Does Sony's PS3 value argument hold up?

[Rpruett]

HappySqurriel said:

Rpruett said:

HappySqurriel said:

The said:
@HappySqurriel Spoken like a true fanboy. Please go away with your childish logic.

If my logic was so bad why couldn’t you answer the questions?

 

Anyways, there is a simple critical way that you can establish whether the “Value” argument holds water from a business perspective; if the addition of a component allows a system to be sold at a higher margin and/or to become more popular so that the overall profits from the product line increases then the value argument holds … On the other hand, if the margin of the product becomes worse and/or the product becomes less popular so that the overall profits from the product line remains constant or is reduced than the value argument doesn’t hold.

 

 

Value on it's purest form would imply does the PS3 contain more 'valuable' technology than the other systems. That is a resounding yes.

 

If I made two rings. One with a diamond and one with a quartz. The Diamond ring cost $2000 and the Quartz ring cost $50. Which is more valuable?

 

If the diamond ring costs you $4,000 and you can sell 1,000 at that price whie the Quartz ring costs you $25 and you can sell 10,000,000 the Quartz ring is more valueable.

 

No.

The quartz ring is more profitable.  Not more valuable.  I suggest you take a refresher course on the definition of valuable. Remember we are talking about the value in the eyes of the consumer. (Not the businesses who produce these consoles).