By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Loud_Hot_White_Box on 30 October 2009
Edit Thread
drkohler said:
Loud_Hot_White_Box said:
drkohler said:
 

The quote uses bad English, but anyway it looks like it's saying the current cost is 110% of the price, or $330 not $350, and then in March the cost will be 105-106% of the price, and then next fiscal year they'll break even.  That right?

btw your quip on the 65nm to 45nm process neglects that the move to a smaller architecture helps them recoup costs faster.  You set it up by saying that they are not "saving" anything until costs are recoupped, which may or may not be true depending on your definition and accounting methods used, but Sony most certainly is receiving the hardware at a cost savings for each unit.  Thus your point has zero, zilch (<--correct spelling), nada merit.

Wow.. and another circle jerk pops up. Seriously, why can't you people understand a few simple points about mass manufacturing?

a) My estimates were $330-$350 (for a standard PS3) which is pretty close to your $330 number (for the current slim batch). I'd even go as far as wager that my lower bound $330 estimate is pretty close to your $330 number (just in case you are mathematically challenged).

b) "btw your quip on the 65nm to 45nm process neglects that the move to a smaller architecture helps them recoup costs faster."

This sentence makes no sense at all. Who is "them"? Sony ED does neither manufacture the cell nor the graphics chip - it buys them from some manufacturer(s) - even if the manufacturer(s) were partially owned by Sony. Sony pays market prices like every other customer. If the manufacturer changes the processing structure (and we are talking large sums here), he has to pay for it upfront, because it's his factory and his new machines. So if Sony wants some cell chips (and producing 10 mio cell chips per year nowhere keeps a factory running profitably), then the price will essentially stay the same until the costs are recouped by the manufacturer (give or take a few $ cosmetic changes). 

Your new nickname on this site should be Circle Jerk, since you seem to love using the term!

Your last post before my response said $350 which doesn't equal $330 and that's what I correctly pointed out, to spell it out for you since you are mathematically challenged, Circle Jerk.

As for b), I'm referring to costs to Sony.  You earlier referred to "development" costs, which was misleading if you were intending to refer to manufacturer's costs in switching to a new fabrication method.  As for that, the manufacturer can put out more chips per sheet once the new process is in place...that's what's in it for them.  The fact that there are upfront costs is vacuous when you consider that the move to a 45nm method was certainly made in the knowledge that it offered a cost savings (yes, to Sony) in the long run.