Your logic is flawed. you admit they are two different beasts and cant use the price to compare them, yet you want to directly compare their sales with each other to determine the constant success or failure of each console directly? How does that make any sense?
How is sales vs sales irrelevant? My point, ultimately, was that you cannot assume a product selling at the same rate at a higher price has a better chance of success than the other product. Let's look at it another way:
By this point in its life the Gamecube was generating profit for Nintendo. The PS3 has done nothing but lose Sony billions so far. If you want to compare it on a level business playing field, already excepting that the Cell will probably not be some massive profit generator for Sony since they sold away a huge chunk of their future with the Cell which was one of the components Sony was hopeful it could make profitable through the PS3. Blu Ray is the last component that was supposed to be catapulted by the PS3 and it is still struggling against HD DVD as toshiba becomes more aggressive on price.
[the] PS3 started off rather slowly and now it'll start picking up speed.
I believe I heard this one somewhere before. You know, when everyone was saying that 2007 was going to be the year of Sony and that there were more than 20 good reasons the PS3 would be outselling the 360 and Wii by the end of 2007. Hell, I hear that by the time March '07 comes around, the Wii will have been proven to be a fad and should be all but completely gone while Sony dominates on the sales of newly released Virtua Fighter 5 and Motorstorm.
Why do we continue to assume that the PS3 will just rocket off with amazing sales at some point in the very near future?