The PS3 price drop/ mass market thread (yeah Sony is in BIG trouble..)

[jamesnmandy]

your theory is full of holes. first, you're basing the future price reduction of the PS3 to the PS2, which was already a mass success; as a result, Sony had no NEED to quickly reduce the price in order to stay competitive, as it was already a mass market success at its original price-tag. Second, you're assuming that the PS3's production costs will stay sky-high for years on end. Sony will no doubt be selling the console at a loss for 1+ year (like almost every other company has done in the gaming market); however, that loss will slowly widdle itself away over the course of the PS3's lifetime, each due to the hardware itself becoming less costly to produce, and the profit they will (hopefully) reap in software. There is also no need to compare the PS3's pricing strategy to that of the Wii, as they tend to appeal to different markets and audiences. the PS3 will need to watch the 360's pricing much more closely. Your doomsday approach to the situation is not warranted, nor logical.

it's certainly not a doomsday approach, your perception drew that conclusion, all i am saying is that the Wii pricing cannot be compared to the 360 or especially the PS3, i am more willing to bet that Nintendo brings out a replacement for the Wii much sooner than Sony, because of the much less cost and R&D, Nintendo is probably turning a profit already on the consoles they are selling, M$ just got there recently, Sony is still losing, Sony will be wanting to drag out the useable life of the PS3 much further than M$ or Nintendo, i suspect M$ and Nintendo will release new consoles before Sony does, Sony wants to turn a profit before they invest a bunch more for sure

 

[Avon_Implosion]

it's certainly not a doomsday approach, your perception drew that conclusion, all i am saying is that the Wii pricing cannot be compared to the 360 or especially the PS3, i am more willing to bet that Nintendo brings out a replacement for the Wii much sooner than Sony, because of the much less cost and R&D, Nintendo is probably turning a profit already on the consoles they are selling, M$ just got there recently, Sony is still losing, Sony will be wanting to drag out the useable life of the PS3 much further than M$ or Nintendo, i suspect M$ and Nintendo will release new consoles before Sony does, Sony wants to turn a profit before they invest a bunch more for sure

well...I was actually speaking directly to the thread maker..

 

[Undercover Cop]

your theory is full of holes.

Umm, just to be clear, I posted TWO extremely positive best case scenarios, for price drops for the PS3.

The point was to show how the PS3's high price tag hinders it from reaching mass market quickly. And then to contrast this with reality (which is even worse).

First, you're basing the future price reduction of the PS3 to the PS2, which was already a mass success;

The PS2 because a mass success (i.e. the market tilted towards it) after a year's run without competition.

as a result, Sony had no NEED to quickly reduce the price in order to stay competitive, as it was already a mass market success at its original price-tag.

The real mass market success for the PS2 came when the console dropped below $200.

And how does this paint a better scenario for the PS3, which is TWICE the price?

Second, you're assuming that the PS3's production costs will stay sky-high for years on end. Sony will no doubt be selling the console at a loss for 1+ year (like almost every other company has done in the gaming market); however, that loss will slowly widdle itself away over the course of the PS3's lifetime, each due to the hardware itself becoming less costly to produce, and the profit they will (hopefully) reap in software.

I never said that the PS3's production costs will stay sky-high for years on end. With that said, the production costs aren't going to suddenly plummet to the point where the PS3 reaches mass market quickly enough.

There is also no need to compare the PS3's pricing strategy to that of the Wii, as they tend to appeal to different markets and audiences.

Okay, first of all, I said was that according to a wildly positive theoretical model, the PS3 would only reach the Wii's price point in about 2010/11. This was just to show how extreme the pricing is. The Wii is very close to mass market. The 360 will be in one fell swoop with a price drop. The PS3 won't be there for YEARS.

Second, the Wii and the PS3 are not appealing to MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MARKETS. In any case this further hurts your point, since this shows that the Wii and 360 are doing what they can to appeal to more people.

You know, MASS MARKET.

The PS3 will need to watch the 360's pricing much more closely.

It needs to watch BOTH the Wii and 360's pricing. They have the strong potential to steal away Sony's market in all the world regions.

Or better yet, not have been made so expensive in the first place.

Your doomsday approach to the situation is not warranted, nor logical.

I'm sorry if you feel hurt, but your posts did nothing to prove that my argument isn't warrented ot logical.

