PS3 Under $400 in Japan?

[mckmas8808]

Sony has always had a great business model with their Playstation brand. It seems to me that with the PS3 having Bluetooth, CELL, built-in wireless 802.11b/g support, and Blu-ray and also with the PSP having UMDs and a steady updating OS that adds more and more options that their business model so far still seems great.

What's the problem?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The main reason why PS2 hasn't dropped in price is because it's still selling! First rule of business - sell at the highest price your customers will pay.

 

[pipo]

Sony has always had a great business model with their Playstation brand. It seems to me that with the PS3 having Bluetooth, CELL, built-in wireless 802.11b/g support, and Blu-ray and also with the PSP having UMDs and a steady updating OS that adds more and more options that their business model so far still seems great.

What's the problem?

Read the link I've posted.

Not making a profit is the problem. Especially when they should in this period of the PS2's lifespan.

I tried to say Nintendo, because they're not concerned about having the best specs, is the only one making a profit. That's including R&D and a console which is arguably a failure.

 

[EricVonZipper]

you really dont think sony is going to pay 70$ for the cell chip now do you?
and 90$ for blueray? make that 15$ at max

those corporations dont shop at bestbuys or walmarts. the make orders for multimillion pieces of hardware for at least 10years.
R&D is done long ago (for the most part on bleulazer technology) for bleuray, fabricating and ordereing the lazerheads wont cost that much.
a normal redlazer head goes for under the 3$ a piece already for big orders.
some of the R&D is carried by sony global, why others are carried by sony enternainment. so they have different budgets

It's not the *chip* itself they are paying for, nVidia *wants* it's cut and Sony must pay for the green machines: technology, R&D,software, support, delivery, expenses, ect...

I think the chip itself isn't going cost Sony much more than 20$ bucks to fab.

Blueray is still an unknown quality/quanity, but I doubt the Sony bean counters will let them get away with passing the R&D buck.

they can probably make the device itself for 10-15$ but they still MUST pay(eventually) the R&D piper.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I tried to say Nintendo, because they're not concerned about having the best specs, is the only one making a profit. That's including R&D and a console which is arguably a failure.

and handheld business.

 

[Metalgearih]

The main reason why PS2 hasn't dropped in price is because it's still selling! First rule of business - sell at the highest price your customers will pay.

Rule of business? Shifty, It's quite funny you mention that yet you totally ignore the other rules that are applied in the same business. For example, how a company balances it's profits by branching them onto other related products. A good example is a $250 PSP that was analysed to be at the least $500. It had UMD movie's selling for $30-$40. That is a price almost twice as much as a regular DVD with much less space and resolution. I don't know how much profit they have turned in with that procedure but it surely brings us to light about a business rule, NO?

Xbox360 is asking premium prices for it's official accessories. Another example of branching out profits.

I understand a normal human brain cannot comprehend how WiFi, Cell, Blu-ray and RSX would be included in a single package in a competitive price point. But to grasp the idea, one has to apply the "business rules" for the mind to accept it. Sony has been in the Playstation business for about a decade now. If there is anyone in the world that knows how to branch out it's profits, it's SCE!

That is a one-sided onslaught I agree. Sorry about that. But how some people can't understand that Cell will be the catalyst in the making 10's of other products, not only from Sony and Toshiba. But will also be licesenced to other general purpose areas(like army, medical, servers). How's that rule for making profits out of the same product?

With every major Hollywood studio joining the Blu-ray camp, it's assured that Sony's profits are now etched further in the stone with that product. One could argue until their face turns blue how that won't happen anytime soon. But I'll wait and hear a response when a few million PS3's go out in the first year. After all, even PS2 accepted a generous loss for the first year to be fair.

Ahh, whatever man! Let's wait for some official confirmation. No need to waste my mind over these pointless arguments. To be clear, the above were my opinions and should be taken as part of an argument. So shifty, if you're offended over something my friend, my apologies.

 

[London Geezer]

Rule of business? Shifty, It's quite funny you mention that yet you totally ignore the other rules of that are applied in the same business. For example, how a company balances it's profits by branching them onto other related products. A good example is a $250 PSP that was analysed to be at the least $500. It had UMD movie's selling for $30-$40. That is a price almost twice as much as a regular DVD with much less space and resolution. I don't know how much profit they have turned in with that procedure but it surely brings us to light about a business rule, NO?

I understand a normal human brain cannot comprehend how WiFi, Cell, Blu-ray and RSX would be included in a single package in a competitive price point. But to grasp the idea, one has to apply the "business rules" for the mind to accept it. Sony has been in the Playstation business for about a decade now. If there is anyone in the world that knows how to branch out it's profits, it's SCE!

That is a one-sided onslaught I agree. Sorry about that. But how some people can't understand that Cell will be the catalyst in the making 10's of other products, not only from Sony and Toshiba. But will also be licesenced to other general purpose areas(like army, medical, servers). How's that rule for making profits out of the same product?

With every major Hollywood studio joining the Blu-ray camp, it's assured that Sony's profits are now etched further in the stone with that product. One could argue until their face turns blue how that won't happen anytime soon. But I'll wait and hear a response when a few million PS3's go out in the first year. After all, even PS2 accepted a generous loss for the first year to be fair.

Ahh, whatever man! Let's wait for some official confirmation. No need to waste my mind over these pointless arguments. To be clear, the above were my opinions and should be taken as part of an argument. So shifty, if you're offended over something my friend, my apologies.

Uhm not that i disagree with you, cause i kinda agree, but... R u sure you wanted to reply to Shifty? Cause from what he said, and from what you said after your introduction, that introduction itself doesn't make much sense...? Or is it just me?

