At this juncture I say the current pastu/Ostepop et al discussion should be left as is and the thread either returned to normal service or quietly left to fade away in favour of more recent discussion.
I would disagree with your conclusion because Patsu clearly is attempting to demonstrate that Sony's losses are somehow different than MS's losses, when they are actuarial the same.
And his entire foundation for his perspective is that Sony's losses are due to Cell and BR promotion (that should be considered investments rather than losses) while MS's losses are entirely due to failures in management or foresight, or whatever.
Those are exactly the assumptions that I've been referring to.
One of MS's primary strategic initiatives this generation was to be the first to launch. Who is to say that they'd didn't understand there would be a cost involved in launching first, that they didn't already account for when they made that decision?
Unless it's clear that MS didn't understand that sacrificing QA for launching earliest, you can't put their losses on any different level than Sony's who understood that they were going to take losses for launching a product at a significantly higher price than what would normally be accepted.
That's why I continue to harp on the assumptions.
So, I'll put forth my own assumptions since that seems to be so readily accepted as a viable means of discussion.
MS: Knew they were giving up QA to a certain degree and willingly did so in order to gain the benefit of launching first.
Sony: Knew they were launching at a higher price point but did so knowing that they were delivering an overall superior product.
I think reality shows that MS underestimated their losses due to manufacturing issues, and that Sony overestimated the amount of sales they would receive from launching at a higher price point.
The bottom line is that BOTH have significant losses, BOTH have written them off as expenses and the loss that MS decided to 'write off' is
no different than the loss that Sony has incurred.
The only difference might be that when MS made the decision to 'write off' costs, they did so acknowledging future year losses while Sony did not.
If anything, the end result is that MS's "write off" fully encompassed the entire life cycle of the 360 (those that were manufactured prior to the "adjustment"/"Correction"/"whatever you want to call it"), while Sony has so far only posted their losses for the current year.
The idea that Patsu continually keeps promoting that Sony's losses somehow represent an "investment" while MS's don't because of the motivation behind the losses is just rather absurd.
Sure, Sony's losses on the PS3 are due in large part to their desire to promote both the BR and Cell. But the R&D costs of development are NOT included in these losses.
MS's losses are due in large part because of their desire to get to market first, and to establish the Xbox as the primary portal of digital content distribution.
So.. In essence, their motivations are similar and really shouldn't be up for discussion when we're talking about bottom line figures.
The 360 cost MS more than they expected, but reality dictates that they spent that money by launching early.
The PS3 cost Sony more than they expected, but reality dictates that they spent that money on BR and Cell.
That's why I say the attempts to say that MS's losses are somehow different than Sony's losses are exercises in bias.
Unless you know
For a Fact that MS didn't believe that launching early would cost them money, you simply can't make the statements and arrive at the conclusions that Patsu is doing.
I simply don't see how anybody can believe that Sony made decisions to include BR and Cell and acknowledge the potential losses, and then turn around and say that MS didn't understand the QA problems that they might have from launching early when their entire strategy was based upon launching early.
I think it's pretty clear that the deficits exceeded both of what MS and Sony expected.
But I don't see how anybody can come to the conclusion that Patsu did that Sony's losses are somehow offset and MS's are not.
IMO, the value of MS launching earlier is so obvious it smacks you in the face.
Even factoring in their 'write off's', it was a gamble that paid vast dividends for MS because the 'Playstation' is no longer the dominate console.
The very report that we are discussing outlines how Sony will never recover the costs involved with the PS3, and how Sony will only profit through peripheral revenue streams such as BR. If they do at all.
To say, as Patsu has said repeatedly, that Sony's losses were planned for and somehow superior to MS's that weren't, requires an assumption that MS didn't understand there was a cost involved in launching first.
IMO, MS clearly understood that there was a cost involved in launching first, but that they did it anyway because the cost/benefit ratio was in their favor.
And reality dictates that even with the tremendous write-offs they've had to sustain (which I agree, they didn't expect to this degree), the benefits have still outweighed the cost.
Why doesn't anybody understand that MS had the option to launch LATER after a more thorough QA process, but they decided that delaying the launch would cost them more than launching a year later with no warranty issues?
MS made the decision to launch early without an intense QA process because launching early was the most important thing to them and it was WORTH the 'write offs' due to failure of the QA process.
I don't really understand how anybody who understands accounting can make a difference between the losses of MS and Sony unless they have a specific bias that they are trying to demonstrate.
Sony knowingly took losses because they wanted to facilitate cell and BR adoption.
MS knowingly took losses because they wanted to facilitate 360 adoption because their primary focus is on revenue streams from digital distribution.
Neither loss is greater or less than the other.
The losses are what they are. The reasons behind the losses aren't exactly cloudy.
)