 

[Undercover Cop]

In fact, I'd like Avon_Explosion to say what he thinks is mass market price, and how he estimates the PS3 will reach it.

Then show how it would be quick enough to keep consumers from moving onto other platforms in the meantime, how appealing it will be to developers watching the other consoles reach mass market (and broadening their pool of potential customers) years before the PS3, and how financially feasable such price drops would be to keep shareholders happy.

And don't just say "it'll be okay, don't worry".

 

[inefficient]

It's expensive. So what? It's intentionally expensive. Did you think it was accidentally expensive??

If you can't afford it now, don't freakin buy it! You were intentionally left out of the demographic. But cheer up, there are 2 other new consoles that may fit you better. If not there is still last gen for you!

And in Sony's mindset, PS2 is still very much on the table. And people who can't afford PS3 should buy or stick to PS2 instead.

Wii is not competing with 360 or PS3. It's competing with PS2. Sony and MS have both said they do not feel their new products they are in competition with Nintendo. Neither should you.

 

[Avon_Implosion]

The PS2 because a mass success (i.e. the market tilted towards it) after a year's run without competition.

This has no relevance to my rebuttal. You were comparing the PS2's original price to its present one, and I was stating that this cannot be compared with your theoretical PS3 chart, as there were too many things that factored into the PS2's pricing strategy that are nonexistent in the PS3's condition...namely, its 1-year head start. You were assuming that, seeing as that the PS2's price took 5+ years to drop less than $200, the PS3 would follow in tune. But, as you stated, the PS2 was a healthy seller throughout its lifetime. As a result, the other two companies had to play catch-up with Sony, not vice versa.
Sony is now in a much more difficult position; as a result, their pricing strategy will be much different in comparison to that of the PS2's. Probably not on the same aggressive level as your chart speculates, but definitely much more dramatic than that of the PS2's.
With that said, I dont think we're on the same page, here. I was assuming that you thought that the PS3 would keep its steep, original price for a very long time, similar to that of the PS2's.

The real mass market success for the PS2 came when the console dropped below $200.

And how does this paint a better scenario for the PS3, which is TWICE the price?

It doesn't. I'm not speaking about the PS3 and mass market success just now. I'll tackle that in a second.

I never said that the PS3's production costs will stay sky-high for years on end. With that said, the production costs aren't going to suddenly plummet to the point where the PS3 reaches mass market quickly enough.

no comment.

Okay, first of all, I said was that according to a wildly positive theoretical model, the PS3 would only reach the Wii's price point in about 2010/11. This was just to show how extreme the pricing is. The Wii is very close to mass market. The 360 will be in one fell swoop with a price drop. The PS3 won't be there for YEARS.

Our assumptions on what price appeals to the mass market as "acceptable" or "generally affordable" seems to differ, judging from your comments. I personally believe that the console itself will decide its own price, judging from the mass perception of the product. This will directly coincide with Sony's marketing and efforts to set up the PS3 as a product worth the $500-$600 price tag. We cannot just suddenly assume that the PS3 will not be deemed affordable until it hits that magic number...the number could be anything. It will depend on the PS3, and Sony.

Second, the Wii and the PS3 are not appealing to MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MARKETS. In any case this further hurts your point, since this shows that the Wii and 360 are doing what they can to appeal to more people.

Elaborate, because I believe that the PS3 and the Wii are very different products that appeal to different audiences...ie, the casual crowd, and the enthusiast/hardcore crowd ( or what-have-you...its incredibly difficult to generalize)

You know, MASS MARKET.

It needs to watch BOTH the Wii and 360's pricing. They have the strong potential to steal away Sony's market in all the world regions.

Or better yet, not have been made so expensive in the first place.
I'm sorry if you feel hurt, but your posts did nothing to prove that my argument isn't warrented ot logical.

perhaps you're misinterpreting my position on this topic, but I agree wholeheartedly that Sony will, in all likeliness, lose their position as the dominant market leader. This does not, however, conclude that I somehow think that Sony is in a world of trouble if they continue with this strategy. In fact, I cant really comment on such a strategy at all, given how shortly the PS3's existence as an actual retail product is.

I think that I answered your other question somewhere in there. I'll elaborate, if you'd like.

 

[Undercover Cop]

It's expensive. So what? It's intentionally expensive. Did you think it was accidentally expensive?