All he said is that PS2 is still $150 (or whatever it is these days) because Sony know that at that price point, it will sell loads. Lowering to 99 is still not "needed".
Then you went into one about him not knowing what he's talking about, giving a completely different and unrelated argument to counter-attack?
I didn't get it, you covered issues that Shifty didn't, you didn't actually disagree with him.

 

[Metalgearih]

Uhm not that i disagree with you, cause i kinda agree, but... R u sure you wanted to reply to Shifty? Cause from what he said, and from what you said after your introduction, that introduction itself doesn't make much sense...? Or is it just me?

All he said is that PS2 is still $150 (or whatever it is these days) because Sony know that at that price point, it will sell loads. Lowering to 99 is still not "needed".
Then you went into one about him not knowing what he's talking about, giving a completely different and unrelated argument to counter-attack?
I didn't get it, you covered issues that Shifty didn't, you didn't actually disagree with him.

Yea, sorry about that. I realized that halfway through that I should have mentioned pipo and alpha's arguments but somewhere in between reading theirs and Shifty's, I mixed them up badly. Hence my excuse to Shifty at the end I'm sure he'll get mad at me so my apologies.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Hence my excuse to Shifty at the end I'm sure he'll get mad at me so my apologies.

Mad...no. Confused? You betcha!

 

[Metalgearih]

Mad...no. Confused? You betcha!

LOL, I can live with that but again, sorry for messing up!

Anyways, I'm still wondering why 1up reported it as $400, yet exchange rates currently indicate 40,000 Yen to be around US$350. That's a $50 difference! Where the heck 1up.com got their numbers checked is uber weirdness. Maybe even their minds couldn't comprehend the idea of a PS3 with all the bells and whistles for $350. So to just be safe, they raised it up a notch with $400

 

[London Geezer]

Yea, sorry about that. I realized that halfway through that I should have mentioned pipo and alpha's arguments but somewhere in between reading theirs and Shifty's, I mixed them up badly. Hence my excuse to Shifty at the end I'm sure he'll get mad at me so my apologies.

Heh no worries, it happens to me sometimes, when i talk to me. I always get me confused with me. And the other me too sometimes.

 

[pipo]

and handheld business.

Sure. But other companies are trying that too...

 

[Powderkeg]

LOL, I can live with that but again, sorry for messing up!

Anyways, I'm still wondering why 1up reported it as $400, yet exchange rates currently indicate 40,000 Yen to be around US$350. That's a $50 difference! Where the heck 1up.com got their numbers checked is uber weirdness. Maybe even their minds couldn't comprehend the idea of a PS3 with all the bells and whistles for $350. So to just be safe, they raised it up a notch with $400

Exchange rates change. What was the exchange rate when 1up wrote their article?

 

[scooby_dooby]

hey69 I don't know what you're smoking, but $15 for a BR drive? Care to back tyhat up with an ounce of proof, or is that just right from between your buttcheeks?

Analysts estimated the BR wil cost sony $100 to produce. Presumably they are basing this some solid information.

I believe Dave has also stated that the G70 costs Nvidia in the neighbourhood of $100 to produce as well.

 

[Titanio]

I believe Dave has also stated that the G70 costs Nvidia in the neighbourhood of $100 to produce as well.

G70 and RSX costs will be completely different I'm sure.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why would they be drastically different?

If I'm not mistaken Sony also has to pay royalties on top of manufacturing fees. So how does that come into play?

 

[Titanio]

Why would they be drastically different?

Different manufacturer, different factories, different design (?), different process, different time, different target volumes.

If I'm not mistaken Sony also has to pay royalties on top of manufacturing fees. So how does that come into play?

It'd be a flat fee on top of the manufacturing cost, if you'd like to consider it that way. We've no solid figures on that, but one analyst pegged it at around the $5 per PS3 mark.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

RSX should be cheaper as it's produced on 90nm, and with built-in redundancy should get higher useable yields. Dunno what actual difference that'll contribute to unit prices though.

 

[Carl B]

RSX should definitely be cheaper than G70. If it's a straight G70 adaptation - then a LOT cheaper.

Some points of reference with PS3's costs overall:

Back in PS2 launch days, the EE was 240MM^2 and the GS was 279mm^2. Plus, those were both on an immature cutting-edge process with terrible yields.

In contrast, Sony will be launching Cell and RSX on a very mature 90nm process, with a Cell chip that not only is the same die-size as the old EE, but will be on 300mm wafers and able to withstand some level of on-die defects.

RSX, though we don't have an exact die-size, is on the same mature 90nm process. If we scale from the GTX's 334mm^2 die size down to 90nm, RSX should actually be smaller than the original GS (assuming again a straight 'port'). Not only smaller, but perhaps also with some 'redundancy' a la Cell - per Kutaragi.

So right now RSX and Cell are looking to me a fair deal cheaper for Sony to produce than their EE and GS analogues were back in the day.

 

[Platon]

RSX should definitely be cheaper than G70. If it's a straight G70 adaptation - then a LOT cheaper.

Some points of reference with PS3's costs overall:

Back in PS2 launch days, the EE was 240MM^2 and the GS was 279mm^2. Plus, those were both on an immature cutting-edge process with terrible yields.

In contrast, Sony will be launching Cell and RSX on a very mature 90nm process, with a Cell chip that not only is the same die-size as the old EE, but will be on 300mm wafers and able to withstand some level of on-die defects.

RSX, though we don't have an exact die-size, is on the same mature 90nm process. If we scale from the GTX's 334mm^2 die size down to 90nm, RSX should actually be smaller than the original GS (assuming again a straight 'port'). Not only smaller, but perhaps also with some 'redundancy' a la Cell - per Kutaragi.

So right now RSX and Cell are looking to me a fair deal cheaper for Sony to produce than their EE and GS analogues were back in the day.

But aren't they shifting to 65nm soon? I wouldn't call that process mature...