| Fei-Hung said: 1) your shipping costs are way to high. the average cost of a 40ft container to america (the most expensive ) is about $4000. if you devide that by the number of ps3s you can fit inside, you will get a more accurate shipping cost. 2) didnt sony sell of the cell shares to ibm or toshiba? if that is the case then sony dont need to wait for recovering costs to get a smaller chip. why would they buy a smaller chip at the same price? besides previous reductions saved money, more than likely further reductions would to. 3) isupply based costs on assumptions and some of the costs seemed a wee bit pricey. everyone knows bulk buying saves money and bulk buying with a +5yr agreement might save more money. 4) the ps3 maybe breaking even in some regions or making a little profit or loss, but you forget to look at the bigger picture. the ps3 devision has merged and the BR costs which were part of R&D costs are making decent profit. a lot of little factors are aiding ps3 costs, savings and or pprofit making. imo they maybe making little profit on the 160gb, and breaking even on the 60&80gb. after all, something is paying all the sony devs or they wouldnt be on fire this year the way they are. if they were still losing so much money, 2009 wouldn't be shaping up as well as it is so far. |
Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I only just noticed it.
1) Shipping costs is a misleading term, sorry. I also include trucking costs under shipping costs. You have to get the components from the various factories they were made at, truck them to a dock, ship them to the country the Ps3s are assembled in and truck them to the factory where they are assembled, then truck the assembled PS3's from the factory to a dock, then ship them to the right country, then truck them to the retailer's warehouse. Does the price seem more fair now?
2) I agree that reducing to the 45 nm node will save money, but Sony have gone on record saying they expect to break even on PS3 hardware in March 2010, and that they plan to move to the 45 nm node some time in 2009. Clearly, moving to the 45 nm node will not be enough to make them break even. Straight from the horse's mouth.
3) I'm not here to defend iSupply, and I'm certainly not here to make a claim as to an exact dollar figure as to how much Sony is loosing per PS3. Other people used isupply figures to claim that the PS3 was approximately profitable, I was merely saying that that is not what those figures mean, and that the PS3 is still selling at a large loss.
4) I agree that I am missing the big picture, because the thread is entitled 'PS3 manufacturing costs' Obviously Sony is making money on games, accessories and on Blu Ray sales, both from Sony pictures and from licencing fees. But that is not relevant to this thread so it doesn't concern me