Yeah we know, to get Blu Ray in as a trojan horse so that they can get a market they have pined over for years.

How exactly does this figure in your defense?

If you can't afford it now, don't freakin buy it! You were intentionally left out of the demographic.

We know. The question is how wise that was, intentionally leaving out the very demographic that made it a success in the first place, for a number of years while competition is around.

But cheer up, there are 2 other new consoles that may fit you better.

................................... doesn't this... hurt Sony?

If not there is still last gen for you!

So Sony's PS2 is going to win over the PS3? Isn't this... a little harmful since they are winding down the PS2 and want to push PS3 units into homes?

BTW I have a PS2.

And in Sony's mindset, PS2 is still very much on the table. And people who can't afford PS3 should buy or stick to PS2 instead.

But this bodes well for the PS2, not the PS3. Yes, even when considering that PS2 support is winding down fast, PS2s will still sell decently. But this does against Sony pushing the PS3, thus cannibalising their own sales.

Or are you hoping that earnings from PS2s (which RETAIL at $129 right now, so Sony makes less than that), will offset losses of $250-$300?

(And personally, I think people will move on from the PS2 after early-mid 2008.)

Wii is not competing with 360 or PS3.

Don't kid yourself. The Wii is a next generation console. It is technologically superior to the Gamecube (though only by a factor of 2X, and not in the ball park of the 360 or PS3. In addition, it has technology that not only wasn't done by its predecessor, but by the competition as well (and NO the SIXAXIS doesn't compete with the Wiimote).

The Wii is competing with the PS2? That is the most foolish comment about the Wii that has been bandied about by Wii haters. Don't use it.

Oh, but maybe you were talking about the Wii competing with the PS2 software wise? Equally as ridiculous. Whether you like it or not, the Wii will be able to make games that are technically superior and play differently.

If anything, the only thing that the Wii will be competing in with the PS2 (if Nintendo make it the Ipod of gaming) is the crapload of sales.

Sony and MS have both said they do not feel their new products they are in competition with Nintendo. Neither should you.

Of course Sony and Microsoft said that they aren't competing with Nintendo, what do you want them to say about their potentialy biggest threat?

 

[Crayon]

Good points, Inneficient.

The PS2 is so very viable and the PS brand is strong. The $129 PS2 is peanuts to buy, and still has huge presence at retail. There is your mass market.

Where's the $149 XBox? A fading memory.

Point is, if you knock it off with the console war strawman crap you would look at the bigger picture, you would see that these companies are operrating with somewhat different strategies. Monthly sales totals are not a scoreboard. That is, they aren't the best way to monitor the progress of your team . I'm of the opinion OP is rubbish in general.

 

[jamesnmandy]

well...I was actually speaking directly to the thread maker..

oh, you didn't quote anyone in particular and replied directly after me so one could only assume you were replying to me

 

[Undercover Cop]

This has no relevance to my rebuttal. You were comparing the PS2's original price to its present one, and I was stating that this cannot be compared with your theoretical PS3 chart, as there were too many things that factored into the PS2's pricing strategy that are nonexistent in the PS3's condition...namely, its 1-year head start.

The second PS3 price drop theory is the one that mimics the PS2 via percentage. The first one only assumes a hefty price drop at regular intervals. They both work out to be around the same, no?

And while it is true that the PS2 had factors that kept the price from dropping quickly (like the one year head start that let Sony sell it at $300 for a while, I don't see how this affects the PS3's significantly.

Are you saying that, for instance, because the PS3 is coming out last, Sony will see no choice BUT to drop the price agressively? If so, will it be as aggressive as my initial post showed? Cause remember, that was the best case scenario (for consumers) for them to get a price drop as quickly as possible. In that scenario, it didn't hit $200 for 4 years. And I think we both agree that Sony isn't going to do price drops like that (which is my point all along).

You were assuming that, seeing as that the PS2's price took 5+ years to drop less than $200, the PS3 would follow in tune. But, as you stated, the PS2 was a healthy seller throughout its lifetime. As a result, the other two companies had to play catch-up with Sony, not vice versa.

How are the other two playing catchup to Sony? They are competing with the PS3, not the PS2. They aren't competing against a cheap, wildly successful gaming console that already has a 100 million head start. They are competing against an expensive, moderately troubled gaming console that hasn't proven itself to be worth the cost yet. While I don't discount the fanbase from the previous generation, this does little to erase to the fact that everything is reset every generation. If Sony does not keep the PS3 attractive, people will go elsewhere for their gaming needs. It's that simple. ANd it happened before (to Nintendo, who weren't nearly as bad as Sony is right now).

