Sony had 'no choice' but to include Blu-ray in PS3

[joeorc]

tuoyo said:

joeorc said:

"They were so arrogant they thought the playstation brand was super mighty and people would buy the PS3 in huge numbers no matter what price it retailed for."

and you know what that was just PR...what did you want them to say.....do not buy our product because it's expensive....?

because someone in the PR department make's a statement like that people tend to think it's an insult..god if that was the case people would have no backbone at all.

o'l come on to think the share holder's did not know that Sony was investing in blu-ray since 1997, and that somehow they just sprung "blu-ray " on them and that the share holder's did not know that the PS3 was going to contain Blu-Ray from the get go..since Blu-ray was already on the Market since 2003. come on man that is reaching. no matter what you still loose the money..for instance you can have a production plant build as much product as you want an toss it in the bottom of the lake..it still does not matter it's still lost, the only thing you can do it recoup the loss, to say Sony would not be obligated to those share holder's to recoup those losses as fast as they can. would be worse than not doing anything at all. I love how people continue to blame the price hike on blu-ray based on people's guess on how much blu-ray increased the cost of the PS3. no one know's what it cost's sony to make a ps3 but sony and guess what they are not telling.

so you can continue to blame Blu-Ray as for the sole reason for the price increase of the PS3 but it does not mean your right.

and it does not mean Sony had a choice to not put blu-ray in , you may not like it but they had to do what they had to do.you can say what you want it does not mean your 100% right.

 

 

When I wrote the part you have quoted I did not even say it in reference to what any person said.  I was stating my view on the reason for releasing a $600 console as a follow up to the most successful console of all time. 

And I think you are seriously mistaking on the role shareholders play.  There is absolutely no way on earth that shareholders could have had any say on whether PS3 included blu ray.  That is like suggesting Nintendo shareholders could have voted against wii remote as opposed to regular controller.  Those things are for management.  They are not decisions of shareholders. 

As for these losses you keep refering to I don't get it.  Sony spent money on R&D for blu ray.  That does not somehow equate to having to include it in PS3.  What if there was no PS3?  Or what of the other members of the blu ray group that don't have consoles.  Didn't they also spend money on R&D?  Did they lose that money because they don't have a console to release with a blu ray drive?

come on man that's like saying that shareholder's do not have a say on the board of director's..which they do look at what happend to GM share holder's do have quite a bit of say the share holder put their faith in management. shareholder's can vote on thing's if they deem so because if they do have share's then can sure as hell vote.

look i am not saying your opinion is not VALID for "YOU"

i am saying if such corperation makes a long term investment into a technology the share holder's who may have share's could indeed pressure sony to pull the plug...the BDA all spent money to advance the technology. as a example Sharp invested into Blue laser Diode's to further bring down the cost per diode. you cannot say that if you spent all that money in development to just at the last min. stop production and pull the plug without some valid reason. these are made well in advance Sony made the choice good or bad. the production line's for Blu-Ray were already built. telling the share holder's that sorry were not even going to try to recoup those losses. is BS.

you keep saying their choice was they could have left it out of the PS3..when dis SONY start production of the PS3 exactly when was the proto type built. how many design's did the ps3 go through. it's not something you can say but..but the ps2 was $299.00 and yea the ps2 did not have a processor like the Cell, it did not use an advanced EIB like the PS3..SONY releases a $500.00 an $600.00 playstation 3 at launch..do you think sony thought their market share was going to be anything like the ps2's market share right off the bat.barring PR speak...come on

there was no way.Sony had too because HD DVD was released to bite into the sale of Blu-Ray not because Microsoft wanted to back HD DVD because they wanted to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray down.

11 to 1 you think those 11 companies are going to let the 1 company keep production of HD DVD optical drives and let all their investment go to waste? that's the point. sit still and let the investment go to waste, or use it. they already spent the share holder's money it would be a crime not to try to get that investment back.