Groucho said:
Sony doesn't want their marketshare to shrink. Where did I say that? They want to be in the black. They've said that countless times recently. I'm not "arguing" anything. You're making an issue out of nothing. I'm merely stating that Sony probably made this decision to live up to their "in the black" promises to stockholders. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a price cut, while it would gain them marketshare, would not put them in the black. Given their situation, Sony is doing fine. If you disagree, try to come up with some reasoning, instead of spouting hatred and BS. Logic works so much better. Since you've got it all figured out... what would you do, in Sony's shoes? How about if you were MS? I would have chosen exactly what they both have done. Neither company has made any sort of grievous error, and I'll maintain that, no matter their next quarter financials look like -- because I strongly suspect that I'm correct. |
So much time and effort would be saved if you would be clear and concise. You explictly stated that Sony chose your option (B) which, if you don't want to scroll up and read it states:
"Lose some marketshare in the short-term, be financially stable for the near future, during rough economic times when stockholders are exceptionally "nervous"."
So to answer your question of "Where did I say that?", well, there.
You then state that MS has chosen your option A, which states:
"Gain some marketshare in the short-term, and fall off a financial cliff in the near future."
I bolded the ending phrase because then your most recent post you state that:
"I would have chosen exactly what they both have done."
Really? Your option that places MS as falling off of a financial cliff is the course you would have taken as well? Glad to hear it, but that makes absolutely no sense. You are arguing because you are placing value judgments in the 2 outcomes you mention each company has taken, believing MS's plan will lead them to ruin (though you again contradict yourself in your most recent post) and that Sony has chosen the wiser path for their company, which again is a path that begins with the strategy to "lose some market share," which is where my earlier post focused on. I will not repeat the points in that post, except to say that losing marketshare has never looked good for investors (another point of mine you failed to adddress).
Sony is not doing "fine" becuase they are hemorraging money as a company and losing market share in their gaming division. You're telling me that I'm spouting BS? Laughable. There is no notable analyst and no notable stock holder or investor coming to Sony's defense. I think the onus is on you to show how the current downturn in market share, the job layoffs, and crappy sales of well-received PS3 exclusives have been fitting into Sony's grander scheme. I look foward to that entartaining read.
Honestly, if I was Sony I would pack it up and reload for gen 8 if substantial gains are not made after KZ2's release. Another option thrown around in here has been for Sony to sell off some of their more premium studios for liquidity to fund an immediate price cut. Being a PS3 owner I don't want to say this, but the way things are going I question the viability of the PS brand in the home console market if Sony goes belly up from the PS3. Let the Wii generation pass and start on equal footing next round. On the opposite end I would do what Microsoft has done and I do not subscribe to your claim that they will fall off of a financial cliff.
Honestly, I wouldn't have had to type any of this if you would think things through for yourself. I'm sure you're smart enough.
