I have said this as a side note in a few threads, but I thought this needs its own topic. What makes a good console from strictly a consumer electronics perspective? Here is my list.

Quality
Price
unctionality

These things are necessary in any consumer electronics category, be it a TV, a Home theater system, a dish washer, a cell phone, etc...

The above categories (along with others) is why Sony is a successful company. They compete against other companies that are very good at these things (Samsung, Apple, Motorola, etc...), and excel. They are one of the top hardware consumer electronics companies.

How do you achieve the above characteristics? You have to design hardware that you can economically test. You have to test it to very high standards. You have to design hardware that is inexpensive to manufacture. Hardware that, over time, get’s a lot cheaper. In order to get it cheaper, you have to understand manufacturing, delivery, packaging, and make sure your original design accommodates these things. You need to make sure you include hardware that the consumer wants, and not waste money on features they don’t. You need to make sure you are continually redesigning your hardware so that components that are cheaper are always being introduced into the system, at the right time, in order to keep costs down. This paragraph is true for any consumer electronics category today.

At everything I stated, Sony is in a totally different league as MS. It’s like a pro football team competing against High School team. This is all new to MS, and something Sony has been excelling at for decades. The cost of the PS3 will reach $100 long before the cost of the 360 will. The reliability of the PS3 will outperform the 360 for its entire lifetime. It currently has more features: Built in Wi-Fi, built in HD Movie Player, Bluetooth, upgradeable HD, HDMI (now all 360’s sold have it). It’s quieter, and looks more like a piece of home theater equipment (although that’s subjective).

Ok, so the above is about the hardware only. What makes a successful console? Hardware and Software. Well, that’s where MS brings a lot to the table and why they have had a level of success. Because of this, MS excels when it comes to making a quality online experience. MS’s software is just better. They have a better media extender then Sony. They have a much better communication sweat while gaming then Sony. XBL is awesome when used though the web to see achievements, or look up friends.

The problems is, that’s where the advantage stops. Because after all, they are in the business to sell consoles, not software. Both companies can outsource the creation of software (and both do). Sony could never write a game and be a console seller. MS cannot stop making hardware, and still consider themselves in the console business.

If the competition was to make the best software, MS would win. But at the end of the day, what these companies expect you to buy, is a piece of hardware. MS, today anyway, cannot remotely compete with Sony when it comes to consumer electronics. They can make something great that they deliver on day one. But the qualities needed to make that a successful product over the life of its usefulness, MS has not yet figured out.

Makes a lot of sense, but since you raised your own opinions on this subject be prepared to be flamed... (sad but true)

Mr. Mafoo, I think overall you're on the right track but you're forgetting two very important things:

Until the 360 released, the two most unreliable consoles in history (to my knowledge, at least) were the PS1 and PS2.

While Sony seems to have gotten it right with the PS3, it hasn't always been that way (though every other Sony product I have owned over the years has been super-reliable).

I agree with you in your reliability agruement.

I disagree with your notion that PS3 will be cheaper faster than 360 simply because sony has more experience at making consumer electronics, thats ludicrous. That's saying that boeing planes are better than airbus plane because boeings been around for longer and at one point had a massive market share.

You beat me to the punch, rocketpig. Also, history shows that consoles with the most horsepower (Neo Geo, XBOX), better reliability (Gamecube), or the best games (Dreamcast 2000 vs. PS2 2000) aren't always the most successful. There's an "X" factor.

 Dam, beat me to it.

True, while Sony can probably chop down costs a little faster, they still rely on others to shrink architecture, just like MS (Nvidia, IBM, Toshiba, ATI, whoever).

Considering that's where the majority of cost-cutting comes from, it's unlikely that the PS3 will hit $100 cost before the 360. Motherboard revisions and minor cost-cutting tools like that are nice and all but compared to CPU/GPU shrinks, they don't amount to shit. 

Heh kind of unfair comparing a system that came out 1 year later so should have had more features etc. Mind you the 360 has been a hardware disaster the original xbox was just fine. Hey you have to give props to SONY for so far making a great hardware though for me personally is not enough to warrant a purchase. I would put software>hardware which is why people stuck with the ps1's and ps2's.

imo you lay the defeat of microsoft too much on failure rates.

who knows if the xbox360 never had problems with the RROD ?