They already were losing (and have lost) billions thanks to PS3. Something like a $200 loss on each console sold in the beginning. You wanting them to have lost more??sony already took huge risks and spent a lot of money developing a very complex expansive CPU and optical drive, why not finish the job and spend even more money to develop a great GPU too ?
And that ignores the impossibility of what you ask. You can't design and manufacture en masse a new cutting edge GPU in <6 months. Your demands are unreasonable.
Why does the PS3 have to have graphics comparable to whatever console MS put out? It doesn't, at least not in principle, like Wii. With any hardware, it's down to the devs to choose how to use it. They could have produced simpler looking games that played better or did something new. They decided to release the same games on XB360 and PS3, and so to use PS3's CPU to up support its graphics.so yes it was sony's fault not providing developers with an adequate GPU so they could use the CELL for more interesting tasks than just helping the GPU.
Or putting it another way, if MS didn't release a console and PS3 was working with lesser graphics than it is now but richer game experiences, no-one would be complaining. It's only the retrospective comparison with XB360 and how the industry went that makes Cell look like a bad choice. That's the problem with choice - you never know until after you made it whether you made the right one or not. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with Sony's thought processes or strategy. It just didn't pan out for the them.