored (unless you think that technology is the only advantage Sony has, which in itself is ridiculous).

I'm not sure exactly how to take this response becuase it really doesnt address any of my points and seems to just spread 'youre a fanboi' out over 100 words. But let me stick to the facts.

1. I never said ML was right or agreed with their analysis on the console war who would sell more etc.
2. I explained why financial firms dont care about the techonology advantges (BR, CELL). IF you look at any of the other reports form financial firms they focus on the exact same things:when its released, what it will cost, how much theyll lose on each unit.
3. Is whats in here a surprise? MS decided not to include HD-DVD and HDMI or wireless, so they COULD compete on price because they HAVE to. So when a report comes out that just reiterates waht we've all known about costs and the MS price strategy, its a problem for the Sony contingent.

There are plenty of reports that focus on technology advantages but they arent going to eb the ones from financial institutions. Go read any of these reports from Merrill, Morgan, PIper Jaffray, for the most part they go through their financial 'checklist' and thats it.

 

[Alpha_Spartan]

In the end MS supporters will always agree with such articles regardless of the validity of them.
The article is not shameless or biased because it happens to support MS and you happen to agree with them and it makes you feel better to think that Sony iz teh doomed. The article is shamed and biased because it fails to address the advantages Sony has, which you have completely ignored (unless you think that technology is the only advantage Sony has, which in itself is ridiculous).

This is a FINANCIAL report from a FINANCIAL firm. Did you ever entertain the idea that FINANCIALLY MS has the advantage over Sony? Maybe outside of this report's domain Sony has a few advantages, but ML isn't going to report them because this doesn't matter. What you fail to realize that this isn't an all-encompassing report, but a small part of a larger picture.

In the big picture, Sony has advantages and MS has advantages. This ML report just focus on the financial aspect, which they are well-qualified to do, and MS just happens to have the financial advantage.

If you want a report on fanbase, the potential of BD, or game lineups, look elsewhere. Merrill Lynch doesn't give a shit.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I dont think anyone in here was using MLs opinion as to who would 'win' to make their argument.

I did. I was going to get PS3, but now thanks to ML I'm not going to save up for a machine that'll from a company that'll be bust in a couple of years. I'm waiting 'til Christmas next year when I'll get an XB360 for £150 including HDD, and not worry about exclusive games which I want to play on PS3 because this report didn't mention them so I guess they're not a factor anyone wants to consider.

Actually I'm lying. The report just said 'if this, and that, and we're right with these numbers we guessed at, then this might happen, which might be good for MS.' No different a 4 or 5 threads a month we get started here with people saying IF. Can't see the point of this report myself. Why did they bother to right it? Who's the audience and why'd they want to read it? I'm sure anyone can write speculative articles taking a number of IFs and presumptions to show how some company or other could out-do another. Guess they're just in a slow period and someone knocked it up in an afternoon when they had nothing better to do.