Sony is now in a much more difficult position; as a result, their pricing strategy will be much different in comparison to that of the PS2's. Probably not on the same aggressive level as your chart speculates, but definitely much more dramatic than that of the PS2's.
With that said, I dont think we're on the same page, here. I was assuming that you thought that the PS3 would keep its steep, original price for a very long time, similar to that of the PS2's.

Correct. We are on the same page on this point. It's just that I think the "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" will have Sony hurting for a long time (don't do attractive price drops, and your market migrates. Do attractive price drops, and your losses haunt you and your shareholders for a long time, and still possibly not being low enough to get your mass market for a while)

Our assumptions on what price appeals to the mass market as "acceptable" or "generally affordable" seems to differ, judging from your comments. I personally believe that the console itself will decide its own price, judging from the mass perception of the product. This will directly coincide with Sony's marketing and efforts to set up the PS3 as a product worth the $500-$600 price tag. We cannot just suddenly assume that the PS3 will not be deemed affordable until it hits that magic number...the number could be anything. It will depend on the PS3, and Sony.

I'm sorry, but the number can't be anything. The market doesn't adjust its burdens arbitrarily. While I agree that acceptable price point can vary from time to time, you can just suddenly adjust your asking price and expect people to simply match it.

Why do you think there was such an uproar in gaming circles and the mass media? Sony went from an accepted and expected price point of $300 to $600! That would be shocking in any market. It would be like if Coca Cola scrapped its mass marketed and world famous drink to selling wine for $100. Sure it seems like a deal to wine dealers on how much your paying for the beverage, but to the public it would be a hell of a shock.

In addition to this, I think its well established that the PS3 didn't really start sellign in droves until it hit a price point below $200. It will take years for the PS3 to get there even with aggresive pricedrops. You can't think that the public is suddenly going to raise this by much.

On top of that, regardless of what we think that mass market price is, the fact remains that the Wii and 360 will hit that point BEFORE the PS3. That factors a lot when you pile on the other problems with the PS3 (like coming out late, not having the overwhelming support as before, etc).

Elaborate, because I believe that the PS3 and the Wii are very different products that appeal to different audiences...ie, the casual crowd, and the enthusiast/hardcore crowd ( or what-have-you...its incredibly difficult to generalize)

The PS3 is attempting to appeal to an enthusiast crowd now, and the casual years from now.
The Wii is attempting to appeal to the hardcore, casual AND "non-gamers" now.

They aren't serving mutually exclusive markets.

perhaps you're misinterpreting my position on this topic, but I agree wholeheartedly that Sony will, in all likeliness, lose their position as the dominant market leader. This does not, however, conclude that I somehow think that Sony is in a world of trouble if they continue with this strategy. In fact, I cant really comment on such a strategy at all, given how shortly the PS3's existence as an actual retail product is.

Fair enough.

I think that I answered your other question somewhere in there. I'll elaborate, if you'd like.

I simply wanted you to state what you believe a mass market price will be, since you don't agree with mine. An estimate will do.

Then state how long you think it will take Sony to get there, and how they will keep the 3 parties of consumers, developers and shareholders happy.

 

[Avon_Implosion]

oh, you didn't quote anyone in particular and replied directly after me so one could only assume you were replying to me

fair enough

 

[Avon_Implosion]

I dont think that I can say much else that will put this debate to rest, so I'll just leave you with my previous comments

 

[Undercover Cop]

I'll continue this discussion tomorrow.

 

[Avon_Implosion]

I'll continue this discussion tomorrow.

I dont consider "no, you're wrong", and "no, you're wrong" discussions ones worth continuing. It doesn't seem like we're offering each other topics worth building upon.
just to clear things up...

How are the other two playing catchup to Sony? They are competing with the PS3, not the PS2.

I was actually referring solely to the PS2, and how MS and Nintendo needed to catch up with it.

I'm sorry, but the number can't be anything. The market doesn't adjust its burdens arbitrarily. While I agree that acceptable price point can vary from time to time, you can just suddenly adjust your asking price and expect people to simply match it.

the PS3's asking price of $500-$600 was the set, original price to begin with.

Why do you think there was such an uproar in gaming circles and the mass media? Sony went from an accepted and expected price point of $300 to $600!

Because people were speculating that Sony would attempt to mimic their former strategy (and perhaps rightfully so) with the PS2, and translate it into a successful formula for the PS3 to follow by. But Sony obviously has other priorities...ie, Blu Ray. Regardless of how relevant that is, its probably the truth.

In addition to this, I think its well established that the PS3 didn't really start sellign in droves until it hit a price point below $200. It will take years for the PS3 to get there even with aggresive pricedrops. You can't think that the public is suddenly going to raise this by much.

Again, we need to understand that the general public's perception of the PS3 will factor into the equation. But it's pretty pointless to debate on this topic, as it seems that our beliefs differ too much regarding mass market price acceptance.

On top of that, regardless of what we think that mass market price is, the fact remains that the Wii and 360 will hit that point BEFORE the PS3. That factors a lot when you pile on the other problems with the PS3 (like coming out late, not having the overwhelming support as before, etc).

that is probably true, yes-if they already haven't. Again, it relates to the product itself.

I simply wanted you to state what you believe a mass market price will be, since you don't agree with mine. An estimate will do.

Then state how long you think it will take Sony to get there, and how they will keep the 3 parties of consumers, developers and shareholders happy.

It is absolutely impossible to determine anything related to this as of now. the mass market acceptance price could be $500 one year from now, or it could be $50, depending on the events that occur within that span of time. It could take Sony one year..two...three...who knows? I'm not sure if you're looking at the broad picture in this. The acceptable price range will be determined by many, many, many things...including, but not limited to, the quality/quantity of games of the console, its features, the general perception (whether accurate or not) of the console, the current situation of its competitors, the success/failures/situations of specific hardware/formats that the console is pushing (in this case, Cell and Blu-Ray)...the list goes on.

I personally could never predict that the 360 would hit such a landmark when Gears came out..but look now. many could have predicted (and the probably did) that the console itself wouldn't cement itself into the market as a product appealing to mass audiences until Halo 3 hit shelves...but that goal may already have been accomplished with the absurd success and praise that Gears is enjoying at this instant. But we'll have to see.

And if we must focus on shareholders...well, what of them? Are they pushing for a Blu-ray home-run? Are they willing to sacrifice the share of one market for another?

Which is more valuable-Blu Ray, or the PS3? This question must be answered before their potential banking on the success of the PS3 is even speculated upon....because its obvious what Sony is dedicated to, as of now. The precious investments Sony has made on PS3 and, more importantly, Blu Ray, and their future, really depend on multiple things. I simply cannot comment on how Sony's going to deal with such a situation, as the situation itself is partly cloaked in undecided events that Sony may or may not have a key role in.

I cannot comment on the consumers or how Sony will appease them. Price drops, killer apps, multimedia features, viral marketing campaigns, bundles, events, meaningless numbers...who's to rightfully say? We're trying to analyze a console's future thats hardly even gotten out of the gate. Furthermore, you ask how they'll appease them until they reach the magic number? Well-dare I go off on this tangent again-the magic number will be altered by everything that I've just gone over....

Price drops, killer apps, multimedia features, viral marketing campaigns, bundles, events, meaningless numbers...

the quality/quantity of games of the console, its features, the general perception (whether accurate or not) of the console, the current situation of its competitors, the success/failures/situations of specific hardware/formats that the console is pushing (in this case, Cell and Blu-Ray)...

Whatever the magic number may be, it will always, always, always be affected by too many things to count. A computer could cost $80,000, but if it prints money, is that considered the "mass market acceptance" number? Maybe i'm not reading you correctly, but it seems to me that you believe that a console will just suddenly start selling better by 50% once it reaches a number that everybody loves. The number will always depend on the product, and even the individual. There's just no way to analyze it and come to a set-in-stone conclusion.

Developers? Well, thats definitely the wild card of the bunch. Sony could tempt them with money...MS could tempt them with more money. Sony could buy them out...MS could buy them out first. Sony could sign a contract...MS could sign a contract and slip them a check with 9 zero's. The Devs may predictably flock to the largest userbase-but if life were that simple, then MS would have monopolized yet another market 3 years ago.

So what do you end up with? A blurry situation that we'll probably never be able to safely analyze. However, I can say without too much risk of uncertainty on my own part (I'm sure you're getting tired of me being indecisive and indifferent towards all of these situations) that third parties will be much more independent in their actions this gen, and much less dedicated to specific consoles, as this race will be a much closer one, without a doubt.

I understand that I'm being an indecisive, complicated bastard, but thats how I've always perceived this console and its future...as well as the future of the console market as a whole. Perhaps thats why I find this topic difficult to swallow, as it seems that, these days, we can never accurately predict anything without being proven completely wrong a week later.

 

[Toaddio]

The problem with this line of thinking is that a lower price doesn't automatically equal more sales for the system. It's possible for the PS3 to "win" this generation while never lowering the price, and it's possible for the PS3 to "lose" even when selling for $1.

You could buy a new PS1 in the store not long ago and it was cheaper than the PS2, but the PS2 sold more while they were both on the market.

So what really drives sales? A lot more factors than price.

 

[Crayon]

...the fact that everything is reset every generation.

The fact is that this quoted "fact" is in fact not a fact at all.

It may get reset in places like this, but not in the business world.

It is this that muddies your argument. The 360 and Wii and the PS3 are all competing with the PS2. And in terms of profitability, they are getting spanked. Day in and day out. One day the PS2 will hand over the torch to the PS3, but that day has yet to come.

 

[avaya]

The Xbox's losses were big, but not on the scale of Sony's. Read the charts, they are losing the cost of an entire Xbox console, if you want to do that comparison. And Microsoft has the money to handle it. Sony doesn't - their company is only JUST coming out of the red after 10 years...

Sony Corporation has not made a loss in over 10 years. So I don't know where you are getting your information from. It tells you something about the improvement in CE and SPE that the company is still forecasting a profit for this fiscal year given all the catastrophe's that have occurred.

The comments on Sony's debt from people also seems odd to me. Many people just take the total liabilities from the balance sheet and proclaim that Sony has a debt of $60bn! The reality is that Sony's long term debt has been stable for many years hovering at the ~$5-8bn level.

The biggest change in recent years has been the change in the way in which "Provisions for Risks & Charges" (includes provisions for pension funds, repairs and maintenance, litigation claims, etc.) has been accounted for. A large amount of this (~80%) of this was shifted to "other liabilities" on the sheet in 2005. I think you'll find this has a lot to do with Blu-Ray/PS3/S-LCD and Stringer’s reforms.

Total liabilities have increased at an average rate of ~6% year on year since 2002. The largest jumps were 13% from 2005-2006 and the same in 2003-2004. Meanwhile total assets have increased at an average rate of 7% year on year in the same period.

A manufacturing company always has a lot of liabilities because there are more risks involved. However liabilities do not equal debts.

Microsoft's advantage is in free cash flow. Sony's margins are small, and they cannot afford to go as heavy in price competition without taking on more debt (which they are more than able to do even with their current rating). However this is assuming Microsoft HE is given free reign from the rest of the company and that limits on the division’s budget have been removed - that is debateable.

Footnote: (All data taken from Thomson One/Datastream 2002-2006)

 

[Nesh]

I didnt read the whole thread but something most people are ignoring everytime they are trying to make estimations on Sony's losses and its course with the PS3 is that Sony has a profitable and succesful console in the market. PS3 losses co exist with PS2 profits and although these profits most likely wont be able atleast initially to cover up the losses, still these can also help Sony push for price drops.

 

[London Geezer]

I didnt read the whole thread but something most people are ignoring everytime they are trying to make estimations on Sony's losses and its course with the PS3 is that Sony has a profitable and succesful console in the market. PS3 losses co exist with PS2 profits and although these profits most likely wont be able atleast initially to cover up the losses, still these can also help Sony push for price drops.

Absolutely, and also they seem to forget all other very very profitable businesses Sony has, from TVs (they're overpriced for a reason you know!) to the movie industry and all sorts.

But some people seem to feel better when they believe that sony iz teh doomzorz

 

[Nesh]

Absolutely, and also they seem to forget all other very very profitable businesses Sony has, from TVs (they're overpriced for a reason you know!) to the movie industry and all sorts.

But some people seem to feel better when they believe that sony iz teh doomzorz

Yeah exactly and avaya described it perfectly
Its like the other time when Sony had a reduction in profits and people interpreted this as "making losses" when Sony still continued making profits