For a different SKU set of course.  Sony's comparing the lowest SKU models :P

@Dallinor: Basically comparisions like the one in the OP, or the one Twesterm did (even if it would have been intended as unbiased) are always biased. "Value" always equals perceived value and perceived value is always determined by the (perceived) neccessarity of the job the product performs. For example i have no need for a BD player, which means that the BD player in the PS3 doesn't offer me any value. It only is an additional cost. While PS3 being capable of playing DVD:s, would offer me a greater value than the BD player. Since all of the three are primarily games consoles, all the other functions are secondary and offer relatively less value for the people who Sony wants to sell the system to.

The table in the OP tries to message that PS3 is what all the consoles should be.
If we change HDMI output to component output, correct the Wi-Fi part that the early entry model PS3 didn't feature it either and replace BD player with backwards compatibility, fix the online answers with "24/7" and "limited" and then look at what the chart tells us. We have a clear winner which outperforms its competition in features by wide margin.

I'm just comparing best value

There's no way you can argue that it's OK for them to say "early models of the 360 don't have HDMI" when they are specifically comparing the Arcade system. ALL XBox 360 Arcades have HDMI. This comes off as saying that some 360 Arcades don't have HDMI, which is a clear lie. It's true that early 360 models (like mine) didn't have HDMI. Then again, some early PS3 models didn't have wireless.

The first rule of propaganda is to make the lies subtle. Always tell the truth, but frame the question so that the truth told is always the truth you want to tell. That kind of thing. This is not even remotely ethical, even by advertising standards (and those are some pretty loose standards